Tim J Durham
-
Posts
741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tim J Durham
-
-
John is onto something here. If you light a face to 1000fc on one side and the other is completely black (0fc), then you will have a 1000/0 contrast ratio in fc's. If you reduce to 500fc on the bright side, but the dark side is still 0fc, then you've in effect reduced the contrast. This will look different, all other tings being the same. Nothing can change this since you can't make that side darker than 0fc.
However, in the real world, the spill from the 1000fc source would "fill in" the dark side enough to not make it exactly 0fc, therefore for practical purposes, there isn't much difference.
Anyway, this is just academics I'm rambling. :blink:
I don't think you can call 1000:0 a ratio. You'll have to give the dark side a value of 1.
-
Ok, so has anyone seen this film yet??? Whats your opinion on the Cinematography and the overal story / characters, ect?
I have not seen it yet, but I am wondering if it;s even worth it, seeing as it seems aimed more toward the 3 - 7 crowd...
I saw it with my boy. You might like it but you might not wanna let your friends SEE you liking it
lest you want them to treat you to a blanket party.
I checked out your new website:
http://newvisionent.bravehost.com/index.html
This was my favourite part:
http://newvisionent.bravehost.com/jobs.html
Quote:
Q: Do I need to live in Bloomington Indiana to work for your corporate office?:
A: Not usually, most jobs can and are outsourced to all parts of the world.
End quote.
Thanks, I needed that. But don't forget to do a spell check before you commit words to ether.
I can tell many of us will be knocking on your door in the future, you've got spunk. I wish
I'd had half of the drive you have when I was your age, unfortunately I owned a bong.
-
Hi,
Not sure where the best place for this sort of inquiry would be, but here goes:
I'm currently shooting a documentary with the Pana SDX-900 in 16:9 and at 24p (not 24pA).
A discussion arose about the show "Everyday Italian" on the Food Network and this is the look I was envisioning (motion-wise, it has nothing to do with food) but I am not what you'd call an "editor". None-the-less that function has been thrust upon me soooooo....
I was hoping someone could describe the settings I should be capturing in, editing in and outputting to, with the understanding that we want to be able to broadcast (so 60i), make a DVD
(30p) and maybe at some point do a film-out (24p).
First thing first, we need to make a master to show to PBS-types, so 60i, while retaining the 24p motion.
We will be attaching an SD-930 deck via firewire to my iMac G-5 with Final Cut 4.5HD and I took two FCP classes more than a year ago, but have done nothing since, so if anyone could give me some indication what my first move should be, (and subsequent moves) I would be most appreciative. Humbly, I thank you. I'm not good at this.
-
Soon I'm going to begin photography on a short film about a kid addicted to gambling. There are several poker scenes, and I'm trying to devise a lighting plan, and I wanted to get some info/advice on how to go about doing this - learn from other's mistakes, imitate some of the better ideas, all that.
I'm trying to avoid anything too moody. It seems too easy to fall into that trap with poker scenes. The old single hard light straight down at the table, and an empty black room surrounding... I'd rather avoid this kind of look, the plan is to go soft and keep it subtle.
The poker games involve four players around a table. What's the best way around lighting a setup like this?
by the way, it's definitely worth nothing that we will likely not be shooting in-studio but in an actual house location. relatively small rooms.
Any help would be appreciated!
How many dogs will be playing? The standard 5 like the painting (I love that painting)? More? Less?
-
Here are the Kodak "low contrast look" stocks:
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.4.12&lc=en
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products....4.4.4.20&lc=en
"Pull Process" can certainly reduce contrast, but be careful that speeding up the processing machine to reduce developer time doesn't shortchange the "tail end" solutions and washes.
Filtration, flashing, and soft lighting are the traditional tools that can be used to reduce contrast.
Do they teach the Ansel Adams zone system in film school? It seems like that would be directly relevent to cinematography. I had to learn it in college, but I was a fine art major (photography) at the time and it was one of the few things I remember actually having to WRITE about in art school, 'cept for my art history classes.
-
Technical people can't be creative.
But creative people who learn to become technical are unstoppable.
thats just my two cents.
I'd ask for my money back.
-
Is there any other reference or source for learning more about all the functions of the SDX900? I want to know this camera as well as anyone.
