scorsesebull

It sounds like you'll be using a lot of crew you haven't worked with before. Someone asked how you get hired, what do you look for when bringing on a Gaffer, ACs, etc or are there certain positions or people that you bring in on every project no matter what. Resumes and interviews tell you so much but what are the determining factors you use to figure out how fast or efficient your potential crewmembers might be. Just curious about that process. Thanks

Luke Kalteux

They've been very good on all my other productions and they've got good student rates.

If he rate the filmstock at 800asa it will not produce grain it will just expose one stop. For example a 2.8 in 500T is a 4.0 in 800 ASA. So all that he will be doing is underexposing one stop. 500T has alot of latitude. I shot a film 2 weeks ago on Vision 2 500T and I got some really good images. I under exposed alot and I didn't get hardly any gain at all. Also if there is enough light then under exposing won't hurt at all. Nevertheless others may disagree but this is what I have found out by shooting on this film stock.

Hope this helps

Mario C. Jackson

Was that 35 or 16mm?

yeah amount of grain is also a relative thing according to one's taste. if not properly lit, 7218 pushed a stop and rated at 800 asa will give you a lot of grain if you are still underexposing past the boundaries of the push.

 

also depends on your ratios and who your colorist is - some are better at crushing blacks and whatnot than others - because if its a finish-on-video type thing are you sure you're seeing actual film grain or noise from underexposure in your telecine? ive had to deal with both for sure :)

 

plus i'll take a little grain and get more natural light than no grain and something that looks source-y (unless thats what the director wants). hell i'll push two stops if at that asa i can get the light just right!

Thanks a lot. Yeah that makes sense, and to be honest, I'm not sure if it's all noise or not, I think now, after reading some of your comments maybe it's a little of both. I appreciate you guys takin' the time to talk to me. I've only DP'ed a few films, primarily a director, but I'm loving it! And your input makes me want to continue experimenting! Good luck to all in your respective film endeavors!

Say... what lab are you working with? What positive stock was it printed on ?

We're working with Fotokem

some of this is definitely addressed in my post about the campfire lighting situation, but honestly it could be a stock issue. 7218 isn't the most contrasty stock out there - even though people say its the best 500t 16mm stock out there, if youre looking for really deep, rich blacks this probably isn't the right stock for you - i'd try and get your hands on some 7279 or hell 7274 for night work -

they stopped making 7274, that's why my world came crashing down! I love that stock, I actually got ahold of 100 feet of it, and we used it for a night exterior and that stuff looks great.

Problem is, the 7218 was already ordered, and I wish we had more budget to do more testing because I would have been able to test the stocks themselves, myself. But, the world of a student filmmaker, we gotta keep chuggin' and we'll make it work I was just hoping there would be a way to subtly lessen the grain.

Also, to Mr. Mullen, thank you, that makes sense, I am not going to blow it up, I'm strictly going to telecine. Thanks for both of your input

i'd say push your stock one stop, rate at 800 asa,

Wouldn't pushing on 500T create a ton of grain in those dark areas--a majority of the image?

To Chris: are you looking for a grainy?

[sorry, i just did some tests with 500T and pushing in dark areas (see 16mm Only forum) and I was a little surprised.]

Also, I just shot in a forest and we had a huge diesel genny running about 50 yards away and the sound didn't pick it up. Try gettin in there early with your sound guys and do a test cuz that generator will be a huge help.

Good luck

Hey all,

I just got some film back with our outdoor footage (shot before the Wisconsin fall hit) and we did some test footage. The film stock i wanted to shoot with was 200T 7274, a great stock for smooth blacks and low grain. I ended up shooting, based on some discussions with my lab and doing some research in the forums and with Kodak, with 500T 7218. I even saw some great shots Mr. David Mullen did for Shadowboxer where he underexposed 2/3 and pushed the stock a stop. Everything i saw or was shown seemed to have decent grain, not too much but not ultimate smooth. My outdoor stuff looks fine, good color, grain is negatable but my test footage looks incredibly grainy and the director and I wanted a smoother feel. We're shooting our interior stuff coming up and we want corners and backgrounds to fall black...but not if the grain is that apparent. I'm torn because the colors are rich which was the attraction of the stock, but it just isn't handling the blacks and darker colors. Is there anything I can do aside from over exposing just a touch to eliminate grain in more neutral areas? Any suggestions for getting blacks blacker, even though the characteristic is within the celluloid itself? Is there a secret to the stock that maybe some of the professionals out there could divulge? All are welcome, thanks!

