Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I’m not sure why you want to change what is there. I certainly wouldn’t consider reproducing the existing lighting with my own, no matter what budget I had. Is in not possible to turn off a single bank of lights if you want a little more contrast. If you are shooting from one side of the ring you could have less light coming from behind the camera.
I don’t believe an image or a look is created with a LUT. But i come from film and believe in shooting an image the way you want it to appear on the screen.
Always a difficult problem to solve, especially so when shooting on film. I have used small lighting rigs set above a window or bouncing off the ceiling near a window but it is never satisfying to do that kind of lighting. However, if the production will not spend the money on a set there is little else you can do.
Sam Peckinpah and Sergio Leone would have been better storytellers had they worked in 4:3?
Seems to me the same justifications, the format’s intrinsic intimacy etc., are used whatever the ratio is.
Besides that, the ‘best’ story tellers that I am familiar with are photojournalists, most of whom work in 3:2.
I briefly worked with an actor who had a thing about the size of his nose. He only wanted to be shot on a 50mm or longer.
Yes, the overhead could be from a helicopter or it could be God looking down on his creation. Who knows? There was a need to establish the geography of the action and this shot is just a repeat of one that followed the team across the border in the first place.
I loved Cormac’s writing style. His descriptions allude to so many more things that what he is immediately referring to. Robert Olmstead’s writing has similar qualities as does Richard Flanagan’s of course. Flanagan’s latest book, Question 7, is a marvel.
Curios? You answer yourself. I find inspiration from being emotionally engaged with an image rather than admiring it for its technical representation of what might be considered ‘real’.
If you were shooting on film you might use a tungsten balanced stock to achieve a dusky blue. What is the difference in altering the camera setting? Why is that cheating? Sounds like a good solution to me.
Edvard Munch, George Bellows, George Inness, Oscar Kokoschka, William Blake, Henry Fiseli, L. S. Lowry, Wassily Kandinsky, Otto Dix and more.
For the tunnel in 1917, the camera was set at 3200K and the LED in the flashlight was around 2800K. The lights were warmer in M’s apartment.
Definitely not a plate. There was no effects work in the scene apart from the deer.
The location is between Santa Fe and Albuquerque to the east side of the highway.
The hotel room was a stage set. Space had something to do with it but also availability of the location and a desire to shoot during the day rather than in a small room on location at night. So, the lobby and corridor was on location and the room a set.
The Motel rooms were also on stage and we just redressed the one set to create the two similarly styled rooms. The air duct drove that decision as well as practicality of shooting. Transitions from the ext. to the int. are always tricky and here there was direct action crossing the join.
I am not so interested in horror films, its true. I liked The Witch, which is more of a traditional horror film than The Birds or Jaws. Not that I would call these last two films horror films but some people do. I liked the original Nosferatu so it will be interesting to see the new version due out this December.
