Chris Smith
Forum Replies Created
-
Cool. Good to know. I’ve never heard of them. But I’ve never used MB either 🙂
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
Like Mylenium said, find out from the guy who is actually taking your files and putting them to film. But If you are doing ONLY vector type stuff that can be re-rasterized at any resolution you can start low res. However 16:9 isn’t used in any movies. That’s a TV widescreen format. Which equates to somewhere around 1.78:1. For movies you’re probably looking at 1.85:1 or 2:35.1.
Find out what aspect ratio the film your working on will be presented in.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
Super Rack has circles of confusion. You can set how many blades your aperture has as well.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
It’s old, but my fave has always been “Super Rack Focus” part of the “Image Lounge” plug-ins. It not only does a great lens defocus, but does it based on a matte. The matte describes the focal plane. You can actually use this matte to create DOF and animate the focus plane and do a rack focus with it. Very cool.
If it wasn’t so old skool, you could feed a gradient into it’s matte channel and do the ol’ swing tilt lens look.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
I see your point Ryan. However if what you are saying is actually true, I would be saving tens of thousands of dollars on each shoot by shooting video instead of 35mm to hand to my clients if they truly looked the same.
I don’t take the assumption that ppl asking questions are all noobs who already shot their work. At the same time I don’t assume the whole world shoots on film or should. I do take the assuption (often falsly) that somebody asking a question wants a much higher end look than they are actually asking for. In this case I try to offer two paths, If on video and if on film. If you watch TV you’ll see that more than 95% of music videos, commercials, and movies are shot on 35mm. I wouldn’t want to assume that all the Creative Cow posters are not part of this huge body of work.
But If somebody asks how to make video look like film and I disagree with that statement I will state my case and my case is certainly welcome to be ignored. Because once again, If I could make any video look like film (including HD) I would make a lot more money out of each shoot. The video vs. film thing can wage on in forums all over the world, but clients who pay lots of money to shoot with film and not video still drive my business. This is why Panavision and Arri are spending tons of cash to develop their digital film replacement cameras (which I personally will attest do look 99% like film except a tad bit of harshness on certain edges). “Superman” is being shot with the Genesis camera (Panavision) and it looks fantastic. So maybe the whole film vs digital debate can finally end anyways.
I do wish posters were more specific with questions like what level of work amount/quality the want to achieve. What format they are using. And what looks they would like to go for. But if they wanted to 100% imitate something using completely different equipment and techniques, I can’t in all consciousness pretend my suggestions will help them duplicate it exactly. I reserve the right to say how I know a trick was actually done (if I do happen to know) and give them the option or if nothing else learn how something is commenly done.
But like a post below somebody asked how to do the Tony Scott handcrank thing. Somebody posted good advice on how to get a look like that using AE in post. Will it look identical to using a modified Arri 435 with a hand crank jammed into it? Hard to tell.
my .02.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
I assume you are doing a pull back to frame something in particular? I don’t understand why you would need to incease your comp size to move the camera back. You comp should generally be your output size for your medium.
Having hard time understanding the purpose. If it were a real camera, you wouldn’t need to shoot a higher resolution format just to dolly the camera back.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -
I used to look for a book, but never found one. In the Telecin
-
The answer is to look like film you shoot film. But with some techniques you can achieve some more film like qualities out of video. Your biggest problem is the fact that video is basically 60 new images a second (fields) and there is a harshness about seeing this motion. You don’t have to do 24 fps, 30 is fine, but 30 true frames (progressive) and not 60 fields per second will look more film like. Just like a 24p HD cam doesn’t look like film, but a film camera running at 30fps still looks like film.
The deal is that if you use color correction, if you are aggressive enough with it, it won’t make it look more film like, it will just make what you are seeing vague enough that it makes it harder to pinpoint it’s source. Plus when ppl watch TV most extreme color correction is done in film transfer so the culture is subconsciously programmed that if they see something with heavy color manipulation they are used to seeing it shot on film. Where “most” of the time when an audience sees video it’s the same image that came out of the camera. Mostly becasue film workflow and video workflow are very different in most cases.
Plus your DOF will be extremely different 35mm. HD will be about on par with 16mm though. So it’s many factors other than color.
The best solution is to use “Magic Bullet Suite” which will take interlaced video and interpolate the fields to simulate a progressive fame, plus it gives you some color correction tools. However Color Finesse is the most articulate tool for AE color correction.
my .02.
Chris Smith
https://www.sugarfilmproduction.com -