Search results

You make adjustments based on the balance of highlights and shadows. In other words, if you don't have hot highlights that need protecting, you have room with RAW to expose more to reduce noise and increase shadow detail.

You can always try switching between different view modes. It all depends on what works for you personally. The problem I have with viewing RAW, or LOG on a LOG camera, is that the image is so low in contrast that I start lighting to make it look normal in contrast. And then when I get into...

Sure, you can compose for 2.40 on a 3-perf camera, it's done all the time. You're still recording a 1.78 negative and I'd protect all of it so it can be used too, and you'll have to make tape versions with a 2.40 letterbox. An ARRI 235 is used for handheld, steadicam stuff -- it's crystal...

Depends on the recans... if they are tested, then they are generally fine 90% of the time. They can show signs of aging when they are on the borderline, which shows up as a bit of blue fogginess in the blacks, a bit more grain. Helps to rate the stock slower just in case. 3-perf only has a...

IF you're sure you want to do a 2K D.I., you could consider shooting in 3-perf instead of 4-perf to save money on stock. Otherwise, you should shoot in standard (not Super) 4-perf 35mm for matted 1.85 projection, or use anamorphic lenses for 2.40 scope projection. Then you could get the...

The first question is what is your final delivery format going to be? Is this a short film? If this is for 35mm sound print projection, do you want to finish by conforming the negative and striking a contact print? Or do you want to go through a digital intermediate process? Or is this for...

I just hate to see waste -- wasted effort, money, time -- because people are trying to reinvent the wheel. I also hate it when people think they are being highly original when many people have already done what they are doing -- ignorance is not the same thing as originality. I remember in...

Yes, you need to be specific -- i.e. what do you want it to look like? What makes sense for the location and time of day? What lighting equipment will you have? etc.

No, if you use a brighter light from the same position and stop down to compensate, the contrast does not get flatter. If anything, sometimes the problem with working at higher light levels is that you are overpowering some natural ambient fill from available light in the room. At really low...

If you don't want a green look (sometimes you do), then every light source in the scene has to match each other -- either all matched to the same degree of green (by adding Plus-Green gels to the non-green lights) so that you can then remove the overall green (either with a magenta-ish...

Using a bounce card to bounce the ambient window light back into the face and then underexposing the face a stop, 1.5-stops, maybe even 2-stops is fine. You probably still won't hold much detail outside the window though if the view is in full sunlight. If the sun is pouring into the room and...

Your basic tools are exposure and lighting. You can use bounce cards and reflectors to bring up the shadows if you find yourself needing to expose more for the sky but don't want a silhouette effect. Beyond that, there are some minor tricks that may or may not help -- contrast-lowering...

My experience with the RED was that the noise from underexposure in tungsten light was more annoying than the clipping from slight overexposure, but that's partly a matter of taste. I rated the RED at 640 and 800 ASA for some night exterior work due to necessity and it worked OK but it...

I haven't used either camera so I can't tell you -- however, my general impression is that the Panasonic SDX900 is possibly the better camera in the aspects you are describing. I also think the SDX900 does progressive frame rates whereas the DVW790 is interlaced-scan. The Panasonic therefore...

It was shot on 35mm Kodak Plus-X and Double-X b&w negative, mostly Double-X. But often when someone asks that question "which stock is a close match?" they are shooting 16mm when the movie they are referencing was shot in 35mm.

Again, I want to repeat that at night, you can be in a small grove of trees ten yards from a housing complex and it may look like you are miles in the wilderness. The actual distance into the woods doesn't matter, all that matters is what it looks like at night based on what you can light...

Honestly, give up on the notion of lighting whole sequences with battery-powered lights, other than characters holding flashlights. It's a layer of stress you don't need as you find yourself with fading batteries, losing light output & exposure or getting flickering, and you've still got...

Battery-powered lights are fine for one or two specialty or emergency shots, but for the bulk of shooting over several hours, they are not reliable or long-lasting enough. You need to light your night shots somehow with a steady power supply like from a generator (preferably silent...

I'm trying to imagine any serious practitioner of other art forms who don't know something of the history of their chosen profession. For one thing, you'd think anyone who decides to make movies for a living would naturally enjoy watching and studying movies, beyond the level of a general...

Most 35mm cine lenses cover Super-35 fine, including any modern lenses like Cooke S4's. A few older zooms have some fall-off in the corners, but even the old Cooke 20-100mm zoom covers Super-35 (barely) -- especially if the final image is widescreen (16x9, 1.85, etc.) so the corners of 4x3...