Justin Hayward

I think this statement sums up everybody?s answers to your observation (not question). At first glance, a still shot of the sun setting behind the Alps (by itself) is probably going to be prettier than a medium shot in a coffee shop of a waitress that just lost her job, but the lighting and composition of the waitress is meant to evoke a specific emotion within the context of a whole scene, within the context of a whole film, whereas the sunset is most likely supposed to look pretty. The beautiful shots in films lie in the storytelling through photography, not necessarily the shot alone, but if you think Greg Tolland and Conrad Hall could have supported the story better if they lit there films like modern music videos is a different discussion. Know what I mean?

This is going to be a 7 page thread.

I couldn?t take my eyes off it. Very, very cool. Beautiful compositions. Beautiful? everything. This film is pure eyecandy. Really. It?s rare I even sit through something posted on this website that?s this long (short attention span), but I couldn?t take my eyes off it.

"Man on Fire" was shot in HD?

Thanks. This is beautiful Mr. Townson. Very nice. Good work everybody.

I grabbed these from the last feature I shot (super 16, 7218, 1/8 white promist throughout). The first two are lit with a skirted 500 watt china ball rigged out of frame above the table and a baby or something for a little light in the background. For the CU?s, I added a little edge light with an inky gelled with 1/8cto. These next three were lit with two baby juniors bounced into an 8x BW griff. The edge was a 1200 par uncorrected (obviously). It was about two stops over the key, I think.

It was required for your first 16mm film when I attended Southern Illinois University in 2000-01. If you?re provided the tools and accessories, it's possible?but I don?t recommend it. A mistake in cutting is irreversible.

Instead of edge lighting, you can try separating the dark side of your subject with shafts of light in the background or just brighter areas on the walls. Edge, rim, or back lighting can be tricky with smoke?if you don?t want to see the light in the smoke.

Phil, This is one 1200 par. All that matters are your ratios from light to dark, not how bright the light is.

Guilty.

This is my standard mindset when shooting anything.

Dude? Tim has been known to ban people from this website without notice. I am grateful for your input on many subjects throughout this forum, but this is absurd. I appreciate your view on affirmative action and I?m not going to dispute you, but some of these comments are beyond arguing the politics of affirmative action and just simply too much. You seem to be a smart, funny, and informative guy. Why don't you keep it that way?

What did the director think?

Didn?t a couple of kids die trying to hold on to the back of a car while riding their skateboards after ?Back to the Future? came out? There?s a reason they say ?don?t try this at home?. Really though, it could be very dangerous. Use professionals and extreme caution.

Why are you so angry? People shoot whatever they want. Right?

I?m confused. Was ?The English Patient? shot on HD or do you think Michael Mann directed it? Somewhere Michael Man said he shot HD to see into the L.A. night. Somebody told me the other day how impressed they were with ?Collateral?. They had no idea how FILM could see into the night like that. He was shocked that there was a stock this fast. That?s probably why Michael Mann shot HD.

A couple of weeks ago we were shooting something on one camera and we brought in another for some coverage. Somehow we overexposed a stop or a stop and a half on the latter (mitchel-fomer, arri- latter), but not the MC (5218). At the transfer in the morning, I was able to see bringing the processed film down 1 stop or so (in the telecine) next to a properly exposed negative. (I?ve actually done it plenty before, but I never paid much attention. I just fix it and moved on.) Maybe it was just too early for me to comprehend anything, but it seemed better overexposed and brought down in telecine than what we properly exposed. I watched them later (on a standard monitor) and I still thought the overexposed (slightly and brought down), looked better than the better exposed. It just looked? richer or sharper? or something (the colorist put the lost contrast back in). I kind of liked it.

You?re right. I understand, but (for some reason) I can?t wrap my brain around it. I just have to trust my meter. It?s just interesting to me.

I usually go at least a half stop under. Mostly, the difference between blue or green is whatever your subject?s color involves. If they have some green? use blue. Or vise versa. Otherwise, I?m not really concerned.

I?m curious about frame rate. Isn?t doubling it is one stop? 30 to 60 is one stop. 60 to 120 is one stop. What about 500 to 1000? This can?t be one stop? right? I?m missing something.

Try it. It would be very noticeable.

Would they be impressed?

Yeah! :D ... yeah :( ... sigh.

I like the reflection of his hands in his glasses. I?ve only tried this with film. Twice actually. One was too hot and one was too dark (I was paranoid from the former and underexposed the latter). It?s really hard to judge reflections, especially in glasses. There are so many different kinds (with different sunglasses and all). I really have no idea how to meter it, so I do it by eye. But, this hasn?t worked out so far. Really nice stuff. I think backlights or edge lights (or whatever) are the only acceptable time to let video/HD clip like that.