Larkin A Seiple

Hey Matt,

I did a music video with the RED on a 2.5 easy rig. We had lomo primes with a ff3 and a 6x6 mattebox, plus hard drive and a battery on the camera. The 2.5 kinda worked? It' didn't take all of the weight off and it felt a little awkward but was nice as a leash, knowing you couldn't drop the camera, we were also able to switch hand held positions pretty easily. I don't think I would use it again unless it was the easy rig "3" that seems like it could carry the weight. But You could also ditch the mattebox, hard drive and find a way around the battery to lighten the load. Then again you could also just get the 3.

Best

Larkin

Hey All,

I am shooting a project on Super 8mm. Would love to spend all day in a Telecine. Can only afford a one light, or a very very short time with a colorist.

I color correct the majority of my digital work on Apple's Color, RED, DVCPRO, etc. Having done so I know the more information I have the more room I have to maneuver, meaning with RED it gives you a Flat image to then add your own contrast and etc.

So I theorize this:

Like when I print a film after the Neg cut (can't scan the whole negative only the print) I get a low-con print that I can then bring to a Telecine and have more room to manipulate because there is more information because the image is flatter.

Taking that principle.

If I get a one light or a simple scan of my Super 8 footage, should I ask the colorist to give me a FLAT and full image, backs being at 20 ire and highlights being at 80ire, so I can then take it to my computer to manipulate?

Presumably I can them bring the contrast and saturation back when I do a final pass on my computer in Color?

Anyone else been here? or have a better idea? Just trying to find a way to get the most control without relying on spending hundreds of dollars in a Telecine.

Appreciate any words of wisdom.

I'm sure everyone would be interested to find this jewel of an interview. What was Harris doing in Poland? Was it an acceptance speech or a class course? Maybe if you provide more specifics someone might recognize the interview?

I'm a student one semester away from graduating and have the oportunity to work on either more stuff for my reel (as of now, I only have four shorts as a DP) or an internship at either Birns & Sawyer or Panavision. It is likely that I won't be able to do both. Which of these options would have a better chance of yielding a job on-set?

Thanks in advance.

Edgar E Velasco

Depends on how much stuff you will be able to create for your reel. Then again if you shoot one great project that looks spectacular you might get more work from that alone. Sometimes it's not about the reel but one great project showcase your ability. However if you are trying to seek employment at either company after the internship that is a different story. If you want to work there to gain knowledge of cameras I think shooting more would benefit you in the long run. But then again you could work there and get great hook ups for gear? I would simply say you can learn about any camera online or even by visiting either rental house, they give tutorials for free. I interned at two different camera houses myself. I learned a lot about every camera. Now those camera are not being used (F900, varicam, 235) nearly as much as new technology, (RED, EX3), this was 2 years ago. If you have a better real to showcase your work your more likely attract more work.

A camera is a camera.

"Once more red on #1"?

Huh? ... when were the other times?

 

But for the benefit of all readers whose initials aren't J.V.K. please check here before reading further.

 

"Knowing" has done OK, but it's a pretty ordinary film up against a slack handful of other pretty ordinary films in a quiet time for cinema trade. You know, like a TV movie being "#1" in the 2AM Sunday morning timeslot against a lot of telemarketing and religious spruikers' shows. It was estimated it would pull in about $15 million first weekend , but it did about $25 million, a nice surprise for the distributors, but hardly evidence of a Paradigm Shift. Often films that do better than expected on opening weekend do worse than expected in subsequent weeks, a sign the unexpected turnout was a result of lack of alternatives than any great patron enthusiasm.

 

And also ... lemme see ... Star Wars II, Star Wars III, Superman Returns, and ... er ... er...

 

Well anyway, despite the image shortcomings, that particular trio of All-Digital movies did extremely well in the box office and were all no-questions-asked "#1s", but years later, overall, digitally-made films still only account for a smudge on the bottom line of cinema income. So, your point is ...?

 

 

I presume you mean "Slumdog Millionaire"

Not "mostly", about 50%, the rest being film

 

And they were quite clear that they used that particular camera because it was compact and unobtrusive, crowd control being just about non-existent in India. An example where a digital camera was the best or (only) tool for the job. There will always be such occasions, but it's usually a case where highly skilled professionals have reluctantly concluded that digital is the only practical option.

 

Come back when Marvel have decided to shoot Iron Man 2 with a digital camera.

Couldn't have said it better! Digital right now appears to be a means to an economic short coming. The quality cameras, Viper, Genesis and F35, are not only tech heavy but cumbersome in the operation and media ingestion that people resort to RED and the SI-2k camera. Knowing topped the box office based on content with no reliance on the visuals, for a Sci-Fi film consisting of a massive amount of Green screen I would not call it a show pony for the Red. For a camera with only two stops of over-exposure it performs well in VERY controlled environments. If there were any show pony it would be finchers "fate" commercial shot on the red by Chivo. As for Slumdog I share the opinion that it shouldn't have even been nominated, even the parts shot on film seem over lit and boring, a wise friend wrote " don't mistake location and narrative intensity for visual supremacy", the film works well and cuts nicely but visually it appears more convenient than crafted. Maybe I'm still bitter that a film shot on IMAX with stunning lighting and beautiful exposure didn't win. Not that Mantle isn't very accomplished, 28 days later is still a feat yet to broken. Simply, digital is convenient but has yet to prove it's worth in cinema so far, Zodiac being the exception, "by far the best looking digital film available", shot by Harris Savides, summons the notion of a digital future. Mullen's works as well looks to control and properly apply talent with technology. Obviously there is a massive range of opinions on people's work and the future of digital narrative but for now Knowing does not represent RED's ability. Maybe the Book of Eli will prove me wrong.