-
Posts
906 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Uli Meyer
-
Lightest Tripod + Head for use with Arriflex 235
Uli Meyer replied to Uli Meyer's topic in Grip & Rigging
Thank you Stephen, you're too kind ? I'm working with half an eye on my messages. I'll try and find some time later. -
Lightest Tripod + Head for use with Arriflex 235
Uli Meyer replied to Uli Meyer's topic in Grip & Rigging
The lab I use is the Kodak Lab at Leavesden Studios. They are terrific! 'From Life' has finished its festival run a while ago. It won a few awards, I'm happy to say. The film is available to view online here: or on the 'OMELETO' Youtube channel here: -
One way of doing it is to start your budget calculations with the film stock included from the start. Once you have put everything together and the cost is overall above what you've got, you can look into finding the least important bits and pieces in each department and shave off until you are within budget. It is of course a lot easier to just take that $90k chunk out but usually, if there is a will, there is a way.
-
Lightest Tripod + Head for use with Arriflex 235
Uli Meyer replied to Uli Meyer's topic in Grip & Rigging
Yeah, I thought about that. I'll try and get my wife to press the start button on a set up or two on the next lot ? -
Lightest Tripod + Head for use with Arriflex 235
Uli Meyer replied to Uli Meyer's topic in Grip & Rigging
Cheers Stephen! I've seen the footage of your Dad on your Vimeo channel. Wonderful way to document your father's dedication to keeping fit. Beautiful black and white footage. -
Lightest Tripod + Head for use with Arriflex 235
Uli Meyer replied to Uli Meyer's topic in Grip & Rigging
Result is here ? -
That is a 40:1 shooting ratio. Way too high for shooting film if you don't have the money. If you know exactly what you want, make the film in your head and on paper (storyboards), plan each take carefully and rehearse, you can get that ratio way down. Hitchcock apparently had a 3:1 shooting ratio average so the studios couldn't mess too much with the film he had imagined. It is a different kind of discipline.
-
400 feet of super 16mm film costs £99. That's 11 minutes of film. At a 10:1 shooting ratio a 90 minutes film you'd have to pay ca. £9000 for stock and £4500 for scanning. Even if your ratio goes up to 20:1 you'd be looking at £27k. Why would that not be possible on a £1million budget? In regards to short films, I'm not sure where you get your figures from or how big your short film budgets usually are, but Super 16 is very affordable.
-
Quite a few DPs I talk to usually say that they would love to shoot on film but they rarely get the chance. The other day I talked to a guy who works in commercials and he said for a lot of clients the buzz word is "resolution" and they would never ever consider analog film. Then there are those guys working in corporate or documentary who absolutely hate the idea of film simply because it would make their job much more difficult. So much so that I had one person get seriously angry when I mentioned analog film. True story. This was not Robin, by the way. Although he is usually the first one to predict the death of film every time this subject comes up on this forum. Without fail ? As long as film manufacturers can make a profit, there will be film available. It's that simple.
-
Meaning that you would rotate the image in post?
-
I don't quite get the logic. When you mount an anamorphic lens to a camera, the angle of the camera doesn't make any difference to the squeeze of the image. All you would get from turning the camera sideways is a sideways view squeezed.