Cinematography thread: No film vs. video talk, dammit

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > Cinematography thread: No film vs. video talk, dammit

«‹›4 »

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

First time I've spotted this thread, great idea and I'll try to contribute as much as I can. I'm currently DP-ing my second big feature and we're shooting it all on the RED, just got back from 10 days location work in Spain. We're on a grueling schedule but I'll do my best to add to the thread on any topic from motivated camera movement to gear specific (and Steadicam, ofcourse). If anyone has any RED specific questions I feel I'm pretty qualified to answer those too.

To give you an idea of the package we're shooting with, we're working with both 16gb flash cards and solid state drives. I have a lens package of primes from 16mm to 85mm (combination of Ultraprimes and Superspeeds). On occasion we also use an Angenieux zoom (25 to 250) and this sunday we'll be trying the new RED 25-85 zoom lens on a second unit rig. I tested the new anamorphic lenses but they came in too late to change the choice of format we made but I think my next feature will be anamorphic now, they're really neat and relatively light.

We have a huge grip and lighting package available and will be shooting with a Cascade crane this sunday, terribly exciting. It's kind of neat to have those kind of toys made available to you on your command, I'm not that used to being the big guy on set yet. Ofcourse there's a Steadicam/Segway available on set everyday though we haven't used it that much.

# ¿ Jun 25, 2009 20:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:33

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Carefree Koala posted:

How much of a chance did you get to play around with anamorphics on the Red? I've heard of some some cursory testing done by people at rental houses, but I haven't had a chance to talk to anyone who did more than throw on a few lenses and shoot some charts.

And someday the world deserves an all Steadicam/Segway movie. It just needs the right script, of course.

Unfortunately I didn't get much of a chance to do more than a quick test as I was prepping my shooting kit. The owner of the rental house was just so excited to have the lenses in that he had to show me. I tried some face tests and did a bunch of screwing around with flares and lights in the lens to see how it handled it (really nicely by the way).

Once I wrap this production and have some more time, I intend to do an actual shooting test with the lenses and I might use them for a music video I'm shooting next month. I should know more then and be able to show some test footage.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2009 16:18

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Walnut Crunch posted:

Also Steadiman, have you ever worked with stabilizers on boats? We recently went out with some kenyon labs gyros, and they took the edge off for a pretty low price. Wondering if you've had any success with other equipment.

Also this steadicam guy is a golden god....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrTuW1O2eSg

I have worked with gyros and they are very handy on boats. I'm assuming you used the K6 gyros. They are officially made for photography but we found out many years ago that they are perfect for Steadicam in the wind and even hand held can be helped tremendously by them. They're not superpowerful but you don't really need that anyway or else you wouldn't be able to pan/tilt. The only downsides are the power drain and the noise so any gyro shots are generally MOS.

An even cheaper way to create a similar effect is to use something we call Antlers. Technically it's an inertial stabilizer but in reality it's just a long metal rod with small weights(between 2 and 5 lbs) on both ends. It's actually pretty easy to create your own (official manufactured ones cost $1000!), just make sure that the mounting point is exactly on the center of gravity. You then mount it on top or bottom of the camera so it sticks out on the sides. The result of this is that it stabilizes the roll axis (which is the most distracting effect of handheld) because it extends the center of gravity and makes the whole camera more inert and resistant to wind. Downside is that it makes the camera considerably heavier and also you have to be aware that there is stuff sticking out, it's very easy to knock people out with it. It's not quite as powerful as gyros but much easier to use.

Another simple and quick method to make a camera more stable is to just add some weight on top, above where you hold it (so you hold the camera in the middle between the weights and the camera). This also extends the center of gravity more outward to where you can touch it. The further out the CG is, the more stable the camera will be (the whole principle behind Steadicam is extending the CG to where you can touch it). This is more of an improvised Doggicam and works great for running shots.

The Segway/Handsfree shot is great. You can achieve some awesome effects by stepping on or off it. I've just done a shot where I step off a crane and on the Handsfree to continue the shot through woods and then end up at a house where I step off again to continue the shot inside. Really neat stuff and a great way to create those awesome "impossible shots" that directors love so much!

# ¿ Jun 30, 2009 08:00

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Slim Pickens posted:

Any suggestions for recording action are welcome.

Well there's a couple of suggestions I can think of. First, and most importantly, learn to anticipate the action. There were a few times where the bike guys left the frame way too much, you should've anticipated that happening and corrected accordingly. The great thing about situations like this is that you should be able to know exactly what the biker is going to do (i.e. follow the curve) so you should easily be able to anticipate when he turns. I prefer to set my body up for the end of the shot and then twist myself into position for the beginning, that way I won't have to take any steps to get to the endshot, I just untwist myself. Not always comfortable but very effective.

Practice the exact move you expect to do a few times, to commit it to muscle memory, before you do the actual shot. Especially for slow motion stuff, it's vital that the move be as perfect as you can get it because slow-mo will show any mistake you make so much clearer.

Also, don't grip too hard with your operating hand. It's much more fluid to pan by just using your body weight pushing against the grip instead of trying to apply constant pressure on your hands. It creates a lot of jitter in the frame if you grip too tight because the pressure doesn't get distributed evenly to your fluid head, you lose the feel. I usually don't even use the handle on the tripod, I just grab the back of the camera/film mag and pan/tilt with that. With smaller cameras that might not always be practical but on larger cameras it gives you a much more immediate feel of the shot you're making. If you are consigned to the handle, angle it upwards instead of downwards, that way your hand grabs up and your wrist isn't angled downward. It makes operating a lot more comfortable. You also get a lot more feedback through your hands since your wrist muscles are not being pulled at so they are under no stress. This is especially good during fast, but precise moves.

Another tip, if you have to make fast pans/tilts and end at an exact point. is to look at the trailing edge of the frame and find a visual marker there that you can line up (like a tree or a house). This will show up on your viewfinder a lot quicker than anything on the leading edge and allows you a little breathing room to get the exact frame you want. If you wait for a visual marker on the leading edge you can easily overshoot it because it won't come in frame until the last moment. Seems obvious but most people don't think of doing this.

As for what I'm doing, well I just finished a lenghty period of color correction on my last feature and just got back from Deluxe in Rome to check the print. It's being duplicated as we speak and will be released in theaters October 8th here in Holland and Belgium. Should be pretty big, we're going out with 102 prints last I heard, but that may increase next week depending on the distributor. I'm a little nervous about how it will be received but very happy with the end result!

# ¿ Sep 19, 2009 16:29

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Andraste posted:

I have a question that you guys can probably answer.

