Jump to content

Satsuki Murashige

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    3732
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    97

Everything posted by Satsuki Murashige

  1. I think the ‘wide and close’ framing also belongs to a cinematic tradition, from Welles/Toland, Kalatazov, Leone, Kubrick, Frankenheimer, Gilliam, Juenet, etc. It’s not a new thing, but definitely in vogue right now.
  2. Mole Shutters! Love them, but they’re expensive and hard to find if you’re not in LA. There is a DMX version available. As Miguel says, Skypanels work well for this effect on interiors, although the manual Mole Shutters give you more freedom if you want a specific timing. Personally, I found the ‘Paparazzi’ setting look the most convincing due to the slower decay. Maybe you can program them, but I don’t know how. On big exteriors like you’re describing, you’d probably use something like Lightning Strikes: http://www.luminyscorp.com/index.php/lightning-strikes-2/ Not exactly a budget option though.
  3. It would depend on the particular matte box in question. But generally no, you can’t make a Studio 15/19 matte box into a Lightweight 15mm one. Also, LW15 4x5.65 matte boxes are so widely available and affordable now, that unless you absolutely need trays or orientable stages, there’s not much reason to go thru all the trouble of adapting. Also depends on what camera and lenses you’re using. If you’re using a heavy camera system that would benefit from Studio support anyway, then you might as well go that route. Also, if you’re using lenses that don’t have front threads to accept a screw-in Polarizer, and thus need a rotating 4x5.65 stage, a 4.5” or 138mm Round stage, or a fixed 4x5.65 ARRI LMB-5 compatible stage for a Rota-Pola, then that would tip things in favor of the Studio matte box. Otherwise, you might as well avoid the extra weight and expense of both the large filter and Studio bracketry.
  4. I mean, there are times when you have to shoot night for day on location, so the only thing you can do is cover the windows with 1000H tracing paper and blast them with backlight. Otherwise, I'd usually prefer to see at least a hint of texture outside or in the sheers, even if it is very overexposed.
  5. Here’s a similar reference for this effect to study, which works quite well: ‘Stand by Me’ (1986) (spoiler warning, if you have not seen the film) I think they probably did it very simply as an optical dissolve from the actor walking away to an empty plate shot immediately after, the way you suggested initially. It’s kind of hard to tell since the movie has been cleaned up digitally in this version. In the theatrical release print, there would have been an increase in grain and softness for this shot compared to the shots around it, if it had gone thru an additional optical printing step. But you don’t see that here. If anyone knows for sure how the shot was done, I would love to know!
  6. True Lens Services (TLS) in the UK do great work, especially with Cooke lenses. Apparently a lot of their staff used to work there. Expensive, but top quality - their Speed Panchro rehousings are the best. Duclos Lenses and Focus Optics in LA are great. They focus less on rehousing and more on service, although they have both done some well-regarded rehousings in the past. Haven’t used the cheaper Asian rehousing companies like GL Optics and Kim Camera, but they seem to provide good value for the budget user. At the end of the day, I think quality is important - but honesty, decency, and reliability are more important. Just my opinion.
  7. I would suggest avoiding Van Diemen and Christopher Smith at all costs. They want your money up front, often do not give accurate estimates of when the work will be done (off by years in some cases), and will stop responding to emails when it is convenient for them (after they have your money). If you decide to change your mind, good luck ever getting your lenses or your money back. In my case, they also did substandard work, requiring the lens to be sent back immediately for repairs - at my own cost. Yes, they would not cover shipping costs, even when they agreed that the lens should not have left their facility in that condition. What other business in the world operates this way? If you do a little research online, you will see that this is not an isolated case. There have been many familiar-sounding complaints over the last several years.
  8. I can’t seem to take screen grabs off of Amazon Prime, unfortunately. But take a look at the wide desert scenes, especially when the characters are having dinner outside the aircraft hanger at magic hour. If you look very closely, you’ll notice a subtle graduated filter used in the wide shots. It looks like an attenuator to me, since the there’s no obvious horizon line. It is removed for the close ups. There’s also a blue grad used in a wide shot in the desert, I think when Jennifer Grey is testing her new sail on a pickup truck. You can see part of the white building on camera left has a blue grad on it.
  9. Though they are fine on film and when used in lighter grades on digital cameras with internal NDs, I would not buy the Tiffen White Water ND filters again today if I had the choice. It just makes more sense to get the modern style NDs that will work on all cameras. Note that Tiffen have both regular ‘ND’ and ‘IRND’ in their White Water glass series. The IRNDs are the older style that have a progressive green tint to counteract IR contamination. You do not want the latter, they will make your footage look green. You also do not want a separate IR Cut filter. You will either find the older Tiffen T1, which is the green color element in their old-style ‘IRND’ series, hot mirrors, or the Schneider Dichroic filters like the IR750 and IR690. They all have downsides, not worth it in this day and age when you can get better performance in a single filter. TL;DR. Just buy the Firecrests (or other modern ND series).
