Jump to content

Bruce Greene

Basic Member
  • Posts

    1,040
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bruce Greene

  1. I think this choice is usually made because... all things are not equal ? So, you would need to describe your situation and the story you're trying to tell. On a practical level, especially now that we're often using quite small and lightweight cameras, changing from a small prime lens to large zoom lens has become a little bit time consuming. Bigger baseplate, bigger matte box, rebalancing everything. On the other hand, once a zoom is on the camera, it's certainly faster to just zoom rather than lay dolly tracks... if it's a zoom effect that you'd like. On my last 3 movies, I haven't carried a zoom lens at all. On the last picture, we did actually have a big optimo zoom that the director already owned. But, it proved, in camera prep, so time consuming to switch from the primes to the zoom, that I never considered actually using it. And it was quite difficult to find all the parts at the rental house to support the zoom on the Alexa Mini. It would have been much more practical to mount the lens on the tripod and just hang the camera body off the back of the lens! But, there was no tripod mount ring available, or even ever made, for this lens. So, for all practical reasons, I would have needed a dedicated camera body and hardware pre rigged to use the zoom. And that made the "free" zoom pretty expensive ? And, another time factor: By using a prime lens set up, we were able to configure the camera to change from dolly/tripod to Steadicam or hand held in about 60 seconds. So "moving camera" it was!
  2. To me, the 35mm photographs are quite obviously shot on film. But the 6x9 negative stuff can be pretty hard to tell from digital as it's so fine grained. For me, the difference is mostly what I'm able to capture on color negative film vs. digital capture. But, in the final print, it's not so obvious anymore... at least without a digital capture of the same scene to compare it to...
  3. This can be a challenge. Really, the only thing technically one can do is to cut some of the light off the actor's face. But, I think there can also be a psychological component to this and just using a single net might be enough effort to help keep the eyes open, without cutting so much light that it's obvious. Of course, if the actor is doing a lot of moving around, this might not be possible. As a last resort, ask the wardrobe department for... sunglasses? ?
  4. I have an older Sachtler video 20+ on sticks like these: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/706568-REG/Sachtler_2073S1_System_20_S1_HD.html/specs I've used this tripod now for about 13 years and it still works very well. Lightweight, but very stable. I'm not sure if your 7+7 head is too big for it though...But if it fits, would be a good match. (I think you have the 7+7 HD which is smaller... and should match well. These legs also range from relatively low (you won't need baby legs) to pretty high which comes in really handy! (don't walk away from the camera when in it's highest configuration though!) The built in spreader adds a lot to the stability. Sachtler makes a lighter/smaller version as well, but it's not really stable enough for me. I tried it with an alexa mini, and while it holds the weight well enough, it's not stable enough. Maybe for news work it's enough. Yes, this tripod is a bit more expensive, but... I think you'll need it for professional motion picture work. There is nothing worse than a twisting tripod when trying to accurately pan and tilt.
  5. I still shoot film... for stills ? I recently had a show of photographs, about 40% film. Almost nobody could see a difference ?? ?
  6. I think with firewire, you are getting the best possible transfer.
  7. It looks like hand held, but I'm guessing it was not done with a broadcast ENG camera ? Something much smaller...
  8. I think, with the proper license, you can shoot up to 96fps in HD, but not 2k. It's not a big deal, but I think you need to re-boot the camera for high speed shooting. Rolling shutter is the same as the newer Alexa cameras, and the sensitivity and resolution of the sensor is the same, but I'm not sure you'll have a RAW option without an external recorder. I think in ProRes LogC you will be limited to shooting 2048x1152 pixels, which is fine for cinema / DCP. If you set your white balance anywhere near correctly, you will have almost all the data you could have gathered if you shot RAW. In fact, when color correcting RAW, the first step is to convert to LogC for grading, so you really get to the same place for all practical purposes. The biggest issue is the lack of built in ND filters. Many of the IRND filters available have strong color casts that are not so easy to color correct. And each strength of ND filter has a different amount of color cast making matching shots time consuming. You would be well served to research the latest IRND filters for effective filters with minimal color cast. Don't buy old Tiffen IRND for example. I would expect to pay $400+ for each IRND filter. The viewfinder, if I recall, is not the highest contrast, so not the best to judge lighting by. But, compared to the BlackMagic viewfinders, there is much less delay so your operating will be more accurate than with an Ursa. The camera itself is not really designed for hand holding, so you will need some shoulder mounting kit and handles. I think an Amira would be better for hand holding in general. In fact, if you can find an Amira for a similar price, you might just prefer it.
