Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Most people would opt for film grain simulation software (as “The Holdovers” did, using Live Grain and adding some subtle gate weave).
What do you think about the simulation? I understand that it gives a vintage feeling to the images, but I’m curious to know the opinion of experts like you about something that, basically, in a certain way “ruins” scenes that have been carefully studied and prepared to fake the look of past movies. I feel it like adding fake scratch noises on a cd to fake the effect of a vynil. Different times, different techniques, different results. What about you?
I’ve the impression that besides looking at good examples of something , a good way to be on the right track is looking at bad examples of that, not only about handheld movies, i mean in general in life. Find handheld scenes that don’t work and find where the problems are.
A movie I watched a couple of days ago – a movie with famous actors in its cast, so not some kind of indie production made by unexperienced beginners – was almost entirely handheld (I suspect to create some kind of realistic effect and immersive effect on the audience), but it was so horribly shot that it was both a painful experience but also an useful one: as long as i will do the complete opposite of whatever they did i could obtain a decent work even with my very limited knowledge.
Searching around there are so many different answers to this question that I think it’s a subject that confounds everybody. Here’s what i understood (and i hope more experienced people on the forum will give better answers than mine and correct my errors).
It has to do with our eyes perception of light. What our eyes perceive as the middle point between white and black is a not the shade of gray that reflects the 50% of the light (as the logic would presume but that would look too bright for us) , it’s a shade of gray that reflects the 18% of the light (so, it’s not the “real” middle gray , it’s perceived in this way). That shade of gray is the zone V of Adam’s Zone System and in theory should the shade of gray cards used for exposure.
In a real generic scene there are brighter spots that reflect a lot, darker ones that reflect less and everything in between and the average of all of them is more or less a 18% reflectivity (again, to our eyes) , at least in theory and apart from scenes with an extreme lighting conditions. So exposing correctly what reflects the 18% allows to create what we perceive as the natural light of our world and being in the (perceived) middle of black and white should allow to expose correctly also the highlights and the shadows. The camera metering system, if i understood correctly, treat everything as 18% and indicates 0 when the 18% is correctly exposed.
I hope i didn’t write too many wrong informations, ah ah!
It seems the bug Is still there. I usually have It also when posting, not only when editing. The strangest thing Is that the edit button (even if not working) disappears after a while. The mistery deepens, ah ah! But i Hope It’s useful to find the bug!
Just out of curiosity, may I ask you why do you want to begin working on film instead of digitally?
I am the very less experienced among the forum users but my humble opinion is that cinematography has more to do with “how” you tell the story (with lights , camera movement, lenses, position , etc etc) than “on what” you record it. A feature movie may require (apart from a good story, of course) an important budget and a lot of knowledge by itself, working on film could make things even more complicated: Just think about learning how correctly expose the film. Good luck anyway!
I hope i am not saying a complete nonsense but is it possible that on “FPS variabile” the camera tries to keep the exposure constant, so when the ISO is changed the FPS are changed accordingly by the camera to compensate?
Thanks a lot David! I always appreciate the time you and Roger dedicate to explain and teach things to unexperienced people like me.
I’m doing some tests to see what works better, but i think that making clear to the audience what is coloring the bouncing light could be the right solution for me. Thanks for the tip!
I have a doubt about the color of bounce light.
I was watching a movie with some scenes in a dark room with only flashlights as practical lights, with a very cold color, somewhere around 5500/6000 k. The walls of the room were made of wood with a warm dark color. To make the scene possible the actors had some bounce light on their faces, but the lights had the same cold color of the flashlights. Now, if their motivation was that the light from the flashlights bounced back on the actors, it should have been a warm light, not a cold one (that was caused by a white surface in front of the flashlights to create a fill light on the actor). The scene was done in a very good way, in my opinion, and I think that as audience we are so used to this effect (the source and the bounce having the same color) that if they had used a warm light on the actor it would have made the scene a bit confusing. So, what’ s your advice?
