Jump to content

jeff woods

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    79

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by jeff woods

  1. jeff woods
    Hopefully others will chime in, but all light has the same fall-off: twice the distance from the source, 1/4 of the light (inverse square law). What comes in to play is size the source in relation to the subject. A PAR64 is essentially a point-source, so the shadow edge will be harder than a larger source like a Kino or a PAR through a silk in the same position. That said, a Kino from a large distance becomes a (very dim) point source too. To get a nice wrap around light with quick fall off in the background, the light would need to be a large source close to the subject. I'm struggling to explain it better without images, so hopefully more well spoken people can chime in. Hope that helps, -j
  2. jeff woods
    ...or a cable cam, now that I see your subject line. -j
  3. jeff woods
    For the street scenes, it could have been something like this: http://gizmodo.com/5839932/how-hollywood-captures-its-most-insane-and-incredible-chase-scenes-kerblooommm For the forest shots, it may be as simple as a rig mounted on to an offroad 4x4-type vehicle. -j
  4. jeff woods
    Maybe I'm repeating something, but at 1:51 there appears to be a still of the rig used... -j
  5. jeff woods
    Is this time-lapse? I don't understand why you need to pick a single CT? -j
  6. jeff woods
    ICG gets all the love...no American Cinematographer subscription? -j
  7. jeff woods
    Robert Richardson shot this, and one of his "trademarks" is using PARs as a harsh toplight/pool-of-light. In that photo (understanding that this is purely my interpretation) it looks like DiCaprio is standing halfway inside the beam, and the fill on Kingsley's face is comning from DiCaprio's shirt. He is also getting a rimlight from the same PAR, just not as directly as DiCaprio. The fill coming from the camera side could be bounce from the floor, or an actual bounce (showcard, muslin, white reflector). And by keeping the ceiling lights in the background, he motivates (read: explains) where the light is coming from. Again, one man's opinion, -j
  8. jeff woods
    I have had great success with Ushio, specifically their HPL575 vs Osram's version (it's not as clean of a light IMO). -j
  9. jeff woods
    I would say no more than showcard, unless you mean because it's transmissive vs reflective, so the heat gets "inside" of it, so to speak.
  10. jeff woods
    I'm curious to find out if they had a cable between the trucks to keep them from over-separating. -j
  11. jeff woods
    The latest issue of American Cinematographer is also a great read and has better BTS photos than the ICG article (in my opinion). -j
  12. jeff woods
    Possibly a pola to bring out the detail in he clouds. -j
  13. jeff woods
    I'm curious what look you are trying to achieve; are you not wanting to make the indoor court look like an indoor court? -j
  14. jeff woods
    A teaser (at least in theatre) is a wide but short soft good (drape, duvetyne) that can be flown in and out to create a very wide shadow and eliminate spill from the actual face of a fixture. The top source, in my opinion, is two Fresnels. No actual front source, just bounce from the floor. -j
  15. jeff woods
    To my eye, it looks like a pair of Fresnels (not more than 2K?) about 6-8' apart, slightly behind the talent, just out of frame (12' trim?). The floor looks to be a matte black treatment (reads gray when lit, but black in the shadows). The fill seems like it could come from the floor itself. Black rags to make the background disappear (well, that and the exposure), and probably another teaser or two to keep the lamp flare from spilling too far into the BG or FG. One man's opinion, -j
  16. jeff woods
    James, I'm genuinely curious: is it the money you have the issue with, or the content? The reason I ask is because on your website, the first thing I saw was for a film called "The Hunted" which, based solely on the poster, looks to be an indie horror/monster story. So I could see your distaste for mega-millions budgets, but don't understand your disagreement with (specifically) TMNT. -j
  17. jeff woods
    Sounds like a great question for the director. My guess is either to create visual interest, or to help create 3D space in a 2D plane; things moving in the foreground, and getting less so as you go toward the background creates perspective, which helps give space, shape and size to an otherwise flat image. -j
  18. jeff woods
    If I'm doing this correctly in my head (and on the fly), you could go even more blue by adding CTO (Full maybe?) to your tungsten and balancing at 2700, or whatever the camera perceives as the new white. That way you could at least get closer in-camera before post. Now, the amount of light outside vs. nighttime is a different beast all together... -j
  19. jeff woods
    Roger Deakins uses all sorts of gear that is "not proper", and he's quite the master. Others will hopefully chime in, but my take is use what gets you the look you are after. Obviously, if you have a budget and the ability to hire "proper gear", do it, as it is designed to take the abuse of day-to-day set use. It will be safer, have reliable color, and chances are less that an entire section of LEDs will just turn off because of a bad solder. If you are on a budget shoot, you might become the producer's best friend if you light the show for half of the projected cost. The old adage is true, you get what you pay for, but remember, it (mostly) only matters what it looks like on camera. One man's opinion, -j
  20. jeff woods
    It also helps if your background is dark; white on white doesn't read too well. -j
  21. jeff woods
    Probably lots of CG and compositing. My guess is they shot the hand stuff with a locked off camera (one tablet at a time; it's the same hand for both), and used CG to spin and slide the tablets in-and-out of shots. The background could have been either a white or green background that would have been replaced in post. The exposure and white balance would have probably been set based on the screens, and since they probably didn't match each other, one more reason to shoot them separately. This assumes the screens were actually live for the shoot. One man's opinion, -j
  22. jeff woods
    Bear in mind that flooding the Arri will diminish the amount of light hitting each subject (and change your contrast ratio), so you'll have to compensate with your exposure. -j
  23. jeff woods
    I would recommend re-posting this in your language as well. -j
  24. jeff woods
    The photo (and/or link) doesn't show, at least for me. Everyone will define "gritty realism" in their own way. If it were me, (and bear in mind you told us nothing of the story or the action in the space) I would probably use the Fresnels for the background (maybe floor mounted shooting up/across the walls), the open face as a back/rim/kicker, and one Kino as a key. I'd save the other Kino for the just-in-case stuff. But again, this assumes that serves the story. And there are myriad ways to juggle that gear. -j
  25. jeff woods
    The LEDs you linked are daylight, whereas the 650's are tungsten, so consider your interview locations when deciding. You said they are primarily indoor interviews, so as long as you aren't having to deal with windows, the 650's might be the better choice. -j
×
×
  • Create New...