Jump to content


Photo

Urgent help for short film


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Martin Amezaga

Martin Amezaga
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
  • Student

Posted 08 November 2005 - 11:08 PM

Hi,
Im shooting a scene for a short film next Tuesday 15th. I`ve been having some trouble deciding on how to get the results I`m after. The short was entirely shot on DV but the final scene, an interior sex scene in wich all the intrigue is finally revealed, will be shot on 16mm using an Eccalir, running at 75 fps to higlight the sexuality of the scene. The two characters involved in the scene are having sex while fooling around whith a polaroid camera. We are trying to achieve a morning look in wich all the set is barely exposed by the little light coming across the closed blinds but allowing the viewer to notice the movements of the actors. We?ll be doing closed shots, like close ups and detail shots of other parts of the actors bodies and we are triying to use a soft and flatering to the skin source that could wrap the actors and go in to shadow very rapidly(¿this is called fast fall off?), like the Kodak vision 2 stock advertising in wich a blonde woman somking, I?ll try to get that photo.
I?ve been reading some posts and this seems to be an option to achicve the morning look, except for the the hard source for edging part:
*For me, I love a large, soft source really far away (I mean REALLY far) through a window. The light becomes hard again at these distances, but retains a beautiful soft quality, with very little fall off. I then cut this was several branches at different distances, slightly moving as David describes. I then take a very hard source (a xenon into a mirror being my favorite) and allow a "chunk" of this light to edge things out a bit, or just add some "excitement" to the set.
Kevin Zanit

¿Is little fall of what I?m after?

That is one isue, here comes the tricky part. We want to somehow emulate the flash of the polaroid flashing the actors faces upto the correct exposure. Something like the code-46 scene in the disco where the actors are flashed by a stroboscope light.

We did some tests, we used two 300 fresnels through a full cto to light the subject and the set two stops under, and a 2k fresnel with a cardboard that we moved infont when needed in order to achieve the effect of the flash. The problem was that we almost fried the talent and the result did?nt look very nice.

As we are students we only have budget for some basic lighting: 2x 300 watts fresnels
2x650 watts fresnels
2x250 watts tota.
1X1k fresnel.

We are shooting using fuji F-250T tungsten stock.

Any help will be enormously epreciated.

Thanks from Chile
  • 0

#2 David Silverstein

David Silverstein
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Student
  • New York City

Posted 13 November 2005 - 03:27 PM

I cant help you with your question but all I have to suggest is not shooting on 75fps. After like 1 min your gonna have to switch rolls. Wasting ALOT of money for something thats not that important. 24fps or 30 fps well do the same if not better capturing more light instead of being faster getting less light.
  • 0

#3 Laurent Andrieux

Laurent Andrieux
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1527 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • France

Posted 26 November 2005 - 08:47 PM

David,

I'm afraid you don't get it. Sure the film will be passed faster. Sure it will need more light, but it's not

Wasting ALOT of money for something thats not that important

since the film will still be used/projected at 30 fps. It's a slow motion effect, so that it will not "do the same" as if it was shot at 24 or 30 fps. It will create an aesthetical effect.
  • 0

#4 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 26 November 2005 - 09:28 PM

David, running the camera at 75 fps is called "overcranking." It is normally run at 24, so when run at 75 you'll take a lot more pictures every second. When the footage is shown, it will be shown at the normal rate of 24 fps. This will cause the film to be in slow motion, because what would have taken 1 second now takes 3 seconds. The opposite is "undercranking," where there are less images taken every second, so everything seems to be sped up. With film, this effect is most often done in production insetead of in post.
  • 0

#5 Andy Sparaco SOC

Andy Sparaco SOC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 203 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Chicago and most airline lounges

Posted 26 November 2005 - 10:41 PM

You might consider a different approach entirely.

If you shoot at 6 to 9 frames per second and transfer at 6 to 3 frames per second you will get a slo mo effect that will be very strob/ blurry like .
The advantage is you increase the effectiveness of your lights because you have the effective exposure of 1/12th of a second-which gives you very nice motion blurr. So in effect you quaduple your lighting.

Also 100ft lasts 10 minutes so 400 feet will last 40 minutes at 6FPS. When I do this I go to a transfer house that bills by the foot not by the hour.


You got to think outside the box when you do not have resources.

Edited by asparaco, 27 November 2005 - 08:28 AM.

  • 0


Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Tai Audio

Visual Products

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

CineLab

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery