Jump to content

Marz Miller

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Marz Miller

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.marzmiller.com
  1. Hey there, I have an Arri 435ES thats 2perf. Interested?
  2. Looking to purchase any of these cameras! Please email me at marzakiomiller@gmail.com if you have anything similar! Thanks, - M
  3. Okay. Nevermind. I will need seamlesses, camera angle will be too dramatic for this poor woman if I try to frame out the falloff. I would still like to know what experience you all have with the output of Skypanel fixtures!
  4. Hey all, I'm shooting a music video soon that involves a lot of colored backgrounds. The directors biggest reference is this: (The music video is literally just a copy, so the video roughly shows the size of our shots as well) I'm almost positive the reference video used colored seamless for their backgrounds but I was hoping to you use a series of S60Cs to light a white cyc behind talent. I figured it would be quicker and easier to change color via wireless DMX rather than swapping out seamlesses all day. We also will have the chance to do some effects if we want to. I also wanted to a chance to use Skypanels since I haven't had the opportunity yet. My concern is the output of Skypanels at high saturation, production can only afford 3-4 Skypanels and I'm not sure they will cut it, the talent is on raised pedestal/lazy susan thing so falloff as the cyc curves at the bottom is now only a minor concern. I also feel that running up against low output I'll have less separation possible between talent and the cyc, a bit of contamination is okay but not really much more than what you'd get from reflected light of a seamless. Do you think I should just use some seamless and not waste the money on the Skypanels? Or will they even have enough output to begin with...I'm torn. - M
  5. Hey there, I have a shoot coming up where the director wants a long slow dolly in right along the ground, just a few inches above the soil. Its a one take teaster and so the move will last about a minute to 1:30. It will be ext. day and we'll be in a rather remote location, or remote enough at least to make having our dolly impossible. This particular shot will be with a 27mm lens, on an Arricam ST. Im a big fan of Chapman sliders and would like to use one (unless anyone has a better idea!) I'm wondering if by underslinging the camera I can get the move I want and avoid seeing my slider. 6ft forward movement is what I'm limited to for CL sliders. I don't know if an offset to the side of a slider would be sturdy enough. I feel as if the FOV of the lens requirs a large offset to not see the slider. Thoughts? Or if anyone has a piece of equipment that could get me a longer move. Cheers, - M
  6. I will be shooting a one take film soon on 35mm and due to the shot design and logistics of a remote location we'll be using a slider for our moves instead of a dolly. We'll be shooting on an Arricam ST with an HD-IVS and utilizing a 6' Chapman CL Slider that will be very low to the ground. I dont feel like I'll be able to operate the camera through the optical finder due to the position and movement required for the shot. Can anyone think lf any pitfalls that I might incur by operating soley off the monitor?
  7. Does anyone know if using anamorphic lenses on S16mm was common before the release of the Hawk V-Lite16 lenses? I'm looking to shoot a project on these lenses soon and am hoping to use an Aaton XTR, just wondering if it will be easy to find an anamorphic viewfinder attachment for the camera. Or if it would be better to go with a SR camera. A 416 seems to be out of the question for now due to budget reasons. I believe this camera shares the viewfinder design with the SR cameras anyway. (the 416 I used just had SR ground glass in it.) Alternatively what other (if any) Anamorphic 16mm lenses are available in Los Angeles. - M
  8. I really would love to shoot 2-perf! I'll do a cost comparison and try to talk the producer into it...we won't be renting as students or anything though so I don't know what kind of camera discount we could get. What is considered a good 2-perf camera if we're doing a lot of running around and stealing locations etc? I had something that was going to be on 2-perf before that ended up falling through, we were going to use the Arri 235.
  9. We had some issues with the pressure plate being adjusted incorrectly (Arri 416). You can really see it in the wide of the girls on the football field, the right side of frame is softer than the left. Maybe that is where some of the softness comes from? I do agree that the flat look is mostly the lack of lighting. This whole piece is nearly all natural light and stolen locations! Next time I'll hopefully get to use more than a bounce! All this talk of using sharper lenses is making me die a bit inside...we used the Zeiss Ultra 16s! Anyhow, anyone got opinions on the best spot in L.A. to get the scan done? I was quoted $800 to get 1800ft scanned at Cinelicious (on a Scanity), does that sound fair? Its a bit more than Fotokem, but I was disappointed in their telecine so I don't know if I want to go with them for a scan.
  10. I really enjoy the skintones, color rendition and highlight rolloff of film, not so much the grain. You're right 16mm is going to look like 16mm. I was a big fan of how the 16mm sequences in Blue Valentine looked, and of course Lachman's work in Carol. Those felt very crisp, what do you think they did that we didn't nail in this one? I'm not familiar with the term 2-force push. What does this mean?
  11. I'm shooting a project on Vision 3 250D & 500T 16mm soon, we will be scanning to 2K. I've only shot 16 mil once before and am hoping to get something that will look sharper than we got last time. This is what we ended up with last time. http://www.marzmiller.com/ghost (this was also a 1080 telecine, not a 2K scan, processed normally and telecined at Fotokem) Right now I'm thinking of shooting up a stop and a half and pulling one stop, as well as some de-graining in post. Any other ideas on how to get the look I'm going for? I guess the look could best be described as I want it to look like very clean 35mm. We just don't have the dough for 35 this time. - M
×
×
  • Create New...