The Film look

[Simon]

hi, im a little new on the subject.

 

Im looking to get the best results with a XL1-2 for a more "film-look".

 

Is it worth hiring a film adaptor such as the mini35, oppose to Filming with less exspensive lense and using post-production software such as "Magic Bullet" and "Final Cut Pro? Also do you need to purchase extra lenses for the Mini35 for maximun results?

 

Also does anyone know what adaptor and lenses they used to film "28 days later" with the XL1.

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

Edited March 5, 2005 by Simon

[Rik Andino]

Also do you need to purchase extra lenses for the Mini35 for maximun results?

 

Also does anyone know what adaptor and lenses they used to film "28 days later" with the XL1.

 

Any help would be much appreciated.

Thanks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No you don't need to PURCHASE them...but you might want to rent lenses.

 

The point of using a mini-35 adapter is to use 35mm cine lenses

Particularly Arri-Zeiss lenses

So it makes sense to rent a Zeiss kit with the adapter...

 

& 28 Days Later was shot using the mini35 adapter

 

The best tip I can give you for the "Film Look" is to concentrate on lighting

Personally I feel that video looks great when the highlights are slighty burned

Also play around with filters use a Polarizer outdoors

I also like the Ultra Cons, and 1/4Black Pro Mist, and Pastel filters

You can also play with the shutter speed slighty to get more motion blur

You can also do some work in post like desaturate the color slightly...

 

There's lots of things you can do--IF YOU HAVE THE SKILLS

And you don't get the skills overnight--just play around with the camera

Till you find something you like and then work with that.

 

Personally I don't get the obession with making video look like film...

It will never look exactly like film

 

But here's a tip someone once gave me--

Compose it video like you would on film

And light video like you would light on film

That helps alot...

 

 

GOOD LUCK

[John Pytlak RIP]

It's always interesting that people buy digital cameras when they really want the "film look". :P

 

When you factor everything in (capital cost of the camera, ever changing video formats, ability to archive, recording cost if a film-out is needed, etc.), film is often very competitive. B)

[Michael Nash]

I believe 28 Days Later used a variety of lens systems, primarily the Fujinon zoom that was developed for the XL1 system directly attached to the camera (not with a Mini35 Adapter). I'm too lazy to look up the article right now, but I remember on the DVD featurette you could clearly see the zoom mounted straight on the camera for at least one setup.

[Simon]

Thanks for ur replys.

 

does anyone have any preferences on what lenses work best on prevous experence?

 

 

Also can you use the tiffen filters such as Pro mist, with the Mini35 adaptor and lense.

Edited March 5, 2005 by Simon

[Rachel Oliver]

Hi;

 

Yes, I too remember them using a video zoom, using a mini 35 for a film blowup is not really a good idea unless you're after the soft look.....

 

Olly

[Michael Nash]

does anyone have any preferences on what lenses work best on prevous experence?

Also can you use the tiffen filters such as Pro mist, with the Mini35 adaptor and lense.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your choice of lens depends on the optical characteristics you want. Keep in mind that the adapter creates a mild reduction in contrast and sharpness over a "straight" lens, since the camera is actually photographing an image projected onto an oscillating ground glass.

 

You can use whatever filters you like in front of the film lenses, since you can still attach a matte box (or simply thread-on filters).

[Rik Andino]

I believe 28 Days Later used a variety of lens systems, primarily the Fujinon zoom that was developed for the XL1 system directly attached to the camera (not with a Mini35 Adapter). I'm too lazy to look up the article right now, but I remember on the DVD featurette you could clearly see the zoom mounted straight on the camera for at least one setup.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow that's really cool!

It shows how much I know... :blink:

 

Do you know what lens they use?

Is this zoom lens available for consumers...

or was it specially created for the production?

[Thomas Worth]

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html

 

"MPC believed the best results occurred with footage shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera."

 

"Dod Mantle helped matters by securing the higher-resolving Canon EC (6-40mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses to the camera bodies with Optex adapters. Even though video-lens focal lengths are measured differently than those of 35mm lenses, traditional focus-wheel systems were mounted onto the rods for the assistants, who pulled by eye. Because the XL1's viewfinder is black-and-white, Dod Mantle composed shots by looking at 9" color monitors."

