Scott Lovejoy

Hi all,

I realize this may be in the wrong forum and may have been asked before, but my searches were coming up with nothing.

I'm wondering if there's anything special to the looks that shows like Friday Night Lights or The Office achieve. Their operating always seems to be a controlled hand held that is consistent from shot to shot. Is this just a testament to good operating? Or is there something special in the operation other than shoulder mounting the camera?

Thanks.

Interesting mix of replies.

The teacher who was opposed to saying "striking" did mention putting your hand in front to block the light, though I will say we were working with smaller lamps (biggest was around 2k), so there weren't any 10ks or large HMIs to blind somebody. I'm seeing a lot of set etiquette is personal preference.

This question arose during a lighting class the other day.

A group of kids who had just come from another class were all saying "striking" as they turned on lights. The teacher got pretty irate, and asked them where they learned it (from another teacher). The lighting professor explained that, while that might have been used in the days of arc lighting, it is not used anymore, and would probably get you laughed at, or looked at funny on a set.

So I ask you, forum goers, which teacher is right? I will say I also asked a grip who sided with the "say no to striking" teacher.

Has this already passed? If not I have advice for you. If it has, let us know how you did and what decisions you made.

Hi all,

I did the 48 Hour Film Fest over the weekend (uploaded shortly) and came across a few shots that dealt with going from exterior to interior and vice versa. I'm wondering what the options are to get the best look (not have anything blown out or too far under exposed).

Facts:

-Camera was an Panasonic HMC150.

-The biggest shot was a handheld shot where the actor opened a sliding screen door, walked inside then walked towards the front bay window and both her and the camera looked at the front window.

-It was probably the hottest weekend Maine had all year, 85ish every day and maybe 2 clouds in the sky, so it was BRIGHT outside.

My thoughts:

-If I were doing this with more time and had it more thought out I'd consider pumping the inside of the house with light, bringing the outdoors exposure and the indoors exposure to a closer level. I would probably expose for the inside and let the outside go by maybe 2ish stops.

-I would also consider some Rosco Scrim on the bay windows (with more time)

So I guess my questions:

-Are my thoughts correct in how you would pull this sort of look off with a good amount of time/equipment?

-What's the best way to do this if things are time sensitive?

Thanks to anyone who can help.

What baffles me is why the MPAA has not gone after movie downloaders the way the music industry went after music downloaders?

 

If the technology exists why does the MPAA fiddle while Rome burns?

 

R,

I don't want to thread hijack, but I will say that they have used them. Any more discussion on why it's not working, or the best tactics going forward should probably be broken out into another thread.

Hal,

 

Is an IP address specific to one computer in the world, or a whole network?

 

Yes, I did a web search on this question first, but the answer seems inconclusive to me.

 

R,

Usually ISPs carve out a subset of IPs and dole them out to users. Your IP could change from day to day or week to week, but ISPs keep a log of them, as do most websites. This is one of the ways the RIAA was busting people, by hopping onto a bittorrent tracker and watching all the ip addresses that connected to their seed, and then supoenaing the ISPs for the information about which user had which IP and what time.

On another note: It seems that I can't get to the innards of the website at all now, could someone zip and rapidshare those diagrams? I'd really like a copy if at all possible.

Much appreciated.

Hi all,

I'm shooting a 16mm project for school in a few weeks and I'm making small tweaks to the script that may include a cell phone screen. I did a search but didn't come up with an answer:

Are cell phone screens the magic of post production, or can a film camera expose it properly?

Any advice?

Well the stocks are pretty low contrast these days, capturing a lot of detail/information neutrally so you can then manipulate it in post. Also, you can only film what the film sees, you know? Also, how were your exposures? If they had to "correct" shots, it might've been at the expense of saturation. And yes, MiniDV is a poor representation of what was actually on the negative.

It was a test role, and I believe we got best-light, so I don't think they corrected anything, but I know that that could have a lot to do with the colors being poor.

I got my first roll of 16mm color film back from the lab, telecined to miniDV tape.

I was bothered by the colors of the footage. Specifically the colors seem kind of bland...nothing pops, it reminds me of 70's porn footage (almost the style seen in Boogie Nights). I'm wondering if this is because it was a cheap telecine, or because it was on miniDV, or if because this is normal color saturation for 16mm color film. The stock was Kodak 7219 (Vision 3, 500T).

Let me know if I should give any other info.

I believe that one way you could do it would be to consult a DoF chart.

Basically you're trying to get a long DoF, so f-stop, lens choice, focal distance all factor in.

With 16mm film you could focus at 8 feet, aperture set to f/11, with a 20mm lens and you'll have focus from 3' 11.4'' to Inf.

Actually Scott, the "China" in China Silk comes from the type of silk used. There are different types of silks, artificial, chinese, and maybe one or two more.

I stand corrected.

I've learned my new fact for the day. How does Chinese compare to artificial in terms of diffusing?

That would be a silk flag. For diffusion purposes obviously. In film school we called them China silks. I would hope the yellow frame means it's different from a non-yellow silk. Otherwise, there is something inherently (slightly) racist by calling something 'yellow' chinese.

I believe that they came in the other order. While I've never heard it called a China silk, I think the name probably comes from China balls, which basically do the same thing, but in sphere form.

I'm a little confused. Are you shooting on a regular 16 camera and planning on cropping to 16:9?

 

The only reason I would consider getting an SD scan would be if I were shooting at a high ISO, because HD scans will make your grain more apparent, possibly at a level you aren't comfortable. HD gives you the option of getting a flat transfer and doing color correction in post instead of in the telecine suite, and HD is the better format for distribution...

Yes, it's an Arri SR that hasn't been modified for Super-16, so it shoots 4x3, but lines have been added to the glass, so not only do TV and 4:3 lines show up, but 16:9 lines show up as well.

I haven't decided on a stock yet. This will probably pretty low budget and have a small crew, so I may be shooting 7219 or 7218, but I will probably do tests first. I would like the most latitude possible for color correction that doesn't involve the telecine suite, so that is a definite plus for HD.

I figured I would start here because this is the student forum, even though my problem bleeds into 16mm and telecine.

Firstly,

I go to a school that has a pretty okay selection of Arri SRs. A few of them have been modified with the Super-16 gate, but they are reserved for thesis students.

I am in my last production class before shooting my thesis (I'm a grad student) and would like to shoot with super-16, because that's the aspect ratio I want for my thesis. Some of the non-Super16 cameras have the glass marked for Super 16, and I know that you can indicate to the lab tech what you're actually shooting for (using one of those guide sheets), so that is what I plan on doing. My first question is: are there any problems that come up from using this technique?

Secondly,

Up until this point, and on this project we've been doing SD transfers. If I shoot and telecine using this technique I believe that the picture will be squished on normal TVs. What will happen if I do an HD transfer? What are my options?

So far I've come up with these, as possibilities:

Shoot it for 16x9 guides, SD transfer, don't tell the tech and then use a matte in post.

Shoot it for 16x9 guides, SD transfer, tell the tech, and never show it on an SD tv.

Shoot it for 16x9 guides, HD transfer, and I'm a little fuzzy on what happens here (using 4x3 or 16x9)

Thanks to anyone who can help me out, or point me in the right direction.

I searched but didn't find anything specific:

Is there a good rule-of-thumb when buying out of date stock from a company that stored it correctly? How old is too old? How bad will an out of date, discontinued stock (ex: Kodak Vision) be?

Any information or resources would be great.

Thanks.