Frank Otto
Forum Replies Created
-
Could be the light requirement for the sensors are huge, dunno…we were seeing 48 1200w and 575w moving light units mixed with 100 1K and 2K Source Four pars plus four xenon followspots, xenon color washers.
Heavy backlight and at times I thought I’d need welders goggles it was so bright – easilly 500fc if not more, occasionally. Many white and metalic costumes to boot against dark skin, dark set and drape with brilliant and over saturated cycs. I saw a good bit of detail in the white areas in the vf where I expected total blow out and the director was monitoring via a 24″ crt in the back of the house – and he commented on the detail in the gold headresses.
Unfortunately, I didn’t get to see the footage – I’ll have to wait until its release…
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
Nice stuff Bruce…and your shoot makes one of my points – you shot with equipment for a specific distribution and met or exceeded the technical requirements of that medium by utilizing your skillset AND good choices (or compromises) in lighting techniques and technology.
As Bruce noted…strong backlight and diffused frontlight with diffused focus background is a easy enough setup. But – can your imager handle it? Can you meet the resoultion needed for detail not to get lost? Or blow out the foreground detail?
It’s part of the consideration necessary if you want to achieve any look – along with: Where is it going? How will it be viewed and on what device? Are there technical needs and limitations that have to be met before those of “art”?
Tim also pointed out (in his fine post) that no one mentioned cameras or settings – again, the shoots I mentioned, everything was chosen for the final distribution of the product – “Freewill” was shot with a Arri 35BL2 with a Schneider 10×120 T2 at or about T8/f8 on an odd 400iso AFGA stock, with designs to be theatrical – ended up on VHS – clearly overkill.
The Nissan spot was shot with a Panavision 35/Cooke 18mm T2 lens at around T4/f4 and it was all going to HD in Japan. “High Desert” was shot with an IkegamiHL79/Cannon 18x1F1.8 on standard BETACAM. It was shot and lit as if it were 16MM, processed with “FilmLook”tm and distributed on PAL – VHS.
Right now, I do a lot of 720×480 MPEG (both 4×3 and 16×9)distribution currently – it’s the distribution flavor our client/servers work with, and we shoot with DVCