Jeremy M Lundborg

Adding magenta can negate *part* of one problem, and add a new problem. Yes, for areas with green spill, you negate it. However, just as it's difficult to control spill, it's also difficult to control exactly where the magenta hits your subject. So areas that don't have green spill to begin with now have magenta in them. This creates the unintended compositing problem of having an additional color that you didn't want to begin with. Perhaps the colorist you spoke with has some ideas around this issue, but just a heads up that it can be a problem.

I second this. You end up having issues with both colors instead of just one. I used to hear this from a lot of old school gaffers who worked before digi green/blue screens and digital keying. The best advice I can give, is to use a big enough screen to cover your action and at the same time allow enough distance between the screen and your subjects to lessen spill. If you don't have the money to do that, seemingly the issue here, any sort of backlight/kick light that registers will also help a great deal. That is of course if it works within your lighting scheme appropriately. Basically it defines the subject further and also helps negate some of the green spill by simply being present in it's place.

Things like shutter angles for different lighting/exposure situations as well.

 

Sorry for double post.

Surely some amalgamation of the forms found in the ASC manual, guides online, and your own prepared mathematics would suffice. I can see it being easy to simply scan, edit, and format them to your liking once you have the information you need.

Arricam Lite on sticks. 75mm lens. Shooting inside a moving school bus. Variable road terrain.

Hoping to make the shot as steady as possible on a very low budget. Consider the DIY version and let me know if you guys have any suggestions.

Thanks!

 

If money is as tight as you say it is, probably 4-perf anamorphic is a bit of a luxury unless you plan on a low shooting ratio to compensate. Otherwise, I'd be looking into 3-perf if a D.I. is guaranteed (the advantage of 4-perf anamorphic is that a D.I. is not necessary). 2-perf is a bit rare and hard to find still.

Are S35 pictures shot straight 4-perf? Seems like a waste of negative space but maybe I'm missing some advantage.

David, you also ask about a DI being guaranteed or not. Do you feel it is required for 3-perf? What about smaller productions that cannot afford a DI?

What time period and county does this scene take place in? That should tell you what kind of effect and colors you need. In the US, I've only seen an ambulance with blue lights once. And that may have been on TV. Most are red and white.

 

Older time period would dictate a rotating or flashing halogen effect.

Newer or current time period would dictate flashing strobe tubes or LED.

 

Flashing halogen is easy. Setup some 2Ks gelled red and maybe 1Ks in white on the windows hooked to a dimmer set to chase. Or have two electricians run them up and down on hand squeezers in sync.

 

For rotating, you could use the same fixtures above and just the guys rotate them back and forth. However, older light bars almost always rotated constantly in one direction. It might look better to have someone else cut the light after it passes and reset in black. Don't forget rotating lights would also cause reflections from other surfaces they would hit also.

 

For strobe, a couple of large stage strobes like Martin Atomic 3000s gelled red and white would do. You can set those to strobe on their own without a controller via the on board controls. Very bright!

 

LED would be fairly easy except for the programming - rent a 6' Color Kinetics ColorBlaze and a controller. Setup a red/white chase and or strobe. May need to take meter readings to determine if you need a second fixture.

The time period is contemporary, definitely. Although after reading these responses I like the idea, which was inadvertently suggested in your post, of it not being held to a specific period and taking some creative license with the flashing lights.

Thank you for your responses.

*Mimicking*

I have a shot in which a character is looking out a bedroom window with curtains to an off-screen ambulance in the driveway. The lights from the vehicle will illuminate her face and I plan on having very little fill behind her in the dark bedroom. I will be shooting on 5219 (500t) and I'd like to shoot at a f4.

Can you please recommend some ways in which to mimic that type of source with adequate power? I've seen everything from multiple lights bought at party stores to a rental of police style lighting rails that sit atop the vehicles themselves. Ideally it has enough throw to expose around an f4 and be far enough away to make the effect realistic.

I'd love to be able to do this effect within a reasonable budget, as it is only for one shot.

Thank you.

As for the Dutch head, if you think you may need some room to adjust the degree in which the camera is turned, it may be smart to get a dutch head which is much more malleable(and expensive). If you know you need it to be exactly 90 degrees, the plate may be your best bet. Even with the plate you could orient the head parallel to the scene, mount the camera perpendicular, and use the tilt to give you minor adjustments.

