Bruce Greene

This is a good alternative to other more expensive charts. Don't try printing a chart on an inkjet printer as the colors suffer from metamerism. See this site for a good explanation. Basically it means that a color will appear different when viewed under different lighting. Further a color can photograph a different color than it seems to the naked eye. I had a good lesson in this recently when I was color grading a movie with some fake grave stones printed with an inkjet printer. It was raining when we shot it and some of the ink washed away :( . The stand-by painter was very good in matching the colors and touched up the damage. In the movie, the inkjet ink appears magenta and the touch up paint appears neutral. So the lesson is: Always print a back-up gravestone! And, know that inkjet prints photograph a different color than they appear to the eye...

For years I've shot still photographs on film and scanned them with a film scanner and have almost always added "unsharp mask" to images to add some punch to the images. Not to the point where it looks electronic, but it seems to compensate for the film scanner even though I scan at 4000 ppi for 6x9cm negatives. This week I've been supervising a DI and keep feeling like the image is a little lifeless, lacking in resolution. This feeling is compounded by the process of color correcting on a 1k proxy, but I still get the feeling when looking at the frames in 2k on a fairly large projection. So my question: Has anyone had experience adding "detailing" or "sharpening" to a film DI as a routine step? I'm only interested in adding a tiny bit, but am nervous about getting a surprise when the movie is output to film and printed and shown on a big screen.

Joel, if you want absolute clarity of characters looks and positions, there are only two choices: 1. Shoot everyone's CU twice, once for each screen direction. 2. Plan the editing in advance and rehearse the scene so that you know who is looking where, when, so that you only need to shoot one CU each. I would opt for choice #1 if possible. Even on a two shot, you're going to have to think about which side of the camera the actors would look to the out of frame actors. The strategy can get simpler if you're clear that the scene is about one person and how they react to the rest, for example. Perhaps the most important thing is to schedule enough time to shoot the scene. A one page scene with 2 actors might be 1 to 4 set-ups. A one page scene with 5 actors might be 12 or even more set-ups in unusual situations.

The blog stated that Panavision lenses were mounted to the 5d. Unfortunately, I don't think they'll cover the vistavision sized chip in the camera:) But who knows? Maybe they made some special ones...

Phil, it's exactly the same in the US. The work is not technically legal, many, many dvx-100's have been used. Most of the time these projects are vanity projects and often are never seen. You know the worst part? The person whom you've worked for free, when they get some real money, often want...Someone who wouldn't work for free - They must be better :blink: But still Phil, I don't agree. If someone want to work for free, they should go for it, learn something and meet people. Take a chance if they want. In fact, Ashley, I'll come work for free. You did offer to pay for travel and lodging in your post :rolleyes: I hope the plane fare from Los Angeles, doesn't break the budget.

I would shoot the tungsten film with the 85 filter to keep the film stock order simple. I would consider replacing the florescent bulbs in the classroom with daylight balanced florescent bulbs to keep the color temp consistent with the window light. Enjoy your shoot!

I forgot to mention that I shot 5218 at ISO 400 and set my 5d to manual exposure at ISO 800 and 1/100 sec shutter speed and matched the f-stop to the exposure on the movie camera. I used prime lenses on the 5d so I was able to set the iris at f2.0 when needed.

Hi Edgar, I did this on a picture last year and discovered quickly that the LCD screen on the 5D is pretty useless for judging contrast a lot of the time, especially on dark scenes. I did send files by email to the lab after adjusting in Photoshop on a calibrated monitor to help with dailies timing. In my case, the laboratory in Istanbul didn't have any calibrated computer screens to view them, and dailies timing there turned out to be a hopeless adventure in any case. Because of the poor and delayed dailies, I found reviewing the 5d stills at the end of the day very valuable. The stills from the 5d were quite good though, and if you're curious I have a few here Best of luck with your up-coming picture!

The ice cream trucks in my neighborhood are now playing a "ping" that sounds like submarine sonar. It took me months to figure out where this noise came from! Someone must have turned em in to Disney for using "It's a Small World".

Not mentioned yet in this thread is that the images in the demo reel are often copyrighted as well. Legally, we shouldn't have demo reels at all. Try getting written permission from a studio to make a demo reel of their clips. Not gonna happen.

Thank you Gabriel. Can you tell me more about the "Ninja", I don't think it comes with photoshop.

Nicholas, Yes, start with the goodman's guide. Absolutely allow yourself plenty of time to play with the camera for at least a few days before you begin the movie. After you read the book, and play with the camera, you're welcome to email me with any questions. Best of luck! bruce www.brucealangreene.com

I have some footage shot with the HPX-170 that is a little too noisey to cut into the footage shot with the Varicam. Does anyone have a good suggestion for a FCP plug-in or other software to try to reduce the noise? Thanks!

You might be crazy, but check this out: It's not a DSLR, but takes interchangeable lenses and has no mirror to worry about. You could easily build an adapter for PL lenses for this camera and the imager is about the same size as a movie frame.

