Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

M-X at ISO 2000...

Hans von Sonntag said:
Somewhere in this thread David Mullen said: "...the next stylistic trend will be away from realism just because the style pendulum always starts to swing the other way at some point."

I cannot agree more. While more sensitivity extends the performance of a camera vastly it does not necessarily lead to better, more artistic films. Available light, low budget, etc... is no art per se.
I shot tons of commercials, music videos and whatnot with a "documentary, pulled-out-of-life" realistic style, oftentimes with a exaggerated realism (commercials) and must say: Shallow focus, Danish Dogma approach on photography and dialog is out. At least for me. The next projects will be unrealistic, hysterical, over the top and surely not desaturated.

Hans (all for MX) von Sonntag
Click to expand...

Creative directors here in Montreal and in NYC agree with you on this trend watch. 'Hyper realism" (which was usually faked anyway, I remember adding grime to a set bathroom to make it look more "documentary") is totally out. I myself never liked it. It makes me depressed. Besides, what is "reality". My loft here looks nice. There are no people with bad skin or torn clothes in it, the lighting is careful, the bathroom is clean. Yet it is my "reality", it is not a fictional space. Why should misery be considered more real than happiness? This is somewhat of a sick perspective on life, in my opinion.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
Besides, what is "reality". My loft here looks nice. There are no people with bad skin or torn clothes in it, the lighting is careful, the bathroom is clean. Yet it is my "reality", it is not a fictional space. Why should misery be considered more real than happiness? This is somewhat of a sick perspective on life, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well even the criminals nowadays are fashionably dressed, have better skin, nicer places & furniture, so the crime dramas look as slick and nice as anything these days!

But if it's a question of having a budget for a feature of $50K or so, with a Red with more light sensitivity you'd have more options, that's all. At least the film could be made, as opposed to not made at all. I would say that's a plus.
 
Steve Dent said:
But if it's a question of having a budget for a feature of $50K or so, with a Red with more light sensitivity you'd have more options, that's all. At least the film could be made, as opposed to not made at all. I would say that's a plus.
Click to expand...

If not having 800 ASA was stopping low-budget movies from getting made, well, that seems a bit like an excuse because somehow people have managed before when being limited to 320 to 500 ASA. It's hard to think of many productions that absolutely could not have started-up without the availability of an 800 ASA sensor.
 
Julio Quintana said:
It's hard for me to imagine a $50,000 feature that would be seriously impaired by a little graininess.
Click to expand...

To me the point here, and the excitement over this new noise floor, is that those $50k features will look a lot better. There is a lot you cannot do (currently) with digital and small budgets because of limited lighting budgets. We did a $500k feature a few years ago (Michael C. will know it, he was a big help in getting it done) where there were quite a few night scenes with cars on a racetrack. Shooting to DVCPRO HD (Varicams/HVX's/Iconix to DVCPRO decks) we had a bitch of a time getting useable images that weren't terribly noisy. HDCAM cameras were too big and too expensive to be strapping to racecars. Film was out of our budget given the extensive coverage we needed on this show. We used what would give us the best image for our buck at that time. Were we shooting that feature 6-months from now the new latitude in M-X would make a world of difference in achieving better results under the same constraints.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
There's a pretty big difference between "our movie will look better in low-light with a faster sensor" and "our movie couldn't get made without a faster sensor". I can buy the argument for the first more than the second.
Click to expand...

Agreed. You can make any film for any budget. As long as you (the filmmaker) understand that whether it will be any good or not has nothing to do with how much money you spend.
 
**WOW**!!

Just wanted to drop in and add my expletive declaration. I took the 3rd photo (without the match) and did some levels adjustment and the background is near blown out, and now can see Leo's face, where it was in pitch black before. And from a web compressed jpeg.

**WOW**!! Can this kind of stuff even be done with film, at all?

I'm hoping to purchase two S35 Scarlets for my department at UC Berkeley. Have the money already set aside in my budget. Can't wait.

Best,

Dillon
 
David Mullen ASC said:
It's hard to think of many productions that absolutely could not have started-up without the availability of an 800 ASA sensor.
Click to expand...
You know... all those candle lit green screen films. ;)
 
This kind of noiseless images can be done with an upgraded Red One (sensor only) or do we have to upgrade to an Epic X camera
 
Alberto Sanchez said:
This kind of noiseless images can be done with an upgraded Red One (sensor only) or do we have to upgrade to an Epic X camera
Click to expand...

These were shot with upgraded RED ONEs.

Jim
 
You can push 500T stock by two-stops to get to 2000 ASA. It will be grainier and contrastier though than at 500 ASA with normal processing. It would be grainier than this MX sensor image at 2000 ASA. But there have been plenty of film images shot in low-light by the light of a match or candle up close to a face.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
You can push 500T stock by two-stops to get to 2000 ASA. It will be grainier and contrastier though than at 500 ASA with normal processing. It would be grainier than this MX sensor image at 2000 ASA. But there have been plenty of film images shot in low-light by the light of a match or candle up close to a face.
Click to expand...

I would almost like to see the Leo-shot on film, red-one, and red-one MX... or any shot for that matter... mainly the comparison of red-one and red-one MX... because as great as this MX sensor is... the original red-one sensor is still pretty damn good... just like to see how it differs from MX with a direct comparison. (Maybe there is one and I just haven't looked hard enough...?)

-cc
 
Steve Dent said:
Well even the criminals nowadays are fashionably dressed, have better skin, nicer places & furniture, so the crime dramas look as slick and nice as anything these days!

But if it's a question of having a budget for a feature of $50K or so, with a Red with more light sensitivity you'd have more options, that's all. At least the film could be made, as opposed to not made at all. I would say that's a plus.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... But I stand behind: make your script better, and maybe you'll get more financing. Too many indies shoot bad scripts, with wrong casting, because they are in such a hurry to "go out and shoot something". There is not enough thought time in pre-prod, not enough thought behind the whole thing. Even the script concept should be original, and you should be as tough on yourself as the suits will be on you. How many indy films are about drug/weapon deals gone wrong, where the main character is unlikeable and the basic dramatic requirements of good guy / bad guy and conflict arcs between them are not met? (Basically, where the audince has no one and nothing to care about or root for, no reason, really, to keep watching) How many more films like this do we really need?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top