Mei Lewis

About choice of camera. There are a lot of people on the web saying how great DSLRs are and also a lot of people complaining about all the issues with them. From everything I've seen they can be great in the right hands but there issues. Don't be put off just because you've heard the quality isn't there, check out some of Philip Bloom or Vincent Laforet's work to see that in the right hands they are very capable. eg http://exposureroom.com/members/philipbloo...c7b9348da74380/ On the other hand, for most narrative fiction a Red 1 is going to give you better absolute image quality. You'll need a crew of people to run it, but you'd need a focus-puller etc. to get the best from a DSLR anyway so the Red is not much extra burden in that sense. It's a lot bigger and heavier though! I've done stills on sets where a Red 1 was used and it's a big production because of the size and weight, the batteries run out quite quickly, there's a lot of data wrangling that has to be done and so on. You'll need to do some practice and prep work before using it. Two other issues are it's apparantly not as good at high ISO as a Canon DSLR, and compared to the 5D2 it has a smaller sensor so it's harder to get extremely shallow DOF, if that's the look you want. The main argument against Red is price, but if you can get one for free then go for it! (and I say that as a 5D2 owner) It would be good experience. Both of those are arguments why you should shoot digital/aim to have digital noise! This is a sci-fi film so it probably wants to be futuristic, hence digital image acquisition. If it was shot in a style that looked like a period piece shot on film then _that_ would take you out of the movie. Whether film or digital looks better, in terms of grain or any other factor, is ultimately a matter of subjective taste. You can compare the two looks, then you and your director should decide the look _you_ want.

Maybe do a bit more research and talk to your director again giving him or her you advice based on your findings. You need to establish the look the director wants more clearly. Discuss other films, show him samples and ask him for examples of the look he wants. "grainy/dirty" is ambiguous and the director might mean something completely different to what you think he means. I think most people on this thread have been assuming that by 'grain' you or your director is asking for the classic film grain, the sort that you see on older, perhaps black and white films, that establishes them as being artistic, 'real', and classic. But you said the film is a sci fi thriller and I don't think that look is used by many of those sorts of film or would necessarily be appropriate. It's possible that your director wants the sort of dirty, grungy look you see in films like Alien 3, Moon, and Terminator Salvation, and has described that look as 'grainy' when it's really more down to art direction, lighting and color correction rather than the amount of noise. Take a look at these two movie trailers: http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/termi...xtended-trailer http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/moon/trailer Those films have very different budgets and were shot in different ways, but both have that greenish-bluish dirty distopian sci fi look. There's a great post on pro lost explain this sort of look in terms of color correction, well worth watching the video: http://prolost.com/blog/2009/6/23/got-me-a-side-job.html The VFX show has done episodes about both Terminator Salvation and Moon http://www.fxguide.com/vfxshow/?p=223 http://www.fxguide.com/vfxshow/?p=372 and if you have time they're worth a listen. That show's emphasis is on VFX but they discuss all the other aspects of the film too, and in the case of Moon in particular they go into some detail about how the look is achieved and why that look was chosen, both in relation to pre-existing sci fi films and what was possible for them to do in the budget. If this is the sort of dirty look you and the director want to go for you need to factor that in when creating the set, so you'll need to get the set designers involved.

[i'm typing an answer and it's turning into a bit of an essay, so I'll split it up. Also I only just nmoticed your last but one post about 'grainy' becoming dirty, which is good cos it's exactly what I'm about tio say...] There are two basic ways to get grain/noise in the footage: 1) Shoot it that way by deliberately using a hi ISO setting in camera (or high speed/small format film) If you shoot with grain then you're locked in and can't get rid of it or change it. Also grainy footage is a lot worse for working with if you want to do a lot of color correction, effects or push or pull, that sort of thing. There's a slight advantage that you don't have to fuss over doing it in post, but I think the main benefit is that as you'll be shooting at higher ISO you generally won't need as many or as powerful lights which could be easier, cheaper and allow you to work faster or better incorporate practical lighting elements. 2) Add it in post You mentioned this option in your original question. I don't think you need to worry too much about it not looking convincing, if you use the right software there are very good simulations of grain available. After filming you can set down with your director and non-destructively try out different options and choose which works best, even varying it between scenes. For me the main disadvantage is you'll need to shoot with more/more powerful lights and it will be a little harder to incorporate practicals.

