Andrew Wilding

I don't think at the red or any other camera will nor could the role of the DP.

That being said - filmmaking is turning away from being an art form or even a high brow or high budget entertainment, and increasingly becoming low budget, low ambition "content". In other words, most of us, aside from the lucky few, are making easily digestible and easily disposable material to fill the ever increasing hunger of the Internet and new forms of entertainment. Viral ads, funny or die, Behind the Scenes content, music videos, etc.The bar is set low in this arena. As long as the product looks merely adequate, most folks are satisfied. Many people even view this content on there phones. We've seen huge surge towards quantity over quality, I believe. This, more than any camera, has the capability to diminish the import of the DP. Hopefully this will serve as a sort of training ground for the genuinely talented filmmakers of the next generation, but my concern is that budgets will continue to drop and that the dream films of future Fellini's and Kubrick's won't be a financial possibility. I see a bigger divide splitting blockbusters from serious film, with blockbusters taking 90 percent of the studios Money ( and making the majority of profit) and forcing the smaller films to share table scraps. Thisnwould make a Barry Lyndon or Amarcord a difficult proposition. Ive gone on a completely unrelated rant. Apologies.

Im in the market for a good, quiet super 16 package. Ive currently got my eye on a HSR arri sr. I plan to shoot primarily at 23.97 and only use the high speed capabilitys sparingly. Is this camera quiet enough to use as an a camera for a narrative project? Are the high speed models louder than standard arri's, even at regular speed? How might sound compare with an SR3? Might a a barney be enough to permit good and easy sound recording?

Thanks!

Lighting of the CYC is done seperately from lighting the talent. Are you shooting in a studio with a pre-built hard cyc wall? If so, it should already be lit evenly from top to bottom. For the talent, I'd use softboxes/chicken coops or spacelights from above as base lighting.

If you want it to feel like a real, albeit clean, physical space, I would avoid lighting it much hotter than two stops over your key. That should be enough to keep it from feeling muddy and gray without feeling like "Limbo"

No I don't think so -- it may have been a Chimera on a unit put through an additional frame of diffusion -- I often put a Woodylight or BargerBaglite through a 4'x4' frame of 129, which is a heavy white frost.

I use the same approach, but often find that the result is too flashy or lit looking.

Example

I think it might be an issue of demanding a full exposure on the face - perhaps keeping the face a stop under or so will let the practical do a little more of the lifting and call less attention to the additional lighting.

Not necessarily, if it has a cloth shade over it and it has to expose the talent's face at, let's say, four feet away and you want to shoot at an f/2.8-4.0 at 500 ASA. I use 213 bulbs all the time in lamps when I need them to actually light most of the room for me and I don't want to shoot at a wide-open stop.

David - when actually using a practical as a key, rather than carrying the practical with an off camera light, do you not find that its difficult to keep the shade from being "too" overexposed relative to the talents face? I realize this is all up to taste - clockwork orange is full of blown lampshades and looks gorgeous - but typically it seems a shade looks best 3 or four stops over key. Generally thats not enough to light the talent without brining in additional lights in my experience. Do you use blackfoil or hairspray or nd or what? I've had less than perfect results with all of these but id love to light scenes with only practicals (and maybe some toplight through a muzz) to free up the space for three sixty degree movement etc...

Its not bad by any means. In hink that to best get across who you are a cinematographer though, you need to add a day interior and a night interior. When i see it, i think, ok, the guy can do backlit exteriors. But can he light a set/location? A very contrasty chiaroscuro of a man boxing is not enough to wet the appetite of a director I don't think. But the work is good so far, just keep adding to it and always excersize taste and restraint.

pCam is an amazing app that has great support for super 8. Dof tools, FOV tools including a tool to match focal lengths for the same FOV in different formats, running time with different frame rates, and also tools like a Mired calculator. It's the most useful thing on my phone.