I shoot quite a bit with the SDX-900 and I bought a copy of the Goodman Guide from Abel Cine-tech in NY:
http://www.abelcine.com/Sales/abelsalesframeset.html
Call them and they'll send you one pronto. It's $99.00 as I recall. It will answer ALL your questions about the camera and it's actually a pretty good read. You won't believe how it ends!
-
I'm looking for information from people who've brought NTSC cameras to Europe, specifically Sony Digibeta cameras.
I'm aware I should buy 220v lamps for my light kit, make sure my AC power supply reads: "110/220/240v AC Auto 50/60Hz" if I don't want to worry about power transformer.
I should probably look in Fry's or Radio Shack for electrical outlet adapters. I've learned the posts in Germany are a wider diameter than in France.
I've been directed to websites where I can obtain free carnets : www.iccwbo.org
and www.atacarnet.com
I'm also advised to shoot at 1/100 second shuuter speed due to the 50Hz cycle.
But I'm just wondering what a few of you guys have to offer. How rainy is Europe in the summer? Who offers the best world phone plan? What other pitfalls have you encountered with your equipment?
Many thanks,
I shot all over Austria and Switzerland in 1997 doing a travel show and one thing I can recommend highly (although it IS counterintuitive) and that is to get yourself a guide from the local tourist bureau. Unlike the college kids employed in that capacity in US cities, these people are trained professionals and they can REALLY speed the plow for you.
It is also likely that you can get them gratis (might want to tip them if so). We had one in each of the 8 cities/towns/hamlets we went and each was delightful company, extremely knowledgeable,
great at greasing the wheels, knew the best way to get from pt. A to pt. B, knew where to eat, where to drink. In short, they were invaluable.
That's my best tip although it might sound like BS.
-
I don't know if anyone here can help me on this, but I'm looking at various matte boxes. I want to purchase it for use on my XL1s, which is my current camera, but I would like to be able to use it on larger cameras as well.
I use an XL1s on my own work, a 610 DVCPro for my day job, and I would like to be able to use it for HD and HDV cameras as well. Obviously I'm not interested in any of the DV matteboxes that companies offer, I know the price will be high, but flexibility is a must.
Do matteboxes offer such flexibility, if I choose the correct one will I be able to fit it to a large variety of cameras with no more than a step down ring?
Thanks in advance for any helpful answers.
Hi Rick,
I did the same search you are now doing and I ended up buying this one:
http://www.cavision.com/Mattbox/4x5_65.htm
I own an XL-2 but in my day job I shoot with other peoples cameras and lenses so I needed it to be as versatile as possible. I also bought a Sony, a Panasonic, and a Canon system plate (which holds the support rods) and their entire selection of step-down rings so I can theoretically use it on front element diameters of 72mm all the way up to 120mm.
Call them and ask to speak with Jason Connors. He knows what you'll need and the price was right, about half the cost of similar Chrosziel system.
The only problem I have with their system is the step-down rings are not the greatest and the top and side flags, unlike the Chrosziel, are solid and do not have extenders. You'll see what I mean
if you compare the two. But they had to cut back somewhere to make it 50% of the cost of the Chroziel.
They also sell a follow-focus unit but I don't have that yet.
The other system I seriously considered buying was from TLS in the UK:
http://www.truelens.co.uk/matte/index.htm
If you call them, they are very engaging lads however they did not have any of the model I wanted built at the time (right before NAB no less!). The one to get is called the "Raven" which is a new model for them and not on their website. But if you call or e-mail them, they will tell you everything you need and are very patient. I feel bad for not waiting for them to build me one but I needed it sooner. Nice guys all around.
I suspect TLS is of a higher build-quality than Cavision but it is also more expensive. In between Cavision and Chrosziel, but they were keen to throw things into the package at a discount.
Cheers
-
They could of easily shot 35mm for that budget.
Says here the budget was $8 million (that's USD not British pounds), so I don't know where you got your $15 million figure:
http://pro.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/boxoffice
And the take was $45 million. Perhaps they budgeted originally for $15 mil and were only able to raise $8 mil. That would make the choice of miniDV understandable. I'm sure he would liked to have shot in 35mm, as evidenced by having shot his next movie, "Millions" that way (which I saw the opening weekend and liked immensely, what a great kid).
To Rik Andino who said:
That's losing over 300mil ten times! Where's your business sense?
