Jump to content

Luke Hudson

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Luke Hudson

  1. Thanks, Joel, I really appreciate the reply. My hunch is that it will ultimately be too risky, as cutting from skin tone to skin tone on the same person seems like it would accentuate the differences between the cameras. The sensors are likely different, so maybe this is wishful thinking on my part. In the outside chance anyone has these two cameras intercut on skin tone, please let me know!
  2. I have a client with an EV1A who is hiring me to shoot a documentary. It needs to be a 2-camera shoot as the sit-down interviews need to have two angles. We are considering various camera systems, and one option would be to use their EVA1 (not required, but an option since they already have it). One thought would be to source another EVA1, however I was wondering if we could intercut a GH5s? I've already seen enough comparison videos to convince me that we could intercut B-Roll shots from the two cameras (with similar glass) without a problem. One advantage to going this route is the GH5s would do much better in low light--which will be a factor for some of the B-Roll. But my concern is if I can acceptably intercut the two cameras for the interviews. One camera (likely the EVA1 in this case) would be on a loose medium shot and the second camera would be off to the side on a profile CU. I could shoot good charts of both cameras and the project will go through a decent color grade. I just wonder if we could get an acceptable match without doing very extensive work in the grade, which would nullify any advantage while shooting. I'm grateful for info from anyone who has solid first-hand experience with this. EDIT: I should mention, I'm finishing in 1080, so resolution won't be a factor.
  3. No, I did not catch Carol. Back in the early 2000's when everything was being transferred to SD, I was grading a film at a big post house. Apparently the techs had just installed a new HD monitor and the Spirit we were on was outfitted for HD. Back then you could get well-shot S16 to resemble 35mm when transferred to SD (with good lenses and especially the slower stocks). My colorist asked me if I wanted to check out my footage on the new HD monitor for fun. My heart kind of sank when she flipped the switch. All the nice silky tones fell apart and was left with a very noisy and chunky image that did not seem commercially viable unless you were going for a very art house feel. At that point, I think I wrote off S16 coupled with HD distribution. (I had even asked her to add grain suppression and noise reduction which did little to help). Given the fact that a film like Jackie was shot with the same optics I was using back then (and a comparable camera), there have been major advancements in the post processing that allows for what I now re-consider to be a very commercially viable format again. In fact, there were many voices that predicted years ago that filmmakers would be hungry and open to formats that would differentiate their films from the increasingly ubiquitous digital capture. Exciting to see filmmakers embrace this, especially when the S16 acquisition is justified by, for example, the film's period. Also, what many may have forgotten (or never knew) is just how simple and liberating 16mm can be. If you have enough pre-loaded mags, you could easily get by with just a first AC and virtually NO electronics other than a simple monitor and one BNC to the tap. No video village. No data transfer stations. No DIT. No hard drives. No tenting in monitors. No dozens of cables. And no digital loaders guarding the stinger to their transfer station while sitting all alone watching the flashing LED lights on the hard drives long after all the other departments have left. I shoot mostly digital now and am definitely not anti-digital. But it is nice to appreciate an old alternative---especially one that is used so effectively as we are seeing today.
  4. Mike, thanks so much for all the detailed info! Very interesting they chose to send a latent image all the way to Europe. I suspected they used newer lenses based on how they looked. Just saw the new extended trailer and I'm still amazed at how much they got out of the 16mm neg. The particular scanner and the rest of the post path, (in addition to the great photography) must have had a lot to do with it. Thanks again
  5. I caught the trailer for Jackie this weekend. When it first came up, the film acquisition format was unmistakable, but I was kind of stunned to see that Super16 (Arri 416) was the only acquisition format listed on IMDB. The reason this was surprising (as someone who has shot millions of feet of 16mm) was the apparent resolution and detail in the wide shots. I would have pegged it more to be well-shot 2-Perf 35mm or a Super35 blow-up with older optical technology. I have never seen that much apparent resolution coming from a Super16 neg when projected on a big screen. Does anyone have any details on the workflow? Who did the post? What lenses were used? I thought S16 was a great (and bold) choice for a piece set in the 60's. Seems like the DP really got the most out the neg. Was curious on the particulars.
  6. Hi, would anyone be able to recommend a good screening venue in Los Angeles for an independent film? This would be mostly for cast and crew. We'd love a good quality projection and sound system and a reasonable price and centrally located if possible. Thanks.
  7. I wanted to get some votes on this. In both instances I'd be using Ultra Primes. For the Alexa I'd be shooting 444 ProRes at 2K and of course, with the Dragon I could shoot 5K (aspect ratio is 1.85) and we are finishing in 2K. I have honestly heard conflicting opinions, even though the stats would lead you to believe that Epic would be a better way to go. I'm more interested in the thoughts of those who have first-hand experience rather than conjecture. Thanks!
  8. Great suggestions, thanks so much David and Bill. Sometimes you get writer's block for cinematography. I appreciate the help.
