Andrew Payne

Bump

Bump $150

Bump

Bump

I'm selling this Konova slider. It's the 100cm version. You can find the Benro head I used with it in a separate listing. It's a really cool and light-weight slider. I found it worked well mounted to two light stands with thread adapters. $190

I'm selling this Benro head that I bought and used on a slider a few times. $130

Sold

This is my used Sola 4. It's about the power of an ARRI 300, but it's really quiet and runs cool. Asking $350.

Phil, Nikon made a bunch of wides that remain expensive, but some may be found reasonably priced. The really wide 14mm and 15mm are probably more expensive than what you found. There was an 18mm 3.5 that's about the same price as the f/4. There's a 20mm f/2.8, a 20mm f/3.5, and a 20mm f/4 that are all progressively less expensive. There was also a 24mm f/2 and a 24mm f/2.8, but those may be harder to find and too close to your 28mm in any event.

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting article and research.

I'm interested in seeing what this looks like too; amongst the criticisms of the film are some caveats that it does look lovely. It's only on one screen in LA so it may be a blu-ray down the road for me.

I don't know if you're committed to a film camera, but there were early consumer video cameras available at the time (albeit the high end consumer market). 1971 predates VHS, so these devices recorded to open-reel video tape, and were capable of 20 minutes and longer. The cameras were medium sized. The recorders were big, but could be placed away from the camera since they were connected by cables. Plus as video cameras, they required no developing of film. This is what they looked like:

Comedy often is lit very evenly avoiding shadows and contrast. Compare this to say, a crime drama which might have strong contrast, shadows and subdued or gloomy colors. The traditional thinking is that shadows and darkness symbolize mystery and danger, and presumably evoke feelings of fear, isolation and sadness. The goal with comedy is normally the opposite. Rather it's to create a cheerful setting, reduce anxiety, and set the mood for laughter. I don't think there are rules, and there are many great exceptions where comedies have used more dramatic lighting with very funny results. But that's the basic idea.

It's here:

I'm always baffled when production companies and others refuse to discuss rates. They ask for your rate, already knowing perfectly well what they want to pay, and if you don't magically hit their number through clairvoyance, they move on to the next guy and play the same game all over again. I'm on both sides of this scenario, because I frequently hire crew for productions. I always ask rates, and if I can't make their numbers, I tell them what I can pay and we negotiate. It's not complicated. I think this is the perception, but it's not an accurate model. For one thing, it's not the norm for ad agencies and corporate clients to see line-by-line crew budgets. Thus a DP's rate - unless you're very famous and expensive - will not be billed back in this way. You're bundled in with other costs. In terms of markup, doubling all the crew rates would be great but is not prevalent. It's much less. And budgets are made before the crew is hired, so the higher your DP's rate, the less you make on that line. Maybe you really want a particular DP and you don't make much on their line at all.

Yash, a mentor of mine many years ago called that the “Hollywood triple-cut” - triple since it was common to edit three angles together of a crucial moment such as an explosion. I’m not aware of any universally accepted term though. If you walk into an edit bay and request that something be “double cut” or “triple cut” or even “stutter cut” the editor will probably understand what you want. But really it’s just a very common trick that editors use without discussing much. The purpose, as you guessed, is that with an action that happens very quickly such as an explosion, the action is shown from multiple angles, with each successive edit starting a few frames earlier than where the action would be in its “real life” progress. In other words, each edit is repeating a couple frames. The number of frames repeated depends on the speed of the action and personal taste. Done right, this is experienced by the viewer as closer to true continuity than without the slight repeats. Once you’re wise to the gimmick, you will notice it used all over the place. Older action films were notorious for pushing the reasonable limits of this technique.

What you ask for and what you get are very different. To answer what you get, I think 500/day is about it if they're going to hit the $150K mark. At $100k they have to lower your rate still more and probably cut shoot days too. Docs often survive by getting freebies. Like if it's the director's project and he/she takes a tiny rate. Or the director is also the editor and works cheap. Or the sound mixer does it for nothing to get it on their reel. The combinations are infinite, but you get the point. At $150K, I suspect no one is getting a grand a day for 30 shoot days.

Thanks. I found on my zoom that until about 35mm I was seeing the net, but after that the effect was very nice out to 100mm. I didn't see the effect on the bokeh on my 7" monitor, but I'll keep an eye out for that now. I'm not worried about consistency over the range, since I'm testing this for an interview setting where I'll keep the lens set. I''ll be comparing the net to various filter options. Agreed, I haven't played with nets much, but David's post lit the flame. It's unpredictable for sure, but it really is fun to play with.

Does rear-mounting provide better results? I've been testing this mostly with Canon EF lenses that i own versus PL mounts, and I haven't seen any DIY instructions for Canon. I'm not sure how to get the snot tape on the EF without touching the glass or the electrical contacts.

Great films! David - in terms of focal length, have you found optimal results in a particular range with front mounted nets? I found some of the material you suggested and the results were very pleasing.

Very nice imagery in the video. Even the BTS was nicely shot.

Hey Dominik, for the 400w LED probably a 2k tungsten fresnel. As for HMI, I guess about 400W, but in that wattage I’m really only used to open face HMI so it’s not an ideal comparison.

I used two of them - the 400 and the 200 - and I found them both very pleasing. It was also very strange using a light like that but without the scorching heat you normally expect. As you point out though, it's really a studio light and at 10x the cost of a comparable used tungsten fresnel, too pricey for a personal kit right now (for me at least).

Thanks for the responses. The Litepanels are very tempting - I used the 1st gen versions and I liked them. I've seen that trying to use barn doors with them creates ugly bands in the lighting, and I presume that's true for all LED array panels. That said, what do you do to control spill? Do large flags create the same banding issues?

I have a trusted Arri kit of tungsten fresnels and I have a couple much loved Diva lights. These have gotten me through interviews very well. But, I love the idea of using batteries sometimes, and I love the weight of LEDs too. I'm interested to hear from anyone who has switched to LEDs for interview kits. What instruments have worked out (or haven't) and if you're finding the upgrade was truly a step up.