I say: read my post again! The part where I said, " I'd gladly trade 10 "Independence Days" for one "Dancer in the Dark". As a viewer mind you, not as a studio exec."
The last sentence was crucial. I like making money as much as the next guy. However, if I could trade places with any producer or director, it would not be Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver, it would more likely be someone like John Sayles or Jim Jarmusch. They don't make a huge amount of money, but enough to keep going and they get to do what they want thanks to a small, dedicated audience.
I like money, but I like to think I could refrain from being greedy given the opportunity.
-
I was thinking that all the pictures I have ever seen from 1/3 inch chip cameras were disappointing. I liked the film 28 days later but thought the pictures were '1/3 inch chip looking'. With a budget of 15,000,000 USD I was not impressed.
I think I read that they wanted to shoot in another format but ran out of $$ so were forced to go with Mini-DV. I saw it in the theater not knowing it was shot in that way and enjoyed it quite a bit.
Finding out later it was shot with an XL-1 impressed me greatly.
Maybe your standards are too high or mine are too low? It wouldn't be the first time someone's accused me of that.
I can forgive alot if the story is involving. I've seen many, many films with amazing cinematic feats of technical and visual virtuousity, but if the story sucks... I'd gladly trade 10 "Independence Days" for one "Dancer in the Dark". As a viewer mind you, not as a studio exec.
-
Where DV looked good and Panavision looked bad. Examples of both please.
Well, for examples of the good, it would take a deck which I don't currently have access to, but
there is a current thread discussing films shot on DV, some of which I thought looked great like
"28 Days Later" and "Tadpole".
For bad looking films on Panavision (well, 35mm atleast, don't know if they used a Panavision) I can name one and I'd only do that because the guy's been dead for 30 years, but "Plan 9 from Outer Space" would be one. Although the terribleness is integral to my enjoyment of it. Unless you buy into the theory that Ed Wood was some sort of misunderstood genius?
Are you saying you've never seen anything shot on a Panavision camera that you though was sub-par and therefore believe that the format is the only determining factor of quality?
-
1080i vs 720P
in HD
By the way, the other day I caught this cooking show on TV Food Network called "Everyday Italian", hosted by Giada De Laurentiis. For a moment, I thought it looked odd, like it was shot in Super-16. Then I realized that it was probably a 24P shoot, which is rare for a cooking show. Just felt different, instead of a live video cooking show, it felt like a film commercial was running. It almost felt like it was something from the past rather than something happening right then.I think that's the best looking show on the Food Network.
As for the original post,
<i>
At this point, our church is getting ready to purchase our first HD camera for our overflow room delivery, and other churches have said they wished they had bought 720P cameras because the 1080i camera they have causes interlaced artifacts. As we get ready to put in multiple HD cameras in our church for broadcast, it forces us to think about investing in a format that will have staying power.</i>
Am I the only one who has a problem with CHURCHES, living off the tax-free largess of the government trough, funded by tax-payers like me (who have no say in said use of tax dollars) purchasing multiple $200K camera packages when thousands (if not millions) of people in this country are eating out of dumpsters?
Seems feeding some of those people would be a more Christian use of that money. You can spread the good news with a PD-150 for Gods sake.
Sorry for the rant but that's a damn disgrace.
-
Ok, here's a shout out to all my PAs, ACs, DPs, anyone who walks around or stands around, and has to be on their feet for 10 hours (or more) a day. What do you people wear to keep your feet from hurting after a few short hours?
I have some tennis shoes/sneakers/whatever that I got at Academy a while back, and they felt soft and cushiony in the store, but now, not so much, at least not after maybe 3-5 hours. My heels start to hurt.
I got some Danskos just now, but I think they're too big. So. . .when I return 'em. . .you people got any other recommendations?
New Balance 991
I've probably been through 10-12 pairs in the past 10 years.
-
Of the fabulous or the Godawful?
-
Does anybody have any experience with the various Stock Footage houses? What is the median pay when they set an assignment? How quick do they pay? Do they work with advanced royalties? Flat rate? Thanks for any insight.
