Evan Luzi
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Evan Luzi
-
-
You all might appreciate these memes I made about camera assisting / filmmaking in general:
-
Definitely use Pancro or some other alcohol solution like Adrian said.
Sharpie trick is awesome and doesn't just work on the FF disc but also on the slate. It's very handy to write things like the Date on the slate that you don't want to erase until the end of the day. Also good to write everything else if you can't find your dry erase and are pinched for time.
Proof that it works:
-
Hey James!
This is Evan (the guy behind The Black and Blue) and I want to say thanks for sharing the site with Cinematography.com!
I started the site because I noticed there weren't too many resources about camera assisting on the web -- about the only one I found useful and informative were these forums -- so I wanted to take what I was learning on productions and share it with others.
I also was tired of "filmmaking" websites only talking about gear, cameras, etc, so I always try and approach topics that show the real side of filmmaking. Things like craft services, how to dress, and the struggles that we meet everyday on set.
If that sounds like something you'd be interested, then check out the site.
Thanks guys!
- Evan
-
There's definitely not an "official way," but there are best practices such as saying "got it" when handing off a lens.
I usually remove the caps of a lens (at least the rear cap) at the lens case before bringing it over to the 1st AC. Having all the caps on and removing/exchanging them with the lenses seems like it could get confusing and jumbled up, especially cause the 1st AC's I've worked for usually have the lens almost instantly removed when I get there.
As a first AC, I request that my 2nd AC's leave the front cap on because I simply put it in my pocket to have handy once the lens is mounted.
It's all a matter of preference, but if the lens case is nearby the camera (as it should be) then the issue of it getting damaged in transport without caps on is minimal.
-
Hi Salil,
As far as I can tell through the basic research I've done, the biggest difference is that the PD-42 has an optical sight. That is a nice feature because in bright sunny days, it can be difficult to see the tiny red laser dot and get an accurate measurement. With the optical sight, you would be able to accurately target what you want to measure without having to see the laser dot.
When it comes to being a 1st AC/Focus Puller with the two, I don't know if it will make much of a difference. Besides that optical sight feature, they both have substantial ranges of measuring distance, a built in level, a graphic interface and a rugged housing.
If you are looking to add one to your toolkit, I might advise to get the PD-42 just because my philosophy is if I'm going to spend that much money on something I might as well get the best.
I do, however, have the PD-40 and it works great and I'm very happy with it. I think either the 40 or the 42 would be a good addition to your kit.
Hope that helps!
- Evan
-
Hey all,
I actually just wrote a piece on my blog about "behind the scenes" at NFL Films: http://www.theblackandblue.com/2011/02/06/behind-the-scenes-of-nfl-films/
It is pretty amazing the amount of 16mm film that place has been through and still goes through. THey have some 100 million feet of it in their underground vault. I also linked to some videos in the post that give a pretty nice breakdown of them shooting and delivering the footage into post. They even show someone changing mags!
All in all I think it's pretty cool that Ed Sabol got into the hall of fame. He really has helped the NFL achieve a level of popularity that is unrivaled and part of that is his capturing of the most awe-inspiring moments of the game.
Cheers and happy super bowl,
Evan
-
Hi everyone,
I'm sorry if I am re-posting an old topic, but I have scoured everywhere and have come up, for the most part, empty handed. What I am trying to do is calculate the amount of time I can get off different RED media dependent on resolution, frame size and compression. I know there are plenty of data calculators out there -- I have been messing with them -- but most of them only cover 4K and those that do cover 2K or 3K only do so with one aspect ratio. I want to be able to calculate the difference between 2K 2:1 and 2K 16:9, for example. I have pixel resolutions for these, but I am fairly confused when it comes to calculating all of this information together.
Is there a formula to calculate, based on pixel resolution and different REDCODE compressions, the amount of MB/s?
I am aware that REDCODE is a variable compression and so any calculations will be approximations. Thanks in advance for all of your help!
Evan
-
Classic. "We're gonna need a bigger boat"
-
Happy new year everyone! Best to you and your families in 2011!
-
Hey guys,
I've been cruisin around the net trying to find of some good places to buy expendables for shows and I'm trying to reach out beyond the obvious - Filmtools. In the past I've used Expendables Recycler and really been pleased, but I'm just looking for some other options. I know a lot of places have limited expendables, but it's harder to find a place that is comprehensive with all sorts of colored paper tape, chamois, different markers, etc. Anyone have some good suggestions of places I can order from online or through email with a list and have them ship to me?
