Jump to content

Adam Paul

Basic Member
  • Posts

    306
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Adam Paul

  1. Ok I understand. But the same is kind of true if you trully smoke the set. The only difference would be smoke shafts, or? Thanks.
  2. The windows are pretty big as the place is a warehouse. So I don't antecipate anybody will be fully blocking a window and I can try blocking in a way that it doesn't happen. Is the Smoque 2 enough to produce the effect in brighter areas such as light hitting objects, the rim of a kicker on an actor etc, or does it absolutely need the light source itself, like a lamp to be seen in frame? Thanks.
  3. Thanks David. Yes, doing both is of course an option if I go with the glass filter. I was more thinking in terms of being able to go back or change the mid about the smoked look. With the glass filter once is in the can there's no way back. I can do some tests but will not be able to extensively test it. I'm also sure that it wont be possible to have a light source in frame in all shots. Close ups of the actors for example will definitely not have any fixtures in frame. Unless the highlight of a kicker is already enough? Or a strong key? Because I don't how if is possible to have a light in every frame. I will have Smoque 1 and 2.
  4. And by the way, do I have to have a light source in frame in every shot to get the smoke effect from the Smoque filter?
  5. I have a shoot where I'm thinking about using a Tiffen Smoque filter. I want the smoqued set look but we don't have the resources to do it for real, apart from amateur fog machines which are hard to control. Also, fog on set is not a very pleasing of healthy thing. But I'm wondering if I should really use an on lens filter or if I can get the same effect in post? I've never tried to get this effect in post so I don't know if it's possible to do it convicely or as convincing as the glass Tiffen Smoque. But the good thing about doing it in post is that I can control how much softnening of the image occurs etc. If I could get the same look and the post effect wouldn't look more fake, is there ar reason to go for the glass filter? Thanks!
  6. Just caught Smokin' Aces 2 on Blu-ray. Never seen the genesis looking so bad. Very noisy in internal shots. I suspect it was a green screen set, reason all the shadows were so noisy. Outside shots looked fine. Anybody has any scoop on this film? I know the genesis can do better than that.
  7. And it will definitely change with the gamma your select. Which gamma did you get 250 ASA with?
  8. This is the same thread I had up on the Sony forums but as it has been there for a couple of weeks without any replies I thought I would bring it out here to the general high definition forum in hopes more people would see it and maybe reply. I was hoping some of you have experience with both the bigger Sony cameras ( F900R or F330, F350 XDCAM etc) and smaller Sony cameras ( EX1 or EX3). I?m mainly interested in knowing how similar the cinegammas in the EX1/EX3 are to the hypergammas in the F900R and F330/350 ( I think all these shoulder cameras have the same hypergammas. Possibly the F23 too). The reason is I?m trying to establish which cinegamma is best for low light, which is best for high contrast like days exteriors and which captures the widest dynamic range. For what I could gather there seems to be some who say the cinegammas are identical to the Hypergammas (like this article: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ca...ex/index2.html that says; ?For those who would like to tackle greater dynamic range, EX1 provides in addition to four standard preset gamma curves, four CINE Gamma curves identical to those in the F330/350 and, for that matter, F900R and F23 where they?re known as HyperGamma curves 1-4. For some reason, the ordering is scrambled in the F330/350 and EX1. CINE1 with a 108-percent white clip is the same as HyperGamma 4.?) while I have read people saying they are not the same at all since all cinegammas are the same going from 0 to 109% except cinegamma 2 which goes from 0 to 100% and that they don?t seem to to have any difference in highlight handling (the clipping point of the highlights remains the same) and that just the mid tones change. If this is true, the cinegammas cant possibly be similar to the hypergammas, since there are 4 types of hypergammas. Two go from 0-100% HG 1 &2) and two go from 0-109% (HG 3&4) and among these one set is for low light (HG 1&3) and the other is for high contrast (HG 2&4). If you have used the F900R or the bigger XDCAMs and also the EX1/EX3, I would love to know what you think about how cinegammas and hypergammas relate. The reason is that I?m having a very hard time knowing when to use which cinegamma and there are no articles or guides online to advice on the cinegamma use in the EX1/EX3. But there are several good articles and papers about how to use Hypergammas (like these: http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowC...=1219237429204 http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/f..._factSheet.pdf) which could be put to good use if it's confirmed they indeed behave the same way. Guides like these are a very useful rule of thumb for a guy without any video engineering background like me and they are all over the net since the F900R is so widely used. So knowing how this info can translate to the EX1/EX3 would be really useful and I couldn't really find any solid confirmation on how close the Cinegammas are to the Hypergammas so I thought I would ask here if anybody know and also if you have been shooting with the EX1/EX3 what gamma curve you are using for low light and for high contrast like shooting talent in the shade with a sunny background. The link bellow has a picture comparing the gamma curves of the EX1, F900R and F790P in case somebody who haven't used both the big and smaller cameras want to take a crack on it just by looking at the curves. They look rather similar to me. http://img516.imageshack.us/my.php?image=g...onydigitly0.jpg Thanks in advance.
