|
That 5D stuff looks a lot like red footage, though something about it really screams still camera. Maybe its the nikon lenses - they have a very defined style to them. That said I turned it off after 5 seconds. If it ain't lit then I don't want to watch it. I think ASC had an article in the magazine about two/three months ago covering a feature shot on the 5DMKII. It looked gorgeous, but the moral of the story was that even though it wasn't a professional cinematographer who shot the movie it was still a photographer with a great eye. The camera isn't a short cut to greatness - you still need to know what you're doing. Carefree Koala posted:On the topic of camera owning love, just want to throw in my bias towards my Sony EX-1. Although the EX-3 is certainly lovelier in terms of shooting with, I haven't felt the need to upgrade my EX-1 for that realm of gigs where producers are looking for shooters with their own camera. And while SxS cards (Sony version of P2) are still mighty expensive, a 16 gig SxS gets you just shy of an hour of footage at 1080 / 24p. Speaking as a professional of sorts, the best possible thing anyone can do to learn cinematography is to be on set. A book isn't going to tell you how to light - it can only give you terms. You need to see someone work in the field to understand them. Craigslist's 'crew' section will have gigs in most cities. Even unpaid PA work can be worth it some times (though be careful who you work for). The big thing for me though is it establish the motivating light source of the scene. I want to see it - if its a window or practical etc. I try to throw as many different practicals and whatever in a room as I can - they look great and help light the scene. Then all you do is augment what is already there and bam - movie magic. Roger Deakins is a master of this - watch his stuff edit: also - low budget film makers: china balls are your friend. I did reshoots for a feature last week. I had to match Red footage with nothing but my EX-1, two china balls and my cars headlights. After some post work (crush the blacks mostly, and a slight gaussian blur to match the lens) it looked almost exactly the same. Only difference was the depth of field, but I lit it so that the background would be murky anyway - and for a 30 second scene i doubt anyone will notice. Work lights are also nice if you need to light space. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 04:17 on Jun 24, 2009 |
#
¿
Jun 24, 2009 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Ah, so it's pretty much exactly what I thought it would be. I remember a lot of references to them when I was studying Eyes Wide Shut, which makes sense; this was the same film that used boards of Christmas lights as ambient lighting. The moral anyway is that you can use pretty much anything to get a good effect, especially if you're working in close ups. If you're on a super low budget save the real lights for the background (in fact, ALWAYS light the background and set first) and pull a china ball up close. Most low budget movies are shot fairly long lensed anyway to compensate for the lack of production design, so this ends up working. That said, lighting people in a master shot with just a china ball can occasionally be really tricky so I don't recommend that unless you have to other choice
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2009 00:36
|
|
|
I personally hate HDV so I'll stick with the EX1. HDV can be a bitch and a half in post, while the EX1 is pretty much the easiest thing in the world. As far as cost goes: Protip: Don't by Sony's SxS card. There are these MxM duders who hold the same type of memory cards in all your nikon/canon still cameras and fit in the SxS slot. I don't have my camera with me and I'm terrible about remembering exact card names and stuff, but the adapters cost about 50-100 bucks and the memory cards about the same. You need to use type 6 cards though and you cant shoot highspeed on them, but thats not really an issue because you can just use the 8gb SxS the camera comes with for that. Still, its 1/4 of Sonys price.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2009 04:44
|
|
|
Rogetz posted:Right now I'm working as a Camera Op on a low budget feature, and doing some G/E Swing work as well. We're going to be getting IMDb credit from this, and the producers are willing to give me an additional credit for the stuff I've done outside of the camera department. I'm wondering, though, if that would make my Camera credit look weaker than if it were my sole credit on the project, since it "detracts" from my focus on camera (I've only had to do this stuff on a couple of days that were really hectic, we had a skeleton crew, or G&E wasn't able to show up). Only list camera op on your resume though so you can get the focus across where it actually matters
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2009 07:24
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:It's also potentially really expensive to get that much light in the shot. Ultimately its still story telling though - to say that long lens photography is 'ruining' or 'cheapening' film making is kind of like lamenting the use of soft light because its easier then classic hard light techniques. Just different styles and different looks for different scripts. For example the bourne movies wouldn't look shot wide open, nor would No country for old men look as good if you didn't get a sense of the space. I'd love to shoot everything in an 18-32 range if i could, but it requires better lenses and far more money, so longer focal lengths are used far more often.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2009 18:56
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Deep focus may be a more interesting and challenging way to shoot, and you can go on for three paragraphs about it in your press package, but audiences will still equate it with small chip video. That said - theres a reason why deep focus doesn't exist in mainstream film anymore: its far too distracting in color photography. In black and white it looks great since the only thing you can see are gradations of shadow. In color you now have a separate layer of depth so it overloads the eye. Even in movies shot on wide angles (Raising Arizona is a good example) there is still enough fall off to draw your attention to the focal point. With infinite dof that becomes quite hard. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Dec 25, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2009 22:13
