Jump to content

Robin R Probyn

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,547

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Robin R Probyn

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    59 minutes ago, Miguel Roman said:

    @Robin R Probyn Hello Robin, I found an interview of your father and I thought you might be interested in reading it; it was published on 1975, in the magazine Cinema Papers. I am posting the link to the entire magazine, the interview appears in the pages 73, 74 and 75.

    https://issuu.com/libuow/docs/cinemapaper1975marno000/79

    Hi Miguel .. wow great many thanks .. I just listened to the Chris Menges , Roger Deakins podcast and they mentioned my dad quite alot ,as Menges was his assistant on Poor Cow and I think the first few shoots Chris Menges worked on ..  anyway thank you again sir  !  

    Green Screen Advice

    in Visual Effects Cinematography

    Posted

    Yeah re spill , I would light the screen 1 stop lower or at least make it lower than your subjects ..  false color if you have it is  handy for checking your GS..  but these days its all a lot easier than it used to be ..   they will junk matt around the subject too , so you don't have to worry about  a corner  of the scree being dark / wrinkled .. the whole screen doesn't have to be evenly lit.. just the area behind your subject ..   green spill is a pain with blond hair ,and seeing your in Byron Bay Im sure you will have some blonde models .. ?  .. keep the action a decent way in front of the screen and don't over light it ,   I wouldn't stress too much though , these days you can key off an unlit green bin liner ..  make sure the underwear isn't green , or have a blue screen too just in case .. !

    Absolutely bonkers high ISO performance

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Mark Kenfield said:

    I do LOVE the electronic ND. But if you held a gun to my head, I think I'd still take the Venice's 1-8 discrete stops system - because you can still use polarisers with it, and having a 1-stop density at the bottom of the range, and an 8-stop density at the top, really does make a difference (as it stands, I'm still frequently having to drop in normal 4x5.65 NDs to get the exposure where I need it).

    We're doing it all on the FX6. It's been (hands-down) the most difficult camera I've ever had to rig up into an A-camera though. It's so tiny that fitting all of the accessories we need on to it, is a real challenge, and it has a few operational quirks that are a nightmare for conventional production. Outside of those couple of STUPID design decisions though, it's a remarkable camera, and hard not to love.

    I'm still undecided though, on whether the couple of operational compromises (and the time they cost you), are traumatic enough to outweigh all of the other speed advantages the camera offers.
     

    Sure the variable would have to start from zero not 2 stops ,or at least one stop .. and maybe up another stop on top  .. but it will happen Im sure .. Venice ,yes great ND but it always has to be a group of 2 filters , even if one is clear .. one LCD screen with an electric current .. smaller , quicker , and cheaper ..I guess Sony will put this and AF in the Venice first, to try to get a lead in the high end .. but presumably Arri are working on the same in some secret dungeon in Munich ..

    Absolutely bonkers high ISO performance

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    I here by predict .. Probyn's Criteria .. within 3 years .. all the usual suspect high end cameras will have as standard ,dual ISO or triple ISO .. variable ND .. either Sony sell the patent rights or the others get around it .. and the big one AF.. yes Auto Focus .. not for every shot.. but for singles extreme shallow DoF (god knows what size sensors in 3 years !) , running at  / away from camera etc ..    it just saves time = money = thats why it will happen 100% ..

    Underexposure Pixelation: Why can't black just be Black? (Film vs Digital)

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Lance Lucero said:

    I believe photographers (film or digital), filmmakers/HD movie makers (digimakers) should just embrace their format and not try and make it look like something else...  I also believe that If you shoot on film, call yourself a filmmaker. If you shoot on HD, call yourself an HD or digital movie maker (digimaker). There is a difference between the two formats. Portray yourself accurately because people within the movie/ photography business and consumers have the right to know what they are watching and paying for.

    So Roger Deakins is not a DoP when he shoots on an Alexa ..  or you are joking yes ? please say you are .. 

