Max Field

Wanted to get the creative input from veteran cinematographers on my boarding of this short I wrote and directed for the promotion of a franchise I'm working on. I took a lot of what I learned through working with cameras and tried to apply it to 2D anime storytelling.

Often I like to go back to very old threads of this forum to see what the active unfiltered perspective was on various things that are now considered history. Unfortunately I think the posts here only go back to 2004, and I was wondering what the in-the-moment reaction was of cinematographers to Star Wars Episode 2, being the first full digital capture blockbuster. At the time was Lucas held in high regard for pulling a move like this for such a big property? Were most calling him annoyingly experimental for trying to make a movie with an ENG camera? I'd like to hear the perspective of it without the bias of today's technological landscape, from people who were there to hear the talks back in the early 2000's.

Hey all, Got a nice deal on some SxS Pro+ cards and was revisiting cameras that used this media format. Off the top of my head it was Sony F3, F5, F55, and Arri Alexa EV Classic/Plus. Are there other solid cameras that I am overlooking? Thanks for any input.

Going back to the original post's analogy with the current AI scare of today, everyone in the industry period is worried about what AI will do to artists whether they are union or non-union. The budgets for corporate and commercial video productions have nose-dived in the last 20 years because digital capture is far easier and more accessible than film capture, most of the upper class in this example is working on those larger union sets so wouldn't feel the brunt of it. The lower class greatly increased in numbers because of lower barrier of entry (friend or nephew with a DSLR). And the middle class (local business commercials/music videos) barely exists nowadays because clients see the cheaper option so don't even consider shelling out budget for a better set. These dynamics weren't nearly as staggering as they were 30 years ago. I feel like this bleak state of video production can paint some of the picture of what we can expect with the AI shift.

This is genuinely surprising given how cheaper digital capture utterly destroyed the middle class of film/video production. Hindsight is 20/20 I suppose

So we are seeing a whole lot about AI replacing the jobs of traditional artists, writers, actors, and more, but I feel like the transition from digital to film over the last 20 years could provide some insight on where this new AI technology might take the industry. Does anyone have any particular stories regarding unions opposing sets that used digital capture? I feel like I heard one fleeting story in the past where actors didn't like it because of increased take ratio... Whether it was on or off camera, what were the particular oppositions in the 21st (or 20th) century that come to mind for digital capture?

I looked through their catalogs and it's a two-fold problem where either they don't have the songs we want or they are only for the playing of at live events and not to be used within recorded media.

Sorry but #6 does not answer "what if they don't reply" which in all likelihood is what happens when you email a major record label.

Have been Googling all over the place and keep getting results for artists getting their songs into movies and not the other way around. Has anyone produced a film before and gone through the process of officially licensing a contemporary copyrighted piece of music into the final cut? It's so hard to track which label owns what artist's catalog nowadays, as well as getting a response from them in general feels like a struggle. If we have songs from multiple different labels, is there some kind of licensing agent who can communicate with the labels on a filmmakers behalf to acquire licensing rights to music easier? Thank you.

Perhaps documentation and camera tests of the URSA 4.6K were throwing me off or trying to get me to push the image due to expectations I have for skin tones after working with better cameras. Last week I was watching an URSA 4.6K versus Amira test and the URSA seriously lost the skin tone battle where everything had these white-ish hotspots and ugly reflections. In this new treatment you have posted I am okay with the shine on the screen-left part of the face, however something in the more shaded part of the cheeks feels off. Here is a link to the video I am referencing:

Grabbed a sample off somebody to just grade for fun (shot on URSA mini 4.6K) and was tweaking it around for a while however could just not get the skin tones to look the least bit appealing. The skin tones look so plastic but I am trying to figure out if there is a sole method for articulation beyond "camera has bad skin tones". Is it because his skin is too oily? Does the sensor fumble something in particular that RED or Arri would get right? I've shot faces cast in shadow before but they didn't look this artificial. Additionally, what methods do you use to fix skin tones that look this shiny and plastic? Thanks to all for any input.

Thanks for this, sorry I didn't get the notification when you actually sent it.

An extremely cheap way of doing it which may not lead to scientifically perfect results is to point the camera at a white bath towel and keep it in focus and filling the entire frame. Then put a 1K tungsten or some other very bright source on it so you have tons of light to play with. Put on false color (and make sure no curve LUTs are applied) and reduce the camera exposure to the absolute darkest point that still has a bit slightly registering beyond 0 IRE. Then using triangle of exposure, count the stops you open step-by-step going brighter and brighter and see how many stages you can raise before you see any highlight clipping on the white towel. However many stops you can count before clipping is your dynamic range (including your initial stop). Have done this with a few cameras and it's matched up with the professional tests every time.

Haven't really looked into RED cameras for a while since all of their early stuff would overheat and partake in proprietary extortion, while simultaneously still not quite looking as good as an Arri equivalent. Just recently I watched a test of a V-Raptor sensor shooting out against an Alexa Mini LF and was impressed by how much better RED's color philosophy has gotten to where it felt like having either image was entirely 50/50 for me. Previously being 70/30 in favor of Arri. My question of their image has been answered with flying colors, if anyone could please answer these other 3 questions I would be very thankful: Are the DSMC3/Ranger era cameras doing more than 40 minutes of recording on a single battery yet? Has RED been continuing the practice of proprietary extortion through their overpriced memory cards? Or do they allow for good recordings in more universal media (CFast, SSD)? Do these cameras still overheat after running for over 2 hours? Interested in any and all insight, please don't sugarcoat any experience with these cameras. Thanks

I could drop $20k cash on a camera right now if I wanted to, I'm just anti financial gatekeeping. The under 25 crowd would care about cinematography as an artform way more if it wasn't so artificially expensive in certain areas.