Jump to content

Timothy Fransky

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Timothy Fransky

  1. I've not posted for awhile, but I thought I'd ask this here, since I'm not certain how to get going. I started shooting a short film a few years back. It's a no-dialogue/silent film in the Chaplin/Keaton/Tati style. Since I'm basically an amateur, I just asked a few friends to help me shoot a couple ideas I'd had. Buster Keaton would start shooting with a beginning and an end, then find the rest as he went. Since I have no one to please, but myself, I followed this model. (I do understand that few pros work like this anymore.) Long and short is, I have the second act "in the can," but I just don't have the technique to edit the piece in the way I want. I don't have the computing power or Final Cut/Premiere skills. Even auteurs don't do everything. TL:DR I'm looking for some help in editing my film. I'm not even sure how to choose an editor. I act, write, direct, and produce, so I'm not totally green, but I'd like to chat about getting at least what I've currently shot cut together. Thanks!
  2. I recently bought an analogue light meter, which should do fine.
  3. I did hear from the app developer. He's provided some clear instructions I'd be happy to share via PM. (Sharing a private email on a public thread seems gauche somehow.)
  4. Thanks for these! I've been emailing with the app developer and I do NOT need an attachment. Incidental light is measured by the "selfie" camera; reflected light by the rear camera.
  5. Speaking as a theatre director, I would be inclined to first ask what the play is. A bare stage is rarely lit, unless it's deliberate for the play. There is no key light in the theatre. It would be too hot. Musicals often use a follow spot for soloists, but it usually blends with the rest of the lighting design. It's a four-way plot to like an actor so she looks three-dimensional. Two lekos on the front, two fresnels at the rear, generally speaking. By all mean use the theatrical instruments available to you. They cast a different glow than film lights. Lekos and fresnels are generally standard instruments. Fresnels with barndoors are helpful for casting distinct shapes, like light spilling through a doorway or window. I would consult a theatrical lighting designer and director in your area for specifics on your shoot. Break a leg!
  6. Which particular piece of hardware is $3? Link please
  7. I was given to understand I didn't require the aftermarket bulb for the app I mentioned.
  8. I've been using LightMeter app by David Quiles Amat. I'm still confused how to get an accurate aperture reading. The dial doesn't really fall in a specific spot. It seems like a range of options. Little help? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jZtZ1fM_ph5bhTmsBr4TeuCCS15k5afC/view?usp=drivesdk
  9. I believe this show is up for some awards this season. I don't know if cinematography is one of them, but all the same, congratulations! Everybody involved wins in these situations.
  10. Timothy Fransky