[gustavius smith]

It's always interesting that people buy digital cameras when they really want the "film look".  :P

 

When you factor everything in (capital cost of the camera, ever changing video formats, ability to archive, recording cost if a film-out is needed, etc.), film is often very competitive.  B)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hi John can I pick your brain? I am embarking on my first film. It is a silent short comedy that I want to have the look and feel of an old Charles Chaplin Charles Bowers Film. I have access to a DP that has a xl1 camera, but will this camera give me the results that I want? SOmeone else suggested using traffic survailance film and adddign treatments in post to give it that WOrld War II footage look.

I am considerign this because I have also realised that film ends up beign competitive to digital "When you factor everything in (capital cost of the camera, ever changing video formats, ability to archive, recording cost if a film-out is needed, etc.), film is often very competitive. "

If I may continue...my DP will charge me 400 for the use of his xl1 for my ten minute short. Will I ever get my movie to look like I want it to using thsi camera and some type of software?

THanks for your help.

Gustavius Smith

Producer

NY NY

[John Pytlak RIP]

Hi John can I pick your brain?  I am embarking on my first film. It is a silent short comedy that I want to have the look and feel of an old Charles Chaplin Charles Bowers Film. I have access to a DP that has a xl1 camera, but will this camera give me the results that I want? SOmeone else suggested using traffic survailance film and adddign treatments in post to give it that WOrld War II footage look.

I am considerign this because I have also realised that film ends up beign competitive to digital "When you factor everything in (capital cost of the camera, ever changing video formats, ability to archive, recording cost if a film-out is needed, etc.), film is often very competitive. "

If I may continue...my DP will charge me 400 for the use of his xl1 for my ten minute short. Will I ever get my movie to look like I want it to using thsi camera and some type of software?

THanks for your help.

Gustavius Smith

Producer

NY NY

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What particular "Charles Chaplin Charles Bowers" films are you trying to emulate?

 

For a film from before 1940, it's almost a certainty that film is the best way to emulate a film of that era.

 

In Super-16, you have a choice of B&W negative or reversal camera films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.8&lc=en

 

Use a faster film if you want enhanced grain.

 

Adjust contrast by push or pull processing.

 

Hand cranked silent films can be emulated by varying frame rate.

 

Use a deep blue filter to emulate really old blue-sensitive B&W film.

 

Use a deep cyan filter to emulate an orthochromatic film.

 

Your lab can suggest ways of emulating an old process that had poor agitation and noticeable non-uniformity.

[gustavius smith]

What particular "Charles Chaplin Charles Bowers" films are you trying to emulate?

 

For a film from before 1940, it's almost a certainty that film is the best way to emulate a film of that era.

 

In Super-16, you have a choice of B&W negative or reversal camera films:

 

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products...0.1.4.4.8&lc=en

 

Use a faster film if you want enhanced grain.

 

Adjust contrast by push or pull processing.

 

Hand cranked silent films can be emulated by varying frame rate.

 

Use a deep blue filter to emulate really old blue-sensitive B&W film.

 

Use a deep cyan filter to emulate an orthochromatic film.

 

Your lab can suggest ways of emulating an old process that had poor agitation and noticeable non-uniformity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thanks a bunc for responding! I am trying emulate-

In regards to Charles Bowers "The Wild Roomer" (1927) and "He done his Best" 1925.

[David Cox]

For a film from before 1940, it's almost a certainty that film is the best way to emulate a film of that era.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We are often called upon to replicate aged / old film - either for effect or integration. From my experience, many directors come in with a "perfect reference" which we pretty well perfectly match. Many times it's then decided that the new material has been degraded too far and the director wants to take a step back. If you create your look "in camera" with film stock choice and lab decisions, you may be stuck with what you have. Then its too late if the effects of those choices didn't do quite what you expected them to on the material you have shot. Remember, you have different lights, different make-up, different scenes, different actors - so there are a number of issues that you will need to bring together to get the right INTERPRETATION (not copy) of your reference material.

 

Besides, it's really hard getting your film transferred in a pre 1940's Spirit telecine.