Jump to content


Photo

..


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 08 November 2007 - 09:51 PM

.
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 November 2007 - 11:54 PM

Looks very interesting -- I like the contrast. I'm not sure shooting clean would have been such a bad thing, or if you had used something much lighter than the net -- were you shooting interlaced-scan or progressive-scan? You would naturally get away more from the classic video look by shooting at 25P instead of 50i. This net in particular seems stronger than others I've seen used.

Even in the old days of hard lighting, it was not unheard of to use softened light for fill. In fact, you can see what looks like a 2K or 4K Soft Light reflected in Harrison Ford's glasses in "Raiders":

Posted Image

I did a short film a long time ago in the style of a 3-strip Technicolor movie and I made the decision to use hard lights for everything except the fill, which can from soft lights (Zips, etc.) -- but flagged to keep it directed somewhat.

Lighting with hard light is a great exercise because of how you learn to use flags, nets, and other grip items to sculpt it. And it really makes a difference in terms of how it is aimed, how high or low the key light is, etc. Plus learning to light backgrounds separately from faces sometimes.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 November 2007 - 10:58 AM

I like nets too, it's just these fuzzy frame grabs made it seem rather heavier than I'm used to seeing. I look forward to seeing some better frame grabs.

The hard lighting in particular works well for all of that wooden furniture.

The movie itself looks intriguing...
  • 0

#4 Ignacio Aguilar

Ignacio Aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Madrid, Spain

Posted 09 November 2007 - 11:17 AM

I usually like diffusion as well because it gives you a softer texture and beautiful halos around highlights. I have used some very light Pro-Mists for my last project (Super 16mm) to achieve this effect and still keep a decent contrast and sharpness.

For .. we saw some tests shot with the same camera and net prior to start shooting. The final effect, at DVD resolution, isn't as fuzzy and washed out. It will look more or less like a #1 filter, not as diffused as you see in these stills.
  • 0

#5 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 November 2007 - 11:29 AM

I've used nets only sporadically, like on a few scenes in "Big Love", using Bill Wage's black net. Someday I'll find the right project for using one throughout.

Was just watching "Four Feathers" on DVD again, shot by Robert Richardson in anamorphic using nets, which was lovely, similar to the diffused look he did for "Snow Falling on Cedars".

One interesting thing is that I noticed he set the net pattern so that it created a "+" rather than the more common "x" around points of light. Don't know why other than it made some of the flares from candles look more like the anamorphic horizontal flare.
  • 0

#6 Alex Hall

Alex Hall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Nashville, TN

Posted 14 November 2007 - 03:41 PM

How do you go about applying nets to the back of a lens? I apologize for the elementary question.
  • 0

#7 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 14 November 2007 - 05:43 PM

Whenever I shoot with the DVX100 which does not allow you to change lenses I am forced to apply the net on the front (again with an elastic band). Downside is that when you are not in focus you can often see the net in all of it's chain link fence glory (even at the long end because it's video), and also you can't go wider than somewhere between 15-10mm, which is rather restricting when shooting on the usual cramped interior locations you get with no/low budget shoots.


Sounds like you should try a thinner net, like black tulle. There is only so much you can expect from front-mounting on a 1/3" chip camera, though.
  • 0

#8 Mike Williamson

Mike Williamson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 14 November 2007 - 08:31 PM

You guys have an interesting looking project, I'm curious to see some more stills/QT when they're ready to go. I haven't worked with nets much, though I'm a big fan of Robert Richardson's work with them ("Snow Falling", etc.)

Using them with 1/3" chip cameras does seem risky, though. On a recent HDV shoot I did, we were outdoors in the nature constantly, so we ended up with dust on the lens fairly often. Watching dailies later, there were a few instances where we missed a dirt speck and you could see it nearly in focus on the front element of the lens, very frustrating. But it seems like Tim and Ignacio are pretty aware of the potential problems, hopefully none popped up in the footage.
  • 0

#9 Rupe Whiteman

Rupe Whiteman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 336 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 April 2008 - 08:20 AM

.... interesting sounding project - but only one of the frames seems to load up...?
  • 0

#10 Jason Outenreath

Jason Outenreath
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Director
  • Austin, Texas

Posted 24 April 2008 - 04:33 PM

Really beautiful work. 2 questions about nets.

1. I see the difference, but am having trouble articulating the look, could anyone articulate the visual difference in using black netting behind the lens (vs. no netting)?

2. What is the difference in using different colored netting (i.e. white, tan... ect..)?

Thanks, and really interesting and beautiful look.

Edited by Jason Outenreath, 24 April 2008 - 04:35 PM.

  • 0

#11 Dax McKeever

Dax McKeever
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 April 2008 - 02:14 PM

The black net adds a diffusion that creates that halation, makes the lights and highlights glow and softens the image (great for concealing skin blemishes and wrinkles on talent). Behind the lens means we minimise the chances of seeing it (the physical net pattern) unintentionally in focus, plus the effect is much more subtle than in front of the lens (although it invites a load of back focus issues on video)!

The difference in using coloured netting is down to the effect you are after- I prefer black nets because they keep the contrast in, which is something you don't get with white or tan (both of which by comparison lower the contrast as they are lighter colours, though tan is nice for a slight sepia effect). Thanks for your kind comments btw.

Rupe- all the images load OK for me.



Interesting forum. I'm a newborn with more work on-camera, and
seeking to enter film school and/or gain intern, PA, experiences?
THANKS FOR DOING WHAT YOU DO BEST. Good luck, cheers, y
a uds se mando abrazos,

Dax
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Tai Audio

CineTape

Opal

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

CineTape

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Abel Cine