Thanks,
Evan
-
It's up to you, but I think the wording makes it a bit misleading. Depends on who's meant to read it.
Did you like the video? Or did you know all that stuff? Those guys look they're from NASA. I bet they got on real fine when they sent IMAX 3D cameras up to the space platform! :lol:
I think you're right - it is slightly misleading - but I think it does depend on how it's read aka if you compare them all individually or take that section as group as I did. To be honest, I didn't even notice the conflict of the wording until you brought it up.
I did like the video - the large format stuff really fascinates me and the sheer amount of technology behind it. How could would that job be though? To go to space AND shoot IMAX 3D!
-
I should also point out that in that section I was referring to IMAX as an acquisition format/camera system and 3D cameras will have mag loads of 2000 feet of film which they go through in 3 minutes (thus half as fast as IMAX 2D for 1000 feet).
-
Your infographic is incorrect, or at least misleading. You say that 'Because more area on the film strip is occupied' IMAX 3D gets through 1000ft of film in half the time as 2D. That's not correct. Fact is 3D uses two projectors (which each get through film at exactly the same rate as 2D) thus using up stock at twice the speed. Nothing to do with the image area.
There's a very instructive film on projecting Imax 3D here
It's film Jim, but not as we know it... :blink:
I was already aware of that Karel and I did take it into consideration when making the infographic. I will concede that perhaps the language is a bit misleading, but in the sake of making the graphic appear cleaner, I chose not to qualify the IMAX 3D part of that section by explaining that the only reason it goes through 1000 ft half as fast is because it uses twice the stock. In actuality, I think it is a dilution of the statement to pull out of context that statement in comparison to only the 3D and 2D IMAX counterparts. That section of the graphic does not say that IMAX 3D goes faster than 2D because of more area on the film strip, at least not directly, but was instead meant to compare the format to traditional 35mm.
It is a legitimate point you raise, however. Just explaining my thought process in constructing the graphic.
-
Evan,
Nicely researched and presented chart.
Thanks Mitch. I hope to be doing some more in the future on different topics
-
Chris - Haha! Thanks for the laugh. I'm still relatively new here and don't often start threads so I guess I wasn't aware. But I'm glad you find the thread "worthwhile" nonetheless :P And despite Joseph's misgivings, I do think the explanations I gave to him will come in handy for someone else new to how film works.
Karl - It's not a problem. I figured you simply misread it without realizing, innocent mistake!
With that said... I hope we can guide this thread back on topic with my reply to Brian:
That's interesting. I had never really looked deep into horizontal 35mm processes, so I only knew VistaVision because of Hitchcock and I had a friend who shot a short in the format. I really wish formats like this - especially 70mm - would come back to life in a big way. But I know economics will prevent that and it shows in the amount of IMAX DMR films being output as opposed to natively shot in the 15/70 format.
-
He didn't. I think he uses the term 'footprint' to mean something like 'market share'. There's a bit of a language barrier. But he makes no reference, or even allusion, to environmental impact that I can see.
Thanks, Mark. That's exactly what I meant.
-
That's a pretty direct reply to your quote. Don't pretend you didn't say it. What if you were making concrete? Carbon footprint? If you're doing a big F8CK8ing job you'll have a BIG F*&%%%g footprint.
It is as simple as that. . .
Haha whoa I never said CARBON footprint. I was referring to how few of screens IMAX really has compared to the amount of screens in the USA as a whole. If you looked at my infographic, you would find that I mention nothing about carbon footprints and the ratio of US theater screens to IMAX screens is actually quite substantial.
I apologize that you mistook what I said to be an environmental issue, but I assure you it could not be further from the truth.
-
I have scanned two pages from The Filmmaker's Handbook that I think will help explain lenses a bit better to you.
To buy The Filmmaker's Handbook from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452286786?ie=UTF8&tag=theblaandblu-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0452286786
To download the scanned pages: http://www.theblackandblue.com/resources/filmmakers-handbook-lenses.pdf
-
When you speak of imax film running horizontally you mention "exposure". What kind of exposure are you reffering to? Is it the exposure of color or the exposure of area. I am trying to connect the lens to all of this.
Lens's can give you a wide view so you would not need any more exposure of area since the lens covers that part. What I am trying to study currently is what kind of exposure does a horizontal placed film have more then a vertical.
