Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Thanks to you all for your answers!
I know that for some recording profile (s-logs for example) they suggest to overexpose a bit, and perhaps the idea expressed by the teacher was something in that line. But i’ve had the impression that he was meaning a general approach more than a requirement of some types of files, so i was curious about how diffuse is that idea among professional DOP and from your answers my guess was correct: if you want a scene to look in some way, commit to the idea and manage to shot it in that way (and this may not be easy if the budget and the experience are limited, but this is a completely different problem).Thanks for your advices! you helped me a lot in understanding what kind of effect i’m actually looking for!
Sorry for the late of my reply, i’ve been trying for days to submit a (way more articulate) post about my project but every time it blocks: it seems the forum hates my idea, ah ah! but at least i’d like to thank you!
Edit: i meant, as a possible solution, to use a 1/2 mist filter just for the torch shot, not the 1/8 I wrote (i’m using the 1/4 for the rest of the short movie, so a 1/8 would be senseless in this scenario, since i need a stronger effect, not weaker) . Sorry but i can’t edit the post!
In such a scenario how would you deal with heavily changing weather conditions (in the case in which waiting for the right moment is not an available option). Let’s say, he has a clear sky the first day, a cloudy sky the second day and an heavy rain the third day?
We made no reference to the first Blade Runner as far as the look is concerned.
It’s a nice thing to know, I think that the sequel, while different and new, has the same soul of the first BR and maybe this made me found visual connections too.
I love so much the original movie that when I read that a sequel was in production I was a bit worried: you know, fans are a bit silly sometimes, when a beloved title gets a sequel/prequel/remake/reboot/whatever 🙂 but when I watched the movie I found it amazing, you created an extraordinary piece of art.
Thanks for sharing the behind the scenes of this movie (and all the other ones) on your site!In BR2049 I wanted the interior of the Wallace Corporation to look as if it were sun lit.
One of the aspects I loved about BR2049 is that somehow it makes visual references to the original BR, for example the warm lights of Wallace Corporation made me think to the similar lights of Tyrrell Corporation. Did you consider this aspect while planning the lighting of the movie?
Since they are defects of the lens (even if vignetting could be a – questionable – artistic choice) my humble opinion Is that the important Is to get rid of them, with a Lens that reduces the effects, a camera able to correct them or in post production, whatever your budget allows . The real question Is why sometimes they feels the need to add defects to a flawless image (vignetting, flares, ecc) but that’s another story. 🙂
May i ask a about the aperture and equivalence? I’ve read many confusing position about that. For some It seems that aperture changes to consider the equivalent focal length, for others the sensor doesn’t influence the aperture because It’s a ratio based on actual lens size . Who’s right?
Only Roger knows what he was thinking about, of course, but for example the Alexa Mini LF (the one from 1917) is full frame (I’m not an expert, i’ve just looked for It and i may be wrong).
Anyway, I was watching the very same video the other day! 🙂 I suppose you listened to the podcast episode about lensens (the video Is taken from that i think) and what i learned is that it’s pointless (for me) to know what gear he uses, it’s the way of thinking that i can try (just try) to use. Wide lenses to put an important character in context, longer lenses for less important characters, prime lenses to be forced to take decisions and somehow to create “intimacy” with the actors and make the audience feeling to “be in the scene”, not “watching a movie”, etc. In this way is not that relevant, i think, the size of the sensor and the equivalence.
I’m the person with less experience here but I could suggest you something that Is helping me in understanding the behaviour of light and Its connection with exposure. If you have a smartphone you can download a free exposure meter app. They use the phone light sensor and the one i use Is completely free. I’m of course aware that these can’t sobstitute a true exposure meter (but they are expensive) and experience above all (and that comes by trials and errors and time), but I’m beginning to be aware of differences in lights strength and i’m beginning to be able to set the lights accordingly to the exposure i want. I check the result with the camera metering to see of It indicates the 0. Again, i am aware of the limited valute of my advice but it’s working for me and, well, It’s free after all… 🙂
Summing up, since I don’t have a 6k li camera I’ll try not to use the post production stabilization to avoid the cropping from 4k .
