Jump to content

Pete Raynell

Basic Member
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    New Zealand

Recent Profile Visitors

1732 profile views
  1. Thanks David, Interesting to know, so am I understanding correctly that the Netflix 4k requirement only applies to the acquisition format of Netflix originals? And they are happy to stream sub 4k deliverables for programs brought from other studios? I still find it hard to believe that a modern drama such as Animal Kingdom would be delivering at such low res these days, it seems a big compromise just to get the 2x anamorphic look in 16:9 but I'm sure they had their reasons!
  2. Hi there, Recently a director approached me wanting to shoot with 2x anamorphic glass, but with a 16:9 aspect ratio. I have done this before on the Alexa SXT shooting 6:5 4K Cine Anamorphic 2.0x mode, but it doesn't leave a great deal of resolution to play with. I noticed recently that Netflix here is Australia is showing season 5 of the drama Animal Kingdom, from everything I can find online it looks like they shot on Alexa mini S35 with Panavision T series lenses. I'm curious how they get around the Netflix 4k requirement in this situation? Any ideas? As all the 16:9 anamorphic options I can see with this camera / lens combination still leave you with an HD final image or slightly larger.
  3. So I worked with the same DP again last week, same lenses, and same technique with the diopters. I paid a little more attention to the monitor this time. Heres what I noticed... Shooting on Mini LF with 50mm rehoused zeiss contax at around T2, focus was at about 4.5ft on talent, we where shooting in a park with extras in the deep BG out of focus, maybe 50 ft away from camera, when a 1/2 diopter was placed in the matte box the out of focus extras in the BG became far more blurry and out of focus.
  4. I recently worked on a shoot (shooting alexa mini with rehoused zeiss contax glass) where the DP was always using a diopter in front of the lens, even though the shots and required focus range was well within minimums, I did not get a chance to ask what the reason for using the diopters was, but from what I could tell on the monitor they where shifting the focal range of the lens to make the bg appear softer as we where shooting in a small room. Am I correct in assuming this is another use for diopters besides achieving closer focus? or is there another aesthetic use I might have been missing? Pete.
  5. Turns out this technique is called the "Double Dolly Shot" or "Floating Dolly" , Director Spike Lee uses it in a lot of his films.
  6. Thanks, examples like that are exactly what im after to show the director. really need a few more!
  7. Hi all, I'm planning on doing a shot where the actor is standing on something like a western dolly, the camera is then rigged off the dolly (most likely on a stabilised head), as the dolly moves the camera and actor move locked together to give the effect that the actor is sort of floating/sliding along. Firstly is there a name for this technique I'm forgetting? I was thinking along the lines of Snorricam, but the camera is not connected the the actors body. Secondly, I know I have seen this effect before but can't for the life of me remember where, can anyone suggest some references? Thanks, Pete.
  8. Hi will, Thanks for sharing, I would be very interested in having a play with some of these looks if you're able to share? Pete.
  9. Hi all, I’ve had a lot of experience shooting digitally, primarily with Alexa and Red and have developed a large knowledge of this format and the nuances of digital cinematography over time. Though I like the many attributes of film I have actually never shot on it besides the odd 35mm and 120mm stills when I was younger. I started shooting digitally at a time when film was no longer viable as an option where I live. However It seems that there is bit of a return to film and availability of stock where I live again, and I’m getting interested in shooting on it myself. Though the thought of doing so is a little scary to me having never done so before! I have access to an Arri 435 or Panavision XL2 cameras, though not limited to these body’s I was considering shooting on one of them, I was also thinking of shooting on super 16 to cut my teeth. For the sake of the argument let’s assume I want to shoot on Kodak 500T 5219 in studio. I do have a firm understanding of the different properties attributed to different stocks in terms of colour and grain, and how pushing and pulling can effect this. I also understand how to handle and store the film as well. But I do have a few questions (I’m sure some are pretty dumb! So bare with me) Exposing the film: I’ve found myself using my light meter less and less and exposing off my properly calibrated monitor also utilizing false colour when shooting digitally. - Is this any sort of a guide to work off with the video tap on newer 35mm film cameras? Or should I solely really on my meter to expose? - To check my lighting and exposure one thought was to have my digital stills camera handy on set, is this a common practice? - How forgiving is modern film stock compared to say Alexa raw files? - As mentioned, when working with digital I really rely on my monitor to say slightly under expose certain parts of the image on purpose, is this something you can usually get a