  10. I mean, if you’re not cheating when it comes to filmmaking then you’re probably not trying hard enough, right?
  11. If you do shoot the character separately, then I would consider shooting her on a dark stage with a black background, taking care to match the lighting to the location. Then fade the lighting on her to black.
  12. Does the character need to be completely opaque at the start of the effect? Because if you do a simple double exposure, then some of the landscape will show thru the character at the start of the shot. That said, if you’re going for more of a hand-made effect with this, then it might still be what you want.
  13. The original question was more about how to expose for landscape shots, where the sky is bright and the foreground is dark. When it comes to photographing people in backlight, yes most people will use a bounce card to softly reflect the light back onto the subject.
  14. Gorgeous color and texture, Phil! The XT4 is quite nice, isn’t it? Did you shoot in F-Log, or did you use a color profile?
  15. Also keep in mind that if you’re shooting the subject in a mirror, then they will be flipped horizontally, which you may not want if it’s not supposed to look like their reflection. Even if there are no obvious tells like backwards logos on clothing or a distinctive hair part, most people’s faces are not perfectly symmetrical. So your actors may look ‘not like themselves’ in the mirror reflection. That’s ok when it’s obvious they are looking into a mirror, but might be odd otherwise. If you just want to change the background behind the actor in a tight shot, then a large front-surface mirror behind them on a stand can work well.
  16. The Formatt Firecrest should be fine on 35mm film since color negative stock is not usually sensitive to IR light, and the Firecrests (and other modern IR cut brands like Mitomo TrueND, Schneider Rhodium, etc) work by reducing IR and visible light equally. That said, I have not tested myself, as I still use my regular Tiffen White Water NDs on film. So please take with a grain of salt and do your own tests for definitive results. I think it makes sense to just use these modern ND filters for all cameras going forward. My current digital camera has internal NDs, so I have not needed to invest in a new set yet. But that may be changing soon. Please let us know what you learn going forward!
  17. Best thing you can do for yourself and the director is to shoot a camera test. There’s no substitute for shooting first hand and seeing the results, and your director will thank you. But in general, shooting with uncoated lenses gives a much stronger effect. Not only do you get milky blacks and extreme veiling glare, but the color saturation is also greatly reduced. It’s a look that you can’t come back from, so if you’re not sure, then I’d go with the normal lenses and Contrast filters. But seriously, test test test.
  18. Your C200 should be several inches higher to meet the Studio 19mm spec. Since your baseplate was made for a Red camera, it makes sense. The problem is that every camera nowadays has a different height from the base to the center of the lens mount. And the screw holes in the camera base will not be tapped in the same place either. So the best thing you can do is to decide which standard you want to conform to, and then buy either a riser plate, or a baseplate made for your particular camera.
  19. Tried the anti-fog fluid a few times and it didn’t work for me. One solution would be to punch a small hole in the rubber eyecup, insert and secure a short bit of tubing, and use the tube to suck out the warm moist air.
  20. You can also try Rosco Scrim on the outside of the windows. The advantage over ND gel is that it can be roughly taped over the window frame, so it can be put up very quickly. But it doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny as well, so you don’t want it to ever come into focus.
  21. Does he, though? If he wants to burn a Blu-Ray disk, then sure 1920x1080. But if he’s just uploading to Vimeo or YouTube, then can’t the pixel resolution be whatever he wants?
  22. Re: DVI Dual Link Not sure if this would be a problem. Are you using an old Cinema Display as your primary or second monitor? If you have access to an HD-SDI or HDMI monitor, you could use a cheap converter like a Blackmagic Mini Monitor to get a broadcast standard HD or UHD signal out of Resolve. They make an external Thunderbolt version for laptops and a PCIE version for desktops.
  23. As you mentioned, since this is just for personal home viewing, the only restrictions on your final delivery specs would be what your display and playback devices can handle. I would consider finishing in the 2.40:1 aspect ratio. It’s visually indistinguishable from 2.39:1, and since you’ll be working with even integers for your pixel dimensions, it should scale with better quality. If that sounds good, then I would consider setting up your project as 2592x1080. This would allow you to reframe in the horizontal dimension, while keeping the full vertical resolution. Then when you export, you can always set the frame size to 1920x1080 with a letterbox to burn to Blu-Ray disc. Or 1920x800 if you don’t want black bars for sharing online. Or export at full res for your master, and render scaled versions from that in something like Adobe Media Encoder. The only reason I can think of for why you might want to edit with a lower res project is if your computer can’t playback smoothly at the higher res. In that case, you can always edit in 1920x800 and change the project size back to 2592x1080 before exporting. You’d just want to check any re-framing or key-framed power windows afterward to make sure they didn’t get messed up before hitting the Render button.
  24. Good point, Albion. I was using the terms interchangeably, but you’re right that they are different things.
×
×
  • Create New...