Jump to content

Stuart Brereton

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    3952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stuart Brereton

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.stuartbrereton.com

Recent Profile Visitors

37580 profile views
  1. That exemption exists to allow News crews to do their job without having to have multiple permits. That why it mentions handheld cameras. It also prevents tourists with handycams from technically breaking the law. A shoot with multiple crew members, and camera and lighting equipment blocking sidewalks is still going to attract attention from the police. it also specifically mentions not causing obstructions. What is locking up a road, if not causing an obstruction? Of course, safety is a separate issue from permits, and I’m glad that you seem to understand the issues, even if s
  2. This shoot is in LONDON. Shooting in London without a permit is ILLEGAL Shooting in the street without a proper lock up is DANGEROUS. Locking up a street without a permit is DANGEROUS AND ILLEGAL Stop advising people to risk their safety and break the law. It is highly irresponsible. As usual, you're so desperate to be right that you won't listen to any of the numerous people who have told you why this is a bad idea.
  3. Older lenses were handmade, yes, but handmade to extremely high tolerances. Depth of Field does not vary just because it’s an old lens.
  4. What an asinine comment. That is exactly the kind of thinking that gets people hurt. There is no shot that is worth risking injury or death to get. It was that attitude that got Sarah Jones killed, and expressing it here, under the guise of offering help, is highly irresponsible and offensive. I sincerely hope you are not passing on such ridiculous advice to those poor unfortunates you have as “students”.
  5. That sounds like an attempt to avoid responsibility for giving bad advice. The OP clearly stated that they intended to be working on multiple streets in the same shot, at night, in London. I don't know if you've ever visited, but it's not some sleepy little town with "one or two cars every minute". What you are suggesting is dangerous and illegal.
  6. Both sets of lenses are very capable and very sharp. Leica R are extremely popular as rehoused sets, Contax Zeiss less so, but that may be because Zeiss Superspeeds offer an affordable alternative. The issues that you'll find are common to just about all cine-modded lenses: the lack of a uniform maximum aperture, and a short focus throw. If you're shooting at f2.8 or above, the aperture won't be a problem, and using a remote focus unit where the focus scale can be mapped over the full 360º of the wheel will mitigate the shortness of the throw. You say that Lomos would be your first choice
  7. That's exactly my point 🙂 The diopter is not being used to compensate for a lack of close focus ability in the lens. That's why I asked Peter where the lens was focused after the diopter was added. I tend to agree with Daniel that this is most likely something of a magic trick designed to wow the people at video village. Either that, or just one of those weird myths that gets passed around without ever being properly tested. I've actually heard someone fairly high up in sales at Zeiss telling people this "trick" as well.
  8. You shoot gray scales at the beginning of each scene. You don't need to do it after reloading unless it's also a new scene. It’s been done without problems for decades. Thanks for the heads up, I had no idea. I'm sure Panavision are terrified about the competition. We're obviously firmly in Fantasyland now, so I'll leave you to it.
  9. But it doesn't, that's the problem. In my first two stills, the Canon camera is just a few inches behind the in-focus lens. The wall behind it is 7 feet back. The camera appears equally soft in both frames, as does the wall. In Pete's second post, he clearly states that the background was 50' away
  10. How can things be softer if they are closer to the plane of focus? In the stills I posted above, the lamppost in the center of frame is only about 10-12 feet away. Both appear equally soft. In my first post, I had two frames where the background was only 7ft back from the camera. Again, there was virtually no difference between the diopter and non diopter shot. I would love to be able to replicate this effect, as it's a useful trick if it works, but so far, I can't see a difference.
  11. You may already know this, but pretty much the most expensive part of any balloon light is the helium that goes in it.
  12. So the process is that they let each roll run from beginning to end. No interruption, no alterations. So it's not that they are "missing" your underexposed shots, or not trying hard enough, it's just that individual corrections are not part of the service. That's kind of what I thought would be the issue. Gray scales are used to communicate exposure and color filtration information to other people further down the post production line. How is someone supposed to know how your flat scan should look if there's nothing to reference? Even if it's a personal project, running a gray scale ta
  13. Where was the focus set after the diopter was added? I'm curious because I can't replicate this softening of the BG. I took another couple of frames. Fuji APS-C camera, Nikon 50mm at f2. Background is about 100' away. First frame is focused at inf. with a diopter that brings the focus to 2' 4". Second frame is without the diopter, focused at 2' 4". Aside from the slight image magnification caused by the diopter that I saw in my original frames above, I can't see a whole lot of difference. Same thing again, this time with a 28mm lens at f2
  14. My point is not whether the output is a best light or a flat scan. I agree, these days it's much more likely to be a flat scan . My question has to do with whether Tyler is expecting the lab to be making adjustments to his material as they transfer. He's talking about shots that are considerably underexposed and are not being corrected by the lab. My question is is whether he is providing them with enough information about the shots for them to be able to make these corrections in an unsupervised transfer, and also whether shot by shot correction is even a service that they offer without payin
  15. I know perfectly well how lab rolls work. I spent a good few years shooting music videos on super 16. My question, which you still haven't answered, is whether the service you are paying for offers shot by shot correction. It sounds to me as if you're using a dailies service to transfer all of your footage as a best light transfer. They grade to each gray scale on the roll (which should be clearly marked on the camera reports) and then let it run. If that's the case, you shouldn't be surprised that they are not correcting individual shots. Are you saying that they are setting up at
×
×
  • Create New...