We will be shooting in a liquor store, and our director wants to use the RED, but I'm worried about not being able to create a shallow depth of field since our school doesn't have any long lenses. I think, THINK, our lens is like 30ish - 50 ish?

Click here for the full 1600x1200 image.

Ideally we will want to shoot the cashier with the bottles out of focus, do you guys think this is possible, or should we just downgrade and use the school's 500?

My biggest concern is that we can't get a shallow enough depth of field and the brand labels will be legible, which would exclude us from any festivals etc.

If I am reading this correctly you only have one lens and are not sure what it is? Could also be a zoomlens? You're not being very clear to be honest. How shallow do you need the DoF to be? If you're shooting on a 30 then the lens might be a little too wide to get a noticeable effect, even if you shoot wide open. A 50 would work better but still risky if you're that concerned about legibility. Depending on the lens it might also not be desirable to go wide open since some lenses can get a bit woolly in the edges of frame. At the very least do a test before you commit.

Where are you getting the RED? Is that also the school's camera or is it coming from a rental house? Either way, I'm with Squaredog. You really should get either a good set of primes or a good zoom lens (atleast 25-85) to go with the camera. I don't really see the point of shooting with the RED if that choice limits you to one lens. If that is the case you might be better off with that 500 if it gives you more focal length choices. You won't get the DoF but you will have more choices in composition. That seems a lot more important to me. You can always turn all the bottles slightly so that the labels aren't fully visible and you should still be able to get a certain degree of DoF by shooting wide open on the longest focal length the camera gives at all times (add ND if necesary).

# ¿ Oct 6, 2009 14:40

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Snap Your Fingers posted:

I've started doing some freelance video work, but really with only one company. How do you guys list freelance work on your resume?

I just put down individual credits/gigs in a long list. Though as you get more work you'll have to become more selective about all the credits you put down, the list can grow pretty fast. As an alternative you can also just say, or add, that you've done various jobs/are experienced in X genre (music videos, drama, etc).

# ¿ Nov 29, 2009 10:10

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Reichstag posted:

I just saw Avatar last night and I don't know where else to post this, so let's talk 3d itt for a moment.

As far as I can tell, if 3d is adopted, it's a death knell for 'film style' photography. I don't mean because of any sort of resolution/editing/workflow type deal either. Watching the movie I just felt that there are so many components of traditional framing and composition that are just broken when presented in 3d.
The most glaring to me is the use of depth of field in 3d. As I see it, the main benefit of 3d is immersion, pulling the audience into a scene. As such, anything that pulls them out of the illusion is bad, right? The single most distracting visual element throughout the movie was oof elements in the foreground. In a 2d image, oof foreground elements are part of a single plane and are an abstracted element of composition which can be used a number of helpful ways. In 3d however, you have to deal with giant abstract shapes being projected into the audiences' lap, which is certainly not subtle.
Even mild separation between background and subject in closeups was distracting, because the dof in the shot does not mirror what the human eye would naturally create.

The most impressive and useful 3d shots in the entire movie, to me, those that presented a scene with actual feelings of depth. One in particular had the head scientist in a corridor, doing something important in the foreground, behind her was the corridor. That is what I was looking at the whole time, the sense of depth there, in a non-jumper scene, was more immersive than any projected snowflakes in my lap or animal claw lashing out from the screen.

3d won't change much in the way productions are shot, not yet anyway. Certainly not as dramatic as killing film style photography. The human eye has DoF just like a camera so eliminating it completely would make the experience weird and hyper-real. This can be especially difficult in visually complex scenes where there is just too much to focus on. If the filmmaker wants the attention somewhere in particular, DoF is still the way to go. You can also adjust the 3d point of convergence to force the audience's attention to something but this is not always desirable as it can be distracting to the point of nausea. There are limits to this and 3d does not work well at T1.2, but you'd likely be overwhelmed without it as the brain gets overloaded with depth information without a point of reference as to how near or far, small or large, something is. DoF is an easy way to create such a point of reference (something very close to your face will leave the background blurred...brain realises it must be nearby, if all is in focus it must be a big place, etc.) Also remember that all these 3d productions are effectively also shooting the 2d version at the same time. Therefore you still need to keep in mind that the home audience, or people not in the fancy 3d theatres, will also need to know where they should look. Since they don't have the benefit of the point of convergence shift, they need to rely on old faithful: DoF! So don't expect DoF to go away anytime soon.

3d is still fighting its way out of the carnival/gimmick tradition it's always been used in but the last few years have been very exciting as people are discovering how to best use this new dimension. For years now filmmakers have been doing their best to add depth to a 2 dimensional picture using nothing but camera movement to suggest the third dimension. Now we can actually have that third dimension readily available to us which invariably will lead to some abuse as it finds its place. It's really neat but also a slow process of discovery as people figure out how to best shoot and edit this stuff without murdering the audience and sending them puking through the aisles in a glorious chain reaction of chunks, while still keeping it visually exciting. A fine balance indeed.

Shooting 3d means the filmmaker has to walk a very fine line all the time, not only in the compositional choices but in editing as well. My biggest fear is when the enthusiastic amateur or vlogger or, God forbid, the film student finally gets their hand on this stuff. Imagine all the horrors contained on YouTube...in 3d! I'll let that one sink in for a while, have fun.

Andraste posted:

I'm not a fan of the 3d stuff for a lot of reasons, and a big one being that the technology just isn't there yet.

Also, if you watch movies that were made for 3d in 2d it's glaringly obvious which scenes were meant to be seen in 3d, and without the effect they are just boring shots without much going on; their whole point is to get you excited and "ohmygosh i feel like I'm falling" or something else as similarly stupid.

Mind if I ask you what part of the technology you think isn't there yet? I am genuinely curious as I've been heavily involved in 3d for the last three years or so. The only big drawback I can think of at this time is still the requirement of glasses but even those will go away soon enough. And I think they've become quite unobtrusive compared to the old red/green glasses. I've seen a few of experimental products that show 3d without glasses but that is still in its infancy (mostly limited in resolution and viewing angle). This will be getting much better in the next two years though.

# ¿ Dec 19, 2009 08:23

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Here's a neat little toy for all you control obsessed DPs or ACs. Remote iris using an iPhone app: http://www.plcelectronicsolutions.com/

I can see quite a few downsides (apparently iris only so no focus, iPhone battery life, etc.) but it's a pretty neat gimmick. The receiver might make it a worthwhile deal, it is pretty drat cheap, as long as there is an alternative way to control it. Somehow using my iPhone just doesn't seem very reliable to me.

# ¿ Jan 28, 2010 17:31

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

I sometimes have trouble setting the volume on my iPod correctly using the jog control, so I'm not sure about the reliability of that app in setting the iris. Of course, that's without ever trying it out. I'm always up to play with new toys, though.

