Shawn Sagady

Typically, Prores 422HQ is 10bit and Prores4444 is 12bit. There should not be a bit depth difference between the latter and 12bit raw. You still can argue that being able to set white balance, ISO, and debayer settings before transcoding raw files is a significant advantage versus grading log files. Though if you set white balance and ISO perfectly and nailed the exposure in-camera, then the advantage is minimal.

 

Now, if you are comparing 12bit log files to 16bit raw out of a camera like the F65, then that's another story.

Must have been 422. It was the ProRes 10bit option on a Black Magic Pocket.

Even going from 12-bit Raw to 10-bit Prores 444 I find frustrating to grade. That bit depth makes such a huge difference in your ability to fine tune the look.

Really nice reel!

 

Curious there was a lot of what appeared to be 16mm grain in about half the shots, but the image was very sharp, did you actually shoot super16 or were you applying grain in post generically?

Would you considering parting it out and selling individual sets?

Unless it was a work for hire contract you (or perhaps the school) owns the original footage. Not sure what your contract with the school said, many schools have a clause that any work done on school time or with any school resources belongs to the school.

Generally a flat scan doesn't have that high of mid's lifted, but it really depends on the log curve.

Its also really inconsistent between the two samples, though that could be the stock I guess, 250D vs 500T, but I would expect a more consistent curve.

Just checked out the trailer, this looks really great Richard. Ill have to rent it and watch with my fiance. Put a couple cents in your pocket for your amazing work.

I think you may be discounting the effect of the Scotchlite screen. The gain is 1000:1. Stray light won't affect the retroreflection very much at all because it's off-axis.

 

Oh you misunderstood, it wasnt that you wouldnt be able to see the screen, that will be fine, I was saying you could sort of hide the beam/shafts from the projector in the haze by hitting the haze with some other light like flickering amber or something since its supposed to be a fire.

Yes, the haze will of course scatter the light resulting in visible shafts of the beam. You might want to try coming in from a high angle to hide the beams as they are most obvious when viewed on axis. Also coming in from a longer distance so the angle of the beam is not as dramatic will make it less defined than if you use a wide angle lens on the projector and can clearly see the cone of the projection.

 

But the reality is projectors just arn't super bright so if you have some other lights flickering on the haze for the glow of fire it will really make it hard to tell there is projected images.

Having done quite a bit of shooting on the BMPCC I really dislike grading the ProRes files and always feel like its really inflexible compared to working Raw. Really working with 1080 raw files is not bad at all, and even a modest computer can handle it. Storage is much larger than prores but if I'm not shooting RAW on a digital camera I'd wrather be shooting film.

Great reel, lots of interesting and diverse looks and shots. Was some of the footage ungraded though, I felt on more than one occasion I was looking at a flat log image.

If as stated in the title. the film maker is looking for distribution, not just making a film because they want to and the film maker posts it here looking for feedback, what am I supposed to add? Is my personal opinion invalid? Your personal opinion didn't come into play?? if my feedback was a touch acerbic, my apologies. The humanization of classic horror tropes is boring, plain and simple. If your are looking for distribution and people are saying your film doesn't engage them, you need to know that AND WHY. It is easy to miss the forest through the trees. Can't wait to see the trailer.

 

I think the distinction you were missing is Criticism vs Constructive Criticism. Your opinion offered no real information or advice on how to better his film and the chances of distribution and success.

Well there are some errors in your illustration as light does not bounce directly back like that. You will see a density of the haze in front of the subject no matter how you do it. I can tell you looking down the beam of a light through haze makes a bright circle of sorts, so I don't know that the illusion you are looking for will work. What exactly is the end goal here? What are you trying to achieve?

So a 1/24th scale miniature banner would be 4.17 feet tall by 1.67 feet wide (You'd want to be sure to use a very thin and flexible fabric to get the right kind of motion at scale) and you would want to shoot it unfurling at 117 frames per second for the motion to be correct once composited in.

 

If you can deal with a bigger scale things get a bit easier, like 1:10 scale would be 10ft tall by 4 foot wide and you would only have to shoot 75 fps.

 

Of course you could go digital which is entirely reasonable as well, I dont know about C4D but I have had really good results from 3DS MAX's cloth system and iRay rendering for photo realistic results without much need for technical input.

Looks like a standard digital projector, LCD most likely to avoid flicker since DLP is locked to 60hz. Typically done in a dark set up so it doesnt have to fight light so you can expose to the projector. Christie has a series of LCD projectors ranging from 10k-15k lumens that are relatively inexpensive to rent.