|
|
|
Dr. Fishopolis posted:Only on the bottom rung of filmmaking. Shallow DOF and tight FOV means less production design. Anyway, yes wider angles means more production design (I think i mentioned this same point 6/7 posts ago). However, since we're talking about 'the film look', which is to say relatively narrow focus, I'm assuming that people who can't achieve the look aren't using more expensive lenses and adapters. Once you have a couple thousand in your pocket you can get it, but otherwise the normal video look is fairly cheap and obviously amateur. So yes - only at the bottom rung of film making is my point true, but everyone above that should be able to achieve a filmic look anyway so there you go. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Dec 25, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2009 16:56
|
|
|
I don't mean to say that it has to be bourne identity shallow - just that 35 has a natural fall off to give it that 'film look'. A wide shot on an hvx will hold everything in frame, from 2cm in front of the camera to 100 feet, in perfect focus. That and the way the camera responds to color and light make up a huge amount of the difference. Of course every single shot is 'glass first' though. If you have bad lenses the quality immediately suffers and the 'filmic look' becomes that much harder
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2009 23:34
|
|
|
Theres a difference between preferring under exposed shots and not photographing a properly exposed image. The full range of exposures need to be in every shot. Go watch any Conrad Hall movie - there is something blown out, often a window or practical in the background, in every single shot. Also color correct more. You needed to up the contrast like whoa........and frame your close ups more on the axis. i felt like I was watching two people talk to the side of the camera - I want them looking almost straight at me so I can see their face. Typically I frame a CU so that the actor is looking more or less at a corner of the matte box for correct eyeline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2009 06:44
|
|
|
Another thing to keep in mind with the iPhone is that some sound guys hate it - apparently it can interfere with their signal. Now i personally think thats just cause they have lovely gear, but you never know - I've talked to Union guys who confirmed that the iPhone can cause probs so i guess theres some validation to that claim. Now of course the super high end sound stuff shouldn't be so easy to mess with, but any production you're using this iPhone app on probably doesnt have a huge budget - I mean, if it did you wouldnt need the app. Interesting idea but, like so many other things, probably not all that practical
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2010 08:05
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Sound guys hate everything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2010 06:59
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Even my sleepy self knows which calls to take and which to let roll to voicemail.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2010 02:52
|
|
|
I was just out at the BNP Paribas Open Tennis tournament shooting some footage for my brother's website. We were using a Red as well as some other HD cameras. Not entirely sure what I shot as I was alternating duties with other people and only on the Red occasionally, but whatever - footage looks cool anyway. Heres a montage type thing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkD2pcwv4Y4 and here are some clips of Roger Federer which aren't done in any sort of cinematic way: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m7Aj5eFWaA&feature=player_embedded I didn't have anything to do with the editing or color correction of these clips unfortunately. If I did the close up montage would've looked a lot better, but what are you gonna do.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2010 07:07
|
|
|
At the risk of being buried in this massive thread, I figured I'd offer up a FREE Goon service: I'm trying to build up a colorist reel and need some short films, music videos and the like. I figured there are some talented goons so I figured I'd offer some free color grading to any one who might want it. I'm currently grading on Apple Color and have a Decklink 3d card running out to a Flanders FSI Broadcast monitor. 100% color accurate. I just got my hands on Resolve 8 but don't know how to use it quite yet - that might be something I can offer down the road. Let me know if you might have something, but it an old project or one you're just finishing up now. Probably the easiest way to get it to me would be a Pro Res file over an FTP, but shoot me an email (Swederacer @ gmail) and we can discuss. I'll be more inclined to work on shorter projects also, so please no 150 minute documentaries. Heres something I graded a while back: http://vimeo.com/23127016 One of my first projects, but I think it turned out pretty OK.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2011 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
EnsGDT posted:That's pretty slick, Swede. Marxist Glue posted:I'll be shooting a short film (15-20 minutes) in mid-August. Once it's edited, I'll shoot you an email if you're still offering this service! exponentory posted:I very much like the look you created for this piece. I'll definitely let you know if I have something for you Cool - let me know. edit: and just so everyone knows, the offer will remain on the table for the foreseeable future. SwedeRacer fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Jul 26, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2011 14:50
|
|
