Daniel Porto

Does that mean you should then tell the lab that you rated it at 2000ASA (even though you did it at 1600.... considering the fact that there is a sometimes a 1/3 stop variance)???? Thanks DAVID! DANIEL PORTO

No doubt about that, he just shouldn't have said he was the DoP.

Jake, I just took a look at the credits and found out that you were listed as 'Lighting' and not 'Director of Photography.' Thus all the comments above are referring to the work of the real DoP and not yours.

Red wont approve. It is the DoP's fault that the images look shite (the colorist has some explaining to do also). Not the camera.

For various shots it seemed like the detail increased dramatically. For example the shot of the girl looking up at the train station (slow zoom in). The shot was full of color and was so crisp that I am wondering if it was shot on 35mm and perhaps a rediculously sharp lens... what is this lens? AWESOME FILM

Well thats only one out of how many teenagers do we have in this world? I personally never had any interest at all to see this movie, however, a majority of the girls that I know (not necessarily hang out with) have seen this or want to see this film

Photos would be helpful to solve your problem. Also as always ASK OLEX and I am 99% sure he will know the answer.

But why would you wanna create images that replicate what the normal eye see's if you arn't doing first person perspective. One way to create images which are interesting to the eye are too do angles/shots which the normal eye does not usually see. That is one reason why obscure angles appear to us visually

Thankyou. Yes I did, Basically the whole thing was desaturated except for the final and only 'real' sequence (in which the colors were boosted). Contrast was increased in the first scene by playing with the highlights and shadows. Basically for the entire short film I had desaturated the picture to the point in which it looked terrible. Then I imported in into Final Cut and placed it on top of the original footage. I then set the 'visibility' to about 40% (depending on the shot and part of the scene) and this gave me a nice desaturated look I think... but i'm not colorist. Next time I shoot on film I am going to use a proper colorist because I found that using 'Color' as a grading problem just tended to bring out a lot of noise. I guess to stop this noise you just need to color correct at the post-production house

Capture the texture of the stones by either placing a light flat against the wall and facing up or down. It would probably make more sense to do this from the top, so just put say a Redhead on a pole cat right against the wall and it will bring out the texture, and will slowly fade off across the wall. The way I imagine this scene is to be very dark with lots of contrast... is this what you are going for?

Thanks for the link James. It certainly does look like a mistake on the listing... the camera looks pretty beat up but since these cameras are just so tough it should be ok. Why would the camera say it is a 1M when it so clearly looks like a 2M??? And James and I am still waiting on Steve looking at my anamorphic lens so the pictures shouldn't be too long away :)

THANKS HEAPS!

I have never been able to find what different types of lens' were used on 2001. Does anyone know of what lens' were used or can refer me to any websites/books that would be able to tell me and in detail. THANKS

Traffic directed by Steven Soderbergh is the perfect example for me. As long as your not cutting between de-saturated and saturated shots in the same scene, then I don't see any problem what-so-ever... but of course there are some exceptions... for example the short film that just recently made... http://www.vimeo.com/2295609

Thankyou I used 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm but mainly used the 75mm. Konvas are such a good camera and just recently I purchased a FOTON A-3 Zoom lens and 75mm ANAMORPHIC!

Thankyou for your honest and detailed feedback! The comment about the sound makes me happy considering that 90% of the whole movie was ADR and post-foley! I agree with your comment on the shaky camera at the beginning, I also felt that it was too shaky. In an ideal world I wanted that whole sequence to be steady, however because of time and money constraints this was not possible. The old guy was only a student actor and it took forever to get a performance out of him... and obviously this performance felt fake and contrived. I also agree to a certain extent about the soldier holding the women and walking behind them, however at the end of the day I can always come back with the reply... its film not reality lol with that being said it just reminds me of a little word called 'reception context.' That is the place in which you watch a film determines your reaction to it. 9/10 people watching it in a darkened room might not notice things like that because are in only concentrated on the action and are 'in' the story. However, show it to various people on vimeo on a computer (where the surroundings aren't ideal for a watching a movie), and 6/10 people may notice all of the problems/errors. BUT I THANKYOU AGAIN FOR YOUR FEEDBACK! DANIEL PORTO

Hello ALL I recently just shot a short film on 5218 short ends and used a Konvas 1M, and also with a Sony VX2100. I am looking for everyone and anyone's point of the view on the photography and view of the film in general (both positive or negative). Check it out here: http://www.vimeo.com/2295609 Thankyou for your time!! DANIEL

He also said that movies are real life with all the boring bits taken out. I agree with this statement more

They did come out very nice. Do you have any shots of someone standing in the same lighting, but with not sweat/water on their face. I just would like to see the difference in terms of reflectance. DANIEL

The link is here: http://www.vimeo.com/2295609 THANKS!

I just recently shot a short film on 5218 short ends on my Konvas 1M and also with my Sony VX2100 (but mainly with the konvas). Let me know what you think of both the photography and the of just the film in general. THANKYOU

Hello ALL I recently just shot a short film on 5218 short ends and used a Konvas 1M, and also with a Sony VX2100. I am looking for everyone and anyone's point of the view on the photography and view of the film in general (both positive or negative). Check it out here: http://www.vimeo.com/2295609 Thankyou for your time!! DANIEL

THANKYOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR FANTASTIC REPLIES!

What type of lens and its characteristics best reflects how the human eye works? I am assuming it would be a wide angle lens, but how wide? How large would the DOF of field be? Orson Welles once said that one of the reasons for shooting Citizen Kane with a large DOF was because the human eye sees the world this way, however I don't find this to be true. When I am reading a book and I focus on one word, I can read a only couple of words in the vicinity of this particular word that I have focused on. It is if our eye only focus' in a particular circle and everything around although can be seen, is not particularly in focus. What frame markings would best represent what our eyes see? Academy? Super 35? Do our eyes in general see in circles individually, but when both open combine to form a figure of 8 pattern, combining these two circles? The reason why I am asking this question is because a lot of films that I have seen recently have used this 1st person perspective.

Pumping a 2K through the windows wont do much at all because after all you are trying to compete with the SUN! But then again it depends of the time of day and where the sun is directing. If you did nothing and used tungsten balanced setting (im guessing your shooting digital) then all the daylight coming through the window will be blue. Since you are looking for a cold looking and dreary look it might be better to use the filter which only converts half of what an 85 does (I cant remember the name), as this will give a cold blue look but not as pronounced. Also some underexposure in the image (but not too much) will keep it looking dreary.