Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Tough one without knowing the layout of the room or what “romantic” looks like in this films visual language.
classic romantic tropes are long lenses, soft lighting, shallow focus, creamy images, bokeh, candle light, rose petals etc etc etc, this list goes on.
I think we need a lot more information to give you any specific input, but generally speaking I suggest you discuss with the director what “romantic” fees like, and use that to work out how it should look. Then it’s just a case of execution 🙂
Just go out and shoot, then rewatch what you shot, cut it all together.
You’ll learn more through shooting and trying to use what you’ve shot than you will from anywhere else in my opinion.
If you live near the ocean or other big body of water, look for a sail maker. They’re experienced in joining large sheets of fabric together and will happily do the job for you. Assuming you don’t have any set builders you can go to.
Ah yes, this comes up rather frequently and poor David keeps getting stuck answering it.
I think what’s being confused here is field of view and focal length. focal length is an absolute and fixed attribute of a lens (assuming we’re talking about primes). Field of view is derived from focal length and sensor/film/gate dimensions.
From a practical standpoint, we could imagine using FOV instead of focal length during a shoot, but that would necessitate the AC’s determining and labelling each lens during prep based on the camera being used, and then the Cinematographer would then need to memorise the particular FOVs in order to get the right lens… all rather convoluted.
We could talk in full frame equivalents, but that too would require the AC’s to determine that, label up all the lenses and then refer to them as that equivalent focal length for the duration of the shoot.. again, a bit convoluted.
Instead, we are responsible for asking for the correct lens based on our knowledge of the resulting field of view for the camera we’re using. Sure Cinematographers are required to know the camera they’re using enough to know what a 35mm looks like on it, but that’s not much of a burden and it removes complications for the rest of the crew.
Ahh the M9.. I miss mine, the straight out of camera B&W jpg and that satisfying shutter release & recock sound. I’ll buy another one day.
You might be surprised, look at all that light tan sand acting as a huge bounce, I bet the contrast wasn’t as extreme as you’re assuming 🙂
Actually saying that, you don’t even need a camera to make a film. Animation is also a form of film and you generate that entirely in a computer.
As many have said, the “bare minimum” for a narrative film at least is a good script. Without a script of a story worth telling the film won’t be “worthwhile”. And obviously for it to be a film you need a camera.
You could also make a film without a script, I’ve watched many an engaging documentary, but the story, the story is always worth telling.
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
Interesting, I started writing some thoughts but decided to look up the short that you referenced and found the still above to be quite misleading, I later realised I could one the full image in a new tab and there was the missing information.
With that said, the back wall is tiled in a dark tile, likely a dark grey that appears semi-matt, which explains the apparent falloff. It may be worth looking at location or to production design to assist with this aspect.
I agree with Timo’s comments on using a lot of negative files and that the light is likely a Kino / LED equivelant. Though I don’t think it’s a long as the full length of the bath, simply because the top lip and upper eye sockets are in shadow, and the falloff suggests to me that the light is quite close to the talent. leading me to think it’s more likely to be a 2′ kino wand or similar.
The best advice I can give you however is to just run a test shoot – if you own the gear you’ll be able to get to the ballpark with an inanimate object as stand-in and forgoing the the water. If you’re limited to the 3 lights you have access to, then use them. If you are “gear poor” but “time rich”, you can try:
- create a strip light, similar to a Kino tube by taping some black plastic to the front of the panel leaving only a slit around the width of a T12 tube. It will get you in the ballpark, particularly if you’re putting a skirt on it.
- Creating a bubble with some 216 hanging from your panel is an even better emulation of a tube light (where you take the diffusion and allow it to sag in the middle, so that it forms a “U” shape hanging off the panel light.). Though as you’re putting a skirt on the light the bubble is pointless extra work.
- If you don’t have grip equipment to suspend the light safely over your talent (who’s lying in a bath of water), try lighting the ceiling and use cutters and washing to create the slit of light overhead (though dealing with reduced falloff may not work for you, if it’s that or an unsafe setup using mains power, I know which I’d chose).
- you could likely even get to stop with just the small MC and a homemade snoot.
That or just hire a Kino wand kit 🙂
Zooms buy you speed (shooting not aperture) at the expense of size, weight and image “quality”.
I don’t have any experience shooting weddings, but in documentary I have rarely has time to change lenses while the action is happening.
in narrative work, assuming you have assistants then changing lenses is less burdensome and there are regular and predictable breaks when lenses can be changed without holding anything up.
so I’m my mind it’s impractical to shoot weddings and documentary on primes, given that’s 2/3 of your listed work I see no logical choose other than to get both 😂.
