Stuart Brereton

Film is a niche market, with a product that is both expensive and increasingly difficult to manufacture. Stock prices have stabilized based on the cost of production and customer demand. Should the cost of production fall for any reason, such as the price of silver dropping, it will result in higher profit margins for the manufacturers, not lower prices for the consumer. No manufacturer willingly drops its prices when it has already been established that its customer base is willing to pay a premium.

1 hour ago, imran qureshi said:

Yeah sorry, it was a bit of a generalisation to say it was tungsten, it is probably sodium vapor. 

Remember that sodium vapor is a monochromatic source (or as near as makes no difference). Those lamps only emit light in a very narrow range of frequencies in the yellow/orange spectrum, and are far warmer than tungsten. You'll be trying to add gain to the blue channel, but there is no blue light in sodium vapor lamps. That will make white balancing it to look cold much more difficult, and will introduce a lot of noise into the blue channel.

It can be done. You'll need to WB to about 2000k, maybe even lower. This will cause a big imbalance in the gain applied to the RGB channels in your camera, so it probably won't be correctable without introducing a lot of noise if you change your mind.

Also, tungsten streetlights are extremely rare in the UK. Almost all were replaced by sodium vapor many years ago, and more recently by LED. Are you sure that you've got that right? It might make a difference.

Claudio Miranda

Erik Messerschmidt

Ward Russell

As an alternative to bleached muslin, try a white cotton bedsheet.

56 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Question about how I make an Ursa Mini do that stands. I guess I fit a Panavision mount and make my way to Greenford with a wheelbarrow full of bullion. 

If the guys from Slice of Life can do it with a Blackmagic Production camera, so can anyone. It's all about getting that texture in front of the lens. We used to do that with low budget music videos. Always had haze or water or dust or glass or something to dirty it up.

45 minutes ago, Phil Rhodes said:

To me it just raises the question whether he was the right guy for the job.

I've posted before that I think other DPs have created looks that are much more in keeping with Blade Runner. Paul Cameron's work on Total Recall has a dirty, gritty edge that would seem perfect for BR. Cameron achieved that look by seeking out the oldest, funkiest glass, and embracing its faults.

23 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

 Panavision could not possibly care less about the independent filmmaker.

Panavision, perhaps, do not court independent filmmakers purely because they don’t have to. I’m sure they have more than enough clients who are willing to pay closer to the rate card. Profit margins are pretty tight in the rental industry, and no company really wants to be doing crazy deals. Panavision are in privileged position where they don’t need to. That said, if you know the business reps, deals are possible. Like so many things in this industry, it’s all about the relationships you have with people.

15 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Yeah, but it was wrong. Sorry, Roger, I love you, but...

I don’t disagree, but given his preference for modern sharp glass and dislike of flares, even if he had used anamorphic lenses, they would likely have been Master Anamorphics, and not an older type with some texture.

7 minutes ago, M Joel W said:

Also, I only wish Blade Runner 2049 were shot on C Series. But apparently Roger Deakins (and the Academy) know better than I do...

He apparently prefers the look of cropped spherical, so unless a director says otherwise, I'd imagine he does what he wants.

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

I... well... yes?

As in, supplied by Arri. But you knew that.

5 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Panavision does not care unless you are Roger Deakins.

He uses Arri gear, Phil. 

😉

There's no rule that says you have to point the dome toward the lamp, in fact generally you would point it toward the camera. This would give you a reading of the light that is falling upon the subject from the camera's point of view. It's therefore giving an averaged reading of all the light at that point. Angling the dome towards the light gives a reading that is much more weighted towards that particular lamp. This is useful for determining contrast ratios.

Whichever technique you use, you still have to interpret the readings in order to get the exposure you want.

2 hours ago, Gabriel Devereux said:

Deakins uses it quite often. From what I've seen mostly in cu's/mids sometimes to wides, mid wides etc. 

It's quite an elegant way of wrapping light around the subject. All it is, in theory, is a series of frames (or he recommends a curved piece of pipe etc) in a third or about semi-circle around the subject with multiple lights hitting the bounce or diffusion sometimes at different intensities.

