Oron Cohen

Hey there, In short I would say, 1) a short google search using those key words got me many results:" video production ny events " , I should just mention that in my opinion it will be a mistake to find 5 different people to film the show(I have extensive experience shooting live concerts in the past), You should find a good production company that will fit the bill, they should get 5 camera man that know how to work with each other and more importantly a director that will guide all the cameras live when the show is happening. 2) it's not a problem, you shoot in HD (HPX500, EX-3 or similar)and when you finish editing you can make an HD file of it then turn it to anything you like: DVD, file, Blue-ray. 3)lighting for the stage and lighting for video are completely different things, what you would like if possible is that the lighting guys will be kind enough to give you some more fill light, because stage lighting is usually too contrasty for video :-) 4)If you want to edit yourself(not a good idea unless you are a professional editor), so yes of course, they give you all the footage, even if you decide to make the editing with the company of your choice they will still give you all the footage. Have a nice show :-) O.

Sorry, but I don't have real knowledge about low cost/great places to study film making in the US. But I do wonder,as you are form Denmark, why not study in what is considered to be one of the finest film schools in the world? The National film school of Denmark. Such great artists came out from this school. Is the institution lost its prestige?

I did answer very fast on each one, but I hope it helps anyway :) 1. Low light capabilities, seeing the end result on set. 2. better in highlights rendering, better color rendering, more robust equipment, more of a natural organic look that is very hard to imitate in digital, the fact that you can't see the end result... 3. creating real grain in a digital sensor is one, archiving capabilities, projectors in cinemas. 4. Generally there are no real change in lighting techniques from my perspective. You do fight with the low dynamic range of the cheaper range cameras. Only thing that has changed is that you can use the low light capabilities in a way you couldn't do on film. 5. I've started with a DV camera when I was 15 years old, when I went to film school at 19 and started to shoot on film I suddenly understood that I know nothing about light because I was occupying myself by looking at the image on the monitor instead of looking at light itself. 6. Similar to the stills world, I think a pro DOP will need to know about film as well, even if he's not going to use it that often as in the past. 7. Personally it sometimes drive me crazy that there is no unity in video formats like in film, but some of the computer work is similar to lab work, it just made on computers. 8. Cinematographers like painters need to develop in the restrictions of there own art, without restrictions real art can't be made.

Hi Olivier, Thanks for the Info :-) O.

Hey Olivier, Very impressive work! Can you please share what lenses did you use and what software was used for colour grading? Also would love to hear what lights did you use, specifically interest me if the big light behind the airplane (can be seen clearly in 1:19)? Best, Oron.

I'm not a post production man, but from what I know the H.264 codec is not good for playing in FCP and you need to convert to either quicktime ProRes or Quicktime XDCAM, then it will play smoothly. Hope it helps, O.C P.S- Oddly enough it will play fine with Preview.

Dear Dror, I asked the DOP Boaz Yacov and he told me they shot it on Sony 900R, from I understand sometimes they had more then one camera. As for choosing your tolls, I think you are right, is just that sometimes I feel that people on the forum are putting too much effort on understanding the technical side of the art and not the art itself. Just my opinion. Cheers, Oron.

I think it was shot with a small HDV camera(Z1, Z7), but I have to make a comment here... Many times in the forum people are talking about the technical aspect of a film, but most times it's the least important thing for a DOP to deal with, as I see my art as one where I just need to find the right tool for a specific story, and each story needs different tools, and what is important is the story and acting and the world the characters inhibits. For almost 100 years cinema was mainly shot on one format and it never stopped DOP's to tell stories in different ways. What is so good about Ajami and I'm quoting one of the posts I read on IMDB: "Unlike many films from Israel which traditionally present an "Israeli" or "Palestinian" point of view, "Ajami" portrays a side of life that few ever see -- Arabs living in Israel. In fact, not only is this film not primarily about Arabs and Israelis, it actually deals with conflict within the Israeli Arab world between Muslims and Christians." I'll add and say that the film was co-directed by and Arab Israeli and a jewish Israeli and got big box office success in Israel, what made me so happy as it shows cinema can sometimes make one understand the other point of view a bit better.

