Jump to content

Logan Thomas Triplett

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Logan Thomas Triplett

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles, CA
  • Specialties
    DOP Represented by Partos Co.

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.logantriplett.com
  1. To me Super 16 and 2 perf 35 are two very different paint brushes. Both formats are similar in cost as you get 22 min at 2 perf 35 for a 100 ft mag and you get 11 or so minutes /400 ft mag on SS16 (Super 16mm still is cheaper, but its not a CRAZY difference). To me the looks are very different. I adore super 16mm, and wouldn't be afraid of the grain, its lovely. That being said, its not for everything. Sure, my initial thought is to go w/ 2 perf 35 because it is a much wider format and we are talking about landscapes, but then again good cinematography isn't always about going with the most obvious choice, so I would explore both. They are both two of my favorite formats. Also I would heavily consider the type of shoot you are on, as it is much easier to throw a 416 on your shoulder although there are some lighter weight 2 perf options too, especially w/ 400 ft mags. I had this very same decision this fall, and because of camera avail I went with ss16 and a 416 and fell back in love with 16mm. I wouldn't count it out. Happy shooting!
  2. My guess Is that I'm going to have to build something big enough to at least place the camera under it. Ive gotten some help from Reduser as well, I think I should be able to tackle this now.
  3. Hello everyone! First of thank you all for your input. Anyway, I have a potentially tricky "gag" shot to achieve and decided to see what I can brainstorm up on here. The director wants a 2000 fps shot of a foot touching the ground. The director wants to show how the heel touches the ground (as apparently the shoe has some type of advanced construction). The problem is, is that he wants it to basically be under the heel:a vertically-pointing upwards shot. My thoughts are this, we will need to shoot the heel through some type of glass that is stable enough, and wont bend as 2000 fps will not be forgiving if the material we shoot with begins to bend. Anyway, I have some ideas, but I thought i would just ask for any thoughts or ideas people may have. I would potentially need to light bellow the glass as well, but I do not want to have any glare from the glass, so this makes such a task quite the predicament. Also, The phantom flex will be a problem as well, as it is rather large. Is there a way to shoot the camera through several mirrors? which brings even more reflection issues. Anyway, at this point I will try or have the crew build anything that is within the budget. Any ideas? I've suggested just cheating the shot so it is on a sideways plane, but the director does not want this.
  4. Although this topic is about lighting, I want to step back and comment on something else which I find to be equally as crucial when I am lighting a small space: production design. Maybe talk with whoever is doing production design and come up with a better solution for the walls. I've found when trying to make a small space with lighter shaded walls sell for night, I often need to figure out a better solution for "filling the space." This is just my opinion, but I find that the more I can dress a scene with white walls (if painting is not an option), the more I can get away with in terms of lighting. As a cinematographer, I have always felt that "good" lighting is always a marriage between lights and great production design. See what you can integrate within the set. once again this is just my take on it, and I'm sure a lot of you have a different approach. good luck shooting!
  5. i'm a firm believer of doing what works. And even if that something has been done before, if it serves the story best, then there shouldn't be an argument. I am of the opinion that people get too caught up in "what is popular" or "what is being overdone" Just my opinion though! But, that being said, it is refreshing to see something being done in a new way, however if it doesn't serve the story then whats the point?
  6. I've done a few projects mixing the two, due to insurance issues (they would not release the insurance for a sequence that had an explosion in it for the particular film camera). Although not thrilled to do so, it actually worked much better than expected. Honestly, if the cinematography is relevant, and tells the story, then I wouldn't be overly concerned. Just make sure to keep your sharpness down all the way in an attempt to replicate the natural softness of film. This is just my opinion if you went with this option you would be alright, however, I don't think that shooting the entire thing on film will be an impossibility. Good Luck!
  7. I was the DP on the shoot Jim was referring to, it worked great under our circumstances. We did have to fight the sun, and at the highest point of the sun we were forced to move in to close-ups, on the budget we had, the 12' covered the area that we needed fairly well. Once again we didn't have a 20x available, but for the cost, the 12x shower curtain did the job! I loved the shower curtain! With a sunny background, it made the subjects appear to be still in sunlight, unlike a silk which just diffuses too much light for what we were trying to do. I also took smaller silks on C-stands and had the crew break up the shower curtain a bit to give it a little less consistency, and was very pleased with the results! Here are a few screen captures: I'm not sure what type of area you are attempting to diffuse though! And i havent had a lot of experience with keying outside via the sun Good Luck!
×
×
  • Create New...