Since there's about 20,000 stock houses out there, you'll have to make some phone calls to get your answers. Most of the good (big) ones were formed to represent particular people and are very discriminating. Atleast that's true of big photo agencies like Gamma-Liaison, Black Star, Woodfin Camp, etc. Shooting stuff on spec and trying to get someone to buy it from you is a tough row to hoe. HOWEVER, if you happen to be the only camera on hand when the President falls off his bike (or some similarly momentous occurence) you can make some short-term cash. But with them it's always, "what have you done for me lately?". They're not later likely to call you up and say, "hey Wolf, we loved what you did with the President! Now get to the airport, we want to fly you to Tahiti..."
-
Possibly - although that would suggest that there is no difference in image quality between a $5000 (HDV) camera and a $200,000 digital cinema camera with a decent lens choice? Perhaps they are just charging by weight then - like buying bananas.
Yeah, but they weigh the camera guys (not the cameras) before each show and pay accordingly.
More like boxing than produce shopping.
I watched the film, "Tadpole" about a week ago (and on my set the DirecTV signal is looped through the Tivo) it never occured to me that the movie was shot on a PD-150. Same with "28 Days Later". So if the guy who shot that film (or I had, for instance) also shot that Food Network show, it's likely that you'd have no trouble believing it was shot on DVCam (which is what I shoot on when I work for the Food Network) or digibeta or DVCPro or $200,000 studio cameras.
By the time it gets to your set at home, the signal has been molested by some (or many) pretty incompetent hands. From PA's making dubs, to editors not equiped with waveforms or vector scopes (like the way we had it at CNN), to tape feed kids fresh out of college to satellite techs reading porn while your tape is being uplinked, and all that's happening BEFORE it gets to the guys at your local cable operation. Who knows what THEY do to it.
So I guess my point is: knowing what can happen to your footage after you shoot it, if somebody at home notices that the back wall is in focus and not the talent, the problem lies with the shooter not the gun.
-
Yes - we've had a couple of jobs brought to us shot on HDV and in general I agree that they do look soft (even after down resing to SD). I was wondering whether cheap optics might be the culprit? After all, this whole camera costs a fraction of a decent digital cinematography lens.
I would suspect that the shooters are more to blame. I didn't see the show but a good cameraman can make just about any set-up look decent in the same way that Isaac Stern can make a $100 violin sound great.
Don't blame the equipment. I've seen stuff shot on DVX-100a and XL-2 that looked fabulous on a home TV screen. By the same token, I've seen stuff shot on Panavision cameras that looked godawful.
That Sony HDV-cam is a brand new camera so people are still at the left side of the learning curve on it. Capturing unscripted action is a particularly tough subject to get right, that's why people like me still get payed. It's actually good to have a show like this air occasionally, lest producers think they can just pull in any Joe Blow off the street to shoot their show and pay them in food stamps.
Unfortunately, not many viewers at home are so discriminating, they only know when it sucks, may not know why.
-
Just last night I lit through a doorway in to a room with elevators with a 1k fresnel, I couldn't keep the shadows of the actors from hitting the wall and keep the shadows of the background objects behind them. I was thinking I could use another 1k on the shadows to knock it out or soften it a bit but the actors blocking and the angles made it so they would cast a shadow from the 2nd light.
Obviously my experience isn't great enough to figure it out in a fixed amount of time and i could not rig any lights from the ceiling. Any of you guys have fast ways of knocking off big shadows with limited time and lights? I had 2 1k fresnels and 2 betweenies, single, double, 2 flags, and 2 silks.
It would've been a lot faster if I've seen the location before during preproduction and would've gave me more than enough time to review pictures and light setups. The location was notified to me the time I got to shoot. What would be some of your solutions?
I ended up going in for a tighter shot, silking half of the 1k so the light hitting the actors wasn't so hard and gives the more of an even light when they move around, and use the other half to hit some of the background to give off some shadows. I was thinking of using a flag but it seemed more logical not to since some spill from the silk would blend in to the background. I figured that was the fastest way without setting up 3+ lights and various c-stands ( no permit for the location ).
Either light them from a direction that the shadow fall is not in the shot or you could bounce the light off one of the walls not in the shot. Were you married to lighting them from the doorway for a pan-around or something?
Dumping more light onto the cast shadows won't eliminate them, it'll only make the background hotter with the shadows still there. I can't think of a scenario where that would not look even worse.
I would take an ambient reading from the practicals and then just use minimal light to pop the actors out of the backgrounds (with peppers or small kinos), 'course your post didn't give much to go on, not knowing the time of day, window location, desired effect, movement, etc.
