The short looks great.
The short looks great.
I was a little distracted by the heavy eyeliner, unless her lashes really are that thick...
I didn't see much to improve on -- obviously you could have waited for even nicer light in some locations, but not everyone can wait for the perfect weather and time of day. A few shots it looked like the focus was off. Maybe you could have added a little more contrast when the light got really flat outside, with some negative fill and/or some added contrast in post.
Hope you don't mind another comment on your short Shawn. Not being David , so take mine as it is. I really liked the short and agree with David on the adding more contrast. As a colourist, I would have loved to have pushed a bit more on that end, just for a little more punch, but overall it is all very nicely done, especially considering you light sources.
Hello David, After having shot on both film and then RED (I presume you have..?) and other formats and cameras - in your opinion is RED the second best thing after Film?
I haven't taken my RED footage out to 35mm film for comparison in a film print, so I don't have any final opinions in regards to RED versus 35mm film.
My unscientific and subjective opinion right now, if the best picture quality in a 35mm theatrical print was the ultimate goal, I'd say that any large format film process (IMAX, VistaVision, 5-perf 65mm) would look the best, followed by 35mm anamorphic photography contact-printed.
After that, it's a toss-up between Super-35 going through a D.I. and some of the digital cameras I've seen, including the RED. Some visual aspects are better than others with all of them. I'd have to shoot some real comparison tests to make up my mind. I've been a bit disappointed with some of my Super-35 footage that has gone through a D.I. pipeline so I'm curious to take a 4K Bayer RAW camera project through the same pipeline and see if I'm happier or not. Otherwise, I'd almost rather do what Wally Pfister did with the first Batman movie, just shoot 35mm anamorphic and contact-print it.
But it does say something that I still think that the ultimate picture quality still comes from a film format, albeit a very expensive and cumbersome one (IMAX).
We work in the real world though where other things have to be factored in to our decision-making process, including cost. 4K digital cinema cameras have the potential for a decent cost-to-quality ratio.
Yes I love RED and have even spoken about the death of film in 15 years (nope I don't want to go there) yet there is just something about film that makes me sigh.. like it's ALIVE.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
I have an opportunity to look at some HMI's with magnetic ballasts. Originally going with low budget kinos, lanterns etc... but these are arris and good price. Are they worth the enquiry? 2.5k, 6k, 4k some smaller ones... One is a 2.5k par i believe...
Arri lights will last forever, they are a good investment. Mag ballasts are a lot more reliable than electronic, and as long as you obey the rules, there should be no flicker issues.
Buying Arri is always a good choice. All parts are still in stock, and Irem is still making the Ballasts, so no worries there.
I have an older Arri 2.5k and a 4k. I ditched the mag ballasts for electronic as the mags were so freaking heavy. I mostly use 1.2 and 575 because most of my shoots don't include a genny, and without a genny these bigger lights are useless. Great on the bigger jobs though.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|