I am reading your inforgrah now. I have to read it several times to digest and absorb the technical bits.
When I say exposure or exposed, I am merely referring to the area of the film that becomes exposed - that is, I do not mean lighting, color, contrast, etc.
I am not completely proficient in optics, so this is hard for me to explain, but lenses do not affect the size of the area exposed on the actual film. All lenses are calibrated to expose the same image area on film, but with different properties like focal length.
The fact that film is run horizontally or vertically has no bearing on anything except resolution because the image area is larger on horizontally run film. Film stocks are what will give different looks, exposure, contrast.
-
That does make sense. Are there any film cameras like arri or panavision which take film horizontally?
Off the top of my head, the only 35mm film that runs horizontally is a process called VistaVision which was used by Paramount in the 50's (Hitchcock shot North By Northwest in VistaVision and it looks breathtaking)
So, a wide angle lens can expose the picture more and has to make up for the horizontally placed film.
No. Lens choice has nothing to do with it, much like lens choice will not increase resolution in HD. All lenses will expose the same area on the film. Some lenses may "vignette" the image, but that is a separate issue.
What if, for example, you use the imax camera with film placed vertically and a wide angle lens. That would mean a greater exposure on the subject.
The mechanics of an IMAX camera do not allow the film to be run vertically - the fact that film runs horizontally is what makes it an IMAX camera. There exists no 15 perf 70mm film camera that runs vertically because the image would have an aspect ratio similar to a skinny poster. I truly urge you to look at my infographic and see if the visual representation of these formats can help you understand the image area/perforation relationship better.
-
Please forgive me, I didn't realize the URL was case sensitive. The correct address is http://www.theblackandblue.com/imax/ . Also I am not sure how to to edit posts...
-
Carbon footprint?
Give me a break, please. That doesn't apply to a motion picture. By the reasoning of carbon footprints, all artistic endeavours are a needless waste of human energy that would better be used building solar fields, farming crops, and working in giant human power plants during the "recreation hour."
Seriously, If something takes up 15x the energy for 15x the quality with 15x the viewership, I feel it is worth it. Cinematographer math.
I just heard some garbage about the carbon footprint yesterday. The theatre industry is inherently wasteful compared to everyone with a desk job staying at home, telecomuting, and pirating movies in their basement.
So the theatrical exhibition industry as a whole is something that carbon footprints EDIT: says /ED shouldn't exist for at all. Let's ban it! (Along with restaurants of any kind - should be communal dining halls - underpopulated living areas - internal combustion engines - forest fires - and lead solder). This all reminds me of a certain type of government structure, one with absolute rule for a select few for the good of the worker.
What? I can find no relation between your post and this thread...
-
So the more perfs there are, the more area exposed. Is there a difference between horizontally placed film and vertically?
Well, imagine it like drawing on a piece of paper. Now, imagine that you draw a picture on the paper when it's placed horizontally and it fills the entire paper. To draw that same image on a piece of paper vertically, you would have to draw it smaller because the picture is too wide for the vertical part of the paper. Does that make sense?
It's different than thinking of digital resolutions, which come down to physical size of the sensor yes, but also 1's and 0's. With film, you are talking, literally, about the size of the image on the size of the film.
-
Joseph - Perfs are, like Thomas said, the socket holes in the reel of film. 15 perf 70mm film (aka IMAX) is run horizontally through cameras causing an image to be exposed on a greater amount of area on the film. 5/70mm is run vertically. There is also 8/70mm film but it is not a very popular format.
From my understanding, shooting 15/70 would not increase things like latitude, color, saturation - instead that would be dependent on the film stock. It could be very well that there are different stocks at each format that have pros/cons on each, but the fact that it is 15 perf is not directly related to anything except the area exposed, and thus, a greater amount of detail and resolution.
Get Focus on RED
in Camera Assistant / DIT & Gear
Posted
Thanks for sharing that post Freya!
To follow up with everyone else, measuring for focus is best because once you're armed with the distances you can compensate for actors missing marks, the camera missing marks, or any sort of unexpected actions much more quickly. You can do that while pulling off of a monitor, too, but you run a greater risk of losing where in the shot your focal plane is (in terms of depth). Just be sure that you check your backfocus during camera prep to make sure measurements will be spot on. Using 1:1 to confirm your measurements isn't a bad idea either, like Justin mentioned.
As a bonus, measuring will also build your focus pulling skills and make them camera-independent since you won't rely on the tools any particular camera has to help.