Luke Kalteux

To answer the first reply: I just want it to look even, the blue/gray was just an idea to help mask the problem.

I was afraid of that. Originally that solution of waiting for a cloudy day seemed like it might work out considering the shoot is in fall but we've been hit with a tremendously unusual hot, humid, sunny streak! Thanks for the suggestions.

Hey everyone, I searched the archives for some subjects that might be related and found a few hints and tips from topics not directly linked to mine, so here's my post: I'm shooting a pretty short Mini DV movie on a panasonic 3CCD cam very soon. The story takes place in a forest, pretty far from power (although a small gennie will be present). I've scouted the location during the time we will be shooting and have decided what times I want to shoot and where the sun will be for specific backlights etc.

Now the problem occurs with some wider, lots of panning/tilting/whipping handheld action shots throughout the forest because the environment is supposed to be consistently cloudy. We're shooting over two days cloud or sun. I've come up with a few ideas to tackle this but I wanted some other opinions in case I've overlooked something like a complete stooge, or in case there's an easier more effective way.

I've considered overexposing the sky to the point where it would blow out white or almost white, therefore creating a flat tonal gray/white color. The problem here is that my actors may not look right and I'd have to use a lot of negative fill (which I may not have) to bring them down. Tree cover will help, but, if sunny, will create pools of bright light when actors cross the environment. Now, I want the movie to look pretty desaturated and I'm going to do some tests tomorrow, but something I considered was white balancing on a slightly orange card and then in post taking a lot of the blue out, so that the image has a dull blue/gray look and that by taking out the blueish hues, any brightly lit, exposed sky will become grayer. This is what I'm mostly testing tomorrow, I have no idea if that will work (because I understand that I'm adding blue to the sky before I take it away).

I hope I explained that well enough. Any questions or clarifcation please post 'em, I'll be checking back pretty regularly for suggestions. Also, any ideas to throw into the testing mix are very welcome. Thank you all so much!

-Luke Kalteux

student

UW- Oshkosh

What is the TV glow going to be hitting: someone's face?  the background wall?

 

faces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well...I don't know your exact scenario, if the TV for sure will be in the daytime scene or if it's a different scene at night, but if the TV is on during the day and you have windows in a high rise, it sounds to me like your key is going to be the sunlight blasting in and ricocheting around off the walls and ceiling. In that situation the TV seems like it would act closer as the fill light...or even less like a fill light and more like an atmosphere light. I don't think a TV throws much in the scenario I'm picturing in my head--a brighter daytime office/room. If the TV scene is at night and you're shooting a close up, yeah, I'd say bring that TV in as close as you need for intensity and use a flourescent tube or two just off camera (play with the distance) so that it's just giving us a super subtle little bit better view of some darker areas of the face (assuming the TV is one of the primary lights in the room and/or there are any practicals nearby the actors). Or to give a more general room fill try a china ball or two farther away than a fluoro tube would be placed, so it fills the room a bit and hits the actor. Dont' know if that's feasible or not. Sorry I'm assuming and making guesses but there's a lot of different factors these suggestions are dependent on so take 'em with a grain of salt and maybe at the very least one of these sparked an idea more practical to your specific cinematic needs. Keep us updated!

Oh! P.S. remember to match color temps (for the chinaballs, fluoro tubes, etc) If you've balanced for daylight like you mentioned you might, it might be easier to use some daylight balanced fluoro tubes for your subtle fill so it will match and be simple. If your using china balls at all (and seein windows) it might be easier to gel those windows CTO from the inside of the room and balance for tungsten.

Hi all-

still preparing...to simulate the natural light indoors, I think I'm going to gel the lights with CTB. I was thinking of gelling the windows but I don't really have access to the windows (we're shooting in a high rise!) So, another remedial question, when I gel the lights with CTB...do I set the camera to 3200 or 5600? and, do I still white balance before I gel?

 

as far as the tv light is concerned...we're using an actual tv (I was hoping I could get the flicker from the actual tv and then add some light for fill). thoughts?

