Jump to content

Riku Naskali

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    310
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Riku Naskali

  • Rank

  • Birthday 11/30/1982

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Finland
  • Specialties
    Film making, film tech, photography, building stuff...

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.stereowindow.us
  1. Hi, I've had good experiences with SI-2K's. I remember we had some matched pairs of Zeiss S16mm glass on them. SI-2K's with a compact rig like Element Technica's Neutron or the "Dark Country" rig would probably work very well. Certainly more compact than EX-3's and I would say very hand-holdable. Cheers ;)
  2. Hey, I had my thesis on stereoscopic cinematography screened on a local theater in 2k D-CINEMA. They guy who makes the conversions said he tested that Qvis Raptor and it didn't play at all. Maybe someone else has got it to work... So I guess there is no working solution yet, but theoretically it would be possible to "author" the file with a notepad. There are also a lot of open-source libraries and simple example GUI's that make MXF wrappers. I'm going to get my DCP back, so I can look what's inside the MXF.
  3. Hi, I'm designing an universal 3D mirror rig for myself. The idea is that it would work with many cameras, so I'm wondering is there such thing as a standard for lens center height from the camera base? Somehow I seem to think there is a standard for "pro" (film/video production) cameras, after all matteboxes have to line up to many cameras, etc. But is there such a thing for consumer cameras...? If such thing doesn't exist, do you have any ideas for the range? Primarily I'm using my rig with two consumer grade avchd-cameras with lens center height from base around 3.5cm (about 1,38"). I guess I'll have to make another adjusting stage if I want it to be super versatile rig...
  4. Well, I watched the movie and had no idea what to expect. I actually came here to check the threads if there's one for the bad cinematography of Mamma Mia. I've never done that, so... I think I've never seen a feature that has been shot this bad. Overall, it was pretty soft, had a lot of soft shots, many lighting mismatches, really weird compositions and shot sizes for the subjects, was very grainy etc. It was pretty interesting in a way, but at least for me the cinematography was mainly distraction from the story.
  5. I've used it also for hand-holding. Sometimes you don't have time/manpower to get a stand, and have to hold it in place by hand. You just gotta wish the shot won't take too long, a flag gets surprisingly heavy after a while.
  6. Okay, thanks. I did almost what David said, kept my key correctly exposed and let my fill go 2.5 - 3 stops under. Well, the DOP did, I just gaffed :) By the way, how do you meter your fill at night when using low light levels? Maybe I should trust my eyes more, but I find it a bit nerve wrecking when I can't meter my fill at all because there's not enough light. Strangely we got a lot of variation from two Sekonic meters at the low end, the other one said error while the other one just kept metering. Do you just trust your eyes?
  7. Hey, Didn't find any particular posts about night exterior exposure. How do you generally expose your night exteriors with big backlightish moon sources? Do you keep all your sources underexposed or do you let the big backlight go even a bit hot? I've done both, but I think keeping everything under exposed looks far more realistic...? But on the other hand, there may not be any bright areas in the frame so the blacks might look a bit mushy. Any examples with exposure data...?
  8. How about bulbs in 240V world? Any tips? I've never found bigger than 200W's.
  9. Yeah, my plan actually is to crosslight them in the profile and then sidelight them from the "big" source when we move to CU's. Is there any other way to light two people in profile standing against each other than crosslighting them ;)? I'm starting to feel I always do that. I guess there's no need to "change it if it works". Thanks for the suggestions, I think I'm going to get a couple of big chimeras so I can move them around fast and with minimal crew. Not 6' x 6' but I think they'll suffice.
  10. I haven't measured the studio yet, as this is really preliminary at this point. I'll post the plan after I have the correct measurements. I'd say I can get our actors least 10 feet from the bg... Gotta try it with a 6' x 6' frame, that would save me a lot of space hassles...Brieses and such are out of the question due to our budget, and I don't think we even have them in Finland...? I would love to get my hands on them, they look so freaky.
  11. Hi, I'm gaffing a short this fall that involves quite a bit of soft lighting. However I don't have too much experience with soft sources. The scene I'm most concerned is going to be shot against black background in studio so it doesn't have to look realistic, per se. Both of the actors will be nude so I think going with a big source from the side is a good bet. I'm concerned about the size of our studio, it's roughly 33 feet long x 21 feet wide and has a couple of pillars in the way. I was thinking of using a couple of 5K's with a 12' x 12' 1/2 grid cloth to sidelight our actors. They are facing each other, standard conversation scene with one wide shot from the side, cu's and reverse cu's from 3/4 angle. Am I going to screw myself using a 12' x 12' in a studio this small? Would a smaller frame be "soft enough" roughly from 10 - 15 feet from our actors? I'm also going to hit them with 3/4 backlights in the cu's, probably with 2K's through 4' x 4' 216 or something like that. I'm concerned about the spill since the background must be black. And I'm also afraid I don't have enough control due to space issues. All input is appreciated. Obviously it's a vague question, but I'm more interested in opinions and lighting philosophies than facts.
  12. Hi all, I'm prepping a ultra low-budget music video as a gaffer and one setup is located in a small record store. I'm thinking of creating hard slashes on the wall, I know that it can be done easily with a Source Four. But how about your standard Profile? Ideally I'd get the Source four, but the price isn't right for this job... I have also access to fixtures with planoconvex lens...
  13. You also get this triangular flaring from the three-bladed Zeiss lenses, which is really nasty. And they flare pretty easily, I've usually had hard time cutting down the flare with wide lenses...
  14. Well, I like Tungstens at night. Although if power is an issue, I would try to push for HMI's. They're just that much more efficient. But tungsten has its advantages. No need to wait for them to cool down when restriking, theoretically no flicker problems and of course they are really cheap to rent. Of course you could rent flicker-free ballasts, etc. but the price will go up a notch. I would go tungsten if my main source was motivated by man-made lighting. If you want that blueish moonlight, gelling tungstens makes absolutely no sense. Of course you could make your moonlight blue in transfer, filling with warmer sources thus keeping them neutral.
  15. How about sharpness? The tests I saw in CML looked like they were shot in the seventies, the lack of sharpness was really noticeable.
×
×
  • Create New...