I dont mean to be overly harsh. It just seems to me that any company that is at least attempting to raise the bar, so that we image makers can do our jobs better, shouldn't be needlessly torn to shreds. I welcome any techniques or attempts at raising the bar. Wether that means resolution, dr, color fidelity, what have you, I'm just glad that companies out there don't feel that good enough is good enough. I think even if you don't think Red has it's claims, you must admit,it that it's forced every company out there ton reevaluate there strategy, which can't be a bad thing for us. On top of it, there cameras, to my mind, are capable of amazing stuff In the right hands, and I think that they don't deserve all the name calling or what have you.

 

 

If it had been my project, you would be seeing a lot more of the bloody things by now on sets of projects that actually matter, and a damned sight more prime-time stuff than the current piddling slack handful.

 

If ever a television is turned on in a bar, and a baseball game is on, the local couch-potatoe-athlete will, invariably, raise his head andfrom the depths of his drunken stupor, mumble; " if I'd been at bat, boy, I'd have sent that ball clear to the moon... Burp!"

It's very easy to criticize. It's much more difficult to put your fortune, your time, and your word on the line and try to actually deliver something.

The idea with fill is that it is meant, ideally, to be "invisible". It just to tackle the hurdle of not being able to capture light the same way our eyes perceive it. With this in mind, generally speaking, you want to place the fill light where the shadows that it casts will be least visible. This generally means frontal and at the same hight of your subjects. But, if the light is soft enough, the shadows will not call a much attention to themselves and you can get away with more off axis placement. you might do soft overhead fill, which doesnt call attention to itself as being overly directional, and if you use a big enough source it will still get into the eye sockets a little bit. Or, just use soft sources with alot of natural wrap and creative bouncing and foam core, and do without a separate unit for fill. This is my usual approach.

Isn't the visualization the FUN part, the reason why we all want to make movies? Seems like the one thing you'd want to do for yourself.

Making movies is a mere stepping stone on the path to partying at Cannes, David. You're such an idealist! ; )

 

I got some good advice, from a fellow filmmaker who went through the gauntlet, and who is now a fairly significant up and comer...he said simply to keep making films.

I couldn't agree more - frankly one has to just stay focused on making the films and put the festivals out of ones mind entirely, I think. I found the whole process fairly fatiguing, and worse, distracting. Time (not to mention money) that I should have devoted into new projects, I instead spent on "the festival circuit." I certainly had a naive belief that one can be "discovered" through a festival, and set ones self up for feature funding. I expected that Sundance would throw confetti over my head, parade me in a town car like some shiny trophy, and throw a six figure plus budget at my feet for any project that I've desired. Obviously, that is not how it works! I've had more people see my work through places like vimeo, and made more connections through the web then I have through festivals. And all for free.

I've also found, and I hope this isnt mere bitterness on my part, that there is a certain type of film that is more "festival appropriate." These tend to be social lessons regarding racism, sexism, ageism, the upper class vs the lower class, etc. These themes of course all have there place, but unfortunately for me and festivals, they dont have a place in my work at the moment. Not explicitly at least. That being said, I'm very grateful to Fantastic Fest, which not only accepted my film but invited my film.

I guess I've learned that the path to "film making success" isnt as easy as I'd imagined. There is no quick scheme to recognition and funding. Luckily, the journey there is paved with making films. Hard to complain. One simply has to keep the nose to the grind stone and making films.

Again, thanks everyone for watching. I really appreciate it.

Most impressive, it makes a change to see something really good.

Stephen

Thanks guys - Im very pleased that you took the time to watch my short - That you enjoyed it is even better. Unfortunately, It hasnt fared too well in festivals but that might partially be my own lack of festival know how. Its impossible to get accepted into these things!

Thanks again, guys.

By the way, Stephen - Im an admirer of your work!

I shot and directed this about a year ago -

It was my first time either directing or DPing and I learned a tremendous amount, but there is so much I would have done differently now. Its amazing how much you can learn in a year. Though Im a little worried that If I had known all I know then that I know now I would have made the thing too slick for its own good. Anyway, I hope you all enjoy watching it half as much as I enjoyed shooting it.

