Stewart McLain

Do you need to reference a specific film for your shot or does it just need to have a general "1920s" look?

Oh man, that makes me so happy! I almost didn't post my findings. Cheers!

Well, I probably didn't find too much more than you did but it looks like the actual name is the "Keywest Magic Dolly" possibly made by Pallada Designs.

I thought it was good. Definitely better than I expected given the number of poor reviews I read about it going in. It kind of feels to me that people are judging it less for the film it is and more against an imagined film that they wish it was. Which is fine up to a point but the film that actually exists has merit. Perhaps the judgments would be less harsh if the film had been titled something like "Napoleon and Josephine" to better indicate the angle that this movie chose to view his life from rather than just "Napoleon" which leads one to expect a more traditional sort of biography.

I recently used Izotope Elements for this purpose on a project. My results were similar to Dan's. If you push it too hard, you'll wind up with some goofy artifacts. My approach was to push until I heard something nasty and then pull back a little and just settle for however much background reduction that was. Between that and laying down a track of consitent room tone I got results I could live with. But you might be pickier than I am. And it bears noting that I am not an expert - a more experienced person would probably use this same tool and get better results than I did. I did come across some advice that recommended doing multiple passes through the effect (like one insert after another in your DAW) at lower levels of reduction rather than trying to remove all background sound in a single pass. Kind of like woodworking, using gradually larger router bits rather than trying to use a great big one right from the start. The full version of Izotope RX10 is expensive but is used by a lot of postproduction engineers. I actually just looked it up and it's on sale for half price right now: https://www.izotope.com/en/deals.html

I found this video that shows how to do it with the MFF2. Could work the same way.

Another option might be to use a follow focus with a "reverse gear" attachment.

I realized I might be easier to show than tell. Plus, it was something fun to do instead of work.

This book has a really fantastic chapter on how to light glass: https://www.amazon.com/Light-Science-Introduction-Photographic-Lighting/dp/0240808193/ref=sr_1_1?crid=9SUEI3Y0TTIJ&keywords=lighting+magic+focus+books&qid=1698672982&sprefix=lighting+magic+focus+book%2Caps%2C119&sr=8-1 Essentially, a glass object is defined by it's outline. You basically have to determine whether it needs a dark outline or a light outline. In your sample photo, you're shooting against a dark background so you want the opposite element (light) to define your subject. Right now, you only have light reflecting off the middle of your subject, which is why it lacks definition. To define the edges, you want light to hit the sides of your subject from behind. The book would suggest that you use something like a black card as your background. The card should only be large enough to fill the frame. You then you would set up some diffusion material behind the the card, and position a light behind that. I know there are other methods to accomplish this but I think the principles are basically the same if you're shooting translucent glass. Define the edges of your object. If you have a dark background, use light to define the edges. If you have a light background, use darkness to define the edges.

I'm hardly the most accomplished filmmaker here but I can say that I just recently screened a short film at a multi-media event and the one time I heard someone in the audience say, "Oh, that's a great shot!" was during a camera-on-sticks-with-fluid-head-tilt. So there's that.

I was the SFX assistant on a movie when I was in school and we had a night shoot that required fog rolling in. I was handed one of those IGEBA units (which until now I could only ever remember being referred to as a "bazooka") and for each take my key would give me a zig zag, football-play type pattern to run based on how the wind was moving to get the fog to roll in waves rather than all at once. It was exhausting but also some of the most fun I've had making movies. I guess my point is, you might be able to do it with one guy if he's young and energetic and willing to run around all night like Rambo. Also worth pointing out that those things get dangerously hot at the end of the barrel and can cause serious burns or start fires.

@Adam Froehlich Well, the lenses are fully manual so I don't think that can be the case. Honestly, I'm starting think this must be a case of user error. The way the adapter works, the iris on the lens has to be fully stopped down for the iris control on the speed booster to work. I know I felt sure at the time that I checked to make sure that the iris control on the speed booster was engaged properly but maybe I just didn't. This has definitely been a "work as fast as possible with a tiny crew" project so it's not outside the scope of possibility that I just screwed up. On the plus side, while there's a little more grain than I'd like in some of the shots, they're cutting together just fine.

@Steve Switaj That's an interesting thought. I'm pretty sure the street lights were LED. I don't think the shutter angle changed though. I kept the shutter speed at 1/50. Also, it seems unlikely to me that I would have been consistently on one side of the strobe effect for 30 shots or so and then consistently on the other side of it after changing lenses. But I suppose stranger things have happened. And either way, I appreciate the info about the possibility of being affected by 120hz strobing because I didn't even know to be on the lookout for that. @Karim D. Ghantous Yes.

Correction: From these forums. Laughing at myself a little.

So I'm knee deep in shooting a short film right now. Last night we were shooting in an alley with intermittently spaced extant lighting. Lots of very dark areas with sparse light spots. I added light from a Godox VL200 at 100% from a rooftop pointed where the action would take place. It looked like a lot of light to the naked eye but following the meters on my camera (GH5) and monitor (Shinobi) I still wound up pushing the ISO to 1600. This is something I've never done but I just read an article called "How I learned to shoot at 1600 and not care" or something like that, so I thought, what am I so afraid of? It seemed like I was getting a good enough nighttime look on my monitor so I went with it. I figured my eye just isn't trained enough estimate the difference between what I see and what the camera sees. But after shooting four or five set ups, I decided to change lenses and BAM - with the new lens, the camera was suddenly saturated with light. Freaked out, I put the original lens back on and it's now the same thing. So much light. Same f-stop. Drastically different exposure. I finally dropped my ISO to 320 and stopped down to match the waveform readings I remembered from my first shots. What could have caused this? The only things I can think of are: a) There was debris on the sensor that got shaken loose when I changed lenses b) It had something to do with the MFT to F mount adapter I'm using. It's one of those speed boosting adapters. Has anyone else had a similar experience or maybe some insight into what might have happened? Any help is appreciated.