Albion Hockney

woah, so many good things in this thread. thanks! here is a long doc about bergman making on winters light: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOebK7UTUgc

to me it looks like the face is underexposed. You prob want to overexpose a portion of her face 1-2stops. also this is very much about make up and sheen. you want the lights to be reflected by her skin. your model is also white and white people don't really reflect light unless they have a lot of makeup/product on. Jennifer Lopez's complexion is also apart of the look.

its going to be very expensive thats for sure. the stabilized head on moving vehicle wont be very clean or consistent unless you did it as a slow move on a very long lens so the car can maintain a speed and circle the vehicle easily...you'd also need a huge road with open space left/right of it. ...and even then that's just a super tough shot to operate. would need to be cineflex or shotover. and to do that safely too.... its basically a stunt in itself. the jib makes the most sense to me. some Russian arms could shoot this shot on the car....but if you need to mount that sorta setup to a normal car....I donno you could build track around the car and suspend it off the roof maybe with some sorta robotic dolly underslung. to get a clean look for a shot like this is a very large scale production...especially on 35.

reverse sky panel bounces for fill? and some sorta very large source as moonlight frame right. Would love to see some breakdowns of setups on Filmlights.

no other frames, but one 12x20 solid? bold.

If you want to be a Gaffer/Truck owner I would buy industry standard fixtures like an M18 which people will request, though the 1000W plasma light which I have never heard of sounds interesting. Also at this size the vehicle and organization systems start to matter quiet a bit. You would ideally want a small cargo van fitted out with shelving and ideally a lift gate. Also Carts. If you can't afford that I'd scale back. I have seen some gaffers with ultra tiny packages work out of Mini Vans or Hatchbacks, but at that point you can really only fit enough gear for interviews or very small setups and with out a vehicle renting it out can be challenging.

Hi Edith, your inspirations and approach are great but every project is different and the lights and gear needed do vary quiet a bit. If your interested in owning this size package w/ grip gear is your plan to work as a gaffer or rent it out? If not, I would suggest working with a lighting rental house if you need this big of a package. With grip gear and that many fixtures it sounds pretty much like a 1/2 ton or a 1 ton package which is a small truck or vans worth of gear.

for sure an under rated camera. Panasonic did everything right and the market just didn't take it in. Better picture then any sony/canon offering still I'd say. Great DR. sadly people don't request it though. Great value the TV series "Master of None" was shot on it ...good reference to see what its capable of with good production.

Dana dolly is great, but I want something quicker to setup.

Hey all, Doing a shoot with a very small crew. What is the best 4-6ft slider on the market. I want it to have 100mm Bowl to take a 1030D, but something like the Modern Studio (which often is used on dolly) is too heavy. I'd be great if I can put it on a tripod instead of using stands.

^ This is great. I wish every movie had a bts featurette that was so sincere and explained the process so well. Jarin's segment is really interesting. love "layered and complex" I'm excited to see the frames!

there are lots of rare wideangles new and old so I'm not sure your estimates are totally correct. Here's the widest full frame option I've seen, though its not a "cine lens", I'm sure it could be converted. https://petapixel.com/2020/06/30/the-laowa-9mm-f-5-6-is-the-worlds-widest-rectilinear-full-frame-lens/

Most people would say the biggest differentiating factor is depth of field. A good way to visualize this is to imagine what the image sensor of the camera can see. So lets say you have a 35mm @f2.8 lens that covers a full frame sensor First you place it on a super 35mm camera, then on a full frame camera. on the full frame camera the only difference is the sensor captures a bigger/wider image utilizing the whole lens. So what you get is the exact same depth of field, BUT a much wider aspect, which in turn gives you the effect of shallower depth of field. on full frame photo cameras the difference is 2 stop of depth of field. Meaning you would need not only a wider lens, but a faster lens to match the look of 35mm F2.8 on a full frame. As for aspect ratio. Sure if you have a wider sensor you get a wider aspect ratio, but you can of course simply crop on taller sensor as well. as for width or FOV (field of view) differences. You can always use wider lenses. the widest super 35mm lens I know is the Arri 8R. On full frame there are 12mm lenses (maybe wider?) so maybe you can get a touch wider on full frame. For the Arri 65 I'm not familiar with the options. At the end of the day the biggest difference with shooting on larger sensors is resolution, and an easier ability to achieve shallow DOF or extreme shallow DOF effects.

