Jump to content

Alain Lumina

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Alain Lumina last won the day on October 31 2017

Alain Lumina had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Alain Lumina

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  1. Good idea, now thinking 1) something I will be using myself for micro budget ( so if rental doesn't work not a failure) 2) something relatively portable ( I want to shoot on location for some scripts I have) 3) As stated before lower obsolescence quotient OR low price ( XC-10 will obsolete but not hi $) Things I could use and could rent out for less or more.: for micro budget people. -XC-10 with cards, fast card reader, Zoom recorder and maybe wide angle adaptor, cage . $2000 for mid budget who wants really nice prime Zeiss CP3 50mm prime with the alternate mounts available. $5k For people who need to temporarily beef up editing capability Upcoming iMac Pro 27" Retina 6k$ thanks
  2. Peer to Peer rental is becoming pretty widespread and I'm thinking of buy something to rent out in the 4-15K $ range. I understand there's risks and competition from established brick-and-mortar, but there's insurance and I have zero overhead. I'm thinking obsolescence is a big factor, maybe digital cameras or film too at this point could be the worst with a 2 year window, lenses might be closer to peak development and maybe still rentable in 3-5 years. Maybe something a little oddball but useful like an ultra-wide PL mount, which might not be worth it to own for an operator but useful on certain shoots? Open to all ideas. "Give up and don't do it" is not a big help.
  3. Thanks for sample post, the only way to test fair is blind testing, but the [digital] guys face sort of looks like it's not in the same place as the rest of the scene to me. The film looks more like a real representation. Well, of course tastes vary...but still, again, no one posts what in their view is one perfect stunning frame from digital. I'm not a fanatic, I've seen stuff I like-- but nothing that looks quite like a dream to me. I like the "money's pouring through the camera!" motivator, thanks. Even if it's digital, if it's rented it's true; and if not it's depreciating fast enough so it might as well be true. ( lol sorry couldn't resist a dig :) ) And good point, I should be more serious. Really.
  4. To me this is the hugely underestimated thing for micro-budget--where I'm at. My day job is clinical psychology, with filmI'm writing attempts at pretty serious if surrealistic drama, and the unfortunately low-paid but talented people I work with ( I have never made a dime off filmmaking, it's cost me thousands) definitely feel the seriousness and TRADITION behind film and seem far more serious and committed because of it. In America CONVENIENCE and EFFICIENCY are worshipped, and TRADITION has as many negative connotations as positive. These are absurdly midguided values with which to create anything but children's sequels ( ad even the know a fake when they see it. ) In micro budget-- the only world I know-- there's a HUGE psychological difference in the sensation of time passing during a film take --it's inherently a far more accurate experiential simulacrum of life-- "this moment is your one and only chance to live this." With digital, it's like "We're modern, no silly irretrievable expenses with US, we're WITH IT. We'll just try it again!" unless, I guess if you're in the rarified air where many takes are in the budget. Also I read 80% of our brains are dedicated to visual processing, I think it's naive to believe the same effects can be had with a totally different, less organic process with far less randomicity. With cell phone addiction, there's the additional question of "are our MINDS dying?" A more paranoid person could see us as becoming automatons programmed by Skynet. When I see someone glued to their phone now, I see them as controlling each other, not as a person with a tool. But I use digital too, to get shots I could not afford to light otherwise, I'm not a purist but I want to face It's been mentioned here that this debate is already old, and it's true. I've been posting this screen cap in these discussions here an elsewhere as a challenge: Post me ONE FRAME of digital that is as beautiful as this from STORY OF A PROSTITUTE 1965. No one has ever responded. And it's "only" B&W.
  5. Could you offer example lenses with the cost/benefit you're explaining? Which vendor? Thx.
  6. Thanks for input, I really liked my CP16R, it was pretty quiet and had a classic film camera look. Hot chicks would stop and ask what we were doing lolz. I'm a former database administrator, so out of my area of expertise, but wouldn't there be a lot of practical problems besides actually knowing what the IC does? Like where it fits in the camera etc. I imagine one would have to buy a working camera, pull the IC to test the I/O-- what it does-- then select and program micro controllers? I imagine hiring someone that smart is very expensive?
  7. Clicking on pic link above led me to a sign in for a MS account which I don't have or want. Maybe there's better place to post pics?
  8. Can you offer conservative estimates of what one could get renting a setup like that in the LA area with some midrange lens? I'm guessing they're not as in-demand as they used to be. I'm thinking of buying one and renting when not using it. Thanks.
  9. Wow what a gold mine of info for 16mm fans. Triggers optimism for me and a lot of further questions for OP or anyone. 1) If you have something in the SuperSpeeds in the 14mm range, what differentiates the 14mm t2 Zeiss so that you want to use that as well? 2) What factors in the shooting and/or scanning are responsible for it looking so clear? Is the camera-mounted light a possible (big) factor in getting the negative more saturated to reduce grain? Is it noise reduction in post? very high resolution the downsized or a particular scanner used? 3) What are some tips can we do to make 16 just look overall sharper? Just like digital audio, I know I am getting accustomed to higher clarity in images (In audio particularly in bass), which is technically sharpness I guess, with digital, but it still lacks the feel of film.
  10. In my desperate efforts to bludgeon cheap Canon video to life I've used this DFT plug in for FCP X. I think others make Technicolor and other emulations too. I have no relation to the company except as a satisfied customer. http://www.digitalfilmtools.com/store/Film-Stocks-for-Video-Film.html
