"The Gladiators"

[Serge Teulon]

Serge - My apologies, I misunderstood your question. If I wanted to shoot on film but couldn't afford it, then yes, I'd suggest the Red as an option.

 

 

I think it was my inability to write clearly that created the confusion. I'm dislexic and therefore sometimes find it hard to write clearly and concisely.

Stephen's, yours and other info that I have since read have shown that, although in the future the red will most likely be a cheaper option to offer to film with near to equal results, its not a sacrifice that most people would make at this point.

 

Thanks for your patience.

[Jayson Crothers]

Stephen's, yours and other info that I have since read have shown that, although in the future the red will most likely be a cheaper option to offer to film with near to equal results, its not a sacrifice that most people would make at this point.

 

If I could afford film, in most cases I'd probably push for film - if my choices were Red or not being able to make the film at all, well, I'd go with the Red. I'm looking at Red again for a possible feature later this year that, while they could probably afford 35mm, may benefit from the advantages of the Red camera - it's a matter of weighing out EVERY factor (aesthetics, cost, schedule, work-flow, how the director wants to/likes to work, etc). We all want to shoot on 35mm, but we're looking at the plusses and minuses of going with a digital format for our story.

 

There ARE situations where digital is a better choice than film - I shot one feature that had a cast entirely of children and animals and the director had only worked on film before; I pushed to shoot on HD (instead of 35mm) because I anticipated shooting a lot of footage and needing the ability to do very long takes. We ended up shooting about twice what had been anticipated and often did 15+ minute takes trying to get an animal to do the right trick or needing to feed lines to children until the director got what they wanted. In another case, I pushed for digital over film because of a very deep focus look the director wanted that we wouldn't be able to easily achieve on film.

 

The intention of this isn't to add to the film vs. digital debate, but to once again point out that no single format is the "best" - it's a case of what's appropriate to the story and what's the best tool to use to tell that story.

[Geovane Marquez]

Jason, I was wondering if you checked the color temperature of the stadium lights. It would help a lot for a project I'll be working on soon. From looking at your exterior shots I assume you mixed tungsten with daylight for the night field shots.

[Jayson Crothers]

Geovane, I don't have my notes near me, but I want to say they were around 6000 degrees, but don't quote me on that. The baseball field used only the available light from the stadium lights and a little HMI lighting - there were no Tungsten units used at all. The wide shot of the night exterior is strictly available light with (I believe) the camera set for 5600 - the close up of the player has an HMI playing in the background a little and he's got a large Muslin frame that's serving to both flag off one of the stadium lights while also bouncing another.

 

I remember selecting that field because the stadium lights were a close match to daylight, whereas another field nearby had very warm lights.

[Jerry Rojas]

It's been more than a year from your original post, but I just want to thank you for sharing this awsome info, it's really helpful for people that is learning like me...

 

Great work

 

Regards

 

 

Jerry Rojas

[Edgar Dubrovskiy]

Thanks loads for your info!