  9. Yes, I realized after I posted that I was being too vague, sorry. This is for a short and the problem is that there are such few restrictions--no real constraints. I am probably overthinking this here at the start of my prep without letting some kind of style emerge. My worry is that it will end up too generic---pretty pictures without unique characteristics for a memorable style. But then again I don't want the style to be too heavy-handed and unjustified. I need to spend some quiet time wtih the script and let something emerge from within the story---some quaities that compliment it. The story is about modern-day family dealing with crisis. Recent Fincher stuff comes to mind. David, your recent posts about the 90 Minutes in Heaven project were inspiring.
  10. Hi, I'm preparing to shoot a drama on Alexa. It is mix of interiors, exteriors, day and night. It is set in modern-day homes, both middle class and opulent. I'm shooting and directing. I know styles are very subjective, but I'm wondering if anyone can suggest some features I could watch or re-watch to help get the creative juices flowing both for the DP and the directing side of things. Thanks!
  11. Thanks for the answers. Does this weight include an onboard battery?
  12. I've been searching online to find out how much a loaded 235 would weigh. Looks like the body with IVS and viewfinder is between 7 and 9 lbs. Anyone know how I could find out how much the mag weights? Also, how much does 400' of 35mm weigh? Thanks.
  13. Sony and Ikegami were big players along with Panasonic, Hitachi, JVC, etc. They all had different products which evolved over time---and the 3 CCD cameras (as opposed to the single chip consumer cameras) fell into two broad categories: industrial and professional. Industrial cameras were more for ENG work (electronic news gathering---with some type of recorder docked to the back) and smaller market and public access TV. The professional line was more for national broadcasts of various kinds. Ikegami really dominated the high-end professional line. Are you just curious about model numbers or are you trying to replicate the look for a project?
  14. What probably creates the distinctive look is the type of camera rather than the recording medium. The cameras were likely 2/3" 3 CCD studio cameras with no recording device fed into a video switcher for a live switch (and ISO or isolated record decks where each camera's feed was recorded separately to allow for mistakes in the live switch). The cameras used on a talk show like Jerry Springer were similar to the ones used for the evening news and situation comedies that were not shot on film and also soap operas. You would have a hard time telling the difference between an analog and digital recording of the signal from those CCD cameras.
  15. Could anyone offer a recommendation as to where I can post a job opening for a post supervisor?
  16. Great discussion....lots of old points but some new observations since the last time this came up. I agree that there are some amazing digitally-acquired images being created these days---I just got off a big Alexa job and was stunned at what the camera was delivering for many of the shots. But at the same time, I still have experiences like seeing Inside Llewyn Davis, where I find it hard to believe that any digital camera could have created the same visual experience. It was easily one of the best-shot films I've seen projected in a long time. For some reason, everything that a film negative brings to an image came shining through in that project. Delbonnel really took advantage of everything the negative had to offer. Even after appreciating some fantastic digitally-acquired stuff, projects like that remind me why film still has a place in modern cinema and I hope the hype factor does not push it out too quickly. If it does, we will be missing out.
  17. I was shooting an Epic project last month and my AC asked me a question that got me thinking about exposure philosophy for digital acquisition. The scene was naturally fairly flat and low contrast by design.....no bright highlights or dark shadows. I'd say the entire scene spanned approximately 40 to 50 IRE. I placed the caucasian skin at approximately 70 IRE so there was a little trace going up to 75 and the dark end was hovering around 40 or so. But the AC seemed to suggest that I open the iris so that the hightest trace at 75 IRE would be brought up to just under 100. His philosophy was that by opening up yet keeping the top end of the trace below 100 (below clipping) that I was giving the camera more information and therefore recording a healthier image. My instinct was to expose more "normally". Any thoughts on this AC's proposed exposure philosophy?
  18. I am shooting 16x9, so I imagine there is no gain to the XT's sensor for our project. Any thoughts on trying to push for the Master Primes? Any way to characterize the difference I would see on the Alexa? Also, any thoughts on the Ultra Primes vs the Primos as far as being digital-friendly? Thanks.
  19. Thanks, Stuart. I just heard that we may have the option to shoot with Primo primes. Can anyone give me a sense of how these would compare to Ultra Primes and Master Primes?
  20. Hi, I will be shooting a spot in a few weeks. The client says it will have a long shelf life and would like to finish in 4K (preparing for new Ultra HD standard--some of their spots have a 10+ year shelf life). It is all night exteriors and lots of storybook pretty pictures---(think Werther's Originals holiday spots). As of now, my plan is to shoot Alexa with a Gemmini to allow me to shoot 2.8K ArriRaw (much less expensive than shooting XT). This would obviously require somewhat of a blow-up to 4K. There is no overcranking. I'm attracted to the Alexa over Red, for example, because of the look, color rendering, etc. My questions are: 1) Do you think we can get away with this blow up? 2) I have Ultra Primes on the job now. Is it worth trying to move up to Master Primes? If I did, how would you characterize the difference we would notice? Sharper? Better performance toward lower f-stops? Worth almost double the cost on lenses? Any other lenses you would recommend for best performance out the Alexa? 3) Not shooting anamorphic, is there any advantage to the 4x3 sensor in the XT? I am kind of basing the resolution aspect of my camera selection off of the experience of watching many Alexa movies projected at 2K in my local theatres. When they use good glass and are well-shot, I never find myself looking for more sharpness. I'm wondering if I could get away with this blow up from 2.8 K to 4k? Any other suggestions give the description of this particular job? I apprecaite your help.
  • Create New...