Well they did make the slider pretty big and hard to miss. That still doesn't change the fact the the touchscreen can sometimes be a little finicky, especially when your hands are a bit sweaty (which can happen under high stress!). Also, thinking about it more, the lack of tactile feedback would make looking anywhere but the iPhone's screen impractical and dangerous. No looking at the camera or actor or anything. That fact alone makes it pretty much useless for anything serious, in my opinion.

Then there is the fact that iris pulls are quite a lot rarer than focus pulls, I have no idea why they only focused(get it?

) on iris. And the calibration of the lenses seems like it would be a painfully slow process for any decent sized shooting kit. Ofcourse you only have to do it once, but still.

And imagine receiving a text message just as the big explosion is about to happen, and suddenly losing iris input because the text window demanded attention! Have fun explaining you need to go again because your girlfriend wanted you to know she was "hot n hrny 4 u bb!xxx". drat that would be awkward. I know, I know...your phone should be off or in airplane mode. But haven't we all forgotten that one time or another.

In its defense, it is a really neat gimmick and a novel use for the iPhone. So 10 out of 10 for originality, -5 out of 10 for actual usefulness. Atleast they're proving that there really is an app for everything.

EDIT: Also, I just realised it doesn't do any form of position memory or automation. Seems odd as it would be very easy to implement automation on this. Just create a simple system of start and end points, and a duration, and add a playback button. Seems like a very obvious thing, I wonder why they didn't include that.

Steadiman fucked around with this message at 13:03 on Jan 29, 2010

# ¿ Jan 29, 2010 12:48

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

I'm sure they felt the pressure on to be the first to get an app that interacted with hardware in this fashion, so they wanted the same functionality as a Bartech Iris or Preston device. Once they bring it to market, they can add features like programmed iris sequences.

Definitely a novel gimmick, and for the price of the receiver, makes for a possible solution for indie and low budgets. I think the biggest problem, like you said, is the PHONE part of the iPhone. Every day, make double sure your phone is in airplane mode, but also has the wifi activated.

Maybe it's better suited for the iPod Touch?

And I'm imagining using this and can see a lot of improvements that would make it kick all kinds of rear end. It would be great if they added, atleast, a second channel for focus, easy automation, camera run/stop, and maybe even ramping functions. The biggest advantage they have over hardware-only systems is the modularity of software, you can create a completely new system just with a software update! Also they need to make setting up the lenses easier, right now it looks tremendously convoluted for anything but a basic lens package. Imagine having to set this thing up for a three camera kit with 20+ lenses, you'll be there all day!

Iris-only makes it pretty useless to anyone aside from giving the DP himself control over it, separate from the AC pulling focus. Though you could probably just hook up the motor to the focus ring and use it that way, they never really make it clear in that video if it's precise enough for this. The fact that they kind of gloss over this makes me think that it is not.

One interesting thing they have, that I've never seen before, is the ability to control three cameras simultaneously. If they add focus, combined with the sweet price point (99 cent app and $1300 receiver still make it cheaper than anything, except maybe that crappy Hocus-Focus POS, even if you have to buy the iPhone/Touch first), it would be a very desirable backup unit because you can always have it with you and you're ready to whip it out at a moment's notice. Even the battery problem can be overcome by buying a load of those battery extenders. The only problems I can't see them overcome is the lack of tactile feedback and the small screen size. The screen size is particular might be a problem for the larger ACs out there if you add a second function in there. I'm also curious what kind of reception problems you can run into with this.

I don't know, maybe something for the iPad? Though that might be too big and cumbersome to lug around on set all day.

# ¿ Jan 30, 2010 12:09

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Sound guys hate everything. :colbert:

# ¿ Jan 31, 2010 11:41

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

How about some cool software for cinematography? Since a lot of people in this industry have iPhones, here's some apps I found tremendously useful and very much worth the investment.

First and foremost is Pcam. It's not the cheapest program out there and, to be honest, the interface is a bit cluttered and counter intuitive, but it's tremendously powerful and has more calculation options than you could possibly need. It has a permanent place on the first page of my app list!

Then there's Pocket DIT. This is an app for the RED, kind of similar to iSee4k but with the added advantage of having the entire menu structure of the RED as a searchable list. So if you need a function you can just search for it and the app will tell you where it's nested. Incredibly handy for some of the RED's more esoteric menu options. This app was actually pulled from the appstore for a while after the author of iSee4K complained to Apple that it ripped off his app. Gladly it was returned because it is the better app. It's also free!

Another favorite of mine is iSwatch. It's basically a library of gels and incredibly handy on set for reference. It gives you all kinds of neat data on the different gels, including light transmission and comparisons. Very useful!

Then there's Artemis Director's Viewfinder. It's a bit gimmicky but still quite useful if you don't already have a real director's viewfinder. If I'm honest, it's a bit too expensive but there's a lot of options to play with. As an alternative there's also Director's viewfinder for $2.99 but I haven't tried that one.

There's also a shitload of digital slate software. Though how useful those really are, aside from the toy/cool factor, is open for debate.

So, anyone else have neat software suggestions? Not just for iPhone ofcourse, just in general.

# ¿ Feb 18, 2010 06:58

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Andraste posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTqvD262u14&feature=autofb

Oh God, during almost the entire sequence in the car the actor's mouth was blocked by the steering wheel! I wanted to rip that wheel off! I barely even noticed anything else. That was immensely frustrating!

I'm sure it was funny otherwise.

# ¿ Feb 25, 2010 06:56

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Mozzie posted:

P.S. gently caress anyone who calls themselves a cinematographer without exposing a negative, you're a Videographer, jerkwads.

I find this a horribly narrow-minded statement. Cinematography should not be about the medium or equipment, those are tools. A good cinematographer is someone who has the eyes and ability to create evocative and wonderful imagery with whatever tools are available to him. Be it a full 35mm kit, with more lights than Vegas, at his disposal, or some crappy DV camera and some building lights, if they can make it look good then they are cinematographers. When I'm watching a movie I don't want to think about the camera they used or what lighting kit they had available. I just want it to look awesome.

People get way too obsessive about gear and medium and forget to tell a story with images because of it. Unfortunately it has been my experience that it's mostly film students, or people just out of film school, who do this. The tools are important, for sure, but if you get a chubby thinking about a camera then you may need to rethink why you wanted to do this job in the first place.