The double net is used as a wind break for the steadicam. It is preferable to use net rather than a solid for 2 reasons.

The first is that the grips can clearly see through the net what the operator is doing, so their coordination will be better. The second, and more important, is that the net diffuses the wind rather than blocking it. Blocking the wind with a solid, would create turbulence around and under the frame, which will create unpredictable wind action on the rig. This is the most important reason for using nets rather than solids.

Great explanation, thank you!

I was also going to ask this question and pulled out the attached for clarification. I seem to see it most often with steadicam, although I'm not sure of its use beyond the possibilities suggested in this thread.

Still is from August 2010 American Cinematographer article on Salt.

I have very little experience in 3-D photography yet am being thrust into the middle of a project with that intention.

Some of the shots are against a green screen, nothing complicated in terms of movement, but my concern is with the overall composite.

This is surely fodder for a meeting with the vfx department, but I thought I would ask before hand if anyone here had any experience and could offer any advice or pitfalls to watch out for on set.

In my estimation it would work best with measured convergence and compatible i/o for both shots, according to the intended depth of the final shot. My concern is the practical effect of compositing a depth oriented plate into a depth oriented shot.

Thanks.

Scott,

 

A dream to fly with SI2K's... we had one in the booth at Tiffen/Steadicam and I was also given a very thorough overview of design and operation by Philippe Bordelais. Not to mention the same over haul on the Cine Deck w/ SI-2K's with Ari Presler from Silicon Imaging... I guess I had my own personal 3D workshop ;-)

 

ok... back to your questions...

changing the I/O in the manor of the Freestyle does not affect your stereo viewing in any way... same as if it where typical or side-side.

The cameras will crossover to what you are calling negative stereo, this is designed that way by Philippe to accommodate the operators that fly goofy. Mainly for the ability to view the monitor, thats it.

Have not viewed on Real D system, that of course has no relation to acquisition nor operation.

very easy, done by sight, looks as if the mirror is a perfect 45deg from both cameras. Very well done and compact design.

Yes and No. You are able to adjust the mirror along an xy angle, but not advised to move once set with the cameras your operating with. There is no rise on this rig, only a tilt for far/near alignment.

I am pretty sure that only the top camera moves on convergence, but I could be mistaken on this point. The nodal point is just about where the gate on the camera would be, centered on the horizontal camera, this is could have a slight affect if you where pulling.

 

-Alfeo

Alfeo,

Looking at the picture attached to your post, I see you are wearing anaglyph glasses. Does one actually wear these while operating? Does it cause any confusion of where you stand as you operate? Is this common practice with most stereo rigs?

Most commonly found in use at: convention centers; hotel ballrooms/conference rooms; construction sites. Usually feeds a spider box, like these: http://cepnow.com/pd_g-series.htm

Anyone have an idea of where to find this type connection and complimentary spider box or variant around Los Angeles?

That's a CS- series, non-NEMA device, 3 pole 4 wire. Should be a number on it, did you verify voltage? I can't positively match the directions of the slots on the face in your image. It's one of these: http://www.hubbellonline.com/wiring/bryant/pdf/h/h34.pdf If what they are saying is correct, then the mating plug would be a CS-6365. Tie-in would be through 6ga feeder, 50a per leg.

The (CS6369A) seems to be the one. There was nothing written on any of the electric and the location, more of a concert venue than studio, had no idea what the plug was except that crews 'usually tie-in here'.

There was a small bit of writing that helped me deduce it was wired to (2) 50amp breakers in the main box, which is where they came up with 100amps.

Thank you for your responses.

Hoping to get the attached plug identified so that I may rent cables accordingly.

My guess is hubbell of some sort but the said it was a 100amp tie-in and wasn't sure that type of cable would hold that load.

Any ids or points in the right direction would be extremely helpful.

Thanks.

The most obvious and purposeful use of this sensor type would be for special effects photography. Akin to the usage of 65mm for a 35mm films FX.

Next is stunt photography during which multiple angles and reframed action can be utilized to accessorize a sequence.

