Jump to content

Shahid Malik

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Shahid Malik

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  • Location
    London, United Kingdom
  • My Gear
    Moviecam SL, Moviecam Compact and Canon EOS 60D
  1. Hi Joelle, May I ask what kind of price you are looking for? Moreover, are you selling the lenses individually or only as a set? Many thanks, Shahid
  2. Hello All, I saw Mission: Impossible Rogue Nation last night at the BFI IMAX in London and was quite underwhelmed by the image. I have always felt that the IMAX DMR "treatment" was a bit of a con. I would usually only go to the IMAX if I am watching something shot on that format. With regards to Mission: Impossible, I enjoyed the film - the plot quite was standard - and thought that the action sequences were quite impressive. The one thing that struck me from the first shot of the was that the image looked like an upscaled DVD. I have a feeling that the soft image has something to do with the upscaling from a 2K scan and the limitations of 35mm in terms of the size it can be projected. It would be great if someone could provide details of the recommend projection size for 35mm (if there is such a thing as I imagine it's very subjective). I personally didn't notice grain at all - it just looked like a poorly upscaled image. In fact, I don't think I have ever really noticed grain on a 35mm film print. Personally, I find it easier to melt into the image. With digital scans of film I find that it brings the grain out more and in motion it can be quite jarring. I definitely agree with David about black levels though! It really bothers me that my plasma as home has what appears to be better black levels that a cinema. Also, I often notice that the letterbox bars that unfortunately are becoming more common in the cinema are darker than the blackest point in the image itself. Unless this is intentional (an example of that being Killing Them Softly) it can really bother me. I think a 4K D.I. would have been better even if the grain was more pronounced. Cheers, Shahid
  3. Hi All, I was just wondering whether anyone would be able to comment on their experiences with both Cinelab London and iDailies. Ideally, I'm looking for those who have used both companies and would be able to provide some kind of comparison. I understand that the differences between the two will mostly boil down to pricing and service, but I wondered whether their telecines and scans differed at all. (They do both, Cinelab in particular, have a number of option with regards to the type of scan they will give you - HD, 2K Spirit, 4K, etc.) I'd be interested to know also whether people are mainly shooting 16mm or 35mm these days. I am planning to shoot a short up in the North York Moors so if anyone has any suggestions for any labs nearer to Yorkshire that would be great, although I am not sure that there are any left! Thank you all for your help! Cheers, Shahid
  4. Hello all, I have a question about the ever increasing use of the 2.55:1 aspect ratio and wider on music videos and commercials. To make my question a little clearer here is an example: Toro Y Moi — "So Many Details" This video was shot anamorphically with the LOMO anamorphics. Judging by the final aspect ratio would it be reasonable to guess that it was shot on Super35 with anamorphic lenses and then desqueezed to achieve what appears to be 2.55:1? I was wondering whether if this is the case, they would have needed a custom ground glass to ensure that framing was possible without say centring the system for sound aperture, using an anamorphic GG, then estimating where the centre of frame would be so that your footage ends up centre once it has been desqueezed in the wider format. Of course they could have simply cropped the 2.39:1 image to give the extra width... I hope that makes sense. Thanks, Shahid
  5. Shahid Malik

    Moviecam

    To specific, the Moviecam was said to be superior to the movement used in the 235 in particular although I am not too sure how much the 'modern' Arriflexes (535, 435, 235) differ from one another.
  6. Shahid Malik

    Moviecam

    Thanks for the reply. Moviecams are generally cameras which people seem to own these days and I've heard they are generally easy to maintain. Of course sending one off to your local rental house for a check up is always something that will be necessary - you'd do that anyway before you shoot something. In terms of parts, that may be a problem for buyers as rental houses are selling off all their parts and if you've got that one part missing then finding it could be quite the mission. One thing that has also interested me is the difference between the Mk2 and Mk1 versions of both the SL and Compact. As far as I gathered the difference was quite small and was mainly a question of compatibility as opposed to a complete mechanical alteration. It is interesting how the Arricams are considered the peak of 35mm motion picture film cameras, but the Moviecams are kind of lost with history. I heard, whilst working at Arri here in London, that the Moviecam/Arricam movement is actually "superior" to the Arriflex movements!
  7. Shahid Malik

    Moviecam

    Hi all! I noticed that there are few thread discussing Moviecams. I was wondering what are your experience with the Moviecam systems and as they are for sale all over the place these days, would you recommend the system? How would you say they compare to the Arricams and Arriflexes? Thanks! Shahid Malik
  8. Thanks for all the responses guys you have both been really helpful! David, Cinelab and iDailies and few other places scan in your film (although as you say grading and whatnot is not a cheap affair) for relatively affordable prices here in London so I think getting prints from them and getting them to scan in the film for digital copies might be a better option than limited myself to digital as you have suggested. I am a big fan or film prints so I want to keep that option open! Thanks Gentlemen! Not sure if I'm allowed to do this on here, but David if you ever need a runner let me know! (Although I'm sure you're not in short supply) I will hop on the next plane to LA.
  9. I looked it up and it seems that centering for anamorphic is the same as centering for Academy. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks,
  10. Also, to shoot anamorphically for 2.40 with the intention of making a contact print would one need to use a format mask to ensure that the soundtrack area is unexposed or can that be done at the time of printing? And just to double check, if you centre the camera for Academy (without masking) could you also shooting anamorphically without things being off-centre? What I mean by that is: is the frame the same size and are they both centered the same? I hope I am making sense! Thanks!
  11. Hi David and Dom, Thanks for your helpful replies. I guess it was simpler than I imagined. I am indeed looking to purchase a Moviecam. The word 'standard' was used by one of the guys at Arri and I wasn't sure what he meant so I thought I'd ask it here to clarify the whole thing. As you've guessed, I want to set the camera up to have the freedom to shoot spherically and anamorphically, but also want to make it as easy as possible to make a print. Does making a print with fewer steps in between - i.e. contact printing - prove cheaper than say shooting anamorphic on Super35 then either going the digital root or lab route to achieve 2.40? And Dom, I was told by Arri that I could change the centering of the camera myself from Super 35 to Standard 35, but I wouldn't be able to check the depth. Thank you so much for all your help! Shahid
  12. Hi Everyone, I'm new to this forum so just wanted to say it's a fantastic resource for us filmmakers so cheers guys! I have some questions about setting a 35mm camera for Super 35, Anamorphic or Academy. Can one achieve a 2.40/2.35/2.39:1 image by shooting with anamorphic lenses through a standard gate? Does one need to lengthen the height of the gate in order to accommodate the slightly taller gate required for the anamorphic process? Is a standard gate matted to produce a 1.375:1 Academy ratio image or does the standard gate natively achieve this? I was under the impression that Academy ratio 1.375:1 was a project aspect ratio which was achieved by masking the image. A side question: Do many productions shoot anamorphically on a Super 35 frame and then in the DI crop the sides to achieve a 2.35/2.39/2.40:1 aspect ratio? With the advantage of scanning these days I wonder if this is a viable option. Many thanks, :) Shahid Malik
×
×
  • Create New...