At NAB last week we had a revolutionary new way to move the camera with a Steadicam (called the Tango if you're interested), many experienced and famous DPs and directors who came by instantly saw the potential and asked for little demos of their ideas, this was wonderful as they saw the potential of this new tool. Most film students, however, only wanted to know about the canon 5D, or the SI2K, and the transmitter that we used on the rig to get an image. Some very dumb questions were asked that had no relation to what we were trying to show. If you get the rare opportunity to pick the brain of a man like Garrett Brown, you do not ask him about the maximum ISO setting on a 5D! I get that they may have been interested in the camera but that's the sort of stuff you use google and a manual for, not the inventor of the Steadicam, and the man who shot Rocky and The Shining, at a busy tradeshow. This was really disappointing to me but kind of shows what I'm talking about. So let's get out of these pointless discussions and back to talking about how to use these wonderful tools to create incredible shots. That's the whole point of the job!

# ¿ Apr 18, 2010 20:14

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Laser Vampire posted:

I'm looking at this thing and I'm impressed. Its a wearable Jib/boom with automated controls. Anything that lets you move a camera to new and interesting angles is awesome in my book.

Doesn't look like they have spec sheet for weight limits though, will be interesting to see.

Controls are actually not automated. It operates like a steadicam actually, no remote head or anything. The camera head duplicates the moves the operator makes with the steadicam sled. It's all mechanical, no electronics to lag or break down, and very simple. Right now the max weight is guesstimated at around 6lbs. Since it's currently a prototype, there are still some things to be worked out. And it allows for shots that are literally impossible any other way, getting the camera in tight spaces or through windows and craning like mad while maintaining all the other features of the steadicam. It's really pretty neat.

There are some videos of our demos on YouTube too if you want to see it move.

# ¿ Apr 20, 2010 07:09

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

I remember seeing footage a while back that was from his first stabilizer, with his girlfriend running up the steps of the Philadelphia library, a la the "Rocky" shot. I believe she's running down the steps, and then running back up again.

To add to that, the shot you're talking about was on the original 35mm showreel he made to sell the steadicam. Long believed lost but found again in a basement a few years ago. It featured, I believe, 17 impossible shots that showed what his invention was capable of. In that particular shot he was chasing Ellen, then his girlfriend and now his long-time wife, down the library steps and she spontaneously ran back up. When Stallone saw that he wanted that exact same shot for Rocky and thus history was made. Interesting side note, in the demo shot he ran all the steps down and back up and was just too winded to go back up the whole way, in Rocky he just ran the last series of steps up so it was much easier. However they were having so many problems with the camera that they needed an external, huge, battery to get it to speed which caused the rather annoying level problems in the final take they used. Garrett was never pleased with that take because it was a little sloppy. Go figure!

In fact, if you get the 25th anniversary DVD for Rocky there is a miniature documentary with Garrett on steadicam and that sequence in particular. This includes him going back to the famous steps. There's also a commentary track with Garrett on the DVD. Very interesting stuff if you're at all into filmmaking and very much worth the purchase.

Steadiman fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Apr 21, 2010

# ¿ Apr 21, 2010 01:03

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Walnut Crunch posted:

Interesting video of previs for 3d shoot. Annotations list their concerns about certain shots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BosQR3jMRY0

We're getting the new Panasonic 3d camera in a couple of weeks and we've never shot 3d before so we're trying to learn as much as possible as fast as possible. I don't think shooting 3d is terribly easy.

Be aware that the panasonic won't allow you to change to inter-ocular distance, it only has basic control over the point of convergence. This can be a limitation in the shots you can do. Objects close to the camera might not work very well, I believe the IO is about 2 inches. Ideally this would be an adjustable setting between 0 and, atleast, 4 inches to give you a nice range of foreground/background blocking.

# ¿ Apr 22, 2010 09:24

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Slim Pickens posted:

Anyone know offhand or can guess what the camera package usually used on house costs? I'm doing a short essay on the season finale being shot on a 5D.

This is from vague memory but House normally shoots with a 35mm package (Arricam and/or Panavision). Just the camera package will probably run about $1600,- a day with accessories. Then throw in a good selection of lenses (prime and zoom) for about the same and you're quickly looking at $3000,-/$3500 a day for a full kit. This is really broad since House has a variable setup and they do get a discount for the shooting period. But close enough in the ballpark to give you a rough idea, I think. This is, ofcourse, excluding film costs. They shoot on Fuji, not sure what the film and development costs are right now.

I'd be interested in reading your essay when you're done by the way. Hope this helps.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2010 06:57

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Slim Pickens posted:

I was gonna base overall cost of a typical setup to the Canon 5D setup, and made an estimate that the camera and lenses was probably under 10 grand for the canon. If rental is the typical approach, I'll go with that. As far as lenses go, it was in his twitter feed.

Not sure why he decided to go for that look, but I guess we'll see the results on may 17th. As for the article, it's pretty much a one-page thing I'm throwing together in a day, and I don't think it'll really expand much past what's been discussed here already. If you want, though, I can still put it up when it's finished.

You'll find that rental is the way most productions go. And for many good reasons. It's rarely a smart idea to buy your own stuff due to the constantly shifting demands of production, maintenance costs, and a whole bunch of other variables including obsolescence. Maybe some DP's will buy a camera (body) with a basic lens set for low budget stuff, especially with RED nowadays, but rarely will you find someone who owns a kit as complete as a rental house can offer. It's just not worth the headache since every production wants something else. You'll just end up renting little bits and bobs anyway and it's just easier to rent the whole caboodle in one go, that way production can make deals on prices. Unless you know for certain that you can rent out your gear a lot, it's really not a smart investment.

I'm interested in reading your article, besides it will generate some more posts for this thread

. So go ahead and post it!

Also, Squaredog, why were you surprised they used zooms? They're great for fastpaced productions where there's just not much time to block shots and decide on primes. Most tv drama relies heavily on zooms, usually only switching to primes for Steadicam/crane-jib/handheld to lighten the load.

# ¿ Apr 28, 2010 12:18

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

Don't want to be a showoff, but I think it took us less than 20 minutes, 3 guys working constantly.

That was our longest dolly track, we used pretty much every apple box, basso block and wedge in the package, and even had to use some 2x4 cribbing to span the washout trough. Basically, one guy was walking the track with the level, another guy was near the crates and boxes to give him wedges, and the third guy was hustling poo poo from the truck to the set. You can even see some pieces of 4x4 that we found laying around.

The good news was this was skateboard wheels on a doorway dolly, and the camera was just a Sony EX3 on an OConnor head and hi hat. I think if we'd had even a Fisher 11 or a Super Peewee on set that day, we'd all have been really pissed.

Dude that's nothing, I asked for this 60 foot puppy to shoot two people walking across the water on a 100mm. They had to improvise for this baby because the pavement sloped up a lot when it got to a bridge! Took them longer than 20 minutes though...

