Jump to content

David Rakoczy

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by David Rakoczy

  1. Wouldn't it be nice for those big arcs to come back. Wow, what lovely light they made. Didn't someone here recommend a computer regulated arc system? Linear steppers can push the rods. Sensors could manage the arc quality and uniformity. Gaffers would only have to change out the rods and the computer could tell them how soon that would have to be. Low maintenance, lovely, daylight exterior light.

     

    Build the distribution rectifier into a Yaris, hatch back car and drive it up to the best distro point. Plug the AC lines in from a distant (therefore quieter) 3 phase (Y-wired?) genny. Sure sounds easier than all that complex AC lighting management at every usage point.

     

     

    If you ever ran a Set Arc you would know 'computers' would not and will not be used to run ARCs... and it is more than Carbon Rod availability that hinders their use. They belch smoke! So, for exteriors they are fantastic as they are so hardy you can just leave them scattered around a backlot.... but interior Set work... no. Not anymore.

     

    Related Arc Thread

     

    Phil, there is a huge difference between a Carbon Arc sitting nicely in a projection room with proper ventilation and someone to feather dust it off once a week... and a Set Arc that takes a TREMENDOUS amount of abuse.

  2. I used a Dino (to wrap morning sunlight) about 50ft away from a group of Talent... there were no multiple shadows. I used the Dinos for the entire feature and never saw multiple shadows. I remember we hung a bunch of them around a HUGE Cruise Liner Set (shot by Bob Gantz, starring John Cleese for Minolta). There were no multiple shadows and there were at least 8 Dinos in use (ya, they needed a deep stop for the lens they were using).

  3. I am with David M.... you have say, Vilmos, who (say on a Barbie Doll Commercial) gets $12,000 USD for 10/ hours (no doubt others have been paid more)... and you have the other extreme... the thousands who (like Mr. Murphy :rolleyes: ) work for free. I would say the average Cinematographer makes about $50 USD a year :o . After shooting a ton for free including a feature, building a reel, I shot for years at $200 - $350 per day then bumped up to $30k, $40k and more per Feature.... then sat and sat with nothing... some Commercials came in at $3.5k per day but it was this on again off again roller coaster that really bothered me. So, I built a Company that offered more than a 'day rate'. It is not near as "glamorous" as the Hollywood Shows I used to shoot and I do miss shooting narrative, however, I am making more than ever ... and still shooting Film :wub:

  4. this is a fairly novice question so i apologize in advance. I'm wondering what the best approach is to getting the richest and best images on 16mm or 35mm film.

     

    I've shot a bit on 16 and have played with 35 as well. The images are exposed, but the quality is not quite there that I would like. I know experience is first, but would like to know some basic principals to getting those rich images that you see on big movies.

     

    Does over exposing the image by 1 stop, then pushing (push means bringing the exposure back down?) a stop in development help get rich images?

     

    I know you want a dense negative, whats the best approach?

     

    Sorry for the stupid question. I have a shoot coming up and want to know this!

     

    Thanks!

     

    Get This Book ;)

  5. Thanks Ben,

     

    I ended up purchasing a brand new set of Mitchell Standard and Baby Ti-Sticks (Titanium) with Spreaders, Tuff Paks and a Hi Hat. You should be able to unload yours pretty quick. There is not a lot of used Mitchell Support to be had. I got tired of waiting and bought new...

  6. If you put all spot globes in the 12-light Dino it may be bright enough from across the street, but it would be 3200K of course, and would be too spotty to put a gel frame in front of it (plus blue gel sort of defeats the purpose of getting more light from the spot globes.) The 6K HMI PAR on the Condor would be more controllable. The Dino would be orangey in a daylight scene, which is fine if you wanted a Storaro-esque golden look.

     

     

    I shot an entire Feature (Durango Kids) using nothing but Tungsten Lamps... even in Daylight. We used Dinos for Daylight and 20ks for Night. You load the Dinos with Dichroics and add 1/4 CTB and you are at 5500k. However, you MUST use Heat Shield Gel.

