Search Results for 'no'

[GianniRanzuglia]

I don’t believe a longer film generally means a better film, nor a feature film being classified as ‘worthwhile’ because of its extended period of time.

First you’d have to develop a story and see where that takes you, but I think you’re prioritising looks over substance. Just because you have a great set designer, camera or lighting rig doesn’t mean your short/feature film will be a masterpiece.

I’d really encourage you to watch David Sandberg’s <i>Lights Out</i>, its an amazing and thrilling 3min short horror film. Of course your short film might differ from his, but nonetheless, it was shot on two rooms, with an IKEA lamp, a strong bulb and a redhead.

[quijotesco24]

You are trying to build the house from the roof.

First and foremost you need a story.

No story, no movie.

It will be the story that answers all of your questions: how many actors? How many  Sets? How big of a Crew? Which  Camera? What Grip needed?

What you need to prioritize?
The story.

 

[Rizzy]

If you were making a film, and starting from zero, what is the minimum across the board, that might enable the creation of a worthwhile film?

So for example, one set or two? One actor or two, or three? An iPhone or would it have to be a better camera? One lens? One light, no lights? Crew? Just a cameraman/DP and audio recorder? Etc. But then what about length of script, is a 2 minute film interesting or does that sound too limiting, is a 10 minute film better or is it only worthwhile if it’s a feature?

A follow up to this is, what is worth prioritizing and putting extra money toward? For example, you might have your bare minimum situation, but then if you have a set designer on board, or a certain camera, or a certain lighting rig for your set, then you can make something really worthwhile perhaps?

[dmullenasc]

No, the colorist shouldn’t alter the color and exposure to neutral as a starting point, they should start with what the cinematographer created. If the scene had an 18% grey card in the shot under light that was intended to be of normal exposure and neutral color in the scene, sure… but that never happens!

Now I’m talking about the coloring the final cut. Sure, a test with a grey card or scale in it where the cinematographer says “time to grey card or scale”, especially when the test is comparing multiple types of cameras, etc. then yes.

In the days of film, I’d shoot a grey card or scale at the head of a scene and tell the dailies colorist to time for the card so that they would know what the neutral starting point was to judge my footage — otherwise if my footage was deliberately orange or blue, etc. they might correct it back to neutral without any reference frame.  But generally that approach isn’t done with digital since we have some sort of LUT as a starting point for dailies and monitoring.

[Mike]

Thankyou Grant,

Sounds like you are having fun assisting the Podcasts.  I have listened to all of the Podcasts from the beginning and found them very informative.

Not easy questioning guests especially when Roger and James are not allowed in  in the conversation, I refer to the recent Toby Jones interview.😂

They certainly have patience.  Keep up the good work.

[Mark Wuerthner]

You might try something as simple as turning off the lights in the area that is opposite the window. In looking at the location wide shot it seems all the reflections are of the opposite wall, bar, etc. If you can’t block that off with a “duvatine wall” then keep it dark and light only the table area. Using a polarizer will knock down your exposure about 1.5 of a stop and will darken the outside street that you want to see.

[Stip]

I’d also say it depends. On the scale of the production and the ‘culture’. I’ve had colorists crank up my exposure to ‘see more’ despite killing all of the – clearly intended –  mood. I don’t even know who’s decision it was because in many productions I am out of the process once shooting is done.

Roger said in this forum that he sits with the colorist through every single shot and overviews the decisions (very minor tweaks in general).

[giodashorts]

That really is a shame. I didn’t really consider the logistics of working on projects where there is little direct communication with a DP in relation to post-production.

It’s unfortunate because, for both the cinematographer and the director, the relationship with the colorist is incredibly important—the final “look” of the film depends greatly on how it is interpreted in the color grading stage. It’s a major and, dare I say, definitive part of the work of a cinematographer; and to know that kind of creative control can be “held away,” in that way, really is a shame.

I’m currently a college student, hoping to be writer and director (and to do my own cinematography and color grading), with very few projects under my belt, and everything I do permits that kind of control—due to working at a very low level. It makes me fear working on bigger projects: losing a certain level of creative control.

[Al Duffield]

You can also consider if the table needs to be aligned parallel to the window. Sometimes adjusting the layout of the room can get you out of tricky reflection situations.

I would also consider if you want to cut all the reflections. Reflections let us know there is glass there, some shots without reflections might look like they were outside

[Kedrock]

you could always go the Bradford Young route and duve all parts of the ceiling and wall that are not in shot. Paper tape and duvetyn are cheap too =)

[quijotesco24]

I think you have to put this question into perspective.