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ May 16, 2010 09:41

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

Wow, those chaps sure did have to improvise! Are those some flat palates a few ties down the dolly track!?

Yea, if that was the high point, I'm sure they had to build it up underneath. While that track was probably more tedious and hair-raising, at least you can tell where the high point is immediately. We had a huge trough separating the two ends, so I had to guesstimate which end, 40 feet away from each other, was higher than the other. Good to see you're playing nicely with RED.

Actually, it was clear as a bell and no wind up here in the Valley. No worries. You planning on going to the solid state lighting workshop next weekend thrown by the ASC? They're teaching all the old school guys not to be afraid of LED light sources.

They really did but fortunately they knew what they were getting into with me as DP since I've worked with them a lot, and they are well aware of my strange requests. I had a wonderful grip department, had to because almost every shot I design moves in some way! Be it dolly, jib, crane, or Steadicam...there's always atleast one of each on set when I shoot. And yes, those are palates. They had to raid the area for wood because all the crates they brought did not have enough wood and wedges to raise the tracks as much as they had to be raised, it's tough to make out in that picture but it was pretty high up.

Not the highest one I've ever requested though, you can see that one pass by in this YouTube video I found...That one was really insanely high because there was a huge dip in the ground. And then we threw a crane on it!

Also, I like the RED but whoever said it was lightweight and convenient really needs an anal baseball bat implant ASAP. Having that thing on your shoulder, blasting like a furnace and burning your ear off, is a nightmare! Imagine this on your shoulder! I'd rather have a 435, atleast they don't get so hot.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ May 16, 2010 10:21

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

I'll provide the baseball bat, sir. I had the Mantis handheld unit as well, and eventually just gave up the handlebars and grabbed the mattebox/iris rods.

I shot a student short where I handheld a Panavision GII with 1000 ft mags top-mounted*, and as exhausting as that is, I didn't feel as bad a crick in my neck from the orientation of the EVF. Perhaps this is a false assumption, but as wide as film cameras are, their center of mass is typically closer to camera left, so the eyepiece usually sits in the right spot when you "shrug" to hold the camera up.

With the RED in handheld, even with the Element Technica EVF mount, the eyepiece never sits in the right place. I'd hold the camera too close to my head to compensate for the center of mass, and I'd have to stare at the EVF image at a slight angle. As an operator, I now have to watch all my verticals for horizon because I know my head is off horizon, and the camera may follow suit if not careful.

Top mounted 1000' GII? Seriously? I would not have agreed to that, especially for a student film where I likely would not be getting my rate, you're a stronger man than I. That's a crooked spine waiting to happen. Also, dude...there's really a lot of beards in that youtube of yours.

And that's a really good point about the RED actually, I hadn't thought about that but you're right. My head is always at a crooked angle when I shoulder the RED. But I don't think it's just the balance, though that is a big part of it, it's also the weird viewfinder adjustment. There's just no real sweet spot anywhere in its range. Combine that with the offset balance, and the fact that you're always forced to slightly look up and left instead of straight ahead, and you end up with a crooked neck. Though I never had any level problems but my neck was drat sore after every single time! I'd never had that before until I ran into the RED. I also would just add weights to the back in order to not be front heavy, which just made it more uncomfortable.

I mean really, look at this picture...does that look like someone who is comfortable to you? I didn't think so! I might even reconsider the 1000' GII if it'll get me out of shouldering the RED because I hate neck-ache more than back-ache.

Only registered members can see post attachments!

Steadiman fucked around with this message at 08:17 on May 17, 2010

# ¿ May 17, 2010 08:09

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Magic Hate Ball posted:

So I made a short film, To Answer Your Question... (part one, part two). I'm not thrilled with it, but I learned a lot. It's not on the same level as most of the stuff posted in here, but it is in HD, and that makes it a better movie, right?

Aside from the discovery of the zoom lens you made, there's a lot of level issues. That really bugged me with all the straight horizontal and vertical lines in frame. Also, you cross the line in a lot of the dialogue shots. Makes it look like they're both talking to a third person that we never see. You might want to mirror some of the guys' closeups so he's looking at her instead of apparently looking at where she's looking.

The "Steadicam" shot in the dressing room was really bad, I'm sorry to say. Whoever operated desperately needs to practise some more. I see what you were going for but it was so bad that I would suggest cutting it and replacing it with a locked off wide shot if you have it. Also, there's one shot where the girl very randomly steps in front of a completely blown out window, I'm assuming that was a deliberate choice but I can't figure out why, it does not work very well since the white is so dominant that it becomes annoying to watch.

In general there were a lot of lighting/iris inconsistencies, even in the same shots, so I think this could do with another round of CC to bring all the levels in line. An example where it's very obvious is in the closeup of the girl right before she steps in front of the blown out window. In one shot she's pretty dark, you cut to the guy and then back to the same shot but now it's almost a full stop lighter. That's very sloppy! Also some shots, especially closeups were just too dark.

Compositionally it was alright on the whole, though some of the master shots telegraphed that someone was going to walk into frame a bit much. Like the shots where the guy/girl walked through the door. It was a bit too pre-framed, if you know what I mean. And the zoom in the beginning, when the guy rides his bike, was incredibly unmotivated and made the shot obtrusive. Try to be more in synch with the actor if you do that. You probably would've gotten away with it if you managed to do the whole move while he was crossing and sitting down. Remember to try and motivate your movement, don't just move for the sake of moving (and yes, a zoom is a move too!).

I hope you'll be more thrilled with the next one you do!

# ¿ May 23, 2010 18:06

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Sagacity posted:

. I'm actually quite pleased with how the DOP made it look, especially under the circumstances, but the colour correction may have gone a bit overboard (uncalibrated monitors, sigh).

Ha! I know your DP quite well and have worked with him before! Say hi from me

# ¿ May 26, 2010 05:20

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Sagacity posted:

Okay, I will. Will using the name 'Steadiman' ring any bells, though?

Ha good point. Say hi from Ruben. Tell him we should talk about the Tango when I get back to Holland.

# ¿ May 26, 2010 12:17

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Andraste posted:

....!

My friend you really need to stop being so defensive. People got hung up on those points because you brought it up without provocation and because of the way you said them, it really did look you were shifting blame all over the place and that's not pretty so you will get called on it. As DP you are ultimately responsible for what the film looks like, not your AC or your operator or your colorist. So the fact that you came out blaming these people made people a bit suspicious at your motivations. Ofcourse there were problems and it's a student film and we don't know the whole story but so what? Every set has problems, not being able to scout or pick your own crew is a common thing nowadays. That doesn't mean you should run away from a production, it just means you need to be more on your guard. If you don't know the AC or operator, watch them like a hawk at first to make sure they're doing what you want. If the color temp thing happened several times, and it seems you caught it a few times, you should've figured out there was a deeper problem and solved that(I.e. switching the soft button functions) and taken extra care to check it after each take.