     

    With that set up the Dino was very close to Talent Int. and Ext. I don't think you would get much of anything from across the street in broad daylight... it could light up all of downtown at night :lol:

     

    Dino Info here. Click the Performance Data Tab

  7. I would definitely go for the 6k on a condor if you can afford it, especially if it's a par. That way you'll have more flexibility picking the height and angle of the light coming through the window, whereas with the rooftop you'll be somewhat more limited.

     

     

    6K/ Condor. I could not agree more. Except to say with the rooftop, you will be VERY limited.

  8. I was told on set today that we are not allowed to say beaver board any more because of the negtive origins of the term. The DP wouldn't explain what those origin are and I have to say I have no idea what the origin is ( I do know WHAT I is though). Now I'm really really curious to know.

     

    I'm aware that many terms were once derogatory, like best boy, but that is no longer the case for most, at least in my experienc and that is far from my intention here. I'm just looking to learn and understand what the problem with it is.

     

     

    Look at one and think about it for a moment... or more if need be...

  9. The truth is Richard, true 'Directors' are far and few between. You may very well be [one] of them. I hope you are! We need more of them that is for certain. Great Producers too!!! However, on most Series Shows like House, Desperate Housewives, Gray's Anatomy etc... Directors come and go. It is up to the DP to retain the 'Look' and the Camera Op to retain the 'Feel'....... so to speak. So when speaking about Features you are correct regarding Blocking... but the sad truth is that more people see what is broadcasted on their Plasma TV than what is on the Silver Screen at the Theatre... and a large percentage of the Blocking they see is by the Ad Agency, Director, DP, Camera Op and even Producer, Artist, Lover, Spouse, family member..... Driver...

     

    .. but I know what you mean ;)

  10. I agree with David, very slick and well done, top quality work.

     

    David is the King of commercials in Florida so I expect he'll be coming to you with a job offer, and a six figure signing bonus, right David? :lol:

     

    R,

     

     

    You are too kind Richard, certainly not any 'king'.. but... I (am) interested in that VFX House in Oslo...

  11. The DOP isn't usually relied upon to block a scene in my experience although he certainly offers his advice.R,

     

    You are kidding right!!!? Every Feature, Short, Commercial or Music Video I have ever Shot as solely the DP, I was involved in the Blocking. After all, who says "Mark 'em there".? I shot an entire Season of Silk Stalkings (USA Network) as the Camera Op (much less the DP) where I was relied upon everyday for blocking .

  12. Hey Guys,

     

    On an upcoming project I have a total headache of a shot to achieve. It's the opening of the movie (we are shooting S16mm, 16:9, not decided on stock yet- probably 7219), with two guys speeding a car through a dark street (night). They are drunk and they are messing around, continually swapping seats and leaning out the windows/ not paying attention to the road etc.

     

    We want to shoot the whole thing as a two shot from in front of the windshield (something like this http://www.svpu.com/projects/LSCR2/thrufrontwindow.jpg ), in slow motion (approx 100FPS), showing the guys as they muck around in the car, untill...predictably....they crash the car, sending them flying and showered with glass.

     

    The idea is to create a kind of montage of the events before the crash, as they get more and more bold with their antics. Then the crash happens (from the same angle), as a slow motion long take, that shows the full destruction of the collision. The camera is facing BACK INTO THE CAR at all times, we never see the outside of the car.

     

    Two issues with this:

     

    1) Before the crash, while they are just "driving" (mostly larking about) how do we shoot this?. It's unlikely we can afford a flatbed or a tow truck, so we will have to shoot studio, using blue/green screen or rear projection and shoot the background plate seperately. What seems like the best option? Essentially, all we will see in the background is through the rear window of the car- so we will get a bit of light on the road as it trails off behind them, and the occasional street light.

     

    2) How do we shoot the crash? This is more of a difficult problem. Obviously we want the crash to look as realistic as possible and have glass (fake) flying everywhere. The camera cuts to titles mid-chaos. I'm pretty stumped for ideas on this. Obviously some sort of hydraulic car crash simulator would be good, but we don't have a million pounds.

     

    Any help, or ideas would be greatly appreciated.

     

     

    Have you spoken with the Stunt Coordinator and VFX Supervisor?... because that is what it is going to take to pull off what you just described... and they'll be telling you what (they) need.

×
×
  • Create New...