Jump to content

Bruce Greene

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bruce Greene last won the day on March 18

Bruce Greene had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

82 Excellent

About Bruce Greene

  • Rank

Profile Information

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

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

20840 profile views
  1. I don't think this is something you can learn from a forum post or even a book. You're going to need to learn by doing, experimentation, and trusting your eyes. If you need to practice by getting 3 old lights and shoot on an iPhone, that's what you need to do. 🙂
  2. The original Zeiss standard speed PL primes are quite small and light and I think would be perfect for this project. I'm sure you can find this for rent somewhere...
  3. There was a version of the Panasonic Varicam "35" that had a 2/3 camera head attached in lieu of the s35mm sensor. Try contacting Panasonic to see if you can find one of these for rent. This might be the best low light 2/3in camera ever made.
  4. Maybe this Photoshop plug-in will be of use to you? https://www.colorperfect.com/colorperfect.html?lang=en
  5. I'm not sure that Photoshop has any built in function to remove the orange mask on the negative. But, Vuescan does and seems to work pretty well. I don't shoot movie film for stills, but I'll guess that by selecting the Kodak Portra choice in Vuescan will get you in the ball park. I think Vuescan can open a .tif image to work with. Vuescan is also pretty cool in that it can drive almost any scanner every built, but probably not drum scanners... I do have some experience using the 5218 to 2383 LUT in Photoshop to convert from LOG positive film scans and the result is very movie film like. This would suggest that the Portra film is not so different in color reproduction than movie film. I actually like this workflow as it retains the "film look" for my color negative film stills. Otherwise, scanned film can look very close to a digital capture, but with grain :) I made this scan using Vuescan of Portra 400, processed using the Kodak film emulation LUT in photoshop the other day, and I think it retains well the "film look" :)
  6. Do you have software to drive the scanner? I would think, though I've never had a drum scanner, that that function would be part of the scanner software. If not, maybe Vuescan software could make the conversion, even if it can't drive the scanner itself.
  7. What is the setting of this scene? Is there an audience watching a play from the darkened theater? If so, perhaps you could place a couple of your 1K tungsten lights on the upper balcony to back light the audience. Then use a large diffusion or even a bounce to suggest the spill coming from the stage that will darkly light your audience faces. I would be careful with significant soft lighting here as it will also light the white painted walls and possibly destroy the "mood". It may be necessary to recreate the stage lighting spill with a more controllable source than a bounce or soft frame for your wide shots. You can then relight your closeups with soft sources closer to the people in the close up shots. As a final touch, you can experiment with dimming the house lights and see if that helps or hurts the effect you are after. Also, if there is a theatrical spot light in the back of the theater, you might want to experiment with that also, possibly adding a little haze to get the effect of the spot light... if that suits the scene of course :)
  8. I don't think it will work with PAL... I believe it's an NTSC only device.
  9. I am sorry, but your question isn't making any sense to me... Wish I could help.
  10. A LUT, or look up table, is independent of any particular color correction software. So, I don't understand what you are really looking for here Kugan. Are you looking for LUTs in the format that is used by baselight software? Perhaps you should try the forums at www.liftgammagain.com for better answers.
  11. Just to way in here for no good reason :) Richard, I agree. It's not Lawrence of Arabia! But, it's still a very good film, beautifully shot, staged, art directed. I think the style of the lighting and photography was a perfect match for this story. Perhaps some of the symbolism and imagery was a bit of a stretch, trying to emulate Malick or even Tarkovsky. But I've often found symbolism a weak way to make a point in a story. It's too intellectual and lacks genuine emotion for me. All said though, a very good film, well made.
  12. Hmmm. I've only seen 70. I've got some catching up!
  13. Who knows. But I'll bet they are studying the people who studied the Marx Brothers. And there is a difference between stand up comedy and narrative movie comedy. Also interestingly, I had a conversation with Charlie Sheen a few years ago about how he segued from dramas like Platoon and Wall Street so easily into comedy roles. And he told me that he spent a lot of time studying "I Love Lucy". Sure, he's not a stand up comedian, but he is a very good comic actor. When I used to work with Dick Van Dyke, he could trace just about any comic gag back to it's movie origins and even back to Vaudeville theater. He studied all the masters in great detail.
  14. I don't think it's about "smear". It's about the different motion look of the electronic shutter vs the rotating shutter of a film camera. There is also the issue of digital reproduction vs cinema film projection with it's flicker. The flicker hid a bit of the motion "judder", but a digital projector or display does not flicker at all. In digital display the image is always fully illuminated until the next frame, when suddenly everything changes. And we perceive this sudden change as more jarring than a flickering motion picture projector. The reverse is also true. If you get used to watching a digital projection and then quickly change over to a film projector, the film projector will seem very very flickery, until time passes and one's brain eliminates the perception of the flicker. I have actually done this experiment when I've had a film at a multiplex screening both film print and digital projection. Motion in the digital version seems "juddery" and the film version seems very "flickery", but the "judder" is less bothersome. And both "prints" were made from the same file and shot with the same camera.
  15. I shot one film where we had two Alexas, one digital shutter and the other mechanical shutter. I don't recall seeing a difference that was distracting in any way. We ended up with the Studio Alexa as it was cheap as no one wanted to rent it :) I used to shoot on tape based Varicam that had a true global shutter/CCD sensors. The effect was quite noticeable compared to a film camera with it's rotating shutter, so I don't think you'd like that solution either...
  • Create New...