Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think zooms feel less natural because our eyes can’t zoom. We need to move physically closer towards objects for them to become larger, which is what the push in does.
The sun moves fast!
On the last image the actors are in the shade while unimportant objects in the back- and foreground are prominent from being in direct sun. Judging from the second frame grab, that happened because the sun had already moved away from where the action took place (unless this was intended for specific reasons).
Scheduling, blocking and time management already solve many issues and prevent others from happening.
Personally if I want it really dark but rather clean I go down to ISO 200, especially when shooting with cameras that have unaesthetic noise, to have some room to crush it in post.
Whether you put the tripod over your shoulder or hold it in front of you like a stabilizer, find the center of gravity. You can do this by balancing the whole thing on the side of your hand. Once you found it, hold it there (if using like a stabilizer) or have that be the point resting on your shoulder. You may need to attach counter weights depending on the weight of your camera setup.
I could use Google and find the links… but then I’d wonder why you don’t use Google and find the links!
I wonder the same.
Summing up, since I don’t have a 6k camera I’ll try not to use the post production stabilization to avoid the cropping from 4k .
Just to be clear, you don’t need post stabilizer with a gimbal, it just makes things ultra smooth instead of smooth.
The frugal tripod stabilizer hack will help reduce shake but especially micro jitter, which is the bigger evil anyways imo.
(im probably just having a bad day)
No, I felt the same. I was looking forward to get a glimpse into the people and work behind a film festival and film commission but learned hardly anything of that, just odd answers and what felt like marketing of Dallas.
After so many fantastic episodes, there had to be a blank at one point 🙂
I will have to disagree a bit and say that today the least elaborate and yet best method for following actors outside of a steadicam is a gimbal. It yields great results especially when combined with post production image stabilization – shoot a little wider as intended as the post stabilizer will crop into the footage a few percentages. You will still have to “ninja walk”.
I would note that there is a big difference between applying a print LUT in post to shooting through a print LUT on set as Roger and many other cinematographers do.
Very true. In Resolve you can export a monitor LUT that I then use in camera. It still can work without exposing for it but will not yield best results.
I don’t think the contrast of the LUT has too much bearing on what camera is used.
It does if e.g. shooting natural light and compare it to what it “should” look like. But it’s negligible.
Thanks for the background info.
Fwiw, I use a scene referred 2383 Print Film LUT (free from Lutify) in color managed Davinci Resolve with good success. Contrast might be too high for cameras with less dynamic range than Alexa though.
When Roger tweaked his LUT in a DI suite, as Joachim Zell who built the LUT describes – a huge amount of work to build the LUT would already have taken place. The tweaking of saturation and contrast at this point would represent small changes to an already complex model that had been previously built.
If I remember correctly, ‘True Grit’ was a guideline from Roger for the development of the LUT. I hope he can correct me if there was more to it.
In other words It’s a LUT for the initial color correction, not for the grading, Is It correct?
No, Roger said he would sit with the colorist and go through every shot to tweak exposure (besides color correction to match shots) but no additional grading.
If you watch Roger’s films shot on Alexa, the differences between them come from lighting, set design, costume ect but ‘grading’ is the same for all of them. The only variables used are color temperature (and I suspect tint).
He uses the same LUT on every movie.
Roger on this forum:
The LUT we use was created at E-Film, now Company 3. It is not hard to do. Just shoot some tests and take them to the DI suite.
I would be very surprised if the LUT I use is very different from any other. The only adjustment in it is to the contrast curve and the amount of color saturation. That is standard for any LUT that translates the RAW data.
Show LUTs in general aren’t too funky because they must work in all situations and are tested in all situations before actual shooting.
I liked to introduce myself to the people being followed around or interviewed, first name and that I’m the guy pointing a camera at them. During breaks I tried to get some very brief but light conversation with them. They’ll be less intimidated.
For coverage I liked to be very active on my feet. Let things play out in front of the camera without interrupting and try to get as many angles and frame sizes (zooms help with that) as possible. It’s a bit of a fine line as you should simultaneously try to be “invisible” and not distract the subjects. So I liked to stay away as far as possible from them – the closer I would get with the camera, the more I hindered them from being themselves, at least I came to believe that.
There are exceptions to this rule of course, inserts of a certain process that’s been talked about, when you might need a CU of a hand pushing a button and things like that. Also, people get used to being filmed after a time and then it’s less of an issue. But in general, I tried to be as unobtrusive as possible.