Criticism is welcomed, but not nearly as welcome as gushing praise and general smoke blowing ; )

Yeah, im curious also - what stock?

 

What an amazing transfer and color job. Looks like ill be seeing you guys at some point in the future.

This is so by far the sharpest, organic, and beautiful 8mm I've ever seen. My head is full of questions. Max 8? What stock?

Amazing, amazing transfer guys. I feel like you opened up a whole new world of 8mm.

Yeah, im curious also - what stock?

What an amazing transfer and color job. Looks like ill be seeing you guys at some point in the future.

Thank you! I've heard kicker, backlight and rim used almost interchangeably. It's good to hear a clear position explanation.

 

It makes me think that my problem is with intensity. When I tried to do this, I walked the light in to make it stronger, but it ended up spreading all over the cheek of the subject. Too soft, even though it was a focused fresnel. I figured this is a problem with the apparent light source growing in size, making the source appear softer.

 

Does the instrument have to be very intense and distant from the subject for this to work? Or very close and small?

 

Still working out these basics, thanks for the help!

or perhaps you had the angle wrong. If its wrapping to much around the cheek, make it slightly more of a backlight. You might have been coming on too much from the side...

I think the ability to crop into a master take could be useful for industrials or event videography, but it's hard to imagine it being used in narrative filmmaking. When was the last time you did a master and then left the camera there but just zoomed in for the close-up? Seems like it would wind up looking pretty static.

I feel relatively comfortable saying that that is not at all there intention. They just want to offer up the best images that they can. And the ability to reframe in post because of the resolution is an added bonus. That one would "invent" coverage out of a single master shot is just absurd. That would be bland unimaginative filmmaking, no matter the resolution.

I would say that on a basic level, you should frame the character quite small in the shots of him arriving at school. It is a scary time but also one filled with great possibility - make the character small and the campus spaces vast. The interviewer could be framed from a low angle, so as to seem imposing. Maybe frame the main character in a single shot with alot of headroom during the interview to emphasize that this is their first time truly alone and an adult in a big world.

On the normal day you can frame with the character larger. The space is now manageable and the world is in the solid grasp of your character. Frame from low angles to show this and don't leave too much headroom.

For the test day, do a redux of your opening day shots. the character, at his desk, along with a million other students, framed from a very high angle. He or she has lost control of his/her surroundings for a moment. perhaps as the buzzer dings, a teacher begins to walk down the aisle picking up papers. Your hero is at the end, furiously scribbling before the teacher arrives. You could do a dollyshot from over the teachers shoulders as she grabs papers, getting closer and closer to the student. Then a reverse of that, a static shot from low showing the student scribbling and the teacher getting closer, eventually filling the frame with an imposing figure.

Personally Id flip the whole thing - Id get the two shot from the other side (directly opposit, 180 degrees), and backlight the actors with a practical lamp on the table. If you wanted you could float the china ball over the lamp just out of frame. I would ditch the rim lights unless your motivating them from a source in the background - Otherwise they might look hokey and less than dramatic. Maybe you could You Could still bounce the tweenie into beadboard on the camera side, but Id dim it way down and let the faces play in the darkness a good deal.

Hard to be specific, not seeing the location, the actors, the intended feel, but I figure this is how Id ball park it.

Friends.

Guide me how do i practice cinematography. I dont have proper equipements. I thought film still cameras should be the best options to practice it. Is it so? where do iget those still cameras? Which slr camera should be the best one?

Get any slr and a meter. Learn them both. When you've mastered exposure and composition, get some cheap lights. Master those.

Hello, I am shooting a very abstract fantasy pic. 16mm , stock undecided.

 

It will be a very simple set, just two people talking, one of whom is

dying from a knife wound after a battle.

 

I want to have 40-85% of the frame completely black throughout the short film.

 

Sometimes I'd like to see just the waist up of one of the characters, sometimes

just one face floating in the darkness with just some small colored

light/shapes behind to provide dimension without identifiable background.

