Jaan Shenberger

other than the simple difference in luminance, the only thing to really consider is that any dark surface with considerable shininess will reflect light & color much more than a lighter-colored object of the same shininess (like the difference in shooting a grey car and a black car-- the black car will reflect your lights, rigging, skyline, etc. more apparently). this is something to keep in mind if you will be using little/no or sheen-inducing makeup. this color reflectence is also a common technique used for lighting darker skinned subjects, particularly in fashion photography. there is a photographer in particular who was known for heavily using such technique, even on lighter skinned/caucasion models with help of makeup. he did the guess campaign in i think 1999/2000 and i think he had a japanese-sounding name. also, i recall the film karmen gei used this technique quite a few times. as for the "african american" thing... why do people get all freaked out just because a group of people state a preference as to what they should be referred to as? it's not like they're asking for your paycheck. or a mule, or forty acres. it's just a preferred term to be referred to as. if you prefer to use "black", then fine. but why does it bother anyone so much that a particular people would decide their own label? it's not about "political correctness", it's simply about respect. granted, most americans, including african americans, are fine with the use of black, though it's probably mostly due to the aforementioned practical reasons of fewer syllables and smoother pronounciation. those same factors have worked in favor of latinos and asians (rather than "hispanic" and the absurd "oriental"). more or less, "african american" is used in more formal situations, like in printed form. i don't think anyone, at least in the US, would get offended by the verbal or informal use of the word black. and for any europeans confused about this, and any other race-related issue in the US, the only real way to explain it would be to say "it's complicated". kinda like if i asked "what's the deal with the gypsies and the way people talk about them?... or are they "Roma"?" one problem with this rationale is that ethnicity is not synonymous with race. ethnicity is a strange sum of race, culture, nationality, and sometimes religion. another problem is that african americans and first or second generation african immigrants often identify themselves differently-- african immigrants often identify themselves by original nationality or even specific ethnic group (ie. ethiopian american). the categories of race and ethnicity exist according to social rules & factors, and not scientific ones, which explains why they often seem to be nonsensical. though i think eugenics proved that a scientific approach is quite flawed in itself. as an anecdote, i've known african immigrants who strongly prefer to be called "black" (i think they considered it a prideful term in their home countries), and also thought it was completely silly that multi-generationed black americans called themselves "african americans". they seemed to consider them as just plain americans. i guess it's all relative. but generally, i think "black" very rarely is taken offensively. just don't call an asian american "oriental". especially a college educated one, or you're in for a long lecture... even longer than the one i just typed out.

maybe a visual cue / on-set vfx proxy for matching eyelines? ??? i'm curious as hell myself...

i saw your similar thread on mograph. i think the CC split thing was meant as a phallic joke (if you try using that effect, i think you'll see why). though i guess you could tweak it to make it work. also, --in case this isn't totally obvious for you-- if you use the vaseline technique, use an inexpensive or used uv/skylight/clear filter. you don't wanna have to clean vaseline off of a good filter, or especially your lens. hope this helps, jaan

awesome! i now have internet argument testicles. that last part of your post was so honorable and inspirational. in fact, i went back and read it again, this time with bette midler's "wind beneath my wings" playing on my stereo in the background. i'd advise that when someone posts information contrary to your opinion or knowledge base, that you don't fly off the handle. that's my "worthy contribution" for this post. btw, your insults would be easier to read with more carraige returns. see you in the next argument.

well just to clear the air, the blatant mockery of your comments was specifically directed at you, while the rest were responses to general stuff discussed in this thread.

you shouldn't assume that every single thing i say in a post is being directed to you. thanks for the entertaining post. i sincerely hope its more colorful portions were a result of recent alcohol consumption or maybe coincodental spelling errors. otherwise some might consider it offensive. i apologize to any other users if my tone seemed abrasive, especially the advice about pro-looking storyboards and using 3D apps... i sincerely didn't intend to come off as such. ... i sense the ghost of charlie seper ....

up up, down down, left right, left right, B, A, start-- 30 lives!, uh, i mean, uncompressed 720p footage! thank you, nintendo for teaching me the secrets of digital cinematography!

