Jump to content

Travis Gray

Basic Member
  • Posts

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Travis Gray

  1. You'll be exposing for their faces, with the assumption that it's an 18% grey card, how light meters work. If you want detail in the sky, and them to be at a proper exposure, do a spot reading of the highlight, or the brightest thing you want details of, and where their faces are at, and see what the range is. You may need to balance everything out and hit the couple with more light. Another option would be to underexpose them a bit, but not so much that you lose the shadows, but preserve the highlights (maybe get a monitor or hack for the camera, if DSLR, that you can see a zebra pattern on), and then bring up the shadows in color correction. You potentially bring in other problems there (noise, etc), but it's a way to work with what you have.
  2. Depends on the shots you want to get. Plan those out and then think about format. I don't think rolling shutter would be too much of a problem if you keep the camera fairly steady, properly follow the subject, and have the right focal length. As far as focusing goes, maybe get a hold of a cinema lens with a longer rotation and a follow focus. Do some test shots though. Watch hockey games and see what angles they use for replays during broadcasts. See what they use to cover certain aspects and how that incorporates into your piece. You could definitely do it with either camera you have now. Maybe if you have some specific shots you have questions about that may help a more specific answer. But I would mostly suggest study games and the game and you'll know how to follow what you want how you want. You'll know what to anticipate, etc etc. But, test. Do test shots. And I haven't used it, but I know FCP X has a rolling shutter fix in it? I don't know how effective it is, but that may help mitigate any issues if you do have them. The biggest times i see rolling shutter come into play if I'm shooting on a DSLR is if I bumped the camera at some point, something that creates a really quick movement, you'll see the jelliness. But standard following isn't an issue. Hockey's fast, but not that fast.
  3. Arri MMB-2. It's a two-stage, one rotating, 114mm. Can clamp right on to the lens (if 114mm obviously), or 15mm rods. But the rod attachment is modular, so I think they have an additional piece you can pick up and swap it out. I have the adjustable side flags for it, and there's a spot to mount that, and I still have some screw spots left over. I've also dropped it quite a few times and it's held up very well.
  4. From what I hear, the zf.2 has the same glass as the CP.2, just different housing and focus mechanics. Not sure about breathing. But I'm sure there are tests out there on youtube or vimeo. So the one downside is you're getting different lens sizes which can be annoying for mattebox setups. With the CP.2s you're working with the same diameters and the Arri boxes are sized to fit their primes, so easy on. I have the CP.2s and love that I don't have to worry about the mattebox size (and go without rails if needbe) But, really, from what I hear, glass is the same, so image quality will still be there.
  5. That mount should isolate handling noise, but, try testing it off the boom pole as well. Just the mount. Also, swap out cables. Could be a bad connection/bad copper somewhere. Edit: read too quick- didn't realize Tim said handling noise from camera mic. That could make sense too. Isolate the mics. Still check cables.
  6. Glad I'm not the only one! ugh, Italians! (I can say that, they're my people)
  7. The first time I had someone check (and I always have a roll of something 800+ so I can legitimately have them check it), they did so begrudgingly, so I thought when I was going overseas this time they'd be even less apt to check, but they were insanely friendly about it. It was weird. So it may be hit or miss. It was the Irish and Italians who refused to succumb to my pleas. -and I was trying to explain to them how important the film was (already exposed) and it was my profession, so, even more so I'd say. oh well. It wasn't a job I was getting paid for, just leisure stuff haha
  8. I've always heard the rule of thumb is 800 or lower is fine in the carry on scanner, but if I have rolls of 35mm still, I ask them to hand check it. (except in the case of when I had about 20 rolls, I only had them check a couple of 3200) But, I was going overseas and the 3200 went through 4 x-rays total (Ireland and Italy were not hand-check friendly-- the machines did say "photo safe", but not sure if they were any different than US ones) and the negs came out perfectly fine. The only place they were hand checked was in the states.
  9. The leg cable would make the most sense. Hadn't thought of that. At least for some safety. Otherwise, I watched it a few times and it looks pretty legit. Nothing about camera movement stuck out to me at all.
