Daniel Singer

Hopefully it won´t look the same like the original trilogy. To my mind it would be the biggest mistake to try to make the movie like the ones shot 30 years ago. Every technology nowadays is more advanced, and one shouldn´t sacrifice that in order to make it look the same. I think it´s a great thing that JJ Abrams, als always, and Dan Mindel decided to shoot on film and to use anamorphic lenses.

To my eye, the HFR makes everything look like a video game somehow. I watched both film in HFR and I must say that I really don´t like it mostly. To me, it IS useful for extreme long shots or wide shots. In shots like this it is pleasing to my eye because there is less or no jitter when panning or tilting. But in medium or closer shots with a lot of movement it really looks awful and tv-news like... And as you already mentioned, HFR combined with handheld work really doesn´t work in any way for me.

Actually, I´m a fan of Peter Jackson, but I can´t really understand why he cut this awful GoPro shots into the chase. It really caught my attention and it took me a few seconds to "be" back in the movie.

I may got you wrong, but if you gel your fluorescents tube by tube you won´t notice through the camera that they are gelled.

In an interview with Craft Truck, Andrij Parekh said that for the flashback-sequences in Blue Valentine he only used wide-angle lenses. In this case that´s a clear visual statement because the rest of the movie was shot on really tight lenses. It´s a very interesting approach to my mind.

I guess strictly speaking there do exist "ND" contact lenses, but the last thing you want to do in this situation is to make the talent look in any way unusual.

In the AC article From August about "A Lone Ranger" they wrote that Johnny Depp used ND contact lenses because they also shot in the desert in harsh sunlight very often.

It´s possible to shoot 2k on SxS Cards since the SUP 7.0 Software Update. The newest one is SUP 8.0.1.

Stephen Murphy and Ed Moore did some tests with different diffusion materials and how many stops you have to compensate in order to get the same exposure as without the diffusion.

At this site there is also a vimeo link to the video they made. I hope it helps you a little bit :)

http://stephenmurphydop.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/diffusion-bounce-rag-tests.html?m=1

 

 

200% agree. It seems that 15 years into the "digital Cinematography" "revolution" people still don't get that if an overloaded pixel is recorded as 11 1111 1111 it stays at 11 1111 1111 for whatever length of time the Human race can continue to display it. You can massively overexpose film, to the point where it looks completely opaque, but if you put enough light into it, you can still pull out a workable image. Now, that may only apply to less than 1% of the exposed image, but, that 1% percent makes all the difference. Once you've overexposed a pixel in a video camera, no amount of post jiggery-pokery is ever going to restore it

 

Shooting RAW makes absolutely SFA difference if the STILL EXTREMELY ANALOG photodiode gets saturated by a highlight. It doesn't matter if you have 16 bit capture either; 1111 1111 1111 1111 is always going to come out as 1111 1111 1111 1111 in Post (if you have anything that fancy) or 11 1111 1111 in 10 bit log or 1111 1111 on a DVD or digital TV.

 

Also 3,000 f*cking lines is not the same thing as "3K"! You need a 6K sensor to resolve 3,000 analog lines, and Sony are FAR MORE CORRECTLY referring to the F65 as a "4K" camera.

Agree with you on that, no need to get a little rude... What I ment were not the clipped highlights but rather the lifeless looking skin tones. Clipped highlights can not be pulled back, thats clear to me, but lifeless looking skin tones you can easily change in the DI, so maybe these skin tones are wanted the way they are??

And back on topic I too thought Oblivion looked great for the most part although I did find some of the highlights a little clippy and in some of the close ups the skin tones looked a little lifeless.

I haven't seen the film yet, but especially in close-ups, is it really the cameras "fault", they could have easily changed it in the DI if not wanted, or am I wrong?

Hello,

a few days ago I made some tests with the Alexa. I recorded all the material in Log C ProRes 4444 AND in Rec 709 to be able to campare it. I used a KinoFlo with Daylight bulbs and the white balance on the Alexa was set to 5600°K.

After using a LUT to transfer the Log C material to Rec 709, I found out that all the Log C material had a green cast on it. Have you also made this experience?

I also did a few pure Daylight tests with a Schneider ND1,2 filter and found out that after converting my Log C material to Rec 709 with a LUT, the material had an even more visible green cast on it. Is this a normal fact??

Thanks,

Daniel

ps: my first post, yeah :)