Jump to content

Bruce Greene

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    19

Bruce Greene last won the day on June 13

Bruce Greene had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About Bruce Greene

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • My Gear
    Steadicam
  • Specialties
    specialist in narrative projects, features and series.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.brucealangreene.com

Recent Profile Visitors

21287 profile views
  1. Phil is correct. But, someone is going to make the movies. Why not you? The odds are always against you in any popular profession. If that worries you, find another career. If not, stop posting these questions and get to work! 🙂
  2. Watched the video and it's reassuring to know that in Kiev, where I spent 5 months last year, the background radiation is near normal. 🙂 But, I don't know about the food and how much contamination it may have contained... BTW, I was never tempted to take the tour of the forbidden zone, but I did go to the little Chernobyl museum in Kiev 🙂
  3. In general a shaking handheld camera creates tension in the viewer. If you use handheld extensively, you loose this effect as the viewers get used to it. And sometimes, if too much handheld, you will observe some people leaving the theater feeling sick, as I saw when watching "Beasts of the Southern Wild" some time ago... So, if you want the viewer a bit uncomfortable use hand held. Also, handheld can suggest that the view is through the eyes of someone in the scene, which you can consider as well. Especially when cut into an otherwise stable scene.
  4. Sometimes the green screen can not be placed at a distance that simulates the background plate. And in this case it's up to the artistry and skills of the VFX artist to create the best tracking of the background. I have an example of this at the 3 minute mark in the clip linked below. This shot was made in a studio set of a boardroom in an office tower. The city seen out the window is computer generated. Even though we used tracking marks on the green, it was probably not very helpful for the FX artist as the distance to the green does not match the distance to the city out the window. So this became a not easy and expensive DFX shot. The chroma key shot begins at 3:00.
  5. I think that when you are doing moving camera on chroma key, it's important to consult with the person who will be creating the digital FX and composites. Ask them what kind of markers they will need to track the new backgrounds. And, if you really can not consult with your fx artist... Keep in mind that it's best to be able to see at least 2 tracking marks on the green screen at all times. So let this be your guide as to how to space them. Also, the tracking marks are "tracked" by finding contrast in them against the green background, so, if they are also green tracking marks or crosses, they should be of a different brightness to the green screen background. I would think that if you use something like black tape for the tracking marks, they will be easiest to track, but the chroma key will fail around these marks and need small amount of rotoscoping to fix the mask. This still might be preferable if the back ground green goes out of focus and lowers the contrast of the background. If there will be multiple layers of background elements added, then it's time to think about tracking markers placed in front of the green screen on stands (hopefully wrapped in green cloth). Theses should be placed at a distance that will simulate the intermediate background element. If none of this makes sense to you, it is imperative that you consult with your VFX artist before shooting.
  6. Fine. Just say your directing a motion picture. I think that covers it 🙂
  7. Really? Just get out there and make MOVIES :):):)
  8. I've known gaffers who became successful cinematographers. That said, being a cinematographer is not only about lighting and camera technologies. It's about visual story telling, and less about the tech stuff. And I think the only way to learn it, is to do it. And, looking back... I think it's about as difficult to become a gaffer as it is to become a cinematographer. If I were to get a "do over" in my career, it would be to start as a cinematographer and not "work my way up". I was a camera/steadicam operator before I began my DP career, and it was almost like starting over from the beginning. Not quite, but 90%. So, if one wants to work as a cinematographer, work as a cinematographer. 🙂 🙂 🙂
  9. Congratulations on your new job! You're not going to learn how to be a Director of Photography on an internet forum... So, just do you best. There is a reason you were chosen for this roll. Just show em' what you've got, tell the story, and learn along the way. Happy shooting!
  10. I think you are looking at this technically, but need to look at it from a story telling perspective. For example, when you dolly into a face, you are starting with a character in their environment and then emphasizing their reaction/emotion. The opposite is true also. Starting close on a character shows their emotion, but moving back then reveals the environment and the reason for this reaction or emotion. Tracking on a close up of a person running allows one to concentrate on their emotion, while simultaneously showing speed and urgency. In general, one needs to think of camera movement as "editing in the camera" to tell a story. Sure, one could also use cuts to tell the story, but that, to the audience, feels like a manipulation by the filmmaker. Continuous movement allows the viewer to believe that they've discovered the story for themselves, and is therefore more powerful. Because the moving camera is more powerful, it's often best to reserve camera movements for the most important parts of a scene, so that they create the biggest impression. In other words, keep your powder dry, until the ultimate time and let em rip! The same can also be said for composition. I usually leave symmetrical and/or centering a character in frame for special moments and this brings particular emphasis to these shots. If I did this for an entire movie, they would loose their power... unless I was Wes Anderson, of course!
  11. Try grading a few shots using both versions. Which ever looks best, you can use. 2k and HD are not very far apart in resolution, but the film scan might look more detailed just because the scanner is usually sharper than a telecine. But, if the HD telecine looks better to you, use it 🙂
  12. I was just joking about the word "lasered". It did make sense to me though!
  13. Yes, "lasered" (not really a word :), back to film does not suggest that film origination is a factor in in the benefits of film as a long term storage solution. Any digitally originated film can be ultimately stored on film for the long term through this process. But film origination is not a necessary part of this work flow. So, shoot digital if you'd like. It ultimately won't make a difference in the long term archiving of the project.
  14. Tyler, while this is technically true, in most situations it doesn't apply. If we originate on film, it gets scanned and finished through a digital pipeline. And at that point, the project really only exists in the digital realm. I shot my last film origination in 2008 and it went through a DI to a film out for theatrical release on film. Cut to: 6 years later I get a call from Sony Pictures. They have not been able to contact the producers, so they wanted to know if I would like the original camera negatives. All 100,000 feet of it. They kindly offered to deliver it to me, or it would be destroyed in the next month. I declined. I hope that they have saved the master digital to film negatives, but who knows? But without a master cut/conformed film negative, there is really nothing analogue to archive unless one desires to reproduce the entire post production process...
  15. It seems from your examples that you are matching Alexa to a film negative scan, and you've done quite well. That said, it appears to me that the film scan does not look like an analogue film print. To me, it looks "better" than an analogue film print. And so my question: If going for a "film look", would it be more "unique" to emulate a film print rather than a negative scan? Yesterday I was beginning a color grade for a film and was playing with different techniques and came up with something that is rather "filmish", but not at all an emulation. We have so much control over the image now that we didn't have in the analogue days. Is there really any reason to "recreate" film? I think it's a very interesting experiment that you've done that will yield a great bit of insight into color grading, so that the effort has not been wasted. I'm just wondering about how important a "canned" film emulation really is... Thanks for the article Will. These are just my gut reactions 🙂
×
×
  • Create New...