    Super 16

    Sorry, gonna hijack. Mother! was garbage, start-to-finish. I didn't mind the visuals so much as the trash medieval mystery play. I have a Dutch reformed education and that's the sort of story every theatre major was trying to do for their independent study. It wasn't clever, shocking, or interesting. I don't know if you've ever heard of the evangelical traveling play called "Heaven's Gates and Hell's Flames," but it's as bad as it sounds. Just zero theological/spiritual understanding. I have nothing against a good spiritual story from any religion (I'm something of a believer myself), but that film was insulting to everyone's intelligence. I mean, Star Wars handles religion and faith better and it doesn't handle it very well at all. Rant over. Sorry.
  11. This is really good work! You guys could open an SFX company!
  12. I would also love to know. I have a B&H 627 I'd love to mate with an period-correct tripod.
  13. I shot this on my Dad's B&H 1206. It came out much better than the wedding. It was a super sunny day also, so that helped. https://vimeo.com/301725724
  14. Not defensive, Nick. Sorry if it came off that way. I was just venting. This was such a good learning experience for me. I'm a hands-on kinda guy. I need physical experience with something before I learn anything. I actually have LightMeter by David Quiles Amat for my android. It's going to come in really handy with my 16mm camera. It's really grey weather in my local area, but I don't want to stop taking pictures. So, I need to learn to shoot in poor light. Head first is the best way I know how.
  15. I had spoken with Adrian before shooting this, actually. He'd recommended shooting at 20ASA. I shot manual exposure because I knew the stock was rough to begin with. I definitely would've had better results with auto exposure. Hindsight is 20/20. And, yes, I actually did shoot at f22, which is indeed the opposite of what I wanted. I don't know how I got the numbers backwards, but I did. Stupid mistake. The smaller the number, the wider the aperture. I knew that. Dumb. And with all due respect, "use better/fresher stock" is the least helpful comment I've ever read. I had this available. I was pretty certain I'd be making mistakes, so why waste good stock? It was meant as an educational exercise, not a proper wedding film. In that sense, I feel this was a positive experience. I made some major errors, but that's why we practice. No one's "special day" was ruined by a bad film. The couple had professional photogs that captured everything properly. No one had asked me to shoot the wedding. I felt it was a useful event to get my feet wet in super 8. Finally, let me say that no one learned anything by not trying. You can't hit a home run if you don't swing away.
  16. I finally got the 160G back from film rescue. I definitely underexposed the wedding. I wasn't aware it would be so dark in the gazebo. I should've metered better. What would you do in such a situation? Honest question. It was a great learning experience all in all. I was able to pull out some detail in post, but the stock is super grainy.
  17. I'm not a camera op, but had you considered handheld/steadicam? There are a good amount of these types of scenes in "The Office" UK.
  18. For 3k, it better be the best image I've ever seen. :lol: I'd be interested to see if these cutting-edge processes could produce a print to rival the nitrate stocks. I'd really like to get an idea of what those old films looked like at their best.
  19. Did you see this thread? http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=77537&do=findComment&comment=501798
  20. Since the 16mm/8mm cameras from this era are so well-made, I would imagine any tripods would be equally effective. I've never come across any from that era. Do they not exist or did they not last?
  21. Reading through this thread it seems that the projection issue isn't even between film and digital. It's the quality of whatever system they are using. We've heard from people who say the screens are inadequate. I agree. Many are simply in rough shape. When projecting such a large image, even in your non-IMAX cinema, a stain/scratch/tear in the screen material is like having extra eye floaters, or worse an eyelash under a contact lens. The real money for cinemas, ironically, isn't in exhibiting movies. It's the concessions. My hometown is very small, about 2500 people when I was a kid, but we got all three original Star Wars films in our local cinema on first run. It closed just after that. Home video happened. I was involved in some meetings to revive cinema in town in the mid 2000s, but the cost of bringing in first run pictures, even indies, couldn't be recouped by tickets sales alone. So it didn't happen till only two years ago. It seems like what we're all agreed on is that the communal experience of viewing a good film print (photochem or digital) in a purpose-built space is unparalleled, but critically endangered at present. Streaming services are extremely convenient. LCD televisions are incredible inventions. Why would anyone leave their home to view something they can watch on their tvs? The real answer is, they can't see the same thing at home. It's an adequate copy, but it's not the same. Home theatres can't (without considerable effort and money) project Cinemascope or IMAX features. The latest digital versions of Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago are quite impressive, but they only made me want to see them in a proper 70mm setting. I've said this before, but you can't replace the communal experience. Silent/visual comedy doesn't produce any laughs at home. Chaplin falling into the big machinery in Modern Times got huge laughs when it played in the thirties. I don't believe this is because people were more innocent than now. The picture is much bigger, so the threat of the giant machine is much greater. The laughs are bigger because the whole story is bigger. Laughter is also contagious, so the more people laugh, the more people laugh. I think there needs to be some sort of effort to help the average moviegoer articulate what it is they aren't pleased with at the cinema. They do indeed care. Us film nerds will always have the language to complain, but no one really listens to us. We're very critical viewers, so it's tough for exhibitors to know what to spend the money on. We'd prefer they spend money on everything, from proper film projection to wet concessions. That's not the "average" viewpoint. George Lucas talked the average moviegoer into paying good money to watch the Star Wars prequels, which were basically video. And everyone was disappointed. That's not an exaggeration. They were disappointing narratives and visuals. My point is, the average moviegoer is who will make the biggest impact on how movies are exhibited.
  22. I love this era of movie cameras. Everything is machined by hand and built to last. I had to look these up, but the rackover system seems pretty slick, almost accordion-like. If someone were mechanically minded, these would still take gorgeous pictures. Those Baltars would certainly help. These cameras will go on working as long as parts can be machined. Pure muscle power. Love the simplicity.
  23. All the arguments against film as a medium (both capture and exhibition) have been levied at the theatre and print books. My life has been spent in the latter two mediums and I've concluded that certain people will always want a printed book and a live, communal theatre experience. Film was poised to eradicate the theatre in the early 20th century, but the theatre remains. Granted it's only been a century or so since the advent of cinema, so we shouldn't be surprised to see shifts in technology. Indeed, western theatre is 2500 years old—it can be traced back to classical Greece. These were huge spectacles of song, dance, and stage craft. When we reach the Renaissance, the popular theatre has shrunk to wagons set up in the markets. There are a handful of stock characters that mostly improvise. It isn't till Shakespeare that the theatre begins to grow in spectacle again. We are still working in his tracks. Point is, all mediums increase and decrease. Technology comes in and out. The digital revolution, for lack of a better term, is maybe 15 years old at this point. Western society loves a good bandwagon. People jump on new tech as if it's the second coming of Christ Himself. But we've seen, even in the relatively small film arena, that you always have to leave something behind to jump on the bandwagon. As long as we have people not jumping, walking steadily behind and picking up what others have discarded, we don't need to fear the loss of much. The last big movement in film before digital was a return to a previous era. Star Wars seems to have reinvigorated the cinema in an extremely positive fashion. However, even it has a caution for all of us:
  24. Dr. Evil is based on Ernst Stavro Blofeld head of SPECTRE in the Bond films. Starting with From Russia With Love, he's only seen partially.
  25. Tell us about the scene. What is being discussed? How is it being discussed? Is it just her face that's messed up? Or is her entire body afflicted? You could circle the pair, hiding her face with the sun and the back of the other characters head alternately. If the back of her head/body isn't key to the final reveal, then you could cross behind her, and shoot the other fellow OTS.
×
×
  • Create New...