Jump to content


Photo

1 minute of 35mm


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 September 2006 - 11:40 AM

I wanted to sow a small cut of something I shot on 35mm..pretty happy with it. Any opinions would be great.

http://www.mb-dp.com/MOSQT-MED.htm

Best
Miguel
  • 0

#2 Kar Wai Ng

Kar Wai Ng
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Toronto, Canada

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:02 PM

That's beautiful. What framerate did you shoot at for most of it?
  • 0

#3 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2250 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 01 September 2006 - 12:16 PM

hi . love womens backs , and when they are that nicely lit even better , very nice . John Holland .London.
  • 0

#4 WLphoto

WLphoto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Other
  • Tampa

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:04 PM

I loved it. Nice soundtrack too.
  • 0

#5 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 September 2006 - 01:59 PM

Hi thanks for the replys!

Well most was 24 fps but the water was 120 fps....and a shot fo her with warm curtains and desert outside was a mix of 40 fps and 33 etc...one shot was slow down to 70% (originally 24fps) and all expect exterios was insde a classroom lit mostly with 2k fire starter, 2 k fresnel midgets etc with diverse gels...the exposure ratios I dont remeber because it was lit by eye and then i jsut picked s pot i knew i wanted on a certain place in exposure and the rest was going to fall where i wanted it was 5279 process normally. I as well used a Canon rebel XT to see a visisual referene whic i sent to the lab.

Thanks!
Miguel
  • 0

#6 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 September 2006 - 04:18 PM

That's 35mm? No offense but the whole thing looked a bit flat and looked sort of DVish. Your artistic choice of shots were cool but the scenes didnt look very rich in texture. In fact, some shots looked a bit blown out. I also expected more skin detail for 35mm. I honestly have seen 16mm shots that were much sharper and smoother.

Edited by M.W.Phillips, 01 September 2006 - 04:19 PM.

  • 0

#7 Chad Stockfleth

Chad Stockfleth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 622 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Louisville, KY

Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:13 PM

I thought it was beautiful. Maybe a little grainy, but that might be the compression. Certainly not DV.
  • 0

#8 timHealy

timHealy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1252 posts
  • Other
  • New York

Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:14 PM

That's 35mm? No offense but the whole thing looked a bit flat and looked sort of DVish. Your artistic choice of shots were cool but the scenes didnt look very rich in texture. In fact, some shots looked a bit blown out. I also expected more skin detail for 35mm. I honestly have seen 16mm shots that were much sharper and smoother.



I would be careful of judging work compressed for the internet. I would use video on the internet as a guide, in the same way a video tap is used on a film shoot. Compressing a movie, song or photograph basically means that information is being thrown out. Watching this film or any other on a screen in a theatre would have a significantly different quality and experience.

Best

Tim

PS No I don't know the filmmaker but have edited and compressd plenty of my own material shot in film and seen how digital artifacts and compression starts to degrade an image from home made DVDs to Quicktime and Flash movies.

Edited by heel_e, 01 September 2006 - 06:18 PM.

  • 0

#9 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 September 2006 - 06:28 PM

well the video inline is a reference only.....the original one is rich and i am happy with it....black level is boosted up when compressed, detail went to hell etc....but if anyone wants to see a better version let me know it will just be a LOT bigger...
The grainy shots was somethign I wanted if you see some are the same shot i just made a 50% or 80% zoom in telecine which i like a lot i gives a nice feeling to it but thats a choice only. Actually contrast of orignal shots is pretty high it just got flat here.

Thanks for all the comments when I get a final cut i willupload it.
well as well if any1 has the time there is my reel online on www.mb-dp.com two feature films I did are not there yet.

Best
Miguel
  • 0

#10 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:18 PM

That's 35mm? No offense but the whole thing looked a bit flat and looked sort of DVish. Your artistic choice of shots were cool but the scenes didnt look very rich in texture. In fact, some shots looked a bit blown out. I also expected more skin detail for 35mm. I honestly have seen 16mm shots that were much sharper and smoother.


What does the "M" stand for in your name? (Which I thought was supposed to be a full name at this point) I wanted to look you and your resume up on IMDB but M.W. turns up nothing. Thanks!
  • 0

#11 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 September 2006 - 07:31 PM

I need to update my info my name is now Miguel Bunster anyway,...
Best
Miguel
  • 0

#12 Matt Workman

Matt Workman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NYC

Posted 04 September 2006 - 12:00 AM

It looked good but the compression (even on the high) was very distracting. :(

What did you compress this from? If you have a digi-beta or even DV copy I would suggest recompressing with H264 at a higher bit-rate to really show off the 35mm.

