R Walker

Matti- your stills look great! i was doing some research on using Hawks with Super16 for a feature I'm shooting in a few months and i came across this thread. I have been warned against using anamorphic lenses with Super16 especially for the final blow up/projection. I would love your thoughts on your experience with the Hawks- while in production (how much light did they cut?) and also with the final product- was there any graininess/softness? I read about your experience with the flares, so I'm aware of that... thanks very much! r. walker

Maybe I wasn't being clear. The bottomline is both film and video can look really amazing. I've had some really amazing looking results shooting 24P and HD and it came from a lot of trial and error. It is it's own medium that DOES need to be lit differently. Maybe I was being too simple in my reply. I'm simply saying that if you know a thing or two about lighting, you should be able to experiment till you get the effect you're looking for. If that effect happens to be a "film-look" or whatever you prefer to call it, doesn't really matter. Everything comes with practice and tests.

I know, I know. Obviously, I prefer to shoot film. But I shoot, so I have to learn to shoot all formats well and the way people want to see them. Everyone wants the cheap way to a "film-look". It's unfortunate, but true. There is a place for video, but the world of narrative seems to always be trying to make it something it's not. But that's not say it doesn't get the job done. If you have a great story and you know a few little tricks, HD or 24P will do the job just as well and 24P will be quite a bit cheaper. But I love film and unfortunately to my eye, there will always be some things you cannot recreate as well digitally.

I think getting a film-like result comes from a combination of lighting, filters and camera placement. If you know how to light film well and you apply those skills with HD or 24P, that's the first step. You should experiment with different filters and see which ones give you the effect you're looking for. I personally get a good result with the 1/4 black pro-mist. Finally, you can manipulate your depth of field with the way you place the camera and with what stop you chose to shoot at. I do these three things and I have gotten great results from HD and 24P. It also took me alot of practice. But since you own the camera, you'll have plenty of time to practice! Obviously nothing will ever look quite as film-like as film itself does, but with so many people trying to shoot low-budget, we're often forced to shoot 24P or HD. So we better learn to like it and learn to make it look as pleasing and un-video like as possible. Good luck!

Thanks guys, I would say I'm definitely leaning towards not using the adaptor because I don't have the crew and the time to light for it and the time to deal with the focusing constraints, also I'm wary of using it on an entire feature not knowing exactly what results it's going to yield. My options then seem to be to shoot in the 4x3 mode and just frame accordingly for a possible blow-up or use the camera's squeeze mode. Could I ask what your opinion is on that? I would think it would be better to shoot in 4x3 mode and crop it later if there's a blow-up. Thanks so much for all your input!

Hi, I saw both these topics briefly touched on in the forum seperately but I want to see what the consensus is on this particular situation. I am shooting a low budget feature on the DVX100A and apparently (I know how unrealistic this seems, but I still have to prepare for it) it will be probably be bought and then blown up to film at some point when its finished. Regardless of whether or not this happens I have to shoot this film with the potential to be blown up to film later, with the most possible resolution I can get. I was sent this link in regards to the adapter: http://www.uemforums.com/2pop/ubbthreads/s...o=&fpart=1#4819 Anyhow, I had asked the advice of another DP I know and he told me that putting the adapter in front of the lens would only cause more interefence with the image and I was better off just using the camera's internal squeeze mode. Basically, I just need to know the pros and cons of using the adapter and which is better and safer for the look of the film- using it or using the camera's internal squeeze mode. Also, if I use the adapter or squeeze mode, what will it look like and how will it have to be viewed before it is blown up to film? Thanks ahead of time for any and all relevant info you can give me!! -reed

Hi! I'm shooting a film in the next few weeks that is mainly night exteriors. We were originally going to shoot HD, but it's looking like that post process will be too expensive for the budget they have. What camera would you recommend to a film shooter in order to get the best quality and (filmic) look? (DV or 24P) and also how does the post process work with 24P, is it any cheaper or the same as HD? Also if you have any tips for night exteriors with whatever camera you recommend, that would be greatly appreciated. I won't be scrimping on the lighting package and I plan on lighting like I light for film but with less intensity (obviously!). Thanks for your help!

Hi! I'm primarily a film shooter, however, I did shoot an HD feature last summer on the F900. (It was my first time working with HD). I think all in all I got a lot of good practice with the camera, but one thing I still don't like is the look of HD in night exteriors. I know there must be some tricks to keeping it from looking muddy and I was hoping I could get some advice on that. I'm shooting HD again at the end of the month and it's going to be all night exteriors so I want to get the best look possible. Also, I'm wondering what everyone thinks about using 35 lenses to get more of the wider film look. I wanted to try that if the budget allows. One last thing, last time I shot HD I used the 1/4 Black Pro-Mist. Anyone have any other filters they like with the HD in terms of softening the edges and getting more of the film look? Thanks in advance for your help!

Thanks everyone, John, I am shooting some scenes by candlelight as well as shooting the dawn so I think the 500 speed would be best. I really want to stick to one stock the entire time, if possible. (it's a short film). Thanks again for your help! Reed

I'm looking for a stock that will give the most saturated colors possible. I think I'm going to shoot on vision500T (7279), but I have not used the vision2 500T (7218) and I was wondering if there was a difference in the saturation and which one would be better to use. Any other helpful hints to get a more saturated look with these stocks?