Jump to content

Paul Nordin

Basic Member
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Paul Nordin

  • Birthday 12/20/1957

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Emeryville, CA

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.EMBStudios.com
  1. I really like the look of Cooke S4s...guess I like warm vs clinical. I was quite excited when Cooke announced the new Panchro lenses, as they are arriving on the scene at just about the same time I'm gearing up to buy a new set of lenses. I've read the sales stuff saying they are the same image as S4 & S5 but a stop slower. I find that somewhat hard to believe given the tremendous price differential, but it would be very cool if true. T2.8 is pretty slow for a modern prime these days, but if the image quality is stellar, that might be enough for me to outweigh the stop loss. There are no sets out here yet where I work (SF Bay Area), so I'm wondering if anyone has had a chance to shoot or evaluate them and might be willing to share their opinions/findings? Cheers, Paul
  2. Mathew, Thanks for the quick feedback! I'll have to rent the Optimo DP Rouge for shoot sometime soon and check it out. I keep hearing great reports of them going toe-to-toe with all but the select best primes (MPs for example). I find that hard to believe, but I'd be quite glad to have my eyes opened. Cheers, Paul
  3. That's quite a statement Micheal! I know this post is from 6 months ago, but I was wondering if you can point to any negatives you observed with the Optimo DPs? besides the red-rings, which are fairly universally regarded as cheap looking. I have heard that the DPs are quite sharp throughout thier zoom range. I've not heard much about CA, distortion, or vignetting? Cheers, Paul
  4. Mostly I agree with this. Lenses -tend- to be selected on a per-job basis for the characteristic and budget size of the shoot. David Mullin, who was probably over-simplifying a bit, said he just rents the most expensive lenses his budget allows regardless. Although he also said he gravitates towards contrastier lenses. But the point of this, is that while lenses can have a significantly longer useful life than any form of digital camera system, a full set of quality lenses are so expensive that you will likely not get an ROI for many years unless you are a rental house. However, there are people that really like the old-Cooke look, and while I think they may be a bit over-nastalgic, some vintage lenses have an active market. There is a real advantage to having a set of house lenses for you to use on your own project and to offer lower budet shoots. But if those house lenses are from the SLR world, and not Cine world, they will be viewed as unprofessional/or-very low budget. Options are good though. The new CF.2 lenses from Zeiss are something you might look into.
  5. Which the Red zoom is definitely not. Not that it's terrible, but the manufacturing tolerances are pretty weak. I've shot with two of them over the last month or so, and each one had different manifestations of slop in the mechanics. The one I used last week had the annoying behavior of changing iris whenever you use the zoom ring. So to rack zoom, you have to keep your thumb pressed down on the iris ring to hold it in place...very disappointing for a $6500 product.
  6. If you're looking for the "best" C-Stand, my personal vote would go to American Grip's C-Stand. They have a bit thicker tubes and the grip head handles are by far the easiest to spin/tighten/untighten I've come across. Personally, I've found that the MSE line has suffered a tad in the QC since moving all it's manufacturing offshore (china I believe). I'm not coming at this from a "buy american" perspective...just think American Grip's stuff is really great. Its all I'll buy now as they last a lot longer under extreme conditions. Check it out if you get a chance. BTW- I'd place Modern at just as good as MSE and cheaper.
  7. I recently read "Reflections" by ASC press. It is a compilation of interviews and practical workshops by master cinematographers which goes into enough detail to see how they each approach lighting to achieve their different looks. Quite a good read in my opinion.
  8. If you are into reading to learn, in the book "Reflections" put out by ASC press, there is a chapter on Yves Angelo with a couple of lighting examples. The title of the chapter is "Rembrandt Homage" and describes in detail, with examples, how to achieve the look you are describing.
  9. Interesting theory Jason. I would bet a dollar that its a digital makeover, but the only way to verify would be to watch it again and it wasnt' that good of a flick. Cheers
  10. Jamie, In my experience, the Brevis (or any other 35mm adapter) has no impact on whether or not the prime lens will flare. If you put hot point sources in the frame or just outside the frame you will get the effect you desire as long as the prime has a tendency to do that. The Brevis will not reduce or increase that tendency.
  11. David, You're probably right. The effect is similar to that look, where your eyes are trying to grab onto some visual reference points in the image but they have all been smoothed away. Really does not fit in this context since it was not evident in any other shots. In Ultraviolet at least they were making a visual statement.
  12. Computer enhanced definitely, but probably not a computer generated actor...at least I don't think so. If it was, they should have realized they didn't have the budget to do it right.
  13. I saw "Resident Evil: Extinction," shot by David Johnson, BSC yesterday. Post-appocalyptic movies are my truest form of guilty pleasure. I thought the film was pretty good in it's production values and true to it's intent, was a roller coaster ride. Mostly it seemed to be well shot, but in several places there was a strange processing done to the close-ups of Milla Jovovich. I believe each one was an exterior. In them she looked very different from the wide and medium shots, with her skin texture appearing unaturally smooth and "softened". The only reasons I could think of were either the DP had underexposed those shots and they had to be heavily boosted in post and then they were over-smoothed to remove the resulting grain, or the producers hated the harsh desert exterior lighting on Milla's face and forced some radical post processing to make her skin smoother. Regardless, I found them very distracting and totally out of character with the rest of the film's look. Does anyone know why this was done? And if so, what was done? Cheers, Paul
  14. I do a lot of low-budget car shots. It's a real challenge to balance interior with exterior. The fixtures that are being described here are generally too weak in output to 'nicely' match interior and exterior. Even if you tow and shine a 1.2k HMI into the front, you will not be at the same level inside the car as outside on a sunny day (+2 stops). Reflectors help, plan the angle of the sun to your camera (per David's advice), and early am or late pm time of day can also be a big help.
  15. I'll second the number one problem: inadvertently turning the unit off or forgetting to turn it on. It runs very smoothly (best speed for me is with the dial set to between 6-7). I've used in on a Varicam and SDX and other than having a much longer footprint, on an already long camera, it creates a nice look. If you have 4 batteries and keep the charger working you won't have a problem. SDX is a great cam. Shot a commercial with it a few months ago and the image is cleaner than the Varicam in the blacks.
×
×
  • Create New...