Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:38 AM
The following stills come from a shoot I did here in Philadelphia on 5260. The film deals with language barriers (it's a short) and we rolled on a BL4 with Ultra Primes, lovingly rented to us by DuAll Camera up in NYC. The Lab was NFL Films who also handled the best-light dailies. Final color correction (which these stills are a rough approximation of) will be done by Shooters Post and Transfer here in Philadelphia. For the crew I had my usual out with me (Chrissy McD as 1AC, Jay "Fuzzy" Wasley as Sound, as well as Steve McBride who graciously came down from NYC. Film was Directed and Produced by Eric Itzi, with whom this is my 3rd project (2nd he's directed)).
We shot over a period of 2 days here in Philadelphia, late at night, and of course under pressure from one hostile location; alas.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about the film, yet. Like 99% of the things I've shot I am always a bit dissatisfied in the end, but I offer you up the stills and would be happy to answer any questions and field any critiques. (p.s. excuse some compression artifacts from my quick photoshop corrections)
Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:50 AM
nice compositions and staging on these. Love the one with the neon sign! I am however, but quite surprised how grainy some of these are. Especially the first one, the close up of the girl. What did you rate it at? Did you push? Or was the film old?
Posted 23 November 2009 - 08:56 AM
here's an example right out of the pro-res file.
Even here i'm a bit surprised by the grain... .
Posted 23 November 2009 - 09:09 AM
As am I. It was fresh stock we shot on, rates @320 believe it or not. Now, some of the grain comes from me playing 'round in photoshop, but it was certainly there in the video HD dailies as well, which is also VERY odd. Now, I seem to recall under-exposing a bit on purpose, so I'm pretty sure they pulled it up when doing the dailies transfer, which I then brought back DOWN in photoshop.
had you not specified what this was shot on I'd have guessed S16! Now, I haven't much experience with 35mm, never shot anything myself, but still, I am very surprised to see that amount of grain! Are you sure it's not on the neg as well? Maybe their soup was off that day? To me it looks almost liked pushed, especially on that first still!
Posted 23 November 2009 - 09:15 AM
I have some other '60 out from another project that went through a different lab/post house, so once I get some of that I'll probably throw it on this thread as well for some comparisons. This being my first time on '60... I expected some extra grain (500T afterall) but, you are right it does remind me a lot of '18 in S16mm...
Posted 23 November 2009 - 11:55 AM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:34 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:43 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 12:49 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:26 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 01:51 PM
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about the film, yet. Like 99% of the things I've shot I am always a bit dissatisfied in the end . . .
Ditto on that, but that is the only way to move forward. There is always room for improvement, no mater how good the results. The sure sign of a true professional, or so I have been told.
Stills look very good. Love the fall off light on the kids face in the second still. Your overall style (of what I see here and in the past) reminds me of Lance Accord, which is good, not too many people can claim that.
I always hate it when the colorist ignores the DP's instructions. The grain doesn't bother me here, (although it does in my own pictures sometimes ). But hey, if we didn't get grain, we'd be shooting HD, right?
Looking forward to seeing the finished product.
Posted 23 November 2009 - 02:10 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 02:39 PM
In the end I'll settle for a happy medium and over here on my MAC i know i'm not properly calibrated
Thanks Saul. here's hoping i'm getting better and i'm a little bit blushed at the remembrance to Mr Accord.
Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:14 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:26 PM
We had thought about S16mm, but, to be quite honest, the money was there for 35 and I really wanted to bring out the Kodak 5260 which is a 35mm only 500T stock, based on a test roll I had shot furnished by Kodak. And, I suppose the simple answer is luck. Granted we got a great deal on our camera package for the weekend from DuAll (800 I seem to recall which included the camera a heavy duty tripod lenses/mattebox). So here's hoping the edit holds up and it actually gets finished. We'll see.
What also helped was the lack of dialogue (for the most part) and the very slim ratio. The director rehearsed a lot and we planned out each and every shot so as not to shoot unnecessary coverage. I think the worst of our shots was something like 4 or 5 takes. Most were 2-3 takes and a few we chanced and went with the first take. We were lucky, no hair/scratches on the whole thing, there there was a bit of weave in one of the wide shots from day 1.
It's odd that I seem to be a bit outside of the film-world in terms of these pressures to shoot HD-- for the most part. I actually got a little chided recently for NOT wanting to shoot film (S16mm) on a project. I didn't suggest it because I assumed it was out of budget... makes me wonder how much more of a day-rate I could've asked for...
Here in Philadelphia, at least in my experience with the group of people I have 'round, there seems to be a continued appreciation and love for film and I try to keep a certain honesty with production about what format I think best suits the story. Of course, i'm not immune to budgets, either, hence why so much stuff I've done of late has been on the Sony EX series of cameras. Though for shorts, such as this, I seem to be able to roll 50/50 in terms of film v video, and in this case, I guess I just got lucky. But, sometimes I'd rather be lucky than good!
Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:40 PM
Posted 23 November 2009 - 03:41 PM