This sort of poo poo happens and how you deal with it as a DP is what makes you a good or bad person to work with. Right now you're not a good person to work with in my eyes, not because your work sucks but because you apparently can't keep control of your department and get very defensive when called on it. That, to me, means I would probably be arguing with you on set every day. Not interested! Being a DP Is as much a political function as it is a creative function so dealing with situations like this is a very large part of your job and you did not do that part of the job well, the reasons are not as important as your reactions.

It probably would've been better if you had phrased it different, and there's a lesson for the rest of your career in there too because producers don't like hearing poo poo being slung around like that either and will very likely reply in the same fashion! It makes you look very unprofessional. If your people hosed up, you should've seen it a lot earlier. Sure there are people to be blamed but you take that up with the people and in private, you don't say your crew "hosed you" to others. It's your department and you should've been in control so this all reflects on you. Honestly if you tried selling this excuse to a client I can guarantee you he would not work with you again. But the good thing that came out of this is that a valuable lesson is learned and you will never do this again! So that's good. This will never happen again on your set!

And next time make sure the soft buttons on the RED don't ever affect the recorded image, only what you see in the viewfinder (like RAW or zebra or something)! That's asking for trouble. And you are certainly not the first person this has happened to. It's good that you know what went wrong and how to fix it, I hope you still get a chance to do so.

Steadiman fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Jun 3, 2010

# ¿ Jun 3, 2010 18:00

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

I think a major point is that if you are going to make a full feature on no budget, and do most of it yourself, is that you'd better be drat sure everything else about it is incredibly good (like the story and the cast) because you won't have shiny and pretty pictures to fall back on. You need something to grab your audience and dazzle them with, whether that's the visuals or the story, or both. Chances are that if you're doing it yourself on the cheap it won't look that great because you simply don't have the means. In that case you'd better have a story worth telling! And unfortunately that's where it often goes horribly wrong. Jack of all trades still often means master of none.

I've seen enough films made like this to be confident about that statement, a lot of people are just so excited to make their movie that they forget to actually make a movie worth watching, filled with cliches and boring characters played by friends who recite their lines in an almost comically bad fashion and often look wrong for the part. Sitting through a ten minute short filled with that can be tough, a full length feature of that can be hell!

And yes, people being forced to lower rates is annoying as hell. It's annoying because these people are undercutting. It's hard enough to make a living in this industry as it is without people lowering rates even more. It's easy to do when you're just starting and happy to be working but eventually you're going to want to actually make some money and have a life. At the rates some of these new guys are going out for you will need a second job just to pay the bills eventually, or end up working 14+ hours a day, 6 days a week permanently just to survive. Let alone come out ahead. It's a dangerous trend because there simply isn't enough work out there for that. This is a business, not a charity. It's great that directors want to make art and a beautiful and personal film but eventually you're also going to want to recoup some of your investment, undercutting is not the way to do that and I'd say the vast majority of these films will never make their money back, or get seen by a larger audience.

I'm certainly not against people going out and making their own feature, I'm just saying that it's not a viable business model in the long term. There is not a big enough paying audience for that. Sure, the youtubes of the world allow for a potentially huge audience but that doesn't mean you'll get that audience. If that's the measure of success, it must mean the lady who uploaded a home video of Miss Fluffy the Cat playing piano is a genius director. Good distribution is much more than just uploading to YouTube and vimeo, it's marketing too. And you'll need that to not get drowned in the millions of other videos screaming for attention. This form of distribution is great for short clips but very few people will sit through 90+ minutes on a site like this simply because there's so much other content screaming for attention. However, if you do manage to get that attention and some advertising revenue it becomes a pretty good distribution system. But there it comes back to my earlier point again, you'd better have something to dazzle the audience with! A great story, a great gimmick, great acting, or great visuals, or all of the above. If you're lacking that, and most of the films on these sites are lacking this, then you've got nothing. A storyteller is nothing without an audience.

Steadiman fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Jun 7, 2010

# ¿ Jun 7, 2010 18:18

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

Anyone see anything cool at CineGear this year?

I saw myself in the mirror :smug:

# ¿ Jun 8, 2010 17:48

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

exponentory posted:

Hey Steadiman, this isn't you is it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6KwjwIFL-0
Whoever that is, i've seen him somewhere...

Either way, what do you think about the Tango? Have you operated with one yet?

Haha yeah that's me. I'll never get used to randomly running in to videos of myself working. Especially since Tango was unveiled, I've been running into videos of myself a lot! It's even weirder to continually see myself in various bookstores as I'm also the cover model on the big Steadicam book.

The Tango is wonderful, if a bit tricky to operate at first. I'm in the very fortunate position of being one of the first people to work with the Tango and being asked to help out in testing and perfecting both the machine and the operating of it. We are very busy trying to figure out how far we can push this technology and even how to teach it to people. It's hugely fun to be a part of that development process with Garrett and Jerry Holway (who is the other inventor for the Tango).

The coolest thing about it is not so much the huge boom range, which is nice, but the ability to stick the camera in weird places. You can maneuver the lens across tables, underneath stuff, or even through tight spaces like car windows and in-between objects. All this while maintaining the freedom of movement that the Steadicam already provides. Imagine a shot starting over a swimming pool, right in front of someone swimming and moving along low over the water. Then this swimmer gets out, the camera goes with them at eye level. So far a crane could do this but now the swimmer goes into the house to the bedroom to get changed and the camera goes along for the ride! Up stairs, while maintaining eye level, around corners and through doors. Now try to think of any other way to do this shot in one. That's just a simple example off the top of my head, it's very exciting to think of the stuff we can do with this simple machine!

And it'll be a relatively cheap add-on! Since it's just a system of ropes and pulleys it doesn't need to be expensive and it won't run out of batteries or have electronics that can crash. Very neat!

# ¿ Jun 10, 2010 06:16

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

exponentory posted:

Very cool! I've been following you (esp that great thread a while back) and Tire around Cinema Discusso, so I'm glad I found this thread! That's a really cool device, Garrett just doesn't stop innovating does he? I've seen that book too, funny that's also you on the cover.

We have a Merlin at work, which I haven't played with too much, but do you have any suggestions on a proper recipe for a 7D and a Canon 16-35 lens? The only proper stabilizer I've used is a varizoom Aviator, but I'm having a hell of a time balancing that Merlin!

Thanks! I completely lost those threads unfortunately. I know one of them did end up in the goldmine but it seems to have been purged. But I'm glad you enjoyed them, maybe I'll do another one some day.