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Miguel Roman said:

    This last sentence about the soft technique comes from a transcript of a master class “A Master Class with Terrence Malick” at the AFI, in 1976. It can be found in a book called All Things Shinning: An oral history of the films of Terrence Malick (Paul Maher Jr., 2017). I only have the physical book, so I can not link it; but besides that sentence there is only a few references to your father:

    He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work. IT was difficult. I mean, he is 55 years old or so, and I was just a kid. And I didn't know what I was doing. this was on-the-job training. But I should right there have taken things in hand, and I didn't, and then the same thing sort of happened with the second person. We sort of mutually got fed up with each other. And the third person, who used to be an instructor here, was my instructor in cinematography.

    […]

    QUESTION: Why did Brian Probyn leave the production? 

    Malick: Well, it sort of - he got quite exhausted and developed a bad case of ulcers at the same time that we weren't getting along. It was quite hot where we were shooting. It was what used to be the dust bowl.

    QUESTION: How much of the film had Probyn shot before he left?

    Malick: About a third. Each of them [Probyn, Fujimoto and Larner] shot about a third. Almost exactly. It just worked out that way. 

    […]

    (…) if you get somebody with a documentary background like Steve Larner he didn't need anybody...the people he had, they were mainly to hold things that he stuck in their hands so they could be high school students. But that couldn't have happened with Brian Probyn, for instance, who was used to woking in a different way. His interiors look better, I'm sure, for their preparation than Larner's would given the way he had to work.  

    Oh great thanks for the quotes .. I actually thought he shot more than 1/3rd .. thanks for taking the time to do that .. 

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    15 hours ago, Miguel Roman said:

    About the choice of your father as cinematographer, Malick says “He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work.” So I guess that combined with the documentary background would make him quite an ideal candidate for an independent shooting like Badlands.

    Please let us know if your brother can find the slides!

    Do you have a link to the article about Badlands .. I would be interested to have a look .. thanks  .. Im not in the same country as my brother but I can give it a try ..

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Miguel Roman said:

    That's quite interesting! About the over exposing in Badlands, in one of his rare interviews Malick says “I overexposed the negative and then printed it with very low contrast, so that even in exterior shots with natural light the characters never need to be lighted by reflectors.” So I guess that's why he wasn't using that much artificial light, although depending on the shots (and therefore, depending on who of the three dps shot them) it can clearly be seen the use of lights. And as you said, Spacek ended up marrying Jack Fisk, the art director in Badlands and most of Malick's films, some of David Lynch's, Paul Thomas Anderson's, etc.

    Any chance of seeing some of those slides that you mentioned?? That would be great!

    Interesting Malik mentions the over exposing , but it definitely wasn't his idea ? and it wasn't to avoid using lights or reflectors.. I do remember my dad saying he wanted a sort of washed out , hot , bland look to the day exteriors day shots  and that Malik was very concerned when they sure some un corrected rushes. Yes they did use lights  just that when the topic of the lighting budget came up Malik has been surprised he used lights at all !... my dad was from documentary work and had done alot of the BBC "Wednesday Plays" with Ken Loach ,and then Poor Cow ,Loaches first feature film .. there was a whole new wave of a more naturalistic lighting in the 60,s early /70,s .. presumably Malik had checked out his work and thought he just didn't light anything ....he had shot Down Hill Racer before Badlands too .. maybe he was basing the no lights idea around that film .. which of course used lights .. Malik was just very green then .. 

    Sorry I don't have the slides , hopefully my brother in the UK still has them ! 

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    On 3/22/2021 at 3:58 PM, Miguel Roman said:

    Those are great answers! Much appreciated!!

    I was also wondering about what filters might have been used on the lenses; in Badlands there is one shot in particular where I personally believe a ND grad filter was used, and I would like to ask your opinion on it:

    1753023517_SHOT77.thumb.jpg.a3f9a8b7d0eaf2243adf8679388f3dd8.jpg

    I don't think it is personally.. its just shade 

    Terrence Malick's Badlands

    in Lenses & Lens Accessories

    Posted

    I wish I could ask my old man !.. he started the film and it was a pretty bumpy ride with Maliks inexperience I heard .. in the end my dad got an ulcer but didnt leave due to any big falling out , and was given the Cadillac after the shoot which he drove alone the west coast .. Malik is in Badlands as a friend who comes to the door of the rich guy and Kit answers  , apparently the actor who was meant to do it just didnt turn up !.. all I can remember is the old man was over exposing all the hot day ext by 2 stops and "printing down"..and that was kept during the shoot .. and he shot the house burning stuff too .. I think he shot most of it and has the top credit, (Tak Fujimoto was the AC  and did some shooting after the old man went to hospital )..or that was just in his contract .. he was flown over from the UK and when he got there there was basically no lights ! as Malik thought he didnt use them.. great film but he really was very green when he made it, straight out ion film school virtually .. and there was alot of upside down slates going on .. but still personally I think its his best film  regardless of any family tie .. the music is fantastic and two un known young actors .. he had lots of slides but many seemed to be of Sissy Spacek  and of him taken by her mmmm..  she did end up marrying the art director I believe ..

    • Like 2

    Sony Software

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Sony definitely had a strange  logic to a lot of their menus .. also compared to say Arri  or REDs the Sony cameras just has so many different available settings , which is good to some degree but then you had to have this huge menu .. they have got better eventually, with the Venice / and Fx line , Fx line has a lot of stuff you can change by touch screen now in the status menu .. and the A7s3 has a completely new menu structure ..

    The thread you mention was I think was more to do specifically  with Slog settings in the f5/55 and the various pitfalls of the EI mode , and actual recordings levels being at a set ISO at all times  and the EI being an offset , like using a light meter and film .. Tyler had problems ,or at least his AC who despite being a "Sony expert " actually didn't know the camera very well.,  nor seemed to understand shooting in EI mode . a give away being it being referred to as EL mode . hard to blame Sony for that .. the main crazy thing was the SDI out settings that made it very easy to record the LUT internally unintentionally  .. which happened a lot in the early days of the f5/55 ..

    It's 2021 and digital capture still looks like sh

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    8 hours ago, aapo lettinen said:

    As far as I have seen, maybe at least 60% of the people on this forum are thinking just that: in almost every situation a scene "would have been better" if shot on film rather than digital. 

    Maybe 10% of those people actually work in the film industry and maybe 1% of them are Cinematographers in more than theoretical level.

    the rest probably being somehow connected to some type of multimedia industry but maybe not even working full time. What they have in common is that they love to watch movies and argue about them and are interested in the technical aspects of the filmmaking in a theoretical level more than actually doing anything by themselves. 

    basically it is the film critics telling the cinematographers how to better do their job. part of the film vs digital silliness for sure ? 

     

    Well put .. exactly the case ..  .. add a bit of Walter Mitty syndrome and unfortunately that whats happening on this once great forum ..

    This comment sums it up entirely ..

    "Eventually those comments will overrun the forum, that will be a great day."    overrun ? yikes ..

    It's 2021 and digital capture still looks like sh

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

    To be completely fair, that is just about the most persistent and annoying problem with digital capture - the damn things just don't deal well with seriously overexposed high-saturation light. It's not great and it's not always an easy fix.

    Film will actually do it too, it's just much harder to make it happen, and usually by the time it's scanned the photochemical process has compressed the dynamic range to the point where highlights stay looking the colour they should.

    .. shoot log / lighting / grip gear / exposure setting / you can get alot better results than this example, that seems to be being put forward as the pinnacle of Digital capture , I wonder if it was even shot with Log gamma ,for some weird reason.. anyone could find  the same from some similar corporate shoot on a tight budget shot on film ..  its the usual meaningless post from the amateur film worshipping cult..  on a day release from the institute ? 

    It's 2021 and digital capture still looks like sh

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Tomasz Brodecki said:

    I suppose Karim was referring to the clipped highlight on the actual tail light, which turned white-yellow-red, not the red ghosting above it. What's worse, after grading (and "extinguishing" the blown out part), the white area turned slightly cyan. 

     

    image.png

    close the Iris a bit .. the problem is Karim is not a cameraman .. and thus doesn't really have an understanding of shooting in the field ..  ie  "You'd think someone would have solved this problem by now. I guess I'll have to come up with my own high level solution, and if I do before someone else does, I'll post it on this site."   

×
×
  • Create New...