Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The T12 created the sunlight effect and the 2Ks were set to bounce soft light into the corridor and the room. There were no lights inside the set.
I was shooting the opening scene of ‘Sicario’ on set and a deeper stop, with more depth of field, would, in my opinion, felt more like it was shot on location.
I don’t know the exact make of laser but it can be done. I have tested lasers with a standard Alexa so an LF should be no different. Any laser should give a beam in a haze if it is set correctly.
Yes, the scene was shot on stage with a dollies tracking various lights that were snooted down and on dimmers.
I don’t think I would do things very differently on ‘Sicario’ or that any films I have shot would have looked substantially different if they had been shot on film. I know I would have used a little more light for the night scenes but that would have been just using slightly brighter bulbs or units in the same places. I would always allow myself a thick negative for dusk work so I would have underexposed some and printed down some which is not necessary shooting with the Alexa. There is a similar extended ‘magic hour’ sequence in ‘No Country for Old Men’, which was shot on film. Certainly that was difficult but it was also more complex than the sequence in “Sicario’.
It was true that film used to handle highlights better than digital but that certainly isn’t the case with the higher end cameras today.
The process is run faster to allow for the warmer developer so the ‘exposure’, or more precisely the density, of the negative isn’t affected. What this faster processing does lead to is an slight increase in grain and, perhaps, contrast.
A hard question. I doubt I would do things very differently if I were to shoot on film again. Yes, a little more light for night shoots but I wouldn’t think much else would change. I don’t agree that film requires more hard light. I might even suggest the reverse is true but projects are always different so it is hard to judge that.
Perhaps some lab work is a little less consistent than it might have been but there should be no issues with scanning.
One last comment from me. I would always shoot a grey card for film and in the early days of digital capture. But as David says, we now use a specific LUT and what I see on set will translates exactly the same on the colorists screen. For that reason I see no need for a colorist to ‘correct’ footage to match a spec..
That is simply when a lab warms up the developer to a temperature that is above the optimum. This makes the process faster and labs would favor this if they had a large quantity of footage that needed development in a fixed time frame. When you ‘hot develop’ a negative, which I have often done with B&W stills film, there will be an increase in grain. There was a lab that would often change the temperature of their developer from day to day, which was quite noticeable on the dailies they produced.
I had asked Arri if it were possible to create a digital camera with an optical viewfinder as the electronic finders were then so tiring on the eye and really not that good. The XT Studio was the result. There is no alternative to an electronic finder for any small digital camera so the optical option simply no longer exists.
It looks like you should be able to hide your reflections pretty easily in a space like that. A simple black square with a hole in it for the lens can get you out of trouble. You might find the light being in shot is more of a problem. Perhaps bouncing a lamp off the ceiling would be more forgiving and you could use a silver reflector to ‘focus’ the bounce if necessary.
The Coen Brothers wanted the ‘old film’ to introduce “A Serious Man’ so 1:33 gave that feeling. Otherwise, the film felt quite intimate and naturalistic. I suspect that is why we chose 1:85.
Some directors just like to shoot 2:35 and that is just a given. Personal choice. Nothing profound.