Hi Chris, Was about to PM you, but your inbox is full. My Email is : ORONCOHENFILM@GMAIL.COM

Hi Chris, It's too long for me for to answer that question, but in short I can say that sometimes a film can have good acting but the film itself wouldn't be a good film. Part of the reason for that as I see it is that a film is compose from lots of different Art forms put together, you never watched a film and said to yourself: "wow, it's beautifully shot, the cinematography is awesome, but the film is poop!" ? But as I said in the beginning of my answer it's more complex than that, and hard to explain through one post on the internet... Cheers, Oron.

I didn't liked the camera work either. But I loved the print, the low saturated and grainy look, I wonder how did they got all this grain if they shot on 35 mm? Generally I think the film was a big disappointment for me, I was expecting something better form a film that won first place at Cannes, but maybe Cannes isn't what it use to be. What I did find impressive in the film is the Acting that was very truthful, it was very hard to tell who is really an actor and who is not. The locations which they shot were very realistic and gave the viewer a good perspective into the world the characters lives in. But the film itself as a film is not so good, and once again, it's not about the cinematography or acting, it's the story and the script, and it starts from the basic elements of script writing: structure, structure, structure...

Hi Edan, The 500T Eterna (not eternal), is not a saturated stock, it's quite soft and have a pastel, low saturated look, and it doesn't have a lot of grain compare to other 500T stock, I think it even has less grain than 7218, but Can't be sure about that. Didn't understand your problem? what do you mean what would you miss? If you mean that you will miss the grain or the saturation, as I said the 500T is not saturated, the 400T is even less statured and the 250T is pretty much similar to the 500T in look. If you want to shoot outdoors, I will go with 250T unless you want the even more low saturated look of the 400T. In any case I don't really see what is the connection to using an open iris, in any of those stock you will need do use ND filters, so you can shoot on whatever F stop you want on every one of them, I think grain wise the 250T will be the less grainy. Hope I'm helping, Cheers, Oron. P.S- I'm from Tel-Aviv, you can PM me if you like and I will try to help you more.

I agree with you David, it's just a tool. maybe we are just in a transition period, like in the 30s' when film makers just started to move into colour films, and a lot of film makers thought it's not good and others understood it will take time to learn this tool, and indeed it took some time... I remember reading an interview with Tarkovsky saying that colour is not realistic enough, never the less after some time he's last films were mainly in colour, here is the link for it: http://www.ucalgary.ca/~tstronds/nostalghi...s/On_Color.html . What I was trying to say is that sometimes a new tool is introduced and people tend to use it more then it's needed, specially in the beginning, this was the point I was trying to make, not that you don't need to use it, just that you need to carefully use it. Thanks again for the reply, Oron.

Thank you Stephen, From my experience you are so right ! Oron.

Hey David, Thank you for taking the time to answer. I totally understand all the things you point out in your post, but this last two lines grab my eye, I think it's because they verify what I'm trying to say, and I will try to explain: The editors are cutting films differently this days using more and more effects, you say that because of that(not entirely of-course) you and others need to take the DI root, but I think it works both ways... editors, since being aware of Digital finishing are allowing them selfs to make more effects, that changes the way films are edited... then it like the chicken or the egg question all over again, who is it to blame?? So, what I'm trying to say is that technology is more then a tool like lots of film makers like to say, it's changes the Art that we make, and we need to ask our self difficult questions if we truly love Film making, like the great film makers of the past you also need to ask what kind of films do we want to see in the future. And thanks again for this great thread :-) Cheers, Oron.