I like the shot of the man in shadows crouching below the window. You only could see the highlights of his face and shoulders. :ph34r:
  • 0

#13 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 September 2006 - 04:45 AM

What does the "M" stand for in your name? (Which I thought was supposed to be a full name at this point) I wanted to look you and your resume up on IMDB but M.W. turns up nothing. Thanks!


M stands for Matthew and my name was updated because Matthew Phillips was already taken on this forum. As far as looking up my resume, it's no use to do that as I haven't made one for imdb. I make indie films for the love of filmmaking, not to get a long list of stuff on imdb. As far as I know, I don;t have a page. Don't really need one, I suppose. One of my teachers back in college made films for 20 years for the love of filmmaking, made Sundance, Paris, Cannes, Toronto, about every fest you can think of and is not listed in imdb. Sometimes I think that people put themselves up there which, to me, defeats the purpose. I thought the point was that you had a credit of interest to the public.
  • 0

#14 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 05 September 2006 - 08:10 AM

M stands for Matthew and my name was updated because Matthew Phillips was already taken on this forum. As far as looking up my resume, it's no use to do that as I haven't made one for imdb. I make indie films for the love of filmmaking, not to get a long list of stuff on imdb. As far as I know, I don;t have a page. Don't really need one, I suppose. One of my teachers back in college made films for 20 years for the love of filmmaking, made Sundance, Paris, Cannes, Toronto, about every fest you can think of and is not listed in imdb. Sometimes I think that people put themselves up there which, to me, defeats the purpose. I thought the point was that you had a credit of interest to the public.



No problem. :) I was just curious as to the kind of work you do because you seem to go out of your way to "insult"(?) video whenever you can. Just thought maybe you have stock in Kodak or something. ;)

As far as IMDB goes, I'm not sure who runs it, but I don't think that people can "make a page" for themselves. I was as surprised as anyone to find that I had a listing. Somebody somewhere has some time on their hands as they comb through credits of almost everything out there. I don't know how they get their information but POOF, there it is! :)
  • 0

#15 Matthew W. Phillips

Matthew W. Phillips
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1792 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 September 2006 - 02:13 PM

No problem. :) I was just curious as to the kind of work you do because you seem to go out of your way to "insult"(?) video whenever you can. Just thought maybe you have stock in Kodak or something. ;)

As far as IMDB goes, I'm not sure who runs it, but I don't think that people can "make a page" for themselves. I was as surprised as anyone to find that I had a listing. Somebody somewhere has some time on their hands as they comb through credits of almost everything out there. I don't know how they get their information but POOF, there it is! :)


I think you take what I say wrong. I do not insult video really. In fact, my first shorts that I ever did were all shot on video. I used to be a serious digi-head who thought that film was dead because people like me couldnt afford it, or at least didnt think we could. I think what people can do with digital now is just light years ahead of what they could say 20 years ago. We now have 24P cameras at no-budget levels which is incredible. The latitude of video is increasing as well which is good news for many.

I was merely commenting that this clip, with its compression and all, looked different than most 35mm clips I have seen, compressed or not. I mean, when I watch movie trailers, they are just as compressed, but do not look like that. I cannot speak from experience of shooting on 35mm as I have never had THAT much money available as to shoot on that medium. I am merely commenting from watching others who have posted 35 footage.
  • 0

#16 Jason Debus

Jason Debus
  • Sustaining Members
  • 311 posts
  • Student
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 05 September 2006 - 02:29 PM

What did you compress this from? If you have a digi-beta or even DV copy I would suggest recompressing with H264 at a higher bit-rate to really show off the 35mm.


I would have to agree with Matt, perhaps encoding it with a better codec would help (H264 or Sorenson 3 are pretty good). The images look great though if you can get rid of the interlace & compression artifacts.

What are the Malcom McDowell clips from (just curious)?
  • 0

#17 joefunk

joefunk
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 25 September 2006 - 04:13 AM

Loved the shots!

Very beautiful but thought a relative audio track would enhance it even more, no??

Pro work,

like to see more,

cheers,
joe.
  • 0

#18 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 25 September 2006 - 08:01 AM

Very nicely done, a bit too rapidly edited for my taste, but still, very well done.
  • 0

#19 Miguel Bunster

Miguel Bunster
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 301 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 28 September 2006 - 10:10 PM

thanks guys for the imput. I am cutting the mos again to the original spec idea..
PS:Malcom McDowell shots are from my AFI thesis.
best
Miguel
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Opal

Tai Audio

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Tai Audio

Abel Cine