  9. No takers? I wonder if I should open this thread in the general High Definition forum? Maybe I could get more attention there. Is there a way this can be transferred there or I would have to copy and paste? Thanks.
  10. No problem Phil. Thanks for sharing what you could. by the way, I tried PM you but it seems your inbox is full. Yep J.S. They sure did a bad job matching the foreground and background here. 4:4:4 did nothing to them.
  11. So you worked on that show Phil? Somehow you don?t seem like you had a lot of fun. :unsure: About the movie, although there doesn?t seem to be a lot of reviews on it the ones I found seem to share the cheap effects opinion: No to mention the silly story and script which I chose to leave out the first time around since this is a technical forum. But it makes you wonder what Malkovich was doing there. Attack of the Clones was shot on the F900 and the green screen work looked miles better than this. So did Sky Captain and Sin City, although Sin City was a F950 shot. If they could not really afford shooting 4:4:4 and the S2 they should have stuck with the F900 and invested the extra cash in post-production. The F900 would have looked way better than that with proper post-production. I heard it was a 25 million show. This is not as low budget as I had thought. When I saw it I thought it was a 5 million indepent project where somebody called in some favors to get name actors in it. That was before I knew it was based on a game. But 25 million is not even that little. There are a lot of sci-fi movies made for around that much that look great. Pan?s labirinth was made for less and looked fantastic. Although I?m sure the name actors must have eaten a huge chunk of that budget. All together it seems just bad business judgement. If you can?t afford 4:4:4 why shoot it? And why hire expensive acotrs when you can?t even afford decent post? By the way, although surely not the problem, any idea of what compositing package they used in post? I?m wondering what sort of problems they were having with the S2? It would be great to hear your experiences in that show if you would be allowed or willing to talk about it in detail here. There seems to be a lot to be learned from this experience for independent film makers. Thanks.
  12. I just watched a movie called "The Mutant Chronicles" on DVD and in the end of the credits it said the movie was fully shot on digital with the Viper in 4:4:4 and additional footage shot with the SI-2K and F23 and high speed shot on the Phatom HD. Although it's pretty obvious it must have been a very cheap show judging from the obvious in your face fake looking effects like fake gun shots, fake explosions, fake rain and the horrible fake blood and wound effects, what really caught my attention was the green screen work. It's easy to see they had a lot of green screen shots because thez are just so bad. Again since the whole movie looks cheap it's not hard to accept the very cheesy and obvious background plates and overall lack of moving shots and obvious rotoscoping locked shots. What's hard to understand is why the green screen job is so obvious? I thought 4:4:4 was supposed to be the holz grail for kezing and color correction? Wasn?t the keying supposed to loom impecable and basically perfect? So why was all the green shots so on your face? It looked fake and the background and foreground never matched. The actors always looked faded and greenish and the edges and separation was obvious. I had people watching the movie with me who know nothing about production who couldn?t stop complaining how fake and cheesy it all looked. The compositing was so bad that I have to say the last time I saw such bad compositing effects was with old Simbad movies using rear projection. Anybody knows what happened? It had Thomas Jane, Ron Pearlman and John Malkovich in it, so I?m surprised it was that bad quality wise. Those aren?t exactly cheap actors.
