Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
It is true that a director, when watching my monitor, will not like to see anything outside the frame but, yes, I always like to see what is surrounding the frame. I usually have the area ND’d but never blacked out. It’s like keeping your other eye open when shooting a documentary. You need to know what is coming.
There is a difference between projecting light through diffusion and bouncing. However dense your diffusion the light will never be emitted in as wide an angle as a bounce. Also, multiple layers of diffusion will add a little warmth to the light, which might be a problem. A bounce source can easily be controlled by the material used. I might use a bleached cloth or a silver stipple, a cloth painted blue or one painted orange.
Perhaps the most significant factor in the choice between a bounce and a diffused source is space. If you are on location and want a soft light coming from a corner of a room or from beside a table lamp there is a distinct practical reason for choosing a bounce over a diffused light.
Yes, I have usually found the 800 ASA an advantage. But, regardless, I have always preferred to shoot with the full range of information and control my contrast with lighting. If you want to create an extreme image of the kind you suggest, and have no way to do that on set, I see no reason it can’t be done in the DI.
I did use bleach bypass when shooting film even with a digital finish. Perhaps adjusting the camera’s rating is similar to a bleach bypass, but I don’t see it making sense when you can so easily create the effect in post these days. Am I missing something?
Yes, I have usually found the 800 ASA an advantage. But, regardless, I have always preferred to shoot with the full range of information and control my contrast with lighting. If you want to create an extreme image of the kind you suggest, and have no way to do that on set, I see no reason it can’t be done in the DI.
I did use bleach bypass when shooting film even with a digital finish. Perhaps adjusting the camera’s rating is similar to a bleach bypass, but I don’t see it making sense when you can so easily create the effect in post these days. Am I missing something?
I know that underexposing is generally suggested but I have not ever followed that rule. I suspect that is because, when I use bleach bypass, I usually want that stretched highlight and/or deeper shadow. Otherwise, why use it?
Are you overthinking this. Plenty of times I have shot on location and made a scene out of two different locations. There is one in Hail Caesar! And I’m not telling you which one. An interior, with no problem with sunlight, should be quite straightforward. Same lens, same camera height, same soft side light and you are set.
The question is: Do you need to see what is outside the windows? It is a far more difficult job to create a dusk effect on location during the day, especially if the sun is out, and still see a view outside a window.
I remember using more than the practical lights, which I had chosen and had been built into the set, but I can’t remember what. Probably a simple bounced Tweenie.
I really don’t consciously think about ‘composition’ when I am composing. Not in any theoretical way, that is. Of course, you think about the lens you have on and whether the shot would be wider and closer or further away on a slightly longer lens. You lean your body to the right or left when your intuition tells you there may be something better from a slightly different angle, but its not like I am analyzing why I am doing that. I lean my body and use my eyes.
I am usually informed when a film is going to be remastered. Is it a good thing? Most definitely. Some of the original scans are very poor quality, besides which, there is nowadays a greater technical ability to match the image to the original intent.
I was being tongue in cheek about the calendar.
You could easily do a time lapse of the door. Fade out the night lighting to black and the time laps dawn rising on the door. Pretty simple and certainly cheap.
I was a great admirer of Pat Garret and Billy the Kid. I didn’t ever meet Coquillion as I was only just entering film school when Straw Dogs was being filmed. I remember all the gossip from that set as it was in the daily papers. Straw Dogs, for me, is Peckinpah’s worst film. That and Cross of Iron. I did get to know Dan Melnick quite well by the time I had shot two of his films.
Ah! That’s a question. I never did use a cherrypicker to fake the sunlight on Rev Road so this must have been the real thing.
