Adam Blair-Smith

I'm from Downers Grove, would love to meet up!

I'd imagine they were hand-cranked back then rather then motorized meaning that even with a good operator could have a frame rate range of 18-24 fps. as for weather or not they were even capable of 24, I have no idea.

1 - John Toll

2- Roger Deakins

3- Vittorio Storaro

4- Jay Holben (great educator of cinematography)

5- Matt Workman (creates video games/simulations to teach cinematography)

These are just my opinions, so take these with a grain of salt. John Toll is probably not #1 on too many other people's lists, but I personally like his style of simple yet also complex shots. The style I strive to achieve is subtle visual style with expressionistic rather then practical lighting.

On 2/2/2019 at 11:00 PM, Robin R Probyn said:

the stilted view point is to think things aren't changing.. ?

To be fair, Fresnel lights have changed to almost entirely LED now, so whose to say the same can't happen here?

On 1/22/2018 at 8:58 AM, Phil Rhodes said:

 

 

I've no idea what world you guys work in, but it's not one I've ever seen, and I'm not sure many other people have either.

 

The positive advice I can offer is that if something about the job doesn't seem right - money, circumstances, people - if you have even the tiniest suspicion about anything, get everything in writing. I'm not talking about contractual stuff. That's nice to have. But if you are in the middle of the job saying something like "If we don't X, Y will happen," make sure that the person you're talking to gets it by email and responds that they've seen the email. The phrase "well, I'll follow that instruction since you're the boss, but I'm going to need it in an email" is a surprisingly powerful way of expressing your concerns with things you've been told to do.

 

And finally, if it's all going south, walk away. It's the only way to escape with even a shred of dignity intact.

 

P

Very interesting, thanks!

what does E27 & B22 mean?

have you double-checked everything with scopes? good way to know for sure if it will look like utter trash or not.

You kind of get the idea by saying that it's a lazy way to color grade correct. However, trying to recreate what film convert is on your own would require a lot of experience color grading to the point where you would have to create your own LUT. One of the benefits of film convert is not only that it recreates different film stocks on your footage, but also that it adjusts that "film stock" so that it adjusts for whatever camera you shot on. For example, the same film stock LUT will look the same on both Sony and Canon cameras, meaning that no matter what camera you use it will accurately recreate that film stock. This also helps quite a lot when trying to match shots from two different cameras, since you can just tell it to adjust for each camera individually on a shot-by-shot basis. Make sense?