 

Laura

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Laura,

Well, on the CTB question, you could do two things, depending on what you want. If you WANT to see blue for some aesthetic purpose then white balance before you throw on the CTB gels. If you're just trying to balance the room to match the windows (to white light) then throw up the CTB and then white balance. At 5600 the lights with CTB and the light coming in through the window will then look white and the room will look an even temp. That was a good suggestion about the TV CTO, I've been on shoots where that has been overlooked. A blue glow from the TV won't look bad, just depends what you want. If you didn't want the blue TV glow and you decide to gel the lights CTB and shoot at 5600 you won't have to worry about a different temp for the TV (maybe just slightly blue) because the TV will be much closer in temp to the rest of the room than if you balanced for 3200. Just an idea. What is the TV glow going to be hitting: someone's face? the background wall? Good luck

Luke

Heineken -"Beer Run"  - Dir: David Fincher,  DP: Claudio Miranda

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is there a website where you can view these commercials and see who shot and directed them? I can't place the Heineken commercial but I'm a huge Fincher fan. I'd love to see all these ads without having to sit in front of the TV for 17 days straight hoping. Thanks

--Luke K.

For no budget projects, the best thing that you can do is make use of natural light and practicals.".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Chris is right. The project seems small enough that it sounds like you'd have some pretty good liberties with those practicals. Remember that you can move practicals and/or bring in your own. Check out those locations hardcore and really think about where you'd like to see light A) coming from and B) ending up; even if it means rearranging all the furniture (talk with your director first of course : ) ). You might surprise yourself and find a really great setup just by bringing an additional desklamp you had at home and moving the bed to a different wall and making it all part of the art dec. You ARE shooting in a Teenage Girl's room, teenage girls like to put up Christmas lights and lavalamps, etc. just for the hell of it.

China balls aren't hard to make and the materials to make them would most likely be in your cost range (keep 'em after the shoot, it'll be well worth investing your own money into). If you're looking for an overall soft aura, it might be nice to tuck a china ball just off camera to help bring up the exposure subtly (maybe the pink glow? or the a cold blue/green aura for the widow). Also, single fluorescent tubes. Those are fun to hide because they are so narrow, you can practically attach it to the actor without an audience seeing it. I agree completely with Chris that some reflective materials (bead board, etc) would be a nice thing to have and very cheap to come by. Black tag board is really cheap and works great for flagging, I've used that constantly, even when I have actual flags. It's light weight and thin so it can be taped up and folded and worked with very easily. Hope some of those suggestions spark some ideas. Let us know how it goes, eh?

--Luke

Again, thank you! As you can probably see, I'm pretty new to the website, but it's great getting fast and very efficient advice from all the other people who truly enjoy this field. Thanks a lot!

--Luke K.

Thank you so much Dominic! That was very helpful. I've always understood the 1/48, and I've worked with oooollld bolex cameras at school and I know those are closer to 1/50, but I needed to SEE the math. Thanks. Unfortunately and reluctantly I must admit math is not my strongest suit in the realm of cinematography. So my follow up question would be more trivial: In movies like Saving Private Ryan, or Gladiator (seemed to make this popular) when you get more clarity and less motion blur, for instance in Gladiator when you can see the individual specs of dirt flying through the air with what looks like unusual clarity, is that accomplished with a longer or shorter exposure? (does that make sense?)

--Luke

If your camera has a 150 deg shutter opening, then it has an effective shutter speed of 1/60 of a second when shooting at 24 fps.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi John,

Could you explain for a thirsty student in a little bit more detail the math and relationship of "effective" shutter speed and how you can calculate shutter speed based on knowing the degrees of your shutter opening? I understand your logic using the 1/60 and by switching the meter to 30fps but the figuring 150 into 1/60 I can't quite picture. Thanks!

--Luke Kalteux

I'm also a currently a student and I've worked on many short films who have done it many different ways. I've seen people shoot on 8:1 and have a finished product near festival worthy but the three out of four of the short films I have done required at least a 10:1 even 12:1 shooting ratios. The other film I did contained 4 solid minutes of screen time shot on a single 400' role (class requirement). It is possible. My advice to you (if you are directing) would be to rehearse the hell out of your actors. Maybe then you can get two good/solid takes, three for more complex camera moves or blocking/camera choreography, to work with in editing. I'd also plan on buying a bit more than you think you'll need because overnighting a role the night before you need it, not the best night of sleep you'll have (and it's much more expensive). Grab an extra roll, if anything it'll cost a bit mroe but you might get a few extra great takes with your actors toward the end of your shoot (if the extra roll isn't detrimentally needed just to finish the film). It's win win that way.

--Luke Kalteux