Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
We shot most of the film under cloud cover but you have it wrong regarding this sequence. This was shot at magic hour as I needed not only the feeling of first light but I was balancing to the firelight sources. To have tried that balance during the day would not have worked. The particular shot pictured was rehearsed extensively during the day and that is no doubt where the lower image comes from.
When Scofield is in the river we did shoot that during the day and I remember the day distinctly, constantly studying the Dark Skies App and our long wait for the cloud cover it promised to arrive.
I should add that this was a shot that required very little adjustment in the DI. In fact, there were very few shots in the film that needed much adjustment in the DI.
The filters I used on ‘BR 2049’ were purely to adjust color and not effecting the image in any other way and I do sometimes use an ND grad. The last time I used a filter such as a Pro Mist or a similar kind of diffusion was for a film in 1985 and, yes, I did regret doing so.
I use my meter and my eyes. If you are thinking about zones and studying every aspect of the exposure range across the shot then you might just miss the shot. Ansel Adams was working to his own schedule and, for the most part, taking shots of landscapes that were static. That is hardly the same as a modern film set and you can’t but envy him.
I did consider a number of hand held variations of lighting for the daytime work but that was a little ‘overthinking’. In the end the lighting just didn’t make sense as the speeds and space restrictions were too much to deal with. The hardest part of the shoot was the waiting for cloudy conditions. When any cloud came over it always seemed the pressure was on me to say we could shoot or not. I guess that was true. But, thankfully, we were pretty much all in sync about what it would take to make the ‘one shot’ work. In fact we didn’t shoot at all on our first day!
To maintain consistency, I did have a remote control beside my camera head controls, which either I or my DIT was adjusting depending on which piece of equipment the camera was mounted on. With the Steadicam, I could be on the wheel. With the Trinity I had one hand on the tilt control and the other on the aperture and when we were on the Stabileye I was talking Josh, my DIT, through the exposure changes.
My M8 with its original sensor seems totally fine but the sensor on my monochrome M9 de laminated. But the upgrade sensor is very nice and the M9 is my favorite camera.
I will sometimes adjust my lighting after I watch a camera rehearsal and I might make a few more ‘tweaks’ between takes. I think that is part of the process, and especially so when you are seeing an actor in costume and make up for the first time. But when shooting some actors, or some particularly delicate scenes, you know that it is better to compromise and shoot. There is a balance and many more people are involved in creating the end result than just you. Any time you step onto a film set and look through a camera it involves some sort of personal compromise.
It has happened that I felt the need to make a large adjustment to a lighting set up. But its also happened that the director or I will discover a ‘better’ camera shot. Or, maybe the actor will find an entirely different way to play the scene and then everything changes! But its all part of the process of exploration we go through.
There are no rules. When do you think it distracts? You c]an see from my work when I have used a ‘blue moonlight’ and where I have avoided it. Its about personal taste.
That is an interesting question. There was a distinct shift in the shadows when you pulled an 85 and shot a tungsten balanced stock in daylight. I did this throughout ‘Shawshank’ but only for specific scenes of other films. As I understand it the Alexa was, originally, more sensitive to blue light. I certainly did some side by side tests before I shot my first film with an Alexa but I found little, if any, discernible difference between shooting for a tungsten and daylight balance.
I don’t remember the specific material. I used it on ‘Shawshank’ so that was a long time ago. Tarp might well be too dense but that will depend on what lights you have. What I was thinking of was equivalent to a 216 or even less dense than that.
Don’t see any reason for the LF to be thrown out. I have a Leica M8 stills camera, which has a smaller sensor and less resolution than the M9, for instance, but it continues to produce good images – if I point it in the right direction.
That was a bit of a cheat as we removed the reflection. I used a large bounce and it just crept into the top of the eye.
You could make hoops of 1″ plastic pipe to hold up a ‘tunnel’ of diffusion. There is a white industrial plastic that is equivalent to a 216 diffusion and comes in a wide roll. I used this on a film when I needed a lot of diffusion, instead of paying far more for something from a film supply company. You could rent seamless grid cloths or silks, which might be the cheapest option.
I did look a the 65 when it first came out but I have never used on on a film. Maybe, but I am now a fan of the LF and prefer the depth of field of that format.
I have used a lamp a time or two but I usually use some sort of bounce material. When I have projected a lamp through diffusion I have used a half or a full grid cloth.
There was just the one bulb and no other light. There was a serious flare but I placed a small square of white tape in the middle of the bulb facing camera and that dealt with the flare. The source was so hot that the tape pretty much disappeared and I took out the rest in the DI.