  13. I hoping some of you have experience with both the bigger Sony cameras ( F900R or F330, F350 XDCAM etc) and smaller Sony cameras ( EX1 or EX3). I?m mainly interested in knowing how similar the cinegammas in the EX1/EX3 are to the hypergammas in the F900R and F330/350 ( I think all these shoulder cameras have the same hypergammas. Possibly the F23 too). The reason is I?m trying to establish which cinegamma is best for low light, which is best for high contrast like days exteriors and which captures the widest dynamic range. For what I could gather there seems to be some who say the cinegammas are identical to the Hypergammas (like this article: http://digitalcontentproducer.com/ca...ex/index2.html that says; ?For those who would like to tackle greater dynamic range, EX1 provides in addition to four standard preset gamma curves, four CINE Gamma curves identical to those in the F330/350 and, for that matter, F900R and F23 where they?re known as HyperGamma curves 1-4. For some reason, the ordering is scrambled in the F330/350 and EX1. CINE1 with a 108-percent white clip is the same as HyperGamma 4.?) while I have read people saying they are not the same at all since all cinegammas are the same going from 0 to 109% except cinegamma 2 which goes from 0 to 100% and that they don?t seem to to have any difference in highlight handling (the clipping point of the highlights remains the same) and that just the mid tones change. If this is true, the cinegammas cant possibly be similar to the hypergammas, since there are 4 types of hypergammas. Two go from 0-100% HG 1 &2) and two go from 0-109% (HG 3&4) and among these one set is for low light (HG 1&3) and the other is for high contrast (HG 2&4). If you have used the F900R or the bigger XDCAMs and also the EX1/EX3, I would love to know what you think about how cinegammas and hypergammas relate. The reason is that I?m having a very hard time knowing when to use which cinegamma and there are no articles or guides online to advice on the cinegamma use in the EX1/EX3. But there are several good articles and papers about how to use Hypergammas (like these: http://www.sony.co.uk/biz/view/ShowC...=1219237429204 http://pro.sony.com/bbsccms/assets/f..._factSheet.pdf) which could be put to good use if it's confirmed they indeed behave the same way. Guides like these are a very useful rule of thumb for a guy without any video engineering background like me and they are all over the net since the F900R is so widely used. So knowing how this info can translate to the EX1/EX3 would be really useful and I couldn't really find any solid confirmation on how close the Cinegammas are to the Hypergammas so I thought I would ask here if anybody know and also if you have been shooting with the EX1/EX3 what gamma curve you are using for low light and for high contrast like shooting talent in the shade with a sunny background. I have attached a picture comparing the gamma curves of the EX1, F900R and F790P in case somebody who haven't used both the big and smaller cameras want to take a crack on it just by looking at the curves. They look rather similar to me. Thanks in advance.
  14. Interesting idea. I wonder how would a Matrox MXO work with a DV-I CRT. I know it works wonders with a DVI LCD panel like the Apple cinema displays and there are a lot of colorists using this combo out there.
  15. Paul, are you talking about a computer monitor here? Which one specifically and what kind of inputs? Thanks.
  16. I'm also of the notion that film is film. But digital can look darned close and even indistinguishable depending on who is watching. I will bet nobody in the theater who's not an industry professional and maybe not even some of them will be able to tell this is digital: http://movies.apple.com/movies/paramount/t...tlr1_h1080p.mov It looks so beautiful. So who cares?
  17. Does this one still have the low resolution CCDs that the HVX200 has or did they finally put real HD imagers in their lower cost cameras?
  18. The Matrox MXO is supposed to be the best option if you want to use a computer LCD as a color correction reference monitor.
  19. I didn't see it. What was it about?
  20. Thanks. I never knew about slow burning blanks. Is that something you can buy at normal ammunition places like blanks or you can only find them in special effects houses and film places? Also, there has been talkings of getting some cap firing machine guns. I'm thinking firing caps will also be characterized as fast burning?
  21. What do you mean by properly exposed? I thought the whole idea of having the card in the shot was to have a reference so when color correcting to match different takes and angles in the same scene you would have a standard reference, i.e. match the cards and the shots will match. Now if you shoot the card alone and "properly exposed" and properly exposed means let's say a T2.8 but you are shooting the shot at T4 how good of a reference is the card going to be? Also, why shoot it alone? Most people even stick it to the slate or hold it in front of the talent before rolling camera. What am I missing? This is a honest question. I'm not trying to flame or anything. Thanks.
  22. That's what I meant. If I need a separated card or if the white, gray and black on the slate sticks are enough? Thanks.
  23. I just checked cinematography.net and found a topic called "24P & Shooting Fire" on the index list which I thought could be it but the link takes you to a shutter angle thread which has no mention of fire, muzzles or anything. It's just a question about shutter angle and T-stop compensation. A google search also turned u nothing on cinematography.net. Would you know where it could be? Thanks.
  24. I'm wondering if colored slate sticks are any good for color balance reference or if I'm better of with some sort of card like the QP Card (here: http://www.qpcard.se/BizPart.aspx?tabId=31...d=1&catId=1 ). I have this exact slate model: http://www.gomediamonkey.com/proddetail.ph...eENG&cat=33 and it says the sticks have laminate stripes in the basic Kodak colors, so I'm not sure if the colors and black, gray and white are really accurate for reference in color correction. What do you guys think?
×
×
  • Create New...