  9. I did shoot some b roll on an Alexa Mini with a EF mount adapter and Canon EF mount cinema lenses. I didn't trust the footage scale though on the lenses... But it did work, so there is a mount or adapter for EF lenses out there somewhere ? The camera with a prime lens is probably about the same weight as an F900 with a zoom lens. And it's not a camera you would want to hand hold more than 4 minutes at a time from my experience. So, maybe a little heavier than the F900. Of course, the image quality of the camera is sufficient to win an Oscar... if you're up to it!
  10. I think this "dream job" thread has turned into a little bit of a nightmare ? Really, not much very important here... time to move on?
  11. This is quite a tough one. There is almost no place to hide a light outside the window. And because of the curve of the wall, no easy way to rig any light above the window. And, just for a fill light, almost any position will show the reflection of the light in at least one of the windows. About the only thing out of frame might be to bounce a light off the ceiling. And for that, if it's bright enough, may require at least a small HMI light and some rigging... At best, don't shoot towards the window at a time of day when sun will be shining on the house opposite, which is seen through the window.
  12. Just curious Richard. At this budget level, and shooting in Canada, did you sign a union contract for this show? And for those here that are interested, if one shoots on a studio lot in Hollywood, there is no lunch provided to the crew when working "normal" daytime hours. And, when I was starting out... "craft service" was coffee and donuts and a can to pay for what one took, at least on a studio sound stage...
  13. I don't think it's the rig. Just the operator ? Happy Thanksgiving Tyler!
  14. Tyler, you just need a little practice and you'll be flying the 135mm lens!
  15. I think if you've correctly exposed your subject actor in light that portrays them as you like, the shadow areas behind will be dark. They will not be noisy... unless you try to make the shadows brighter in the color correction. So if you want dark shadows, they are not under exposed, they are correctly exposed to show as dark shadows. If you're in doubt, and you are using a camera with good dynamic range, you can do as David suggests and shoot at a lower ISO setting and you should have enough range still in your highlights to avoid clipping. I sometimes do this when I want to show, on set, a dark rendering of the scene, but... I'm concerned that the director will, in the end, prefer a lighter rendering during the color correction phase of production. For example, if I shoot at ISO 400 instead of my usual ISO 800, I will be able to lighten the scene by one stop without introducing more noise than if I'd shot at ISO 800.
  16. I don't think with digital chroma key that the screen needs to be perfectly evenly lit. What's important is that any part of the screen that intersects with the subject be lit enough and not too much. This means that the screen doesn't need as much light as the subject in front of the screen. Just enough to expose to about 30% brightness on a waveform monitor. The brighter the screen, the more green reflections and kicks you'll have on the actors. But, no part of the screen intersecting the actors should either be in deep shadow, or shadowed by folds in the green screen itself. To minimize green bouncing back on to the actors, the actors should be as far in front of the screen as you can manage. I have shot chroma key with both 3200k and 5600k lighting successfully. I think, if I were shooting with LED lighting, I would probably set them to 5600k as I think they are generally more color accurate when set to daylight. But, tungsten lighting is neutral when the camera is set to 3200k as well.
  17. Hmmm... Agreed, except I should point out that Steadicam also can show off parallax issues when still or moving slowly with a foreground element in frame, no matter how good the operator ? But, for covering actors playing a scene, the Steadicam is still my choice as it's much more responsive to the performance, and much easier to frame accurately... with a good operator required, of course ? It is interesting to me, to see the style of filmmaking has changed since the arrival of the gimbals. By the middle of the 1990's Steadicam had become part of the grammar of filmmaking, and the non-perfect horizon issue had become part of the style. With the gimbals holding near perfect level, films have become again more "formalist" in style, and less "free" and non-perfect. I'm not sure I prefer the "new" style, but it's here ?
