Jump to content

Sean Conaty

Basic Member
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://sean.conaty.net
  1. Anthony, I myself am a fan of using FLV as well. Unfortunately, when exporting, I'm having the hardest time retaining quality (most notably in the blacks) and have noticed quite a difference between the pristine images on your site and those on mine. My standard workflow is as follows. Please let me know if you've got any suggestions that might remedy: -Final Cut Sequence settings at 1280x720 - ProRes422HQ -Send to Compressor @ 640x480 - ProRes422HQ -Convert to FLV w/ Adobe Media Encoder I've done a few tests and permutations (FCP sequence setting with different codecs, resizing at different stages, higher VBR in Media Encoder, etc.) to absolutely no avail. I'd love any suggestions. -Sean
  2. Check out these beautiful mini-docs. Great style and powerful stories. "Scrapertown" is amazing: http://cinematography.wonderhowto.com/blog/not-your-parents-documentaries-california-is-place-0117700/
  3. http://cinematography.wonderhowto.com/blog...choice-0115379/
  4. http://cinematography.wonderhowto.com/ Come check out this new online community for all things cinematography. Updates/trends, blog postings, tutorials, q&a's. -Sean Conaty Cinematographer www.sean.conaty.net
  5. I was concerned about the same thing. Fortunately the majority of the windows are North facing and those windows facing East and West are offscreen so i can block those out. I'm thinking that what light does come in through the North windows will just be an ambient, blue base. I remember Deakins doing this really well for a dusk scene in Revolutionary Road and Prieto as well in Brokeback Mountain, but can't think of an actual day for night scene that executes this well.
  6. I'm shooting day for night at a location with a bunch of windows and tenting all of them is out of the question. Something I'm considering is shooting at 3200k (or maybe 4400k), leaving the daylight more blue, and maybe warm up the tungsten units inside. I'm curious if anyone has tried this and may have examples?
  7. I'm faced with a situation in that the perfect location for our story, on first look, couldn't be worse for lighting. The sun will always be behind camera and there's no landscape obstruction to even break up the light (It's a demilitarized Air Force base). Thinking about it more, embracing this harsh, frontal light may actually work well for this particular moment in the story - and potentially other scenes, as well - so I'm considering employing it throughout the film; partly so this particular scene doesn't stick out and partly as a creative choice/challenge. I was hoping that someone might have good examples of DPs/films actually using flat - conventionally unpretty - light as a storytelling device and using this challenge effectively. I remember a really great scene in "The Savages" where Laura Linney's character is in a hospital room talking to her father who is sitting on the bed and facing the window. some of the shots of him are from behind so he's backlit in these, but even in the reverses toward his face, this flat light looks great and really fits the story. granted, it helps that the light is coming through a window so it can be broken up/diffused somewhat.
  8. I'm going to try the firing PARs into a weather balloon to create a moonlight effect. Does anyone know where I can track down said weather balloon as well as the necessary helium? I'm in the LA area but any general advice would also be appreciated. -Sean
  9. This answers it perfectly. I guess what I was trying to quantify was the exact relationship between the latitude and the contrast. If I understand it correctly, it is therefore theoretically impossible to have a high contrast stock with much latitude as well. in terms of negative vs positive, i agree with Karel. While a negative may be able to capture up to 13 stops, print stocks don't have nearly that range.
  10. So here's where I get confused. Assuming the latitude is the constant between 2 stocks. If the slope is steeper in the stock with more contrast (A), then what happens in the shoulder and the toe if they are now essentially elongated? In other words, let's assume the slope on the less contrasty stock (B) begins at 2 stops under 0 and ends at 2 stops above 0. If we compare this to the more contrasty stock (A) whose slope begins at 1 stop under 0 and ends at 1 stop above 0, what then happens in the region between -2 and -1 & 1 and 2 of the more contrasty stock (A), as it compares to the stock with less contrast (B)? Does this simply mean that the difference between A and B is that more contrasty stocks (A) have a longer shoulder and toe than less contrasty stocks (B) in order to compensate for their steeper slope? And what does this mean in terms of the image if the shoulder and toe are longer? Does have anyone have any examples? Thanks!
  11. I was asked this question and realized that, although I can recognize contrast vs. latitude, i can't actually define it. I was hoping someone could succinctly clarify the differences between the two. here's where my confusion lies, if a film stock is considered contrasty, i understand this to mean the rate at which the image falls off to black or white, regardless of its latitude. what confuses me is how it's theoretically possible to have a film stock with increased latitude while also being very contrasty; if it falls off faster, wouldn't it then mean it can see less, and therefore have less latitude? or is this fall off (and my understanding of contrast) strictly in the shoulder and the toe, while the mid range is unaffected and able to see more? I apologize for being so pedantic, but I recognize my ignorance due to years of misinformation and confusion.
  12. It will still be screened on a large screen, but as it's a student project, finishing to a film print is out of the question unfortunately. here's the link again: http://tinyurl.com/anamorphicvssuper35 anamorphic brochure, pg. 6
  13. I apologize if this thread has already been discussed extensively but I couldn't find the answer to my question: The film I'm shooting is finishing digitally. We have no intention, unfortunately, of finishing with a film print due to budgetary restrictions. It's a period Western on 35 and i want a classic, epic look. Cost factors aside, what are the main differences, considering that I'm finishing digitally, of shooting anamorphic35 vs Super35? On a basic level, I understand that Anamorphic utilizes a larger portion of a negative, but where my understanding falls apart is the other stuff: If it's the same aspect ratio as Super35, why does anamorphic have the advantage over Super35 in staging, 2-shots, composition, etc. as stated in this Panavision brochure about Anamorphic vs. Super35? (http://tinyurl.com/anamorphicvssuper35 - see PDF - Anamorphic Lens Brochure, pg. 6) and how much are these advantages affected if I'm not finishing with a film print?
  14. I've read a lot of posts on here that it's possible using AE or Premiere to transfer the 30P footage to 24P, but has anyone actually posted links to sample footage? The footage on Canon's website and elsewhere looks fantastic but still reads like video to me. I'm curious if this is a function of it being 30P or the undeniable and inescapable fact that it's not film...
  15. If anyone else is curious, i would definitely recommend the DFN scenes in "The Proposition". The best I've seen. Other good DFN's I've found in my research are "Black Robe" and "Mississippi Burning".
×
×
  • Create New...