Jump to content

Charles DeRosa

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Charles DeRosa

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    los angeles, ca

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  1. howdy- any suggestions for a gel (or good technique) to mimic red flare light. Shooting on the Red and (rather ironically) the red color channel gets eaten up (and as a result breaks down) so quickly when using pure red light. It seems as if the exposure range over exposing is really cut down. Suggestions...and explanations are welcome. Thanks Chuck DeRosa Los Angeles
  2. Thanks JB- I've definitely had trouble with the Red dropping frames. All that metallic vibration, I don't find it surprising. I'm more worried about the smooth look of a good car scene however. I'd take my chances with a car mount, but it's not really the feel i want. Unfortunately, i think "find a smooth road" is about as good advice as i'm going to find. chuck
  3. hi all- Are there any good suggestions for minimizing bouncing when shooting car dialog scenes? A piece of gear? Some secret handed down over generations? ( "finding a flat piece of road" doesn't qualify as a secret handed down over generations) We're shooting a cab scene between driver and passenger. Poor man's will remove the feel of the city that we want to keep. Would like to shoot it from another vehicle, but don't think we can come up with the budget for a process trailer. Car mount is tough with the Red as dropping frames is a constant problem i've found. Any help for smooth solutions would be appreciated. Thanks Chuck
  4. Does anybody have any experience using a writeable dvd player for playback? I saw it used on a set a few months ago and now need a low budget way of getting quick, frame specific playback. The general configuration would simply be a modulus 3000 from the steadicam into a BNC tap at the monitor. many thanks Chuck DeRosa Los Angeles
  5. John, that's an excellent idea. I'll be purchasing a kino bulb tomorrow. I love the side by side aspect of it too. Chuck
  6. What are people's thoughts and experiences putting kino bulbs in normal fluorescent fixtures, especially if mixing it with other lights. Because the kino ballast overcranks the bulb and a normal fixtures doesn't I'm afraid to trust the color. It looks off to the eye (which of course isn't particularly trustworthy). Also, what kind of drop in output have you found? Down about 30% I'd guess. Thanks, Chuck DeRosa Los Angeles
  7. Two questions about soft light- 1) I just heard first hand info about a big time DP lighting Nicole Kidman. He ran a big light, bounced it off a card, then through 3 different frames before it reached her. My question - Did those frames make a difference in the quality? Aren't they simply cutting the light? If the main factors are the size of the source and its proximity to the subject, why all the extra frames of diffucsion? I don't know if the frames got progressively larger or not - I'll find out. By the way, Kidman looked fantastic after all those frames. 2)Drop off- We constantly hear about light drop off...but doesn't all light comply with the inverse square law? Why does soft light seem to have a faster drop off? thanks, Chuck DeRosa Los Angeles
  8. Howdy, Do folks have suggestions on mimicking the look of movies from the 60's. I find Michael Ballhaus did an excellent job of it in "Goodfellas" - so if people have some production data on that film it might help -stock, processing, filters, etc. I'm shooting a 35mm short which we want to have the look of a found artifact from the era. Will shortly be doing some tests - Fuji v. Kodak, pushing, etc. There's a contrast to film from that era that I want to duplicate, but film stocks today seem to intent on "seeing into the shadows." Of course, production design is a huge factor. But there's a quality to 60's films that I'm having troulbe pinpointing. It was very interesting to watch "Goodfellas" followed by "Almost Famous", as "Almost Famous" looks like a movie made in the 90's about the 70's (too much light possibly?). While "Goodfellas" really feels like the 60's. Thanks Chuck DeRosa Los Angeles
  9. How do cinematographers combine slow motion and regular speed motion in the same frame? I'm going to try and shoot an object which falls to the ground (which I'd like to be in slow motion) while the people in the room move at regular or faster than normal speeds. There's no budget for post effects. Suggestions. Are there other ways to do it then the obvious poor man's approach of telling the actors to move at vastly different speeds? I see it in ads and movies all the time where a crowd of people is buzzing by at high speeds, but the lead is moving at normal speed. thanks, chuck derosa los angeles
  10. OK, we're going to test this tomorrow with a bit of help from RGB lab in hollywood. If anybody has some suggestions about specific tests, let us know. I'm fascinated to see what happens. chuck los angeles
  11. Here's a question: One of the things I got was a subscription to Variety. What are the thoughts on keeping up with this side of the business as opposed to dedicating yourself solely to the art and technique of cinematogrphy. Granted for me as a film student in LA the technique and art is all i'm concentrating on at the moment. But my knowledge of production companies, on-going projects, writers, etc. is so limited and, like cinematography, takes time to become familiar with. Any thoughts? How much do folks pay attention to "the business" side of things. Happy holidays. chuck los angeles
  12. I've recently (thanks to this site) come under the impression that going to a tighter lens, but keeping the subject of a frame at the same relative size (ie moving the camera back) will not dramatically change the depth of field - all other parameters (t-stop) staying the same. That in fact to change depth of field, without changing the relative size of the subject, is a t-stop issue. Yet, reading in Blain Brown's book "Cinematography: Theory and Practice" he provides an example which returns me to a "you want less depth of field, just throw a tigheter lens on the camera and move back" state of thinking. Brown has two pictures (pg 53) of the same woman. In each picture her relative size in the frame is more or less the same. In the first picture you can see clearly into the background. In the second picture the background it completly out of focus. The caption reads: "A very long lens throws the background out of focus and the viewer's entire attention is drawn to the character." Can somebody clarify this for me one more time? thanks Chuck Los Angeles
  13. Hello all - a real honor to be writing my first post. I'm a film student - shooting a 6min. 16mm film. My director is creating a cynical and fairy tale world based on the works of Edward Gorey. (fun stuff!) I've got 300 ft of film to test with (it's all exterior so I'm leaning toward the 7231 over the 7222) and would love suggestions on various techniques to test - looking toward uping the contrast and playing with a stark feel (she talks about silhouettes alot). I've always thought mainly this experiementation would come in the form of filters...but what do I know. 300 ft is a fair amount to test with (at least in film school terms) so I'm open to a broad range of suggestions. It's fun looking at the varied possibilities. thanks so much! chuck los angeles
×
×
  • Create New...