I don't see the role of the DP changing at all. While we can shoot available light today if we want by just using bright enough practical lamps, it doesn't usually work very well for drawing the viewer's eye to the actors and the story. What is exciting is that we'll be able to use ever smaller lamps that are easier to hide and rig and that will have some effect on the style of lighting when these cameras are used. In the meantime, cameras like the REDone seem to need even more light than film so I don't think we're there quite yet...

What a thoughtful and well written post! You've hit the nail, right between the eyes. ;)

There's a test? I only had to prove I wasn't color blind...

For the record:) I shot some footage recently with the HPX170 and it records into the DVCproHD codec.

Thanks Walter. But I did read the thread anyway:) I think what threads like these reveal, it seems to me, is that there seems to be a serious lack of technical knowledge about shooting with professional digital capture cameras on the part of many. When film was the only capture choice, there was always a range of shooters with different interests in technically how the film captured the image and even, how carefully one used a light meter. With the switch to digital, it seems like many old school cinematographers stick to the lighting and framing, while leaving the tech side to a DIT (who vary widely in their knowledge). But far more common, are cinematographers who haven't shot film and yet still haven't learned what all those functions are really doing in all those camera menus. And yes, those big menus can be pretty intimidating, and it's pretty darn hard to find someone who really understands them, and will teach others the knowledge that they consider a trade secret. I guess what I'm reacting to in this thread, is that I'm seeing a lot of discussion, especially about digital capture and it's limitations vs. film, by some who can not tell the difference between a medium's limitations and a poor use of the medium from lack of control of the tool. I'll propose that cinematographers should be able to set-up and "Paint" their cameras or "LUT" themselves to truly understand the advantages and disadvantages of the medium. As long as we see threads asking about copying someone else's set-up files for various cameras, I know that there is still progress to be made here. Perhaps, mastering Photoshop, should be a graduation requirement of every movie school for future DP's.

Hi Dave, I don't think you have anything to worry about, though I prefer to call it digital capture, rather than "video":) I have a clip on my website that was originally shot in color, and the director liked it in B&W better. You can see it here It was shot on the Varicam, which can have a similar look to the HVX... Best wishes for a great movie!

No problem, loading the film, but finding a place to process it, not so easy. I've got a bunch of 5218 in my bulk loader now, but the lab that processed it, no longer does. I just went to a raw stock reseller and they gave me some free film that was too short to sell. I shot a film in eastern europe last year and the still photographer shot movie film for the interior scenes. Dumbfounded, I asked where he would find to process it in Tbilisi? Answer: His kitchen! He said something about ordering the chemicals on-line from Paris and that he removed the backing with a squeegee:) Of course for your lighting test you would probably want it printed to motion picture print stock, but I think you'll be limited to scanning the negatives nowadays. I guess it will be a good preview for what you can do in a DI.

Tom, If I recall, (I haven't seen the film in 30 years...), High School was a B&W film. My guess is that they would have used Kodak XX negative film. But it's just a guess. If it was a color film, probably 7247 color negative stock (ISO 125 Tungsten), maybe pushed when needed. When I was in college, we invited Mr. Wiseman to spend the weekend with us and he came and showed Titicut Follies, High School, and maybe Hospital. We had a very nice dinner with him in my dorm and he was very kind in answering all our questions. Though, all I can remember now is that he worked mostly with a 2 man crew, a cinematographer and himself recording the audio so that he could keep eyes on the lookout for where to aim the movie. I've shot documentary work with the NPR, and while not easy, yes I focused by eye. It's an acquired skill to see focus through the viewfinder of reflex camera with the mirror spinning:) Just watch what the NFL film cinematographers have been able to do over the years!

Karl, This is a common attitude in the motion picture business. That it's common makes owning equipment a good investment for those who willing to take a calculated risk. I've learned, that mostly, "If you buy it, they will come". And for every purchase I've made I've been warned by others that it's a bad idea, that I'll loose a lot of money. And I'm always thinking that if everyone thinks that way, I'll be the only one with the equipment. No competition! My last big purchase hasn't made much money, but it has brought quite a bit of new work. Ironically, the depreciation on the equipment is less than the loss I've taken in my savings (stocks and house) in the last year:) So what's risky?

I looked at your reel. The photography is very well done, but you are not the photographer... To judge your color grading skills, I think I need to see something other than a quickly paced montage. I need to see extended scenes to see how well you do at matching and maintaing consistency. It won't be as much fun to watch, but it will tell me something about how well you do your job. If you're really adventuresome, a before/after presentation will tell me something about your vision of the piece as well. In general, I think a reel of color grading can be difficult, and I suppose I would rather view a long form project in it's entirety rather than a reel. The more I think about it, the more I think a before/after thing would be very interesting. Something like the "off line" vs. the "final" image.

Have you thought about getting a European version that shoots at 25p to make your transfer to 24p just a matter of speed control? Just thinking out loud here... The test footage you shot looks pretty good. I think using this camera is going to give your film its own "style", just from how you have to work with the camera. Best of luck with it!