  18. Congratulations on completing photography on your new film Richard!!!!
  19. I'm guessing that cleaning the prism is a quite delicate process, and it might be very easy to damage it. Try shooting another lens on your camera and see if that fixes the issue. Preferably a lens with the same focal length. I know that these days another lens might not be so easy to find, but you want to shoot with a Bolex and this is what you're up against shooting such vintage equipment these days. If you know a lens technician with an optical bench, you might try bringing them the lens and projecting it and see if you see the spots. Or you can just send it in for inspection and cleaning and repair.
  20. At f22 it certainly seems like it could be dust on your prism. I think dust in the lens itself would present more as flare or low contrast than circles.
  21. I'm not familiar with modern Sekonic meters, but you can certainly use a still camera meter for cine work. All one needs to do is select the actual shutter speed that you are using. For example, 1/50th sec(or 1/48th) = 180 degree shutter. Just do a tiny bit of math and any meter can work for movies. And, with many digital cameras, it's easy just to set the shutter speed as in a still camera. Just select 1/48th second instead of 180 degrees. Or, any other desired shutter speed. Although, many still camera meters have a setting or indicator on a calculator dial for 1/50th sec shutter speed, such as my old Minolta incident meter. On my Pentax digital spot meter, there is a little red line on the calculator wheel for 1/50 sec as well. For any change you make to the shutter angle, or actual shutter speed, one simply does the compensation in one's head ? Personally I would get confused or make mistakes if I was constantly changing these settings in the meter itself. For me, it's better to compensate for .ND filters by math than change the ISO setting in the meter.
  22. I have shot Steadicam on moving busses with success. Even on very bumpy roads. I this case, the bus shakes, but the view outside the window doesn't, and I really like this effect as it is very close to the way we perceive the bus ride with our own eyes. The drawback is that there isn't always enough room for a Steadicam on a bus, and sometimes one needs to remove seats to make room. I would think that a hand held electronic stabilizer can accomplish the same effect, but in less space. And I would investigate this approach. I would also bring along some battery powered LED lamps to hide in the bus to help with lighting the people.
  23. Well the viewing mirror is a fixed 1/3 stop adjustment approximately. 32 fps is about 1/3 stop faster than 24fps. So, add 2/3 stop less exposure for shooting at 32fps, which is about 1/100th sec shutter speed equivalent. 64fps is about 1 + 1/3 stop less light, plus the viewing mirror loss so about 1 + 2/3 stop light loss vs 1/65th sec when shooting 64fps. Which comes out to about 1/200th sec exposure on your light meter. So, you see, the jr. high school math does come in handy in photography!
  24. It is generally much easier to shoot negative films than reversal films as the exposure for negative films need not be super super accurate. When scanned, reversal films can look very good when exposed very accurately, but negative films can look very good with some exposure variations. For stills, as long as one can get a scan they are pleased with, it is enough. But for movies, where all the takes in a scene need to look as if they were shot at the same time of day, it gets much trickier, as it's difficult to color correct reversal scans very far from the original representation. So, to color match shots with different colors and camera angles, it's much easier and practical to shoot and scan negative films. And B&W reversal films might just have too much contrast for the scanner to handle as well. As a film still photographer, with a quite good film scanner, I started scanning reversal films, and they scan with low grain and good sharpness. But, the more I got into it, I changed to shooting negative films as I can manipulate them far easier than a reversal film scan. Sure, a negative scan will perhaps not look the correct color right out of the scanner, but with some practice, it's not very difficult to color correct the image. If you really want to shoot b&w, I would seriously consider shooting the b&w negative film stocks. Yes, one can convert a color negative film scan to b&w, and I do this with still photographs every once in a while, but... the look is different than a true b&w film original. With all that said, there is a certain look to b&w reversal film projected directly from the camera original. No other process really comes close to this look! But, it's impossible to make a copy that looks anywhere as good as the original, which in any case, will be damaged after even one run through a projector.
×
×
  • Create New...