Jump to content

Garland Greene

Basic Member
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  • Location
    New York
  1. Hi all! I'm sitting here watching the 1964 classic Scorpio Rising and I'm racking my brain thinking about what lights Kenneth Anger used and where he set them up. It all looks incredibly simple like a documentary, yet each shot has a great mixture of light and dark. I've read somewhere before he used tungsten of a sort but I can't be certain. From what I can see it appears to be hard open faced lights pointed directly at the subjects, and it gives all the guy's skin tones a great "white" look hard to describe. Not sure if that's just apart of the reversal stock or not. I'm including a link to the film below as I don't have my laptop with me and my iPhone will not allow me to attach pictures. Please don't crucify me people. http://veehd.com/video/4500012_Kenneth-Anger-Scorpio-Rising-1964-nYx64
  2. Hello everyone! I'm looking to get a Bolex H16 Rex 5, if any of you have one for sale please respond on this board or email me at garlandgreene@att.net. They sell Rex 5 on ebay at about $500 but Id to get one cheaper if I can. Thanks! Hope everyone has a great day!
  3. Adrian- that's exactly what I thought about doing. To be honest until you spelled it out for me, in my mind it seemed almost like a mad scientist idea to even do that. Thanks for your reply I appreciate it! Hope you have a good day. David- Yes I want to just transfer over to digital and color correct that way. But I figured the overexposed negative would bring out more detail and saturation that will give me a great foundation to start with. I was worried if I went as high as 2/3 or a full stop over I might go too far. I've done little tests before on 16, but most of my previous work are Super8 French New Wave style shorts. I never cared much to experiment with overexposure until now Well, you answered the 85 filter question on the other post of mine so I won't be worried about the 85. The more I think about it, my original ideas seem very idiotic. To put it lightly. Ha It seems like people on this board don't really acknowledge or show the proper respect of the time and effort you've given on here teaching people. When I first started learning a few years ago I would come on here just to read your responses to questions. thanks a lot for educating so many of us.
  4. David - Yea you're right I'd be better off going with the 250D stock and say to hell with the 85. Hate is a strong word, I should have said dislike. Before when I would study stocks in movies or online videos, I always thought daylight looked much more grainy to my eye than tungsten. Possibly because I'm such a newbie to cinematography I don't pay as much attention as I should. It could also have to do with DI and any number of other things. I just watched the Kodak promo reel for 250D on YouTube and I see your point 100%. I think with the natural light streaming through the windows (I will be shooting in abandoned Victorian houses in Indianapolis, huge windows) and with the fluorescents/softboxes I should be ok I think with 250 stock. Maybe I will just have to forget the deep stop and go with what's there. A man can dream though! All in all, this was a very newbie question of me to ask, but that's what this site is for I suppose. to help everyone (young men like myself mostly) understand the art of cinematography. I appreciate your answer very much. Thank you!
  5. Hi everyone! I've been wandering, would overexposing a negative by say 1/3 or 1/2 a stop and then printed at "normal" lights build up the saturation to give me rich color and velvet blacks ? Also, I will be using an 85b filter over the lens during my next film for interiors and exteriors, I'm guessing I would have to compensate for the 2/3 stop light loss from the filter, and on top of that, overexpose for the saturated effect I want? Sorry if I come across as vague or if any of this has been covered on here before. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you
  6. Hello all! To jump right in for my film I want a high f-stop throughout, to achieve somewhat of a spaghetti western depth of field, and also I like lots of setups/cuts during action scenes and not have to move lights. To get that effect I would think the set should have to look ridiculously bright in person to achieve a high stop?. I'm thinking of shooting my film on Kodak Vision3 200T stock (to get the color I want and small grain) with a 85b filter on the lens the whole shoot (I hate daylight film). So I won't have to gel all the windows for interiors to correct for tungsten, using a 85b filter I can just use all the natural sunlight already there. Since I will be shooting daylight basically, I'm going make a softboxes to hang overhead using 400w metal halide bulbs I have to distribute a nice even light over the sets, and have 65w fluorescent spiral bulbs used as practicals peppering the sets. Do you guys think with this lighting set up mixed with the sunlight, I will be able to achieve a deep DOF and at the same time have sufficient lighting so actors can move freely and I can get all my inserts/cuts? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, and I hope you're all having a great day
  7. Hi everyone! I really need to know what is a really good wide angle lens and zoom lens for the Bolex h16? I'm getting one converted to Ultra 16 now and I need to to know some options. Any help you guys can give me would be immensely appreciated. Thank you and I hope everyone is having a nice day!
  8. Anyone have any information on Morris' methods/style for Scrooge? That film was one of my favorites growing up and I think it captured 1800s London quite well.
  9. Hi everyone! I'm just curious if anyone on here knows how the look of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was achieved. Stock, lighting setups, etc. Inside the ships, Khans lair on Ceti Alpha V, the station, Regula hallways with Kirk and co. Looking around etc. I firmly believe this is very underrated photography wise. Anything anybody can share would be appreciated beyond measure. Thanks and I hope you are all having a nice day.
  10. That's exactly what I thought about doing. Give it a sort of Get Carter, Bad Lieutenant feel. I know Robert Rodriguez used 250w photo floods on el mariachi but I think I need to go a little stronger. Look natural enough. I'm making a gritty crime film with shootouts and crummy environments I don't need to be super fancy but in some scenes I would like to play around and experiment.
  11. Wow thanks a lot man quick response. I googled all those lights and I felt like an idiot because I didn't understand. But that's what you have to do to learn I suppose is ask people. I'm trying to replicate the gritty look of Bad Lieutenant for my own film and those lights are what the DP used. Said he Bounced 4k fresnels and Used 2.5 Pars for beams in the church scenes and bay lights for the interiors. I dont understand what beams are. also, Is there a way I could build my own bay lights? With overhead lighting I'd be able to grab all the cuts I want because I like to do a lot of setups and shoot from different angles.
  12. Hello I am a total noob to cinematography but I wanted to ask what 4k fresnels, 2.5 Pars for beams, and bay lights are? These are terms I have yet to come in contact with. Usually I film with natural light or practicals.
×
×
  • Create New...