I'm very grateful that Garrett still has the inspiration to innovate. I happen to know some other things that are being developed and it is awesome! The Tango is just the beginning

. Another thing that Garrett developed, that most people don't know about, is an application of Steadicam technology for industrial use and it is really cool! Using a custom gimbal construction and hard mounted Steadicam arm to allow line workers to manipulate heavy objects and throw them around with wild abandon. Not only is this great for workers' backs but it also allows the work itself to be done much more efficiently. Think of it as the rifle in Aliens that used a Steadicam arm and vest, but applied to factories. It's called the ZeroG. Just some trivia for ya'. oh and I'm not just on the cover, I'm all over that drat book!

As far as the Merlin is concerned, I'll be honest that I don't actually know much about it

. I know there's a cookbook out there for a lot of cameras but I've never used it. What I would suggest you do is balance the old fashioned way, the way we do it. Take a rod of some variety and use it to find the center of gravity of the camera with lens by putting the rod on the floor and rolling the camera over it, for fore and aft place the rod at a right angle and for side to side place the rod parallel with the camera, then mark the place where the camera is roughly balanced on the rod (I.e. not rolling in any direction). That point, both fore and aft and side to side together, is roughly the CG. I say roughly because you'll never get it to balance perfectly on a rod but this will get you close enough for the next step.

Now just attach the camera to the mounting plate with the marked point as close to the middle of the plate as the screw hole allows. This way, once you mount it to the Steadicam, you should already be very close to balanced. From there on out it simply becomes a matter of fine-tuning it with the fore/aft and side to side controls. Don't forget to add enough weights on the bottom to make the whole system slightly bottom heavy. Practise this routine a few times and you'll get better at it to the point where you won't even have to use the rod, you'll be able to guesstimate the approximate CG, and before you know it you'll be able to balance a rig in minutes. Hope this helps!

# ¿ Jun 14, 2010 12:23

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

I'm currently shooting my third feature as a DP and finally got the chance to use the 8mm UltraPrime! It was for a dream sequence. It is an amazing freaking piece of glass, though at 2.1 it is a bit on the slow side. I just wish I could justify using it more often but unfortunately it's a bit too gimmicky for general purpose shooting. But drat if the resulting image isn't spectacular!

Really tricky to light for though, since it can see almost around itself. And hiding your crew can be a challenge. And all that with no circular distortion and barely any softness in the edges (nothing noticeable anyway).

Only registered members can see post attachments!

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 19:24

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

Holy sexy glass! I've worked with (read: seen in the rental house) the Panavision Primo 10mm, and I used to marvel at not only the color, but the lack of barrel distortion. Someone made an 8mm distortionless lens? WIZARDS.

It's those sexy wizards at ARRI. Screw your ludicrously long 10mm Primo lens, that's waaaay too tight

. I'll see if I can get some framegrabs to post, should give you a very nice idea of the lens. It's most impressive near the edges, it just won't go soft or distort. Just wonderful straight lines. How they do it, I'll never know but I'm assuming magic and a few virgin sacrifices. That would also explain why it's so ludicrously expensive! And make no mistake, this is one of the most expensive pieces of glass you can imagine

# ¿ Jun 22, 2010 21:07

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

I found this awesome little camera app for the iPhone and have been using it extensively on my last film. It's called Toland Digital Assistant and it has a bunch of really handy features to help you keep track of your poo poo. Aside from the usual DOF calculations, which it does in a very elegant manner, it will actively adjust shooting stop for you as you set your filters, ISO, and shutter angle. It also allows you to create, and save, as many camera packages as you want so you can just create a little database of your frequently used packages and load it up as needed, and it will know what lenses are in there, what format your shooting, everything. And it will set up all your options accordingly. Works very fast.

Even nicer is the logging feature. It basically creates a very extensive camera report using all your data, it even uses the accelerometer to let you find the exact tilt angle of the camera (great for vfx). You can mail the log straight from the app too. My department loved the hell out of it and so does the post house! It doesn't have the same amount of functions as Pcam but what it does, it does so much more elegantly. It's not cheap at $39,- but I think it's totally worth it! Just thought I'd throw that out there for you all. Enjoy!

http://appshopper.com/photography/toland-asc-digital-assistant

# ¿ Aug 2, 2010 17:06

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

I think film schools of any kind need to be taken with a huge grain of salt as far as their value down the line goes. They are great places to learn about theory and get a chance to practice in a safe environment and ofcourse to network and meet people. It is, however, all of very little value once you get in the real world. Nobody really cares what school you went to and having that piece of paper will not get you any work.

If you go into it with realistic expectations and a definite idea of what you want to learn, you will have an enjoyable experience and meet people who could potentially get you in the industry. If you go into it expecting a piece of paper from an expensive school to get you work then you will be wasting your time. Most anything you can learn in film school can be learned quicker on set and with some google. In fact, being on set is probably a way better learning experience since you're forced to learn fast or leave fast.

What it boils down to, in my opinion, is don't worry too much about how expensive/well known a school is. It won't make a difference. Worry about what gear they have and what they can teach you.

I should add the caveat that I've never been to film school myself, but I've worked with enough students and lectured at enough schools to have a pretty good idea! I'm sure others who have been to film school will chime in with more focused answers.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2010 05:14

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

schmuckfeatures posted:

Crosspostin dis from the CG thread.

My producer wants to start incorporating a lot more matchmoved elements into the stories of the TV show I work on, and so basically I need to find a way to explain what kind of shots can and can't be matchmoved.

It'd be best to have somebody there on the shoot who's matchmoved stuff before, of course, and I've supervised on set quite a few times so I know what will and won't work. But since these guys shoot all over the world, that won't really be an option.

Is there any Cliffs Notes out there that would explain this kinda stuff succinctly to people who haven't done it before? Also, as camera crew guys, what have you guys found useful in terms of preparation for this kinda thing in a situation where detailed storyboards and previz weren't possible?

I think a simple explanation of tracking markers and why/how they are best used would be a good start. Also have them work on setting up a routine where they methodically log all the data you need as part of their on set administration, or as much as possible. Things like lens, lens height, angle of tilt, that sort of thing. Maybe even create a simple template cheat sheet that they should fill out as best they can for you each time a matchmove shot is made. Also make sure they always measure from the same point (focal plane is always good).