Beyond that, I don't know an actress that would be comfortable being shot in 10K, and therefore many practical uses go out the window.

I've seen the current crop of RED one cameras used on many occasions, by what I would consider incompetent filmmakers, to shoot one long two shot/wide shot of a scene, and later zoom in and establish coverage from the same shot. To me this plays like poor coverage choices in conjunction with bad directing.

I've read a few topics on the board regarding overexposing the negative on set by 1/3 or 1/2 stop. This as a general rule to get a stronger negative for grading later on in the process.

My question is whether it is better and/or preferable to, after exposure, print the image down at the lab, or allow it to be processed normally and bring it down during the grading process. Is this approach altered if the film will go through a DI as compared to telecine?

Thanks.

Clearly what is needed here is a way to synchronize the strobes with the Red camera. There are some cases in which the strobe covers the whole frame, we just need a sync pulse to trigger it that way every time. For gunshots, I don't see why the same slow burning blanks we use for film wouldn't work.

 

This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but probably way far down on the priority list. Definitely not a killer for the vast majority of production.

I'm curious as well. I am interested in using photo strobes to emulate photographic flashes on the cheap. Shooting with the RED I have rolling shutter concerns but have not been able to test as of yet. All that despite having a project looming which will require said effect.

I would appreciate any advice on the matter from people with more experience.

I was his gaffer on a very small project in Los Angeles about a month ago. It was a very small set at a film school. I don't think it's even possible to ask enough questions of people with his experience.

The November 2006 American Cinematographer magazine detailed a bit about the production. Although, I admittedly don't recall the depth of the article.

That's not so much my attitude -- my attitude is generally once I'm committed to a show, I'm committed to doing my best for them -- it's not about the money. I do whatever it takes to get the job done. If I start to put myself ahead of the production, then I'm serving myself instead of the final product. And if the final product suffers, then my career suffers. If I'm perceived as being selfish or difficult or unwilling to give 100%, then my career suffers. So to best serve my career, I have to best serve the project. The only thing I object to, besides unsafe work conditions and other abuse, is when nonsense happens that has nothing to do with making a better product, when decisions are made to suit egos, when other people are more interested in displays of power, stuff that actually has nothing to do with the actual shooting. I also hate when money is spent stupidly.

What I was attempting to say, if it wasn't clear enough on my end, is that in the long run a few dollars won't make a difference to me. I'd rather work than fuss about minor monetary details, especially at this early stage in my career.

You've made a valid point that anyone really interested in working in this business would agree with. I'd like to clarify that I consider my career the largest part of myself, and therefore to all your points I wholly concur.

What is good for my career is great for me.

I've seen the rigs around quite a bit recently and from my lack of experience I'd like to ask their importance.

What are they used for? Pros, cons?

I think the simple answer here, as Brad said, is to look out for yourself accordingly.

Most productions, big or small, won't have their banks/hearts broken on a few dollars, just as we won't in the long run in our own lives.

Thank you all for your notes and anecdotes, it has been very helpful.

I'm just out of school and while attending I usually let charging for prep/scout slide as it was more for the experience.

Now that I am attempting to make a living in the business, as I see many on this board doing as well, I wonder what the rules of thumb are for charging to prep and scout locations. What if the prep is 2 days or 3 weeks? What if the location to be scouted is out of the country?

Do you charge half your on-set day rate, get a flat fee, or just ask for two hearty sandwiches?

Do you charge for travel days? Per Diem for scouts?

Thank you.

Jeremy

A very simple question:

When you are rating 500 at 320 ASA(or any variation), do you process normally and use that as your partial overexposure to tighten up the grain? Or are you then telling the lab to pull the film a stop or two while over exposing 2/3rds over (as it seems most people do)?

I can offer that attempting to ramp HVX footage in post is a poor way to achieve the look you are going for in your project.

Matt has it proper. The HVX200 will only shoot up to 60fps in 720p and you do not have the option of ramping during the shot. His suggestion of shooting similar angles with two cameras is the most realistic, as Larry Fong did in '300' for those iconic zoom/ramp shots(albeit with much more resolution).

Excuse me for not having the knowledge to suggest another camera, in your budgetary range, better suited to your needs.