Hey Adam, It was great to read your post and the thread that it has created. recently I did a test on the Red for a Short film, I tested the camera under all kinds of lighting situations, in some point in the testing The director and me both looked at the monitor, then the director approach me and whisper: "I can't understand it,the picture doesn't look good, it's not supposed to be a camera with 4K, a camera that competes with 35mm film?" I answered: "you just read my mind...". So yes, I'm very unimpressed by the camera, further more, after doing some checking, we saw that if not going for DI, it will probably be the same price or cheaper to get an optical print in 35mm if you use a cheap camera( BL evolution for example). For me all the issues Adam addressed were spot on: the white clipping, the way it doesn't look good on hand held shots and everything else... I think that if one needs to shoot a classic drama short or feature without any SFX, I will definitely will push for film... 100 years of amazing film making proves it works and I never heard cinematographers complains film is not good... so why I need to change it??? Adam also talked about the fact he like the simple interface of the Red more than the Sony pro camera, I totally agree! But again I was thinking: “hey, I like it when I don't have 100 menus to mess around with... Oh god how I miss film! just push a button for it to run and be happy to know from the start that it will look good.” It reminds me that a few years ago I saw in the cinema the new version of “Apocalypse now” and was thinking: “this cinematography is amazing, it looks amazing, why we are trying so hard to change this format?? hell, it looks better from 95% of the film I see today in the cinema and it was made in the late 70s' ”. So to conclude, I Wish filmmakers(directors, cinematographers, producers)will stop being concerned by the format and try to be more into making a great master peace. And if a good camera will come along that they want to use because it will better there film, please use it. And one last point: everyone is doing DI's this days and are comparing them to the Red footage. I think 50% of the films doing a DI are not really gaining anything... Have to admit I most like the cinematography from an era that no one knew what is DI, and still the films looked great on the big screen. The last film I saw that has prove to me that point is “The diving bell and the butterfly”. So I'm asking the ones that shoots lots of features, why to use a DI in every film? Why not to keep it simple? And to bring our abilities through good film making, are you not agree that system that we chose to work in are changing the way the film will be? Cheers, Oron.

Beautiful footage! seems like you live in a nice area :lol: I love film so much! and me too thinks it was a good decision to sell the red...don't like this camera. Hope to see more stuff from your A-minima, I need to get my hands on one as soon as possible :)

I'm not sure, but I think that the lenses you mention will not fit the SR2, something about the viewfinder being in the way, I do know for sure they will fit an SR3, Cheers, Oron.

why would anyone want to make a 16mm copy of a DV PAL Documentary? I can understand if someone wants to make a 35mm blow-up from DV for theatrical release, but DV to 16mm...never heard of such a thing. If you have the spare cash, I would spent it on making the best video copy I could, and make the master on DigiBeta. If you get more information about someone that did it, it will be interesting to know why. Cheers, Oron.

Thanks for information guys! I haven't post on this forum for a while know... and I'm always amazed by the fast and professional answers of it's members! i.e - you can tell from the bokeh it's S4...I couldn't tell it max... :unsure: I will try and send an email to the production company, and will post it if they answer. Cheers, Oron.

Hi, Just finished watching "Hunger", the 17 min one shot did make me think on 2-perf... do anyone on the forum have Technical information about the film, the camera they use?(I know it's Arri, but which one and from where?) , lenses? film stocks? (I know it's fuji but want to know the kind if possible). Cheers, Oron.

Hi, for me your lights (2K,1K...)are to small to create the "rays of lights" affect. even if you will use a 500T stock it's not enough lights if you want to light from outside the room, also you will need to over expose a little bit(to get richer blacks) what will lower the sensitivity even more. I think you need to think in a different way, in the low budget film maker way...what I mean is that you need to use your tools and not fight with them... Oron. p.s- I shot recently with the vivid 160T and I agree it's beautiful:-)

hey, I think this is what actually happened, but I'm happy to say that the problem was fixed, I will post in a different thread some new captures frames as soon as I will get some. But I think it's fair to say that if you shoot super16 with slow stocks and good lenses you can definitely get good results even if you crop to anamorphic, I used the Kodak 100T&200T and the Fuji vivid160T for most scenes except one scene that we decided that a little bit of grain can look nice on it, so I used the Fuji Eterna 500T and for the glass I used a set of Zeiss primes and a canon 7-63 zoom. Oron.

Dear Antti, Thanks for paying my attention to this! I got those stills captures from the director a day or two before I post them and I admit I didn't measured the frame or notice it in first view(but I learned that mistakes happen even if you think that you know your job perfectly), anyway I checked it with the a editor and he did use the 2.35:1 mask from the pre-set on the FSP, so I didn't found out (yet) why it came out 3.12:1 and I'm trying to check it out, if you or any one else have any idea why this could happen I will be happy to hear your views. Thanks, Oron.