yes, the success of such techniques is due primarily to the extensive storyboards, while the decades of experience of the directors, DPs and fight choreographers have little to do with it. i don't mean to rag on you, but is this meant to be some kind of a joke? i guess sam raimi was "small time", up until he did spiderman? if the purpose of your storyboards is primarily to impress someone, they better look like they were done by a professional storyboard artist, not like they came out of software. software is great for previz, but nothing gets the point across better than hand crafted storyboards by a skilled pro. the look of those software generated boards are distracting in my opinion. but if the purpose of your storyboards is to communicate on set, then it doesn't matter what technique was used to generate them. but creating them in full-on 3D programs like maya, max or lightwave is a foolish waste of time. save those for previzzing complex action sequences.

the images from the kitchen, if printed down 2 or so stops worth would feel very remniscent of benoit delhomme's work for "what time is it there?" and "cyclo" (uncorrected practical fluorescents, banal messy art direction, chairoscuro lighting on face). by looking at these stills, i feel like your cinematography is more about movement of light/shadow and subject rather than composition, an approach that is underused in my opinion. i really like it all. i hope you post stills from the final.

i second that. a k3 with the stupid plastic "loop formers" is not dependable. take those things out, make marks inside the camera where the loops should extend to, then simply make the loops yourself when loading the film. those loop formers are the primary reason the k3 had developed a reputation as a bad camera. as a student i shot on k3s with and without the loop formers, and i sometimes got similar scratches on the loop former models. get those things out of there and you have a nice camera. hope this helps, jaan

a well-deserved proper acknowledgement of respect and/or admiration. forealz.

and a huge increase in reading, thank god. at least in the US.

like many have said, sorenson is the way to go. h264 looks and compresses better without question, but you'd be amazed at how many people have yet to upgrade to qt7, and refuse to, because of little compatibility bugs with audio and video capture hardware. many post facilities will not upgrade qt until their they absolutely must... not to mention all the producers on their windows laptops. and years of working as an interactive designer has taught me that generally speaking, people don't install new software to look at something on a site (usually only when they can't see stuff on numerous sites will they cave in and do it). i'd highly suggest sorenson. h264 will be the standard in a year or two or three, but right now you risk having someone simply not being able to watch your reel at all. if you do go with sorenson, use squeeze or cleaner. it makes a huge difference in the image quality and file size. also, turn off "image smoothing" and as other mentioned, enable the fast-start option. hope this helps, jaan

though i haven't read that story, there are some stills posted on your site that have a very Poe feel to them, great job... http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/Image7.jpg http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/D...k%20CU%2002.jpg http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/P...%20-%20Wide.jpg http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/J...20Wide%2002.jpg http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/J...0David%20CU.jpg http://www.banksfilm.com/Images/valdemar/J...0Dolly%2002.jpg the grad in the wide at the dock feels a little strong, though that can easily be balanced out in post. i think the biggest flaw in the stills is something not necessarily your fault... the lead actor's wig. it doesn't pass off as very convincing and even kinda comedic. i think with some good color grading it'll look pretty impressive considering you pulled off a period with little money. hope this helps, jaan

has anyone ever used a polaroid camera with manual aperture (like the 600 SE) for such purposes? or medium/large format polaroid backs? theoretically they would be very indicative of exposure range and ratios, though both are pretty pricey (the 600 SE is old, rare and sought after, and med/large format cameras/lenses are obviously costy). i've never used this method, but i've heard of it being done. anyone tried this and found it useful?

off the top of my head, with no sarcasm... learn still photgraphy (on film, not digital). learn the zone system. shoot short films on a video camera and edit them yourself. read books on cinematography. watch great films. shoot more short films on a video camera and utilize what you learned. read american cinematographer magazine to learn what kind of extensive resources are utilized to make hollywood films look so good. shoot more shorts, on film, and try to use simplified and/or less expensive impersonations of the labor/money intensive techniques you read about in the magazine. repeat the last five steps over and over. hope this helps, jaan

again, you bring up some very valid points, but i think there's simply a huge difference in our fundamental beliefs about art... yes, it most certainly does. (curtain closes in front of me) best wishes, jaan

art inherently has no obligatory relation to commerce. the existence of an audience, and the relative size of the audience has no significance to the critera of what is art. and art inherently has nothing to do with the career path or financial ambition of its maker. these are all things we've managed to impose upon art in order to comodify it, just as with everything else. again, you're thinking of "product". when you say that aspiring filmmakers need to strongly consider the marketability of any future projects if they want a large audience for their film, or if they want to make a living at it, or if they wish to secure financing for other projects, then i think you're absolutely correct. but according to your arguement, a pawn shop billboard seen by millions is superior in significance to a degas painting that happens to hang in a lightly frequented museum causing it to only be seen by hundreds. have you ever even seen any "experimental" cinema? for many, it's like seeing a degas after passing by the huge pawn shop billboard that they pass by every day on their way to work.