Just to be clear, you don’t need post stabilizer with a gimbal, it just makes things ultra smooth instead of smooth. The frugal tripod stabilizer hack will help reduce shake but especially micro jitter, which is the bigger evil anyways imo.
Thanks!
You all have helped me a lot with this issue.
I think I’m making some progresses, it seems I found my personal way to use the tripod (more like a shoulder rig than a gimbal) and I’m beginning to understand the Groucho walk that Roger suggested. Next step is going on location and do some test, I really want this scene to work and I’d like to solve all the problems in pre production…
Thanks to you all for taking the time to answer to my silly question and for your useful inputs!
The easy answer is to shoot wide using a 6K camera and use motion tracking in post and crop to roughly 4K. But you will still need to have the camera fairly steady and there are all sorts of ways to achieve this and YouTube is full of DIY hacks to getting a steady shot…
I will have to disagree a bit and say that today the least elaborate and yet best method for following actors outside of a steadicam is a gimbal. It yields great results especially when combined with post production image stabilization – shoot a little wider as intended as the post stabilizer will crop into the footage a few percentages. You will still have to “ninja walk”.
Summing up, since I don’t have a 6k camera I’ll try not to use the post production stabilization to avoid the cropping from 4k .
My wife thinks I walk like a gorilla with no knees, actually, but I’ll do my best to refine my ninja skills, ah ah!
When you steady a shot that has extreme sideways movement in post it can produce a very strange effect because it is not adjusting the foreground in relation to the background. You might just as well suggest the shot be made in AI rather than the real world. Walking backwards on a flat gravel road should not be a problem for someone who is proficient using a hand held camera. Counter to what might seem logical, a heavier camera may well help you as it tends to ground the shot. Yes, you can use a stabilizing system, of which there are many efficient variations.
Thanks Roger, you’re amazing!
I tried some tips I found around the web and a cheap and maybe unusual one that seems to work fine (at least for me) to reduce handheld shaking is using my tripod as a gimbal, with weights to make it heavier. I’m doing some tests, somehow I’ll find a solution. Or insert an earthquake in the story, ah ah!
The shot you mention was made using a stabilized camera rigged to the top of a pole that was being carried by two grips. The slight parallax movement of the characters to the background was a problem and was minimized by the way the grips walked, a kind of Groucho Marx step as is used by any hand-held camera operator. As far as I am aware, though some of the blends between shots were massaged in post none of the film was stabilized that way.
Thanks for the explanation! What you achieved with this movie is incredible…
In other words It’s a LUT for the initial color correction, not for the grading, Is It correct?
No, Roger said he would sit with the colorist and go through every shot to tweak exposure (besides color correction to match shots) but no additional grading. If you watch Roger’s films shot on Alexa, the differences between them come from lighting, set design, costume ect but ‘grading’ is the same for all of them. The only variables used are color temperature (and I suspect tint).
I know his goal is to obtain the desired effect directly in camera, which (together with his naturalistic and motivated approach) is a bit of a mind opening way to look at things, since we live in an era in which a lot of what we see and how we see it (not only in movies) it’s created by a pc. The best part is that, like all the masters, he makes it look quite easy!
He uses the same LUT on every movie. Roger on this forum:
The LUT we use was created at E-Film, now Company 3. It is not hard to do. Just shoot some tests and take them to the DI suite. I would be very surprised if the LUT I use is very different from any other. The only adjustment in it is to the contrast curve and the amount of color saturation. That is standard for any LUT that translates the RAW data.
Show LUTs in general aren’t too funky because they must work in all situations and are tested in all situations before actual shooting.
In other words It’s a LUT for the initial color correction, not for the grading, Is It correct?
Thanks!
I feel a bit like i had just discovered that you need fuel to make a car move, ah ah! But things are finally making sense for me!
My problem is the ISO, actually. I don’t have a very fast lens and i’d like to avoid to increase the ISO to keep the noise maneageable. So knowing the amount of light that (more or less) would gave me the same exposure is a big step for me. I realized that with a bit of creativity a small amount of additional light could help me solving the problem.
