It is also prudent to light the shot as motivated as the presumed (established) light source. A Lamp, maybe sunlight coming through the window or light coming in throug hthe doorway ....
How much light can a small room have in reality ? Always look at the light in the scene and start from there.
Mr. Mullen, sir. How is "Jeniffer's Body" coming along? What week are you in?
In a small space it becomes even more critical to find the right space with the right practical lamp in the right place so that it looks good just with the practical light. If I have to dolly 360 degrees around someone at a desk at night, for example, I will look at a lot of desk lamps to find one that can do most of the lighting for me.
Personally, I don't like using really small cameras for shooting features myself; they are great for running around handheld with but often hard to use on dollies doing smooth moves w/ complex operating and focus-pulling (I'm speaking of the limitations of using small DV cameras.) Not that some people don't pull it off.
The lack of an interchangeable lens is the only issue about the Scarlet that concerns me because I can't predict on a feature what sort of lenses the director will want to use.
So it really depends on the nature of the production and the style of filmmaking to be employed. If I'm going to do something in a classic narrative style, hardly any handholding, etc., then I'd probably want a more conventional camera design. If I'm going to do something for small-scale, intimate, running around in small spaces, etc. then the Scarlet design might be great for that sort of stuff.
But I'm not talking about anything that specific, just being aware of the tempo of the scene and asking yourself if you will be happy with it when you get into the editing room, especially if the scene or the movie runs long. It's more obvious in cases, like, when a 2-page dialogue scene takes four minutes to play out, then you have to ask yourself if the actors are indulging themselves too much.
One expression Alexander Mackendrick used to use with actors was "sooner, not faster". Meaning, don't act the scene faster in speed, but make your mental choices moment by moment sooner before you speak and move. Think faster, don't talk and move faster.
Could you elaborate on what factors determine the choice between the 1.85 and 2.35 ratios -- what enters into consideration, and what the advantages and drawbacks of each ratio are?
Things like the apparent (to me) need to move further from the action with 2.35 when one wants to show the physical layout of the scene [simply because of reduced vertical space], so that the actor's behaviours are more difficult to read. Is that a factor or am I somehow mistaken?
Great question Benfilm
I asked this at DVXUSER in 2006 and posted this list regarding Steven Spielberg
This may have gotten lost Cheese; what's your opinion on this? Steve shot Scope the first 7 / 10 times and only 3 of the last 13 times
I can't see any ryme or reason to the choices. Can you ?
Maybe throw Indy and Jurassic out of the equation due to sequel purposes
War of the Worlds 1:85:1
The Terminal 1:85:1
Catch Me if you Can 1:85:1
Minority Report 2:35:1
Private Ryan 1:85:1
Lost World 1:85:1
Schindler's List 1:85:1
Jurassic Park 1:85:1
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 2:35:1
Empire of the Sun 1:85:1
The Color Purple 1:85:1
Temple of Doom 2:35:1
Raiders of the Lost Ark 2:35:1
Close Encounters of the Third Kind 2:35:1
The Sugarland Express 2:35:1
Here is the thread:
Love to hear David's thoughts on this !
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|