All productions are not the same and we are all at different stages in our working lives.

The workflow is not the same with a famous DP who worked on a big production with a famous colorist who is also on set than a small DP who has no connection with grading process and no one is gonna bother asking anything on post production.

So in my opinion to answer your question, it depends.

In a perfect world all DPs should know how to shoot on camera for a final look and all colorists should know how interpret DPs and directors ideas to convey the message of the story with their grading.

Personally I’m far of being a DP on big productions so I encounter this same issue you mention more often than not. To make sure production follows what I think is the look the story needs I do heavy camera reports where I specify all details about exposure, WB, power windows and as much details as I can as I rarely know who the colorist will be. But the reality I face more often than not is no one reads or listens what I have to say. Name it budget-time constrictions, colorists having no idea what they doing or my thoughts being discarded because they are bad.

At my stage I rarely have any control of what I shoot once I left the set. Only on passion projects I can contribute and dialogue keeps going back and forth. It’s a shame that’s like that but this is what I’ve encountered at my level.

 

[gabj3]

You can off-set logarithmic gamma similarly to RAW just the camera manufacturer itself then has no ‘say’ in redistribution of values.

As you say when you adjust RAW values in the decoder its in a linear space (keep in mind, in RAW almost nobody still captures linear values, we just re-linearise the signal from its logarithmic container).

You can do the same with a ProRes 4444 – non ‘RAW’ codec by applying the same mathematical transforms, it’s just a little jankier as most logarithmic equations have an EI aspect that you cannot adjust, so the signal redistribution is not the same as if its done with the manufacturers SDK.

 

However, this does bring up an interesting subject – I recently had a series of cinematographers shoot on REDs and Sony’s for the entirety of a show, both claiming either looked better. I told production they were indistinguishable.

We created our show look in the Log3G10 RedWGRGB IPP2 colour pipeline and I matched all Sony’s to Log3G10 RedWGRGB and the additional show-‘look’ was applied and was near indistinguishable.

Just map out the transform with both cameras in near-identical settings as a test, make your corrects (I don’t do this in a colour NLE but rather a compositor) and it’ll be as accurate if not more than applying corrections after normalising signal and it retains artistic intent.

 

Infinityvision.tv
Gabriel Devereux - Engineer

[giodashorts]

I think that beginning a grade by making sure all exposure values match the camera manufacturer’s 18% middle gray specs is completely unnecessary—there’s no sense in doing that, in my view. A cinematographer will have made deliberate exposure choices on set; such as choosing to overexpose, or underexpose everything (or certain scenes).

There may even be some mistakes, or exposures that a cinematographer would want to fix in the DI: these should be discussed on that basis, with the colorist and the cinematographer. If adjusting the exposure in the DI is done correctly—by adjusting gain in linear gamma (as it does in RAW); it will match what can be adjusted with T-Stop; this is what it would alter—how that then effects the technical and aesthetic decisions, is something that should be considered, I think. If exposure is adjusted using gain in LOG (or on a Rec.709 transform) or in the Offset, it will affect the image in a different way.

At the end of the day, the exposure should be adjusted in accordance to the taste of the cinematographer and the colorist, based on the context of the shot, and the overall film (or piece). I am no where near as experienced as you or everyone else here, but that’s what I would say about this!

[Mike]

Hello Grant,

Lovely to hear from you.

When do you think these new podcasts will be released, they were quite successsful then they suddenly stopped.  What do you actually do with these podcasts, are the questions pre written, how do you contact the quests and arrange the interviews, that must be time consuming on its own.
Interesting topic.

Incidently, what equipment do you use and do you use computer mics or stand alone mics. Also another interesting topic on its own.

[Grant]

Hi everyone!

I’m the newest member of the Team Deakins gang, and I wanted to introduce myself! My name is Grant, and I live in Los Angeles.

I have been working on the podcast for a few months now, and I’ve worked on every episode of season two, including bunches you all haven’t heard yet. There are some absolutely great ones coming! You’re going to dig ’em.

I’m so excited to get to know this community more and more through these forums. I’ve never been much of a forum poster before (some might call me a ludite), so a few of you might need to show me the ropes. But I’m looking forward to being a part of the conversation!

Feel free to hit me up with any questions and I’ll do my best to answer them, without spilling highly secretive company secrets of course!

Thanks for listening! (and reading)

Cheers!

Grant – Team Deakins