Jump to content

Mitch

Basic Member
  • Posts

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mitch

  • Birthday 03/01/1986

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Director
  • Location
    Canada

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.komodofilms.com
  1. I say go for the XL2. 28 Days Later proved that you can get an amazing picture from Canon's XL series and you do have the ability to add a PL lens on with an adapter. The main advantage I think would be the ability to shoot as much extra footage you wanted, as much coverage you wanted because tape is SO much cheaper than film. Film is obviously the better quality and you get a much nicer picture from film, but a for a project on the road, you want to be able to just pick up the camera and take any shots you find when you're out and about.
  2. Mitch

    XL1 Cinematic Feel

    Man, the internet sucks when it comes to finding this trivial information :P Thanks for the truth though :D
  3. Mitch

    XL1 Cinematic Feel

    Actually, 28 Days Later was shot on XL2 before it was released. However, I do believe that Open Water was shot on the XL1s. I use the XL1s often and find it gets a great look, however there is alot of post that is involved with it aswell. Just use what you know about shooting film and apply it to your XL1, and it'll look great.
  4. The difference between neg and positive film is a positive film is a complete image. You can put it up to the light and see all the colours in the frame. A negative has all of the colours stripped out, but can be added later with some procedure using coloured lights (I'm not too good at all of this as you can tell). 99% of films are shot on negative because it is cheaper and you get the nice crisp look. You CAN shoot positive film (which is called Reversal shooting) and what that does actually is give you an almost aged look (what they did with the Aviator).
  5. C'mon Rich and Shabam, fighting on the internet is like racing in the special Olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded. Now, on the topic at hand. I myself go to the Toronto Film School with Franco. Franco is actually my Cinematographer on every project I direct and he sure as Hell knows what he's doing. We are all taught cinematography from a guy named Burnie MacNeil. He knows his shtick. He was around when 3x20's actually got the nickname "Def". If you're in the field, break an ND filter and don't know what to do, he can tell you how to make one with saramwrap and hairspray. Now the equipment we have at the school can be viewed as "minimal" to some and "wickedly awesome" by others depending on your background. As someone who used to work for Cogeco Cable 10 in Niagara Falls, the school falls under the wickedly awesome category. From what I understand it's the same for those who took interns at Roger Cable 10 (where Franco used to work). Here's the thing, TFS is a conservative school meaning you're taught EVERYTHING involved in making a film. Most "traditional" institutions fixate on one area or the other. Usually that area is directing. This is why schools like TFS are looked down upon, because a person can leave it and get a job either as a grip or a director, and both had the same education. Your own experience there and what you do with your time is what will define you as a film maker, not which piece of paper you have hanging over your wall.
×
×
  • Create New...