though it's not really a whiz-bang great solution, the whole "limited number of computers" thing is the standard practice for purchased media nowadays. and at least you'll be able to quickly search through your back issues by keyword.

not to flame, but... you make some good points, but the above quote is a very weak foundation to base your arguement. you don't consider unconventional non-narrative films to be worthy of classification amongst "jaws" or "star wars" or "ishtar". that's fine. you're certainly not alone. but if a paying audience is the primary criteria, then your arguement is very weak considering that such criteria is barely defineable, greatly stratified, and constantly changing. i think the proper term for what you describe is "product" rather than "movie'.

if you're keying in after effects, then try to get "key correct pro" (redgiantsoftware.com) or dv matte (dvgarage.com). they have a special mode for dv25 footage that sorta premultiplies the chroma channels with the luma channel in order to try and derive a cleaner edge key. i believe the key correct pro one also uses some vectorized interpolation for even cleaner edges. but keep in mind that these "cheats" that these plugins use are not nearly as good as shooting 4:2:2 or better. and how helpful the "cheats" are will depend on what your particular footage is like. i'd highly suggest that you test, test, test. you could also shoot on s16 and then get a direct to hard drive 10-bit lossless HD transfer from bono. if you're shooting exterior day then you could shoot on a slow stock for minimal grain. your keys would end up being cake, especially considering that you'd get to downrez to SD and hide any minor sloppiness in the key. and if you're doing this for your reel, then just going for the gusto and going the s16 route might end paying off more in the long run. 15 min or less footage should be about $300 for the transfer. best of luck. and post it on the forum when you're done! forgot to mention that if you shoot on film then you'd have to plan for synching and lip synch in post. there are numerous ways to handle this and probably lots of info online.

man, that looks like a potential roto nightmare. you might want to consider shooting it in passes... a few shots of the foreground and midground grass in multiple layers, with red/blue screen blocking off everything behind, then one with the red/bluescreen suit with the grass in foreground flattened down so it doesn't overlap the guy in the suit, and then the same without the guy in frame as a bkgd plate (for inconsistencies between the suit and animated guy's edges). what format are you shooting on? because the lower the color sampling, the more hoops you're going to have to jump through when shooting to pull a good matte without lots of handwork in post. hope this helps, jaan

because you have myriad of options and control when doing color correction digitally, there aren't really the hard & fast rules of color temperature manipulation like when dealing with emulsion. the only real way to resolve your issue would be to do some quick tests. hope this helps, jaan

the suit probably won't work. because any brush/branches moving behind the person won't properly show up. you'll end up clearly seeing the person's "movement signature" in the final composite (though that would be an interesting effect in itself). but i guess it is possible to work, depending on the shot and what the brush is like. also, green would be an unwise choice if he's surrounded by plants. you would want to use a red suit. off the top of my head, i think the effect would best be achived by using puppeteered rigging-- have some people walk backwards, holding long, thin, sturdy, chromakey red poles that are bent in a way to catch the brush and make it move as if someone was walking through. there are rig-removal/wire-zapping plugins that do a very good job of automatically removing green/blue/red rigs from the shot, as long as they are pretty thin. the software analyzes the image and is able to "fill in the gap" of where the wire/rig is... but only because it's thin. though something like moving branches would really test the plugins' abilities, if not exceed their capabilities. i would definitely run a test. generally, complex vfx like an invisible man are achieved though multiple effect techniques executed through multiple shots, with the effect technique chosen specifically according to the challenges of each particular shot. hope this helps, jaan

saying a film has to have a clearly defined narrative in order to be a real movie is like saying that music has to have vocals in order to be a real song. narrative cinema represents a fractional slither of what cinema is and is capable of, just as the music that is played on commercial radio does not even come close to defining the full expansive gamut of music. both are just what the average person is willing to pay money for. it's unfortunate that the remaining huge portion of cinema is dumbly clumped into the category of "experimental". sorry, i sincerely don't mean to come off as being aggro.