Jump to content

Dylan Gill

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dylan Gill

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  1. I actually have been thinking about this. Are digital cameras like Alexa and Red really video? Video to me harkens back to tape, which was poor quality. Preferences aside, I think digital looks pretty good, a lot of the time (though I still prefer 35mm) it seems like 'shooting digital' is more apropos than 'shooting video'? Either way, I'd just say filming for the process, movie/picture for the final result. I've been a pedant for most my life in audio and it was miserable.
  2. Thank god. Also talked to the people who will make the DCP, they say all they need is the native 3840 file and they'll do the upscale themselves. Potentially saving me and my extremely hard working editor time if that goes well.
  3. Hi guys, emergency question! TIFF deadline is this week, and I hated the color grade from artist one, so hired a new guy, but it seems that the provided files (XML, EDL, and reference video) aren't giving him the easy ability to upscale to 4K/1.85. I told him to color it in 3840x2160 and then my editor and I will take care of the crop and upscale. Is this easily done in Premiere?
  4. Before getting into film I used to work in a boutique studio that did 2" analog recording. I loved the way it sounded, and sometimes we even ran 30 ips which chewed through the tape in double the time. But like you said you can re use it (i never personally would, but you can) and it's not tremendously expensive. I thank god that I like the look of Alexa footage because the uphill battle of analog vs digital today is too tiring. Film and digi are both good looking, unlike the gap between digital vs 2" tape based music (all my opinion of course). In hypothetical world, I would entertain shooting film if the budget was big enough, but even then it seems like why not shoot it on an Alexa with amazing glass and put that money elsewhere?
  5. Good to know! Thank you. Prores 4444 XQ ok? That's what we shot with, have no idea what the difference is, but would be nice if we could keep it the same. Just learned an hour ago the colorist is doing the online from my editor. Trying to get this finished is driving me insane
  6. Copy, how hard/how long would it take to load a 4K tiff sequence into Premiere for the online edit? My editor is out of town until tomorrow and we have to finish this today because my colorist is leaving town tomorrow haha
  7. We are in color now, the project is in DCI 4K 1.85:1, now that it's almost finished, my colorist was going to export TIFF's but I asked him to do prores instead for my conform editor. Was this a mistake?
  8. What I wonder, as an newbie, is how strong is film's infrastructure after you're done shooting? How many labs can process it well outside of fotokem? You even have people like Deakins saying the stock itself isn't what it used to be. At what point does it just not make sense to shoot film?
  9. I think if you are going to go for a Mini you should pony up for the 4:3 and ARRIRAW license. I rented a Mini for my last short that didn't have either, the 4:3 being okay since we were spherical, but the lack of raw was a bummer. I just think having both options in the back pocket means you have a camera that can do whatever anyone wants, versus saving money on the license. Makes it a much more attractive rental, even if those features aren't used, it's a small uptick on an incredibly expensive camera anyway, if you can buy a mini you can buy the arriraw/4:3 license.
  10. I'd get an Alexa Mini if I were in your position. I'm trying to pool together with my partners for one.
  11. I think so, yes. You should care about craft and exhibition. I haven't seen Green Book yet (though I plan too) but I saw Beale Street this week which is also 2:1 at the Arclight, tiny letterbox on a 1.85 screen. Didn't bother me. When I saw Hereditary, they lowered the frame to get rid of the bottom bar, but kept the top letterbox bar, which I thought was interesting. Either way, perfectly viewable
  12. I think he's referring to the vertical video people often take
  13. Good to know, thank you. This site is really a wealth of knowledge. I had moviepass for a little while last year and saw a scope movie at a cinemark on 1.85 screen with no masking. This is seemingly getting more common. Seems incredibly lazy to me to not at least mask it if you are going to do a constant width screen.
  14. I too love anamorphic 35mm, and I grew up in the 90's with the end of the film presentation era, I remember the side curtains moving and being very excited as well, though to be honest it wasn't until I got very into film that I knew the difference between widescreen ratios. I kind of like the look of anamorphic on film more than digital, but I like it when it's well done either way. I was wondering (pardon my ignorance, like I said, green) do you get more height and width with anamorphic lenses, than you would doing a 2.40 crop? Seems like you can get an entire face and the environment in the shot with anamorphic, while cropped spherical feels much more cramped. Or am I just imagining things?
  15. I'm extremely green, having only made two short films. The first was 2.40 spherical, and the newest one which is still being edited was in 1.85 for that very reason. However, I found myself falling in love with the compositional elements of 1.85 on set. I am a big anamorphic fan however. I have noticed even at the Arclight in Sherman Oaks (my go-to theater) the biggest auditoriums are constant width. Disappointing. I have a friend who works for a famous director, they were testing cameras for the iphone ratio for a media company. Luckily, the director told them it wouldn't work, and to just aim for 16:9, people will tilt their phones. Made me sad to hear about the tests, but happy about the conclusion.
  • Create New...