rough guide of off the video spilt? I imagine the split be treated as a framing guide only, (this is probably one of those dumb questions) Developing and Scanning: - Once the film is exposed, am I correct that the needs to be processed in a lab to create the developed negative, then the negative needs to be scanned to a positive in the form of a digital file for post etc? If so, - Where do certain effects get applied if required? I’m assuming if I have exposed under or over on purpose in order to push or pull the stock, then this gets done in the lab developing process? And other changes that I would be used to doing in a normal digital grade get done once a digital scan is created? - Are there any other things you might suggest to someone with advanced knowledge of digital cinematography that would be helpful for their first time shooting with film? Thanks, Pete.
  10. Thanks David, this is very helpful, I have a set of HBM filters and was thinking of purchasing the 1/8 black pro mist for exactly the same reason as your last post, this answers my question perfectly! Pete.
  11. I'm trying to find a comparison of these two filters or at least understand the attribute's of both to compare? I'm assuming they are very similar, accept the black pro mist will change the overall contrast of a scene more than the HBM, especially if changing strengths. For the sake of the argument though I'm only interested in the difference between an 1/8 black pro mist and 1/8 Hollywood black magic. Pete.
  12. Thank you, I don't believe open gate will work as we need to deliver in ProRes, though the Arri frame composer tool does show an open gate pro res option for Open Gate 4:3 2.8K in ProRes. I thought open gate was only applicable to Arri Raw recording? or is this something new? We also need to be able to output the desquezed image from camera to monitor, so not sure of this will be an option using those methods. I now have the option of shooting with the SXT instead of the Mini , what seems like a better option is to shoot in the 6:5 4K Cine Anamorphic 2.0x mode available on the SXT that gives me a 4096 x 1716 image that I can crop the sides off for 16:9 with some wriggle room. I understand the camera is up sampling but it's not an issue for this job.
  13. I have a studio job coming up that I would love a second opinion on. The brief involves a young actor made up as an old man, walking through a white studio space past various props delivering lines. As the spot progresses his appearance changes at certain points and he starts to appear younger (eg: he starts the spot bald , removes his shirt over his head whilst walking to reveal his hair has grown back, and another gag where he wipes his hand in front of his face and his skin is less wrinkled) This spot all needs to appear as one continuous tracking shot and the ageing transitions to be fast and seamless. The way I am currently approaching it is to use a motion control robot on a 40ft track to do the camera move, and also have a video split operator on hand doing overlay work to line our actor up. The obvious variable in this situation is that the actor will never land in exactly the same spot on every take. So I have suggested we use the video split to get this as close as possible. Then request a VFX team in post do some Morph work with something like the RE:Flex Morph plugin for After Effects to avoid just trying to use something like a cross dissolve that may produce ghosting as the images overlay. An example of this morph plugin is can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrySJ4dJwBc Has anybody here had experience with this sort of thing before? Am I going down the right path? Would love a second opinion for the reassurance with this one! Cheers, Pete,
  14. I am shooting a spot shortly on Alexa Mini that we need to deliver in 16:9 prores 25fps. However I want to shoot with x2 Anamorphic lenses as the director has requested anamorphic flares. From what I am reading the best way to achieve this for the highest possible resolution is to use the following setting in the mini - "ProRes 16:9 HD Ana (for situations where the look of anamorphic lenses is desired but the end product is full 16:9 HD without letterboxing)" Am I correct here? Or is there another way to do this to achieve higher resolution that 1080 x 1920 by extracting in post from a different anamorphic mode? (from what I've researched I would only gain horizontal resolution and loose vertical if I did this) Just want a second opinion in case I'm missing something... HD should be fine but I would like a little more resolution where ever I can get it as there is the possibility of some slight post reframing work on this job for match cuts. Cheers, Pete.
  15. It's quite a subtle effect, but you can see an example here shot at 23fps, where the fish lands in the boat, it's been used mainly for comedic purposes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu2u2cTO33E We have done some camera tests today and in camera looks more natural than speeding up in post, I can't really say why.. it just does, so I think ill stick with the in camera plan, the advantage obviously of speeding up later is the 25fps option is there in post if required. In terms of keeping my exposure consistent switching between 23 and 25fps I think ill just adjust the iris slightly.
×
×
  • Create New...