Going for realism and using a bounce light of the same color of surfaces around the actor but risking a disorienting effect, or going for a traditional route and using a white surface (so a bounce of the same color of the source) but obtaining an unrealistic effect?
In my humble opinion Sicario is the modern “heir” of The Untouchables, it has the same continuous menacing feeling that comes from not being able to divide the good ones from the bad ones, everybody could be a traitor. And the Juarez scene is simply amazing, a gem in a wonderful movie.
[qu ote quote=216034]…As a group we scouted the Bridge of the Americas, between El Paso and Juarez, and the build was based on that location as well as the action as scripted. As it was impossible to shoot on the real location…[/quote]
I hope to remember correctly what you told in the podcast, but was one of the reasons to use VFX the fact the scene of the hanged men was so realistic that could be traumatic for the local people, since they actually witnessed something like that? I know drug wars in Mexico can be gruesome but i thought that was a touch to make the story more dramatic.
Thanks David, you’re always very kind! Your knowledge and experience are always precious!
I’m going for the green screen, i think It will allow me more freedom for the camera movement and It seems the simplest solution. To achieve the 180 degrees movement I still have to figure If It’s simpler to work with a green screen with maybe 3 sides around the actor or edit two shots and “hide” the cut, but the rotating platform could really be a great idea!
Thanks Stip! Yes, that’s my idea, that’s why i think the first Alien Is almost perfect.
Some could insinuate that I’m actually relying on the darkness to hide the flaws of the cheap setpieces i built and that i’m trying to look smart, but it’s only a despicable lie, of course
In a couple of weeks i’ll be shooting my first short movie and i’ll have a very similar scene, in terms of mood and lights (i am aware that i am aiming too high for my first work but i think It’s the right light for that scene, so i am trying to do my best to face the challenge) .
Since i am still not very sure about the metering i Will use this workflow:
– metering the Key light on the relevant elements of the scene, setting It at a level that allows me to use the lower ISO possible for the given aperture, trying to keep It under 800
– set the fill light to obtain a good contrast ratio with the Key (It’s an horror story, i think a bit of contrast will help creating the atmosphere)
– keep the shadows as dark as i can, trying to reduce noise with the low ISO.
Is there any relevant problem with such an approach? Any advice to improve my workflow?
Thanks a lot Tyler! I am actually thinking about getting an entry level Sekonic meter, for my simple needs is more than enough (getting close to a decent exposure and learning a bit about lighting), but i was curious about this model Roger was talking about and in general the analogic ones, I find them a bit intimidating, ah ah!
I still use a meter to judge my exposure, even with a calibrated monitor. I use a Gossen Luna Pro, usually with the invercone and in incident mode. For the shot your reference I would have stood where the actors are and pointed my meter towards the camera.
(sorry for going OT)
Would you suggest this meter for a beginner?
I searched for it on the web and, while I was expecting a super technological meter costing more than my car developped by NASA etc etc, i actually discovered that it’s usually sold for a few euros (that technically is still more than my car value, ah ah) , at least a second hand analogical version of it (I don’t know if it’s the same version you use but I didn’t find other ones of it).
Just a tangent to the OP’s question – I find what separates amateurish looking scenes from professional ones is the set dressing. Stip – the examples you included are a perfect example. So much texture and personal items fill up the intimate space in frame. It seems many lower budget films skip this and the intimate scenes have bare walls in the background. The set dressing really sells it I feel. I realize this is not the DP’s job, but certainly there’s a discussion to be had there.
I agree with you on the importance of set dressing but I don’t think it’s the only element that makes a difference. I’m afraid that a blank wall shot by a great cinematographer will be more interesting than a stunning set shot by, let’s say, me. Consider Stalker by Tarkovsky: an immortal masterpiece, but to say that its sets are minimalistic it’s an understatement. Lights, set, camera movements, angles, blocking, etc etc. : every piece of the puzzle should be carefully planned to achieve the visual result. This is where i find the difference : a professional director know (well, at least he should know) exactly the result he wants to obtain and leads the production in that direction, an amateur usually does his best with what’s available, with limited knowledge and lack of a global vision.