-
Hi all,
The sun will set on the event day at 2122, the stage faces almost exactly southwest. My question is, what would be the best way of approaching the colour temperature change that will occur during the event itself? I don't want to completely erradicate any idea that it is becoming night but I also don't want to start out on a 85 filter in camera and get warmer and warmer as the night goes on. Taking out the 85 at some given point during the event introduces an abrupt change that will be a nightmare to smooth out in post. We could re-whitebalance every ten minutes or so using the side of the tent as a reference but I'd be worried about the chunks of time suddenly unavailable to the editor. My most recent thought is to stick CTB on all of the artificial lighting and stick with a single combination of white balance and filter for the whole event, but there I worry that I'm knocking down the levels from what probably isn't enough light to start with. We can't afford a focus puller for the steadicam so I really want to be able to keep him at at least f/5.6 if I can help it.
Has anyone lit a tent/stagey thing this size before? http://www.roustabout.ltd.uk/roustsetter.html - how much light did you need? Terrified by the top picture on that website! Perhaps not a great way to judge with all the lens flare, but looks pretty damn dark in that thing.
Cheers for your time!
Ed Moore
I would start off shooting in filter 1 (3200K) and stick with it. At 7pm, the suns already pretty low
so will just ad a little blue and gradually fade. Take a monitor.
-
B) Hi all,
Does anyone have a directors viewfinder (with a 16:9 aspect ratio among others) that they'd be willing to sell for a variably cheap price? ( I am, at the moment the poorest of poor) Telescopic would be perfered if possible. Thank you very much.
Max
My email: maxmcadams94@hotmail.com
These are fairly inexpensive:
http://cavision.com/Finder/FinderPage.htm
Tough to beat $195, though.
-
I love television but I seldom have time to simply sit down and watch it when it?s on. Who does, right? Luckily now we have DVDs!
As we all know, most television is very formulaic and does not vary from much from one episode to another. So, once you?ve watched one season, you?ve seen pretty much seen everything that they have to offer. Some shows are different-experimental and visually creative. I was wondering what television shows you thought were lit and filmed in visually interesting and innovative ways. Though I?m interested primarily in shows that can be purchased on DVDs (for region one) I am also just darn curious what shows you were interested in--what shows you find exciting and really enjoy watching!
Thanks! It?s been a real treat reading these posts every day.
Gillian
Deadwood on HBO is great looking. Every scene looks like it was shot au naturel. They make every practical feel like it's the key source and the sets are always perfectly realistic. Great show.
-
This is a great film, and it's a tribute to Mr. Mullen that he gives so much time and effort to helping those on this board. Northfork is one of those rare films anymore where the cinematography surpasses the direction so far that you almost want to "see" the film more than hear it. If not for James Woods, the rest of this film would rely entirely on the visuals, and certainly not the acting. This is one extremely rare film that is saved almost entirely on the Look, and not the Looked at. One almost gets the feeling that D. Mullen gets the story more than the cast and director combined. It appears to the outsider that only two people actually did their homework on this: David, and James Woods. Everyone else appears as if they are reading an unfamiliar dialect.
I'm afraid I disagree with this. Not only Woods, but Nick Nolte AND Darryl Hannah turned in their best performances in many years. If you listen to the directors commentary, the story was working on many levels and Michael Polish (the director) not only wrote a memorable screenplay, but knew when to step aside and let the actors act. There were many small details woven into the story which you might miss unless you were paying close attention. And the kid was fantastic.
Don't get me wrong, there was lots of eye-candy, but the cinematography served a very good, idiosynchratic script and showcased some fine acting. It's a movie you can watch again and again and find something new with each viewing. Rare.
-
Tax breaks or lack thereof are very powerful motives for where a production shoots. Texas has lost lots of productions to Louisiana the past few years because they undercut Texas' deal. Now the Texas legislature is debating undercutting Louisiana's deal.
And now Governor Terminator is considering cutting tax breaks in an attempt to keep production from leaving the state:
http://www.arnoldwatch.org/articles/articles_000630.php3
Is it pandering (trying to get film moguls to vote repub) or does it have any meat to it? Stay tuned...
the DIRECTOR'S CUT!
in General Discussion
Posted
Is your website the forum itself? Because it's like wading through mud and the sound doesn't synch.