Jump to content

Satsuki Murashige

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    3617
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    91

Satsuki Murashige last won the day on November 11

Satsuki Murashige had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

402 Excellent

About Satsuki Murashige

  • Rank

  • Birthday 05/27/1980

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    San Francisco, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

38237 profile views
  1. Interesting, thanks Stuart. I’ve heard a lot of lens techs mix their own lens cleaning solutions so maybe your are right.
  2. Hi Bob, I think your bounce into the overhead 12x12 makes the most sense, given the size of the location, though then ideally the rag would be an Ultrabounce or something similar. But I guess it really depends how much of the space you will be seeing on camera. Also, are you going to block out the windows or shoot at night? Or will you also be dealing with the window light? Since you already have the 12x frame, what if you mount the Quasars to that in the center, then droop the rag slightly underneath it? You might get more spread than with the Apertures.
  3. Can you get 100% isopropyl that easily? Best I could find at a Walgreens in the past was 90%, which I use for cleaning tape residue off of my slate and scissors. But I found it caused streaking and left a light haze on glass, so I won’t use it for filters and lenses. It also dries very quickly, whereas Pancro stays wet longer and feels ‘softer’ somehow so maybe there is something else in it?
  4. Also probably because they don’t like to be told by ‘random internet guy’ how they should have shot their movie... 🙂
  5. Ok. I agree, but I don’t see what this has to do with my question. Are you really suggesting that Roger Deakins and Lawrence Sher are ‘guilt-tripping’ their directors into shooting digital, when they really wanted to shoot on film? Seriously?
  6. Thanks Dom, Some more food for thought. I’ve personally found sensor swabs to be near impossible to use without streaking. They are my last, last resort. I don’t do this on rental house gear or on a real set as there are techs and AC’s available to handle that thankfully! This is when I’m prepping my own camera before going out on a corporate or documentary job where there is no AC. I live in mortal fear of dust shadow on the sensor... and unlike hair in the gate, can’t always be easily removed...
  7. You can shoot whatever format you like on your own projects. I just don’t know why you feel the need to tell guys like Roger Deakins or Lawrence Sher what they should be shooting on. Maybe you can enlighten me?
  8. Lol, this one was not one of those. Very talented DP and crew, lots of care taken all around. Plus the chance to work in close proximity with one of the best chefs in the world. It was a great pleasure and honor to come to work each day. But yes, I do my fair share of the other kind too... 😉
  9. And what would be the point of going through this contorted exercise? We are not talking about ‘what if digital ISOs above 1500 didn’t exist?’ or ‘what if Kodak developed a new 2000 ASA film stock?’ We are talking about our currently available choices as they exist today. The fact is that right now, in the current state of things, modern digital cameras can make pictures in low-light scenarios that are not possible with motion picture film. This alone justifies their use. Our job as cinematographers is to make images with the tools at hand, according to our own tastes. What you are attempting to do is to impose your taste on everyone else by trying to push film on people who simply don’t want it. It’s rude and irritating, and I wish you would stop. And I’m saying this as someone who loves shooting on film and watching projected film. Can we just let people like what they like, and leave them to it?
  10. One thing I like to do is to simply lower the highlights from full 100% to something like 90-95%. With scanned negative film, there is often some detail in the brightest highlights and yet with a log scan, white never gets anywhere near 100% unless you choose to raise them. With most manufacturer-provided Rec.709 transforms for digital cameras, they generally push highlights to 100% (or 109% in non-broadcast situations) by default. To me, this is a part of the ‘video look.’ So by avoiding highlight clipping in-camera and lowering the white point in post, you are sort of mimicking part of the scanned film look. Also, slightly halating (glowing) highlights with a warm reddish tinge is another part of the film look. It’s a subtle visual cue that signals the film has reached it’s peak brightness level, yet because of the film scanning process it does not have to be reproduced as 100% white. You can get the halation part from in-camera diffusion filters, old soft lenses, or in post with a glow filter. In Resolve you can isolate highlights and soften the Red channel separately to get a red halo. But that will leave you will a cyan tinge to the in-focus areas. A better way would be to composite a red highlight glow as a separate VFX element. Another part is the color - most high end digital cameras produce colors differently than film. Deep blues, purples, cyans, yellows and especially greens can be more saturated on digital cameras. And reds tend to be purer on film, they can appear more orange on some digital cameras. This is where a plug-in like Filmconvert can help to quickly shift colors into a more pleasing starting point. It may not necessarily be more accurate to real life, but it can be more aesthetically pleasing and ‘film-like.’ Lastly, there is film grain which also helps to bring the highlights down a bit and add some texture to give the impression of more detail.
  11. It’s just a trailer, the Masterclass video lessons are much longer pieces. Also, I was just one of five camera operators on this shoot, so other than panning, tilting, and zooming, I had zero input into the creative aspect. 🙂
  12. Unfortunately, I have not found rubber bulb blowers to be powerful enough to dislodge particles where you really don’t want to touch the area, like on sensor cover glass. It’s a ‘damned either way’ kind of scenario where you don’t want to force particles deeper into the camera body, but you also can’t live with the dust as it may show up in the image. I tend to tilt the camera mount down to let gravity help and blow with light pressure at an angle to dislodge, so the air doesn’t go straight in to the camera body. But maybe I should be using a brush instead. I’m wary of lens pens with their little brushes, since I’ve noticed particles get trapped between the bristles over time. I guess if you keep them stored in zip lock bags and replace them frequently they are ok? But the tendency is to keep one in your hip tool pouch, where it can sit exposed for months or even years. With Kimwipes, when I want a softer surface I fold the tissue several times over and tear it in half to create a softer feathered tip. Then spray that tip with Pancro. That will usually be my first pass after air. Then I use breath and a fresh Kimwipe or microfiber to remove any streaks. I am also wary of dirty microfiber cloths, especially with any oily or sticky residue. But I find they are by far the best tool for cleaning large filters quickly.
  13. You have missed my point entirely. Even if you shoot the Venice in Super 35 mode and use the same lenses, you will have a completely different looking image than 5219 pushed 2 stops. They may both look aesthetically pleasing (in different ways), and perhaps you can grade the Venice to look more like the film image. But there’s no way to make the film look like the Venice image in that low light scenario, as there won’t be enough shadow detail captured on the negative. So if you are shooting available light night exteriors and trying to achieve that ‘pushed 2 stops’ film image look, then you have options. But if you are going for the smooth long tonal scale look in the shadows, then obviously there is a reason to consider a camera like the Venice instead. Again, I’m responding to your comment: The problem is that you are applying a uselessly broad criteria (i.e. it works, or it doesn’t work) to the situation, presumably meaning that it, film, will render an aesthetically pleasing image (in your opinion). The reality is that the project’s DP will be making that aesthetic judgment call on the day, and ‘what works’ for them largely depends on the specific look that they are going for. You, the viewer, are telling the painters what kind of paint they should be using, when you don’t even know what they are trying paint!
  14. Thanks Greg and Dom, Great to hear your perspectives on this, especially from the lens servicing point of view. Most of the AC’s I’ve worked for and with have used Dust-Off (with the nozzles) for lenses in the field, but you have made me re-think that practice. I do also subscribe to the ‘clean only as needed’ practice and also use breath+microfiber cloth, especially with filters. How do you both feel about using Kimwipes? I began using them after seeing the lens techs at Otto Nemenz and Panavision using big boxes of them over ten years ago. But I have heard some people say recently that they think Kimwipes are too rough on the lens coatings.
×
×
  • Create New...