He frequently uses multiple bounces to wrap the light, rather than using fill, but I've never seen him use curved pipe or heard him refer to it as a "cove". It seems to be more of a description that other people use when referring to some of his setups. Cove just means a concave shape. It's not some magical lighting technique.

I'm not sure what you mean by "cove lighting", but you'll get more output from LEDs by bouncing them off muslin than trying to shoot through it.

It really doesn't matter too much what lamp you use for a bounce source. It's common to use a high output lamps purely because bouncing is an inefficient way to use light, and you lose a lot of output, but any lamp can be bounced. There's also nothing particularly special about muslin as a bounce. It's non specular, but then, so are cotton bedsheets. Unbleached muslin lends a slight warmth to the light which is often pleasing to the eye, but that can also be done by gelling your lamps.

I wouldn't get too hung up on trying to duplicate Deakins' lighting equipment. There's more to his technique that what lamps he uses.

Real moonlight is about 4300k, so tungsten with 1/2 CTB or HMI with 1/2 CTO gets you into the ballpark when balanced for 3200k. HMI is easier because of higher output lamps and less light loss from CTO vs CTB, but given the choice I'd probably opt for a large tungsten unit with either 1/2 blue or one of LEE 601/602/603 which have an almost gray/blue feel. I also think sometimes that moonlight looks better if it is slightly softened. Real moonlight is obviously very hard, but it's so dim that it's hard to see contrast. Softening artificial moonlight helps to create the impression of a lower contrast look.

8 hours ago, Max Field said:

 I'm admittedly far more curious with how the shadows are filled.

There's not always a need to fill shadows. When you have large sources coming in through large windows, they bounce around everywhere in the room, creating their own fill. Sometimes you want to control that with negative fill, other times you want to use it.

If you're using tungsten (or tungsten balanced) lamps, try LEE 219 fluorescent green (1/2 CTB + 1/4 Plus Green would also work) and Full CTO. If you want to use an actual fluorescent fitting as a key, Cool White tubes have that kind of blue/green look when photographed with a tungsten WB 

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Googling around, I find there's some mirror mosaic sheet that has a random scattering of tiles in different finishes.

Very interesting. Just need to find some sort of flexible backing to stick it to.

Most people just clip gels to the barndoors with croc clips or clothes pegs. If you're worried about heat from the lamp causing discoloration, or melting the gel, use a frame instead for the gel, and place it a couple of feet away from the lamp.

17 hours ago, M Joel W said:

Thanks, all. What do you do for wide angle on the Artemis? It seems it only goes to 22mm, not that wide? 

Apps like Artemis are restricted by the focal length of the phone camera lens, and just show a border around the image when you select a focal length wider than they can show.

Honestly, I rarely use a viewfinder at all, particularly not for wide angle shots. The widest lens we carry is an 18mm, and it hardly ever gets used. One of the benefits of shooting with primes over zooms is that you quickly get used to specific focal lengths, and don’t need a viewfinder so much.

Tungsten light will render as very warm with daylight stock. The saturation of color will depend on your exposure. You'll find that underexposed tungsten practicals will go very orange, whereas actual tungsten halogen "movie" lights, exposed as per the meter will read somewhat more neutral, although still warm. You may have trouble correcting it in post, as there will be very little information in the blue layer to work with.

A Wratten 80a filter is the proper correction for Daylight stock to tungsten, but it will cost you 2 stops of light. It may be a more practical approach to shoot with a Wratten 80D filter which is a weaker correction that needs a 1/3 stop compensation. It will leave the tungsten lamps still slightly warm, but make it easier to correct in post if that's what you decide to do.

I have one that looks a lot like this:

https://opteka.com/products/optdvfs

I haven't used it in years. If I need a finder, I use Artemis or Cadrage on my phone.

12 hours ago, M Joel W said:

I guess my only concern is I have a 16mm S35 lens and 9.5mm S16 lens I use sometimes but most directors finders seem to max out around 18mm S35 and 10mm S16. 

I’ve never found director’s viewfinders to be accurate enough to reliably tell the difference between 16mm & 18mm, let alone 9.5mm & 10mm. Unless you’re using a proper finder with a lens attached, they are a guide, at best.

11 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

 I think regular single element diopters are not great for this much magnification. Achromats would be better if they were available.

Extension tubes are a better choice, optically, as long as you can deal with loss of exposure.