Jump to content

Jakub Buczynski

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jakub Buczynski

  • Birthday 02/24/1994

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Warsaw, Poland
  • My Gear
    Canon EOS 7D, Krasnogorsk K-3
  1. Thanks! It was a year ago, so I don't remember all the settings, but you must be right about high shutter speed. I don't have ND filters, so sometimes I have to use something different that 1/50. About the frame rate, it was 24p.
  2. Thanks ALOT, that's exactly what kind of tips I want to know!
  3. Thank you for your reply. And no, it's not going to piss me off :) I've asked for help with my next short a very talented potographer, so maybe I'll see some ways how pros are working :) And maybe thanks to that I'll see some points for practicing.
  4. Well, I think, that you've got me wrong. I'm not asking what should I buy to get "film look", as I know that my current equipment can create that kind of look. I'm asking what should I practice to make these movies better technically. All about the technical way of shooting films I know so far is from "behind the scenes" or tips of pros shooting on DSLRs. Using flat profiles, color correction, filters... And I know, that if a professional DP would take my camera he would shoot something that looks much better. And I don't mean here content of the movie, camera movement, I mean only "technical quality". Hope you understand now what I'm asking about.
  5. The simplest way is the best way as long as you know what and why are you doing, right? I'll have to get some bigger budget and just shoot it the "natural way" next time without thinking about quality , but play with lightning and shoot on sharper lenses I think. We will see where it's going to get me.... And I'll call the GH1 video good luck about conditions to stop thinking about it.
  6. Thank you all for replies. It looks for me, that achieving better quality is combination of all of these technics - using better lenses, flat profiles, good lightning, color grading and most important - better camera movement. Actually to be honest I knew that before. But still this video of GH1 and Lomo can't allow me to sleep.... I mean, you've got the "box with the hole", lens on the front and nothing more. No special lightning, no crew, just some indie footage. Where's the point for more combinations (I know that mostly this point is in front of the lens, it's what you're filming. But that's just some indie footage. I know, that if I would take my 7D outside and shoot in similar lightning conditions it would look much worse)? Where does the "magic" of this footage come from?
  7. All right, I got it. But thankfully in the 21st century we can find help in the internet, for example you can find piano lessons online. That's why I'm writing, I hope that some people can share their knowledge. As you can see I'm practicing, and I can see big diference, but right now I dont know what's the right path for better quality. Focusing on lenses? Getting anomorphic adapter? What made video with GH1 and Lomo so great?
  8. Yes, I know that. That's why I've stopped complaining about 7D. The question is: how to get the best picture from this box with a hole?
  9. Oh, and I've forgotten about plasticity, which theoretically I should get by using APS-C sensor - but again I'm doing something wrong.
  10. Hello everyone! About 2 years ago I purchased my Canon 7D which has introduced me to the world of film. Since then every time I was doing something as DP I was mad about one thing - getting the "professional film look". I was experimenting with many things - picture styles, color grading, lenses, lightning... Of course I have improved the quality of my footage alot, but you can still say, that it was shot by amateur. I've had few periods of time, then I was blaming alot of things why it was impossible for me. Using 7D, not Alexa, Red or 35mm, using Canon lenses, not Zeiss or Cooke... It even got to the point, where I was blaming different air density in my country, than in USA (lol, but actually it's a fact. still not a game changer...). I know that it's possible to shoot great footage with DSLR (example - Killing Joke or that was shot in my country, which proves to me, that I shouldnt blame "air". And by the way it was shot on neutral picture profile, which also proves to me, that picture profiles are not the ultimate tool for "film look"). I was thinking that using some cine lenses is going to get me there. Well, quick search on youtube ( ) shows, that there is some difference, but it's not the ultimate cinematic tool. Now I came across some amazing footage (which I'm also going to use as example of this "professional film look" that is my ultimate goal - GH1 + Lomo) from GH1 with lomo anomorphic lens on the front. This put me into thinking - anomorphic is the ultimate tool for geting this look. Well, again just a quick search on youtube, and my idea seems to be wrong - Century anomorphic + 5D. So what I would describe as this "film look"? Definitly one of the biggest differencess between my footage and professional footage is contrast ratio. This "cinematic" kind of black. Also colors. Mine are over saturated, but when I'm trying to make them desaturated I feel like I'm loosing some details in them. Sharpness - I know that it's about good lens and focus puller. But definitly my ultimate goal is this footage from GH1 with Lomo, that also proves to me, that you can get that look without special picture profile, color grading or lights. The best I've got so far - by cinestyle and color grading and by lightning (actually I know it would look alot better if we could afford more lights, but our budget was really tight. oh and by the way, please don't judge audio and color correction - it's just RAW files from camera cutted in right order). The question is - what am I missing? I really want to know, becouse I've got some big projects in near future, and I don't want to waste opportunity of making documentary film about hospital for their 100'th anniversary (don't worry, I'm better documentalist than DP:) ). Thanks for any help!
  11. Ok, so as I understand, I can use left side to the end of stock, and to the right side to keycode. So I think my last question for making calculations: How wide is keycode on 16mm?
  12. Yes, it's wider than ultra 16, but super 16 is wider to the left than ultra. And on your photo ultra goes right to the end of the left side. That's why I think, that I could get more space on left. But maybe that's just the way that marks were drawn on your picture, as there is lots of space on the right side. Anyway, can you give me info about gate used to shoot that? Thanks for help!
  13. YES, that's exactly what I mean. So my question is: is it possible?
  14. No, that's ultra 16. I mean something like conversion to super 16 + widening gate 2.26mm to the right side, to use whole surface od film. There are black edges on your photo, and I dont want them, as I could record there and get more resolution. http://eclair16.com/files/2009/04/16mm-super-ultra.jpg as you can see super 16 uses maximum area to the left, but I also want to use maximum area on the right. Perforation would not be a problem for 2.35:1 aspect.
  • Create New...