  11. Congratulations on undertaking a bootstrapping venture to help maintain the availability of of film. I am semi-retired and have time to watch many movies now, seeing movies from the 1930s to the twenty-teens now, and to me eye there is such a gulf between the vibrancy of film produced material and the earnest but relatively static presence of computer recorded material.
  12. Excellent points. Cheaper and cheaper hard drives are diminishing the archive advantage of film, but you still have the annoying long term overhead of keeping watch on "When exactly does this USB2 hard drive become inaccessible without exotic expense?" One has keep reviewing archives on hard drive to think about "Do I buy new hard drives now to keep this accessible?" There's no end in sight for that problem , and it's hard to deal with because it means scheduling a review every 5 years or so, easy to forget. And the "breathing" is a perfect way to put the living quality film images have.
  13. ‚ÄčAll of this should be prefaced by the fact that unlike many of you, I am an amateur, the premise of anything I produce is all production money will be lost, and nothing will ever sell. So, it's easy for me to pontificate. Howver, my celluloid tower thoughts maybe useful in some small way. I think the idea of hoping to appeal to modern tastes using film seems self-contradictory. Convenience, speed, economy, temporal reproducability-- these are the gods of digital technology. However, as I've written elsewhere, I look at the unavoidable cost-per-minute of filming as an asset in drama. That is exactly what gives life its drama. This minute passes, and it, and the film, are gone. Life never shoots the same frame twice.No matter how Herculean the effort, or how expensive the camera one uses. The idea- and the feeling-- you can "do it over for free" is one of the most anti-dramatic, contrary-to-the-facts-of-life fallacies that people start to believe -- to feel -- when using digital technologies. There's a limited and shrinking number of sub-30 olds who have the sense of drama and subtlety to see that the imperfect --the flawed-- and the slow can be superior in emotion. It's not just this generation, it all humanity-- we all want things easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_aesthetics If things aren't getting better every day in every way, maybe-- just maybe-- sometimes an older, slower, more expensive, more imperfect way of doing something may be better. Not in spite of the fact it's older and slower-- but partly because of it. Where is the one single frame of digital video that carries the dramatic weight within itself that this single, flawed frame does? I've never seen one.
  14. Standard Issue Pro-Film Observations 1) Even as a micro-budget writer/director/producer, I find there are important non-obvious benefits to using film which- surprisingly- can lower costs on even micro-budget shoots, or give higher production quality for the same cost, as well as having important psychological effects on performances. 2) Although younger cast/crew are less likely (unless very visually acute) to be film fans, these tend to be the lower paid participants due to less experience. 3) I have noticed that when I submit DP/Actor casting/crew calls and include the fact that the film will be shot on "real Film" ( I like to rub in the reality of film) I got inquiries from highly experienced DPs way above my league who, like the original poster, regret that film is being abandoned in the name of "efficiency above all" ( Or more recently "Graphic accuracy above all") . They want to pass on the knowledge they have. For drama, it's not about how sharp it is , but about how much emotion it conveys. It's been pretty humbling hearing war stories from DPs who lit Fred Astaire ("He's a sweetheart") movies and described Sophia Loren's makeup routine. He had a whole suitcase full of light meters and depth of field calculators. I never even went to film school. Would never have happened if I didn't advertise I was shooting on film. *To date I have only a DP/operator or a DP/operator and AC 4) As far as actors, I tend to get highly intelligent actors who know film history, and people who have seriously studied. On something like LACasting you get a lot of people who were simply the best looking people in high school and aren't really serious students of acting. 5) EXPENSIVE is better. In the long run. By this I mean that the casual, "text me when you're nearby" digital culture has fostered a sense that each moment is not unique, that it can always be done again, digital memory use is free, we can try as many takes as we want, etc. This feeling of safety, however, is completely opposite what best fosters the creation of intense, lifelike performances. I always mention to actors and crew that scanned footage (16mm) on a hard drive costs about $50 per minute including film, processing, scanning and drives. If a man has an argument with his wife, that moment goes by once, and what is said can't be un-said. Ideally, the actors, are at some level aware of money/opportunity sliding away with each second of their performance, they feel PRESSURE in the good sense, it activates them that they play it like the last scene they will ever record. I don't have an 50 person crew that's obviously eating up money, there's only 3-5 crew on set, but I don't want a droll, "Hey we're carefree, modern and casual, smart people with digital, who can do as many takes as they want." As a director, I want it to feel more like real life, like "I'm not sure if this will work, and I only have one chance." ( Actually they have about three chances. And that's it.) Life goes by once, and so does film 6) Even on internet forums film continues to help me. Twice I've had David Mullen, someone near the top of the whole DP world answer technical questions for me on this forum. It is hugely encouraging. 7) I feel there is some random quality that is embedded in film that can't be done currently with digital, and even if it could the psychological aspects above would not be present. And I am not talking about magic or nostalgia, I mean actual neurological activation of visual cortex through mechanisms known but not researched in relation to film. I honestly feel my whole nervous system is more affected by film although I don't know the exact theoretical basis. 8) I invite anyone to post a single frame digitally acquired that matches the emotion conveyed by this one frame grab from STORY OF A PROSTITUTE. The image shimmers with hard to define beauty. Additionally, I'm pretty sure this was shot in 35mm at the time, with current 16mm stock shouldn't better resolution be possible?
  15. In my experience, all artists are on the same side. They're just using different brands of director viewfinder :)
×
×
  • Create New...