I think you're going to have to deal with a lot of less than ideal shots purely because they won't have the time to create an ideally marked and measured setup, that's why you're on set normally, but they should still be able to deliver plenty of usable material once they know what you need to work. I wouldn't worry about how to explain it because most camera crew will pick up on the logic quickly enough, I don't think you have to simplify it anyway. Just explain that you need as much reference as you can get to build your move and they will keep that in mind (if they're worth their salt that is). Maybe they can get a demo of how you actually matchmove an ideal shot so they'll understand what it takes. Show them the raw footage and then what your software does to it, followed by the result. You can explain what happens as you go along. That alone should do it, hour or two at your workstation and you're set.

The most important thing is that whatever they need to do for you should take minimal time away from their primary duties, so teach them how to find and use natural tracking points in the environment and things like that. I'm constantly amazed at how well shots can be tracked from very little information nowadays.

# ¿ Nov 10, 2010 10:31

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

schmuckfeatures posted:

This is all great, thanks for your advice duder. I've followed your posts for years so it's excellent to get feedback from somebody with your experience.

You're welcome and thanks for the compliment, now you've got me all shy! I feel bad that I've been away from this place for so long. I love helping people make pretty pictures

quote:

Yeah, that's why I'm thinking I may have to ask for a "Plan B" in case we end up with shots that simply can't be matchmoved in a reasonable amount of time. Usually there's always some kind of a workaround, but with the turnaround times we've got on this show we can't really be spending a week trying to fix a shot in post. Fortunately, though, they're only going to be wanting a couple of fairly simple elements to be thrown into the shot rather than doing full background replacements, and it's a stylistic thing rather than a fooling-the-eye VFX thing, so that leaves me with some wiggle room.

Sounds like a Discovery job

. Well "Plan B" might just be having a second, locked off, take of every sequence. Could even be a second camera if that's possible. Though a second camera wouldn't work if you have a host playing to camera but I don't know what type of show you're doing of course. If you're doing basic elements then maybe all you need is some simple tennis balls for every element you wish to add and track those. This could save some hassle and give the people on set some tangible feedback on how to make your elements interact with the real world. Does that make sense? Then you'd only need to know the camera's focal length and you should be good to go. It might also be worthwhile to have the crew take some HDR photos on location to help you with light matching, maybe even give them the old mirrored/grey sphere to photograph if you want to get fancy in your rendering. Though again, I have no idea what the show is so that may be way too much.

quote:

Interestingly, I've found that tracking markers are usually only needed if you're filming on a greenscreen set or in otherwise totally featureless environment.

Yeah that makes sense though because there's no other contrast markings for the software to track in a green screen environment so you have to add your own. Fortunately in the real world there's usually a whole bunch of natural contrasty pixels for the software to make use of. This has made life a lot easier from the early days of matchmoving. Having experienced some of the hassle involved with that, life is just so much better now that we don't have to take a whole day to shoot a matchmove composite with a stressed VFX supervisor yelling at us that we are doing it wrong! I was amazed that even simple grading tools have 3D motion tracking algorithms nowadays, and good ones too!

# ¿ Nov 12, 2010 12:57

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Andraste posted:

I get to gaff my first paid green-screen work this weekend, I've had green-screen in shorts I've dp'd and I've worked with it in my digital SFX class as well as in an editing class.

But boy, I'm still a little nervous about properly exposing it and using my lights to light the subjects without loving continuity or anything else.

Good luck buddy. Be careful with reflecting green back to the talent and, if you're matching light, pay close attention to the shadows. See if you can get it to 5.6 or 8, make that set hot cause it's cold outside.

# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 12:28

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

eclipse232 posted:

Thank you so much for the feedback I've been having a very hard time getting any opinions to match up. I assume the industry is in a flux with the introduction of digital formats and lack of standards.

It is a bit messy out there since almost every production has a slightly differing opinion on the most effective way to create and supply the material. The problem is that even a slight variation on an existing pipeline can throw a huge spanner in the wheels along the way somewhere, whether that's on set, during ingestion, the online footage, or the DI, or any of the steps really. So you end up pretty much reinventing the wheel ever so slightly depending on a production's demands, since there are so many variations possible at any step along the way. And most aren't particularly better or worse, just different ways to get the same result. That makes good communication and logging crucial, lest footage get lost! But it's always been this way, film can also be hosed up along the way. As long as you come to a good understanding about who needs what and how then there shouldn't be any surprises.

On my last production one of the drives got ingested incorrectly, leading to almost 15 minutes of footage disappearing and nobody at the post house bothered to inform any of us on set about it (where we could've done something about it). So we didn't find out until well into editing! Post house claimed the mistake was made on set, which I furiously denied since all the footage that left the set got checked immediately. We found out it was an ingestion error when the director connected the backup drive (an exact copy of what the posthouse got) to his own laptop and found all the footage there. I'm still not entirely sure how they lost almost 15 minutes, they never adequately explained it to me, but if the director hadn't taken it on himself to find out if it was really true, we would've needed to reshoot and an innocent crewmember's reputation would've gone to poo poo!

So remember your ABC...Always Be Checking!

# ¿ Nov 17, 2010 18:20

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

butterypancakes posted:

I can only hope that means fewer 3D movies, great news really.

Well that's just silly and is not going to happen, why would you want less work? And 3D is not just shot on RED either so there's plenty of cameras to take its place. Ofcourse it doesn't just affect 3D, it affects regular focus pulling as well.

All this means is it's something to keep in mind during initial checkout. In fact, the focal plane is something you should check on any camera before it goes to a shoot anyway, not just the RED. As long as the difference between cameras is known, this won't be an issue. It's still stupid that this kind of mistake is being made but it's not like it it's insurmountable. There's plenty of other things that the people at RED do that piss me off way, way more!

# ¿ Nov 25, 2010 11:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:33

Steadiman: Jan 31, 2006; Hey...what kind of party is this? there's no booze and only one hooker!

_{silly sevens}

Tiresias posted:

A friend of mine is a stereographer and Steadicam op here in LA, and he says the thing that'll make 3D bearable for the Steadicam ops of the world is the Element Technica Neutron rig with 2 RED Scarlets. I think they said the weight still comes out to 40-45lbs (13lbs with no cameras) just on the top stage. Spider-man 4 is using a 3ality rig with 2 Epics, and probably weighs more like 50-55lbs.

The two Epic rig is closer to 70lbs with the 3ality. PJ is using it on Hobbit too. It's not a lot of fun. Actually what makes 3d bearable is the SI2K. Slap two of those puppies on a light beam-splitter and stick it on a Steadicam Flyer and you're laughing through the whole 18 hour day. The quality is really good and the Cinedeck (aside from the software niggles) works pretty well to make it even lighter if used as your main monitor too. I have pictures of both setups if anyone wants them.

# ¿ Mar 15, 2011 13:57

The Something Awful Forums > The Finer Arts > Creative Convention > Cinematography thread: No film vs. video talk, dammit

«‹›4 »