Maybe he wants the digital noise look rather than the analog noise (grain) look?

I've noticed something that happens a lot which I don't understand the reason for. A sequence of two people talking is often shot by doing two (or more) takes, first shot looking over one persons shoulder, from behind, at the other person, then the set-up is reversed, looking over the second person's shoulder back at the first. In one direction, the person whose face we're seeing has an edge light visible on their hair, shoulder or around that area, to provide separation from the background. But when we switch to looking from the other direction and we can see that edge-lit shoulder from behind there is no bright light on it. So, I think I understand how such a sequence is shot, I know that it's lit separately for each direction of shooting, and the edge light is there to separate the person from the background and has to be turned off when looking back in the other direction because it would be distracting. What I don't understand is why such an obvious problem in continuity is allowed. It's not just occasional, it seems to happen more often than not in such shots!

There's a bunch of extras on the deluxe DVD that might be of use.

I'm currently reading the book "If It's Purple, Someone's Gonna Die: The Power of Color in Visual Storytelling" I saw it recommended somewhere on this forum. It's got a lot of information and ideas about why color is used in the way it is in films, somewhat similar tho the way Adrian has explained here. I'd like to find a book that explains the _how_, but I haven't found a good one yet.

Thanks. I like the simple three step way you explain that.

I thought the ending was a let down. The movie started out great, I was intrigued and I felt I was going to find out some great secret, or at least get an look at some very interesting characters, but it slowly unravelled and towards the end of the film they undid all the work they did setting stuff up. Also, waaaaay to many knowing Star Wars references.

There's some information on how it was done here: http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/04/07/...irmware-shines/

Excuse my ignorance, what is an eyelight? Is it just a light that provides a catchlight in the eyes? I tried googling but couldn't find a description. Thanks.

Wow! David, I just looked through your website at a bunch of the stills from your movies and was amazed. I love the sense of colour in them. It's particularly obvious in the shots from Manure and Norfolk but it's there in them all. I would never have guessed from looking at some of the shots from Manure that it was shot on a sound stage. I haven't seen the movie, do you know is it available on DVD outside the US I live in the UK)? I love color and I'm trying to learn as much about it as I can. I'm reading the book "If It's Purple, Someone's Gonna Die" after it was recommended on this forum. It has a lot of information on what the author believes certain colors mean, how they make people feel, but it doesn't help explain how to get those colors. Are there an books you can recommend that do? I'm a stills photographer with no desire to shoot motion. I was drawn to this forum, and movie making in general because there seem to be a lot of things I can learn and apply to stills, I think I've learned a lot already.

I used to think that having lights in a helmet lighting an astronaut's face was crazy, there was no way that would happen in real life, it would just dazzle them and make it hard to see. But it's psychologically important to be able to see the face of the person you're tlaking to, and being in space is a very isolating thing, so I think they could plausibly be included for that reason.

I think it's a good look as long as it's not overused. Seemsd like it _is_ overused though. I think there's an old film stock that did the same kind of thing. Feels very 70s to me.

I'd like to try shooting with stockings as diffusion on my Canon DSLR (primarily for stills). I can;t see how I'd get anything 'behind the lens' though, would it still work if I stretch it over the end of the lens?

I recently watched Eyes Wide Shut, not sure exactly what version or transfer but the aspect ratio certainly seemed to be like standard def TV. At first it felt odd, but I gradually realised that it complemented the story and the rest of the artistic decisions very well. It felt like I was watching a secret TV channel, or CCTV footage, which added to the uncertaintly of what was going on.

The chubby main cop is pretty funny. He's clearly standing on a box in some scenes too.

I'm new to all this. Is there some difference between the two formats other than aspecrt ratio and the way they flare?

Love the way it morphs between vignettes.

The photo on page 9 is credited to the Arri, but most of the other photos have the camera in them, so were shot on something else? (DSLR?)

The Canon 5D2 is doing well with a full frame sensor, albeit in a different market segment.

Why's the video on black and white???? There's specific reference to the record button being red!!!

"de-bleated"

Wow, love the wide angle on this: Shot from Tom yum goong http://steadishots.org/shots_viewer.cfm?shotID=58

The film missed the entire point of the book - whatever it was.