There is (and I think its a bit old school) idea of the commercial director taking 10% of the budget. Now I think its usually a flat rate. and I've never head of a Director inflating the budget to get a higher cut. Generally commercial budgets are roughly set upfront by the advertising agency or client and the only time you push the budget up is if they are making asks that can't be facilitated with the money they have. It's hard to convince a client that you need more money unless you have a valid reason. sometimes you have a a client with a budget way to big for the job they need and people go ahead and spend it. Usually I see that with like sorta corporate-ish jobs. You'll have a Mini LF w/ everything and wireless FIZ for a talking head for some internal video no one will ever see. but people do it. That all said if the client comes to set and sees only 5 people and a 1ton lighting package that might wonder why they had to spend a 100k to do it...so of course you spend it. Dp's rates are generally per day even the most high end folks will get day rates. for those w/ agents its usually around 3-5k or more if they are "famous".

what about the Arri 765? is the frame size different then Imax? Edit: Answered my own question.... I wasn't aware Imax runs horizontal so you get a lot more negative space then running it vertical in the 5perf Arri camera.

The quality is very low resolution (youtube says 360p) so its hard to analyze it. That said if this was shot around 2000 it would have almost definitely been shot on either Film, the Sony Cine Alta (f900), or maybe a Viper Film Stream... those were really the only options around then for high level production. The sequence of the girl walking is shot in extreme slow motion and is lit artificially with a large light, which allowed them to underexpose the background, which is the key to that look. the de saturated footage looks digital, could be something lower end then the F900...maybe a varicam? the look is simple to achieve I'd say through post color grading these days.

Definitely test! Depending on the scale of your production I would say you can safely do vehicle mount shots with out shutting down streets. I say this cautiously! but if you are driving on side streets without traffic its fairly common to do this. The most dangerous thing is honestly having actors act AND drive, so make sure they are all very comfortable with this. Handheld in the car can also be fine and is often done. Maybe you have a wide master with an exterior mounted camera or even just shots of the car itself from a distance and then you can cut into handheld shots in the car. It depends on the aesthetic you want.

Daylight film in tungsten environment will be very warm...its just the opposite effect of tungsten film in daylight . if you have a digital camera or even an iphone you can whitebalance to exterior lighting and then look at a house lamp and see the difference. If you start looking at lighting and pay attention you'll notice the warmth of tungsten. especially in places where it contrasts with daylight. Notice how at twilight the sky appears cool/blue but peoples house lights look warm. of course now with LED and Fluorescent lights this isn't always the case as their are many different colors of LED and Fluorescent

if your talking about tungsten film for daylight scenes without filtering that is pretty common. with a flat scan there is enough color info to go anywhere you'd like with it in the color grade, that said sometimes people do it on purpose for a bluer/cooler look.

Its hard to tell exactly whats going on from the angle of the photo. I wonder if they are having some issues with direct sunlight coming through they are also trying to cut or soften....that would explain the 8x that is behind the m40 or m18. also a curious looking checkered silver lame rag. There aren't many soft sources that have the power of HMI's so often you do use HMI's with heavy diffusion for daylight scenes. That said multiple 4x frames of diffusion like that is NOT common and usually wouldn't be necessary. Sometimes you will use a "double break". putting a light through 2 diffusion frames. Often the first one is 4x frame to help spread the light across a bigger frame like a 8x or 12x

this is actually a special lens. here is another thread about it:

the light you needs depends on many factors. No one light will create a specific effect. Many lights can simulate sunlight. there are three basic qualities of a light intensity softness or hardness Color For example on a studio set you might be able to effectively imitate the sun with a 2000W tungsten light even though it is much warmer and no where near as bright as the sun, But if you are outside and need to replicate sunlight you might need something as bright if not brighter then an 18000W HMI. It just depends on the situation, knowing what light to use when is part of the basics of cinematography. Maybe look into some books or basic online classes.

It looks like they are doing some composition and fx work to hide transitions where you noticed. They did a good job though. To get all of that done in one take with that the dynamic camera movements, blocked action, not to mention working out the lighting because its essentially a 360 shot would be tremendously difficult.

can you share a link to the spot your talking about? any specific questions ....that seems very broad

what is the difference in the resulting image compared to traditional processing as reversal? The show looks great regardless of how much that has to do with the ektachrome