Shane Martin Smith

I've just watched a short film competition ( yet another one ) and was truly impressed by the scripts...however they all had the same look, presumably they each chose to use the canon 5d as there was usually no depth of field, and to be quite honest I found the sameness very distracting...almost spooky.

I completely agree. The dslr look is getting old very fast.

The rule of thumb is one Amp for every 100 Watts. Ordinary residential circuits are either 15 or 20 Amps. So, you could go with 15 100 Watt bulbs, provided that there's nothing else in use on the circuit. Or, you could run extension cords to get power from different circuits. You'd have to wire your bulbs in two or three separate strings.

 

If the house is really old you may have problems, but with any modern house, you should be able to find enough juice. Current code requires a 20 Amp circuit dedicated only to the laundry, which is usually an easy one to grab. The kitchen also is supposed to have two separate 20 Amp circuits, but that code change is newer than the laundry one.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

The laundry tip will help a lot, I appreciate it. I'm thinking maybe I can grab some power from the neighbors also, because primarily I would like to keep the bare burning stuff in the house were shooting in, and then maybe run some stingers from the neighbors house for the four 650's & china ball, but yeah the laundry circuit will definitely help out.

As far as wiring, 13 gauge wire should be fine right? For 100Watt Bulbs?

Hey guys, so I'm doing a short film in a couple weeks, and my DP wants to do about 15 bare burning bulbs hanging from overhead. What would be the most cost effective way to do this while taking amperage in to account. We would be using either 150Watt or 60Watt bulbs, depending on whats feasible. and would be using available AC power at the location which is a house, and we dont have the option of generator, or any kind of lunch box or anything like that. So basically, what materials will we need?

Thanks guys

Shane Martin Smith -

Actually that's digital color-correction -- I meant as opposed to photochemical printing using printer lights, going from negative onto a print stock.

 

You're asking what you can do to the image, so I assume you mean what can you do in another color-correction pass after the original "flat" transfer. Sure you can manipulate anything in the transfer you are working with, make brighter or darker, crush the blacks, change the chroma levels, etc. Whether you can do things like correct a single color channel independently of the others, or only correct a portion of the overall frame, depends on your skills at color-correcting and the type of color-correction software you are using. If you take the footage to a post house and work with a regular colorist, there are all sorts of things that can be done to the image.

Thanks David, I appreciate your time.

I assume you aren't talking about color-timing a print off of the negative, but digital color-correction.

According to my instructor, James L. Neihouse, "I will be doing a basic "tele-cine" transfer to HD, so no digital correction, it's basic color timing. The colorist will do most of the work, help me to make sure the shots match within each scene, and basically give me a middle of the road transfer that will let me make other decisions during editing and make sure that I am seeing what I want to see in the transfer."

I'm just not sure what that really leaves me with as far as creative changes? This is my first time with this, and I just want to know exactly what kind of options and questions I can choose from, because to me it doesn't sound like much? My school does this very month, so I'm sure they have a basic way of doing this, but I just want to have a leg up.

Thanks David!

Hey everybody, I recently just shot a short film for a student project, and in a few days i'm going to color my work at Continental Film Lab, in Miami, Florida.

My question is, to what extent can I manipulate my image? I've used Light Room for photography, and I'm familiar with photoshop, but what kind of aspects of color correcting 35mm film, and working with a basic color correction program for digital stills, are alike?

- Random Example of Questions -

Can I bring up the blues, and the contrast?

Can you crush the blacks, and bring up the clarity?

If somethings to bright, can I just bring it down a stop overall?

Etc...

- Particular questions -

Can you desaturate the skin tones?

Bring up the just the highlights?

And, if I do one of these things, and I don't care for it, can I change it back?

Thanks guys. I appreciate your helpful guidance.

Keep in mind that 2-perf also leaves zero margin for error in framing or (eeek!) a hair or dust bunny in the gate. 3-perf gives you a little more flexibility in post.

Thanks for the note Will.

Hi there,

 

I'm about to rent a 35mm film camera and shoot 10 minutes of film for the first time of my life,

I'm a complete newb to film, so pls go easy on me.

 

My question is, I mainly want to shoot outdoors in full sun, what film stock and asa would you

recommend for this.

 

One other question, I luv the look of forest gump, does anyone know the scenes where tom hanks

is sitting at the bench for alot of the movie, what film stock and speed that would have been?

 

Any input or help very much appreciated.

 

Thankyou

Troy Smith

Hey Troy, I've recently seen some stuff shot on 5207/250D, and it looked wonderful, but if your trying to shoot in direct sunlight, I'd go with something a bit slower. Maybe something with a 50ASA. Go on KODAK.com, and check out the specifications on their Daylight film stocks. Sometimes they have videos from other people who used that particular stock.

Good luck Troy

Shooting a 2-perf tall frame means that you shoot half as much film as with 4-perf. Yes, it's a great cost-saver if you can find a 2-perf camera to rent.

 

The 4-perf 35mm Full Aperture is 1.33 : 1, so the 2-perf 35mm Full Aperture is naturally 2.66 : 1. 3-perf is about 1.78 : 1. You can frame any of them for extracting a 2.40 frame but obviously you waste the most negative if using 4-perf... Unless you shoot with anamorphic lenses.

Okay, that really cleared up my confusion. I appreciate your time & wisdom good sir.

Thanks David...

Why is 3-perf 2.35 boring but 2-perf 2.35 isn't???

So as far as camera is concerned, I would only have to change the ground glass?

Then I could take 2:35 out of 4 perf 35mm, but it would be cheaper and make more sense to take it from 2 & 3 perf?

Which makes sense, because I read that with 2 Perf, you save nearly 25% of money & film in the end?

What would I have to do, to shoot 35mm @ 2:35 aspect ratio, on a Arri Lite & Arri Studio camera?

Would it be as simple as changing the ground glass, or is it more complicated?