  10. The same principles apply in photo and video. Aperture, focal length, format size. Camcorder aperture at 1.8 is probably a pretty wide focal length and that combined with the small sensor will lead to a wide DOF. Zooming in helps, even if the aperture gets smaller, since you're increasing focal length. Most DOF calculators will have a spot to put in a 1/3 chip size format too.
  11. I think most of their boxes fit 114mm. I have the same setup and I can't find my mattebox on their site, and forgetting the model number off hand, but it's one of the lightweight ones. Fits the 114 diameter, which is one of the big reasons I went with that one. The specs on their site should say which diameter it fits too. http://www.arri.com/camera/pro_camera_accessories/matte_boxes/mini_matte_box_mmb_2/ (I think that's mine, model number looks familiar, but I have the two-stage version)
  12. ...what about a cut? When I see something go from daylight to night time, I kinda figure it out...
  13. That'd be pretty awful. "Man Runs Around On Star Wars Set; Gets 35 to Life"
  14. Please don't move the camera just for the sake of keeping it moving. Unmotivated camera movements are so obnoxious.
  15. What about the guy who created the Genesis? The Alexa? Blackmagic? iPhone? Sliced bread? They all just did things. Let's not put people up on crazy pedestals. He's just posting to try and build up his pedestal even higher. It's a tool. This is why I can't stand Reds.
  16. To get everyone to feel sorry for him. It's like people with these melodramatic facebook posts fishing for attention. I did it before when I left an organization that I was apart of in college that was running itself into the ground. And then I grew up.
  17. There are a bunch of iPhone apps as well that'll help out with general wattages, etc. I like cinecalc pro. Has a bunch of brands built in, and you can set distances, get Lux/footcandles, find exposure. Then just figure out your ratios from there if needed. Has a gel calculator too to help figure out what you're starting with and need to get to and what gels to use (at least for Rosco, Gam, or Lee).
  18. I went to school for film (also audio production as well), worked several IATSE gigs, started my own production company, was in a film festival, and have current corporate commercial productions going as well as wrote and produced a crowdfunding campaign recently. Someone should start taking advice from me.
  19. Not to.. I dunno... but even if it wasn't $1M, the figure must be at LEAST over $25,000 to have some kind of estimate at that. I'm sure I'm really low balling here. Which is clearly more than $1500 though. I'd love to hear any even vague info on the funding process for your stuff Richard. True, this is a pretty pubic forum, but I think it's bad form to tout that you did something and kinda shame people for not being able to do it themselves, and then saying nothing about how to do it better. "How do I light this kind of scene?" 'Oh I did that on a production once. You'll figure it out.' That'd be pretty frustrating.
  20. Not enough people do it, but I always thought the best way to do one of these types of funding projects would be to just have a reasonable contribution amount and in return you actually, ya know, get the friggin film. Zach Braff's was something like at the $50 you got a playlist. Awesome. Have a really killer pitch, take $20 and you get a digital copy when it's all said and done. $35 and you get a disc copy. Or whatever levels you're happy with. And sure people can put in $1-20 and get a thank you or something, but make it worthwhile for people. Give them bonus footage if they're in that group of contributors that after the regular release no one will get. People need to stop just begging for money and you get your name in the credits. It drives me nuts. I contributed to the sriracha documentary that finished up a few days ago. $5. They already hit more than their goal, and $5 gets me the digital copy before major screenings, if it comes to that. Felt like that was a good deal. Will be interesting to see. But I'm not going to give $50 to some poorly acted, shot, written pet project and get a paper clip that held the call sheets together.
  21. There are cheaper options out there, but how reliable are they, what kind of color are they really putting out, and how well will they hold up? That's where your trade off is. You get what you pay for.
  22. I've always used Cinematools for conforming, otherwise you have mixed FPS which will be a problem if you bring it over into color or something. Timecode gets all whacky. I have noticed the mbps is different though, but I think that's by virtue of how it records. I typically shoot all 60fps stuff on an FS100 now, and I know it has to record that at a different mbps than standard 24fps.
×
×
  • Create New...