 

I'd like to have some lit things in the frame, but not have it really clear what they

are, because the audience really has to be the set decorators in the film with their imaginations.

 

I have a Midget fresnel 200 watt, a junior solarspot 2k, some portable

spotlights ( non-professional) .

 

I may buy some more Mole Midgets as they are cheap and seem versatile.

 

HMI's are beyond my budget.

 

Would snoots be key here?

 

I'd like to request:

1) Film stock rec's ( 200T? 500T)

2) How to best shape the light for the "surrounding darkness" look.

2) In general, is it better to light it more ad stop the lens down, or

to be economical with the light and leave lens open?

 

Here's an extreme example, a face almost completely in darkness.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1067/134302..._adbf445c50.jpg

to answer the last question - I would stop the lens down a bit in order to easily render the background dark and just light the talent accordingly. If you shoot wide open your going to go mad flagging lights to try to get your background a couple stops under whatever your lenses widest aperture is. Since you don't have a ton of equipment, you might want to shoot on faster stock in order to stop down some. It will of course be grainier but I would think that most of the grain will be buried in a see of black in your case.

Take this advice or leave it - Im sure there are people better suited to answer you on here. Good luck!

Isn't morning light more orangish than daylight? Its supposed to be closer to tungsten than daylight is my understanding if not more orange than that. So the more cool it looks the more it will look like midday and less like morning, IMO.

Yes, I meant time it cooler than sunset, excuse me! For me, morning light feels relatively cool and crisp, as there isnt yet much atmosphere for the sun to go through. Its likely a little warmer than full day time, but not by a huge margin due to more atmosphere trapped as the day goes on. I think morning sun is very much like afternoon sun (long shadows, etc), but minus a good deal of the orange.

Thnk for answer. It was preety helpfull specially with the image and idea about leaving part of window naked - propably i'll do this. Thanks.

I'm also going to create the soft mood by adding a little bit of smoke. And Kinos are just in case of use fill light:)

 

Your image seems to me a little bit too contrasty...My idea is to create 2xsofter light than you did. Not saying that I don't like the your image, just not what I was exactly thinking. :)

 

Thanks again.

It is quite contrasty - the direct light is hitting my face and side. Also I did a quick CC on a 1.8 gamma monitor, so it may look more contrasty on your screen, especially if your on a pc or newer mac.

If you look at the light on the blanket, it is rather soft. Its coming from a frame of muslin 6x6 filled up fully just out of frame. I think as long as you dont let the naked hmi hit your actors, but say, have it hit the back wall behind them, it will feel much lower in contrast.

here is the same setup without the hot streak on my side. You can imagine the hot streak slashing across the wall though for a little more interest.;

though I am a contrast junky, to be fair, so a little more fill might not hurt.

Hi. Short and Quick:)

 

Tomorow I'll be shooting short student scene. We are shooting in bedroom.

I'd like to achive soft/smooth light coming from the window with yellow curtins(not see whats outside beside that is a early morning like 4 or 5 am) this is my plan.

 

2,5 Kw HMI PAR 3 meters from window with FULL frame 216 or other diff gel through 3x3 butterfly 1/2 GRID

 

Kino flo 120 and 60 both 4bank/5600 with 1/2 216gel or other diff maybe SILK? for fill light

 

and thats it. What do you think?

 

I'll be shooting on CANON 5D mark II nikon prime 20mm f/2.8 (with adapter) I want to keep contrast at 1:4

 

 

THX for your time!

Ted. Warsaw

I think an HMI through diffusion or muslin sounds like a good bet. Id time it a little on the cool side and use less fill to avoid it feeling like a "daytime" shot. I might not fill the entire window with diffusion though, maybe say leave a quart or so of the frame naked and let the hard hmi light creep in, for a little slash of that harder early morning light. That might sell it even further into morning territory, especially if you keep the lights angle low like it is only just peaking over the horizon.

I tried to do that here:

But that is just a basic test shot. TYou could refine it much more to make it really sell.