Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I see and misread your previous “(in case of both options)”. I think it would come down to instinct. If you see yourself blowing out the window every single time if both options present themselves, and you visually agree with that more, then listen to your instinct.
I think it largely comes down to taste, script and the mood and placing the characters in a believable world.
Watch the scene of Inglorious Basterds where Christopher Waltz is interrogating a farmer who’s “sheltering enemies of the state”. There are moments where we actually see the “outside” world through the windows. Would it feel different to you if the windows were blown out instead? Or does it give us a sense of place.
I’m sure Roger and even David have better answers though. Just adding my .02
Not Roger, but it could be as straight forward as the writing in the script. For example it may (script) indicate that the character is watching his two children playing outside in the garden, to which you probably don’t want to blow out the windows — But there’s no hard/fast rule. You could blow out the shot in one shot and see through it 2 shots down the line.
Hey David. Yea, it was certainly humbling to say the least. Based on the films i’ve recently watched, a close-up does tend to live a bit further back than what I once thought(though I’m sure Sergio Leone would laugh)–But I agree with you in that each film has it’s own language.
I’m so used to looking at a 7″ onboard monitor or through the eyepiece that i’m always leaning in rather than wanting to scoot back. The Director was rather happy in the end to see these big close-ups but I think I felt different. So I suppose it comes down to taste but now I will keep in the back of my mind that I may have to see my work again in a theater and not on a television or phone.
All BMD cameras like light. I tend to overexpose them about +1/2 stop by creating a LUT that purposely forces me to. Start there — Essentially what is happening is that you’re monitoring an image that appears darker than what it actually is, thus forcing you to pump more light into the set and more information to the sensor.
No one can effectively teach you how to build a 35mm LUT on the web, because it requires of a lot of patience and some in-program skills to build it the correct way, but you can find some free LUT’s available for the pocket 4k.
I would run a series of tests, probably something closer to how you would light on the day, then take that footage into Resolve and see how the image holds once you start grading. That way you know for yourself if it needs more/less light, what hue’s/saturations look good for RGB lights (if you’re using them), how much actual latitude you’re working with.. etc.
If you know based on data sheet that a unit produces 400fc at 3 meters and you place a diffusion equal to a 1-stop light loss, then you’re working with 200fc.
if you think that’s not enough light to work with, you either need a stronger unit or more units.
It’s better to have more light and be able to dim the unit then to not have enough light and back yourself into a corner
I’d like to think that what you’re seeing is an effect of the specific choices being made. I don’t think that it’s as easy as, “give Jimi Hendrix a different guitar and amplifier and he’ll sound the same”–Like yea, it’ll still sound like Jimi Hendrix, but it’s not exactly what you heard on that record.
You know that photographers style because of the format, the lenses, the film stock, the subject matter.
And it’s all the incremental decisions that add up by all the different departments that make for good cinematography as well.
Lastly I might say that cinematography can be heavily influenced by the Director they’re working with. Take Darius Khondji for example. He shot Eddington and Marty Supreme, but you would’ve never guessed it was the same cinematographer. So a cinematographers approach might/will change with different Directors.
Gear does matter to a certain degree. If you need to re-create a hard sun for a building that never faces the sun, it’s going to be VERY difficult to do it with an Aputure 600X or something unless you’re only shooting close-ups or are in a very small room with small windows.
Work within your limits and use that as a personal challenge. It will scale.
Not Roger,
But you can use your reference or any movie for that matter which has a scene for people sitting around a table and imagine all of the different eyelines and dialogue you’d account for.
If it’s two people talking to each other then it’s typically a setup and then a reverse setup. You may have variations such as different lens lengths or if a character turns their head to look at something in the hallway.
You can approach it in that same exact way but by adding math to account for each individual. If you don’t have time then you might want to shoot multiple people in a shot and save the ‘important’ dialogue between two main characters as singles to signal significance.
As far as lighting goes, well that depends on TOD, but you could rig up an overhead soft light and light everyone at once so you don’t need to spend time re-positioning lights for each setup.
Hope that helps
<p style=”text-align: right;”>I personally think it’s less of a marketing strategy more so it is a ‘trend’.</p>
Just as it is shooting wide-open for the sake of shallow depth of field or anamorphic because people think 2.40 is more “movie-like”.And I don’t say that in a negative way, I think everyone has their own tastes and what they believe looks best to them.
Take Roger, he’s not attempting to shoot on vintage optics because (and I think this is to quote him), “it’s how my eyes see — and I think I have pretty good vision”.
Cooke look (I believe) is an image sharp in the center and gradually falls off towards the corners There is a video floating around somewhere of a Cooke specialist describe the characteristic. I’ll attempt to find it.. but it was less so about the contrast of the lenses themselves.
Hey Tim!
The only issue typically with switching systems (especially stills cameras) is that you need to re-invest in a new set of lenses. Unless of course you plan to use an adapter?
I hear the new Nikon ZF cameras are stellar!
I myself shoot with a Leica M4 + 35mm but I also have a Canon 5diii for professional shoots.
You have to ask yourself what functions you need in a camera and what you’ll be primarily shooting to decide what’s best. A street photographer will need different gear than a sports photographer on a soccer field
It’s less about ‘benefit’ and more about working preference I think. If two cars can get you from A to B at the same amount of time as well as other factors (fuel, comfort, etc.) but you just enjoy driving one more than the other, you more than likely will choose that. Not the best analogy but I feel people work in this way. Similarly, you might decide to use both depending on a project. I won’t open a debate about film v. digital though as I’m just as tired of it as everyone else I assume ha!
David, I find that super fascinating and am not surprised at the outcome of such inventions. I think on paper it would seem like an idea would make sense but not every scenario is an all-use one. I think of it like the Sony Rialto to some extent. You can use it when you decide to (although it does take some time to build) and leave it in the case when you decide not.
I see a lot of productions where mixed media is used: VHS, Super8, 16mm, digital but perhaps it’s just the trends at the moment and we don’t know what the next decade will be.
I know for myself that I grew up in the digital age, even coming to own an Alexa system– but find myself gravitating towards wanting to shoot film more as it’s a medium that I wasn’t ever familiar with. I also think there is something quite mysterious and fun to it with all the chemical reactions and physicality and what-not.. sound silly, I know.
I don’t know about all camera technology but I remember Leica releasing a film SLR that had an attachable digital back that had a sensor so you could effectively shoot film or digital on the same camera…
Now imagine that with a cinema camera having the ability to shoot both mediums without needing to completely switch over to another system and being able to keep your build.
Ohh–and optical viewfinders as I prefer them to digital ones 🙂
Tons of stuff out there but not sure they fit your needs: Olympus, Super Speeds, Lomos, Fuji EBC’s, Kowas, Minoltas.
You mention ARRI SP’s but those are probably a perfect lens in every way, especially when handling OOF elements.
If you want a really clean lens on a budget i’d maybe look into Sigma FF Primes, if you want a zoom then maybe an Angeniuex EZ-1 or EZ-2 depending on your needs. Great lenses.
Ah that makes sense and thank you for answering that. So for the second shot as an example, are you intentionally letting the window ‘blow out’ for the scene—as in, was there an actual background to be seen, albeit many stops over your shooting stop, and you didn’t set up any sort of big bounce card to act as a bright outside exterior?
The reason for asking is that I had recently wrapped a feature on a stage and couldn’t really achieve this look due to not being heavily resourced enough. I figured the easiest way would be to take an ultrabounce card pulled away some feet from the window, punch a lamp into it from low angle, and above the card i’d have a bigger unit angled down punching sunlight down into the room.
