Jump to content

squig

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    580

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by squig

    Follow up to B&H - Workers Unionize

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    6 hours ago, henryp said:

    Aside to squig -- if you're going to quote me, at least include the whole sentence. What I said was IF the allegations are untrue THEN maybe we don't need to reform. Context, eh.

    "In 2007, B&H had to pay $4.3 million to settle a discrimination claim by another group of Hispanic workers with jobs in the firm's Brooklyn Navy Yard warehouse."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/b-h-photo-discriminated-2-hispanic-employees-lawsuit-article-1.991286 

    http://heebmagazine.com/b-and-h-camera-lawsuits/31725

    http://hyperallergic.com/275052/federal-agency-finds-labor-violations-at-bh-photo-fines-company-32000/

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/19/nyregion/19bagels.html?_r=0

     Context, eh.

     

    Follow up to B&H - Workers Unionize

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    2 hours ago, Snowfun said:

    It would be a more relevant exercise, in this context, to use your eloquence and writing skills to produce a "Guide to Lighting" for our friend Zach and others (including myself) who are new to the techniques and methods used by the more experienced.

    Would you like fries with that?

    Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    3 hours ago, independent said:

    Yeah, but you're missing the point; are they choosing cameras based on what looks the most "cinematic" or what's right for the story, the production, etc.? 

    I'm not sure what the point about Walking Dead is - why wouldn't you shoot it on Red Epic? Would it be less "cinematic" than 16mm? It's one thing if they decide upon a certain aesthetic. But what's the likelihood that they all sat down and picked 16mm film because it looked the most "cinematic"? 

    I'm missing the point? :astonished:

    Firstly, "cinematic' has to be the dumbest word I've encountered on the filmmaking forums. The dictionary definition is: relating to the cinema, and: having qualities characteristic of films. In the 21st century an increasing number of films are shot digitally; not all those films look like they've been shot on film, some have been shot digitally and attempt to emulate the look of film, others have been shot digitally to deliberately look like video. Some films are shot on film with deep DOF, realistic color, and grain removed in post, and look like they've been shot digitally. So "Cinematic" doesn't have any real specific meaning, it's a misnomer. "Filmic" on the other hand does have meaning because "filmic" means something that looks like/emulates actual film stock. You can choose a camera that produces a "filmic" look to suit your story, or you can choose a camera that produces a "video" look, but if you're a director asking a cinematographer for a "cinematic" look, expect the cinematographer to shake his head and/or laugh.

    You wouldn't shoot The Walking Dead on a Red Epic because it would take a lot more time and cost a lot more money to get the deliberate lo-fi S16mm look right in post. If I was asked to shoot The Walking Dead digitally I'd shoot it with the Digital Bolex. You choose the camera that best tells the story you want to tell (within your budget), it's as simple as that.

    Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    16 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

    Whole film on a 24mm, yuck. It needs a 35/50mm for the close-ups other wise a film is going to look very very dull, maybe a short.. A 24mm gives pretty bad perspective distortion for actors and couldn't be used as one one unless the story strongly required that specific need, even then I would never do it ALL.
     

    Kubrick used wide lenses a lot. If I remember correctly most of Eyes Wide Shut was shot with a 19mm lens. 2x anamorphic lenses create a distorted perspective and many great films have been shot exclusively with them. Victoria was all shot in one take btw. 

    28 minutes ago, User said:

    I understand that some camera can have an overly sharp 'electronic' image which can set the stage for criticism, but I'm curious to know if anyone else finds many of the shots in 'Micro' to be soft?

    All due to the run and gun nature of the shoot.

    Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    It might have been a 25mm Zeiss lens :grin:

    Yeah there's some very jerky shots in 'Victoria'. In situations like that when I want to run and gun and still pull focus I use a Steady Tracker. I still get that fast paced handheld type energy in the shot, but it smooths things out enough to keep the audience from puking on each other. The global shutter in the micro cine will be perfect for that scenario. I've got a Ronin-m, but sometimes it's just too smooth to create the frantic energy I want in a shot.

    Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    As I mentioned I'm getting a speed booster for all my Leicas (16, 24, 28, 35, 50, 60, 90, 135) to complement the hyperprime, however you can shoot a whole film with a 35mm equivalent lens; check out the German film 'Victoria' all shot with a 24mm lens on a C300. I checked out the bokeh of the SLR magic and thought it looked really creamy. The Sigma bokeh is very nice too, but I wanted something with a more vintage look to match my 70s era Leicas. Agreed the Sigma is the best compromise.

    The Hollywood Sheen Continues to Dull

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    Hollywood and the Australian government have almost completely destroyed the Australian film industry. The govt pours millions of dollars into subsidizing Hollywood films while Aus filmmakers struggle to fund their projects. Local talent has to emigrate to survive. Australian audiences are weened on Hollywood films, and good Australian films are largely ignored. Countries like France, Germany, Norway, and the UK value their filmmakers and give them the support needed for their local industries to thrive. If the current policy doesn't change soon Aus will be nothing more than just another Hollywood backlot.

    Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    Quite 'filmic'. The thing that sets the 1Dc apart from most DSLRs is the motion jpeg codec. Real 24 frames per second, and better color than that interpolated interframe H.264 bastardization. The Nikon D90 was mJPEG too, much nicer cadence than interframe codecs. But right now for me nothing short of a 5DMK3 raw, Alexa, or F35 touches the micro cinema camera for an analog look.

    The Importance of Trusting Your Own Opinion

    In: Cameras

    Posted

    Unfortunately our art has been corporatised and industrialised. I don't need awards to feed my ego, I need them to put food on the table. I make films because I have something I need to say about this insane world, and there's no better way to say it.

    The most talented artists always question themselves, most of them think their work is shit. Just watch Coppola melt down in 'Hearts of Darkness' (one of my favourite films).

    I've been in the entertainment business since I started DJing at house parties when I was 16. I put on my first rave at 20, and put out an ARIA award winning album on a major label at 29. I've seen other talented people make it while others crashed and burned. Fear is the number one enemy, procrastination is another. I think fear is what causes the procrastination. Self doubt can be a real killer. I know a guy who trashed the files every time he made a track because he thought his tracks were shit. He's a far more talented composer/producer than me.

    Because I worked in a record shop and DJ'd for 15 years I developed a sense of what makes a track interesting to people. Like Ed said aesthetic is subjective, but there's certain key elements in music and in film that can make or break either. Tarantino's success comes from many years learning the language of film, same goes for Scorsese. Both of them are masters of nailing a score too.

    My formula for figuring out if my music/screenplay/film is up to scratch is to compare it to other work in the same genre and determine whether my work hits the same marks. To do that I have to put myself in the shoes of my audience. It's like an out of body experience where you have to try to leave your ego behind and just see whether your work entertains you as an audience (you're gonna have to figure out for yourselves how to chill the fuck out). I'm sure everyone here has some experience entertaining themselves. One thing that really helps is to walk away from your work for a while. If you're working on something all the time you're gonna be too precious and either think it's amazing or a piece of shit. I put my screenplays down for months and then I do a reading purely to entertain myself. It's then a lot easier to make the changes I need to make it interesting enough to play to an audience.

    The album I produced was 4 years, over 30 tracks, and a mountain of pizza boxes and zip tie bags in the making, and it wasn't until the night we recorded 'The Last Track' that I knew it was good to go. How did I know? When you get that feeling I got that night you'll know. This film I'm planning to shoot this year's been a full-time job for the past 7 years. Persistence and madness are every bit as important as talent.

    End rant. Now back to the joy of my film site design clusterfuck.

     

×
×
  • Create New...