Saw the sample footage of this Lens from Marcel and it is gorgeous. Really a beautiful lens. I cant afford it right now but I hope someone picks it up, would be a shame to sit unused.

Don't have the resources to buy right now but Ive got a S16 film in development and would love to see what this lens looks like if there are any samples. Also the other cooke mentioned. I have a Ziess 10-100 1.8 MK2 which I am currently running through a 1.4x teleconverter for coverage (much cheaper than the S16 conversion) but of course its not "perfect".

I personally prefer Vimeo for my demo content. I like their streaming services better and if you pay for the basic membership they allow full HD and you can get some pretty good quality. Of course YouTube will allow up to 4K but their compression algorithms are still pretty brutal. Probably splitting hairs.

Quoting Shawn .."Certainly but this also removes Grading and any kind of special effects or cleanup from the process".

 

This shows how unfamiliar people are now with the working process of film.

Removes grading? False. But it is more limited than current digital.

No special effects? Watch Bladerunner, old Star Wars, wierd little films by Svankmajor and legions of others.....

I understand color timing etc and yes when I referred to grading I meant in the modern sense using things like Resolve which allow incredible Control. As for the VFX I also qualified that saying all the optical effect labs and equipment are gone at this point. Never said people didn't do amazing stuff just talking about trying to do a purely analogue process today.

AFAIK, there are still people who know the (unfortunately disappearing) art of cutting negative. You scan your film, edit it and deliver the final cut with an EDL to the negative cutter. Print is then struck from the negative. Google "negative cutting" and you'll find at least two people offering the service on the very first page.

Certainly but this also removes Grading and any kind of special effects or cleanup from the process. Yes you would have a truly analogue film, but do you think any directors in this day and age even indie would throw out all the modern tools to say 100% analog? Also I imagine there is a very real cost to the negative cutting and laying sound down etc that could prove even more prohibitive for an indie film. One of the big arguments right now is that is cost effective to shoot Film vs Digital, but I think that relies on the assumptions of a scan and finishing in digital. Probably not a lot of optical labs left that will do chroma keying and compositing the old way at a price that would be reasonable in order to keep everything analog.

I saw the movie in much better quality, A lot of it looks under cracked. On top of that I know the actors where told to move very slowly and to make no sudden moments because it would look too choppy, and to much motion blur. Compared to the rest of the movie it seemed to be at a lower frame rate. But I just want to know if lowering the frame rate on magic lantern to use lower shutter speeds, like is it limited to 1/30 even if it's set to 10 fps? cause with out magic lantern it's limted to 1/30 even when set to 24 fps.

So David Mullen, one of the most respected members of the community, a DP with a lifetime of experience and an encyclopedic knowledge of film making and how other films were created has explained to you that the film was not shot under cranked, and brought up the methods they used to get enough light etc. And you are going to completely disregard that information for your own 'belief' that you are correct because it "looked choppy" and you heard a rumor. I feel like this entire thread you have been disregarding huge amounts of valuable advice with the sole intent of doing something the way you want to do it, asking many questions which could be answered by just doing some research on your own (Magic Lantern has their own website and forums full of information). I'm personally really amazed at the patience and kindness the community has shown answering your questions and trying to help you, but I fear in the end you don't want help you just want someone to tell you that your way is correct and how to do it, regardless of the realities and practices of film making.

I'm all for more 70mm theatrical releases, and I agree the analog nature of film is really appealing visually, but even with all the 70mm projectors we have available now due to the special releases of Hateful 8 and other films, we don't have enough to make it more than a gimmick. The vast majority of audiences are still seeing a DI projected at 2-4k. I just felt the article, while accurate on the pluses of film, kinda falters when it tries to make the selling point of film being its better to watch film projected than digital projected, when that (at least right now) is not really a reality in the industry.

 

If I as a film maker make my next short on Super 16mm I am never going to see it actually projected at 16mm unless I print back to film... but then are I not just printing pixels to film since it has been made digital?

I stand corrected on the fill light, might have been other candle sources/bounces I was seeing, just noticed when the candles flickered not all light was lost. Thanks for the info David.

Um unless i'm missing something those were shot at 24 fps. People don't use lower frame rates to let more light in typically, the use faster lenses and film stocks with high ASA/ISO. The candle light in those scenes is also supplemented with other lighting, which is a pretty standard tactic as well.

http://goo.gl/R5ZPn0

 

Interesting read, but I think it got a little heavy handed against digital. Particularly that his argument about an audiences reaction to pixels vs film seems pretty moot when everything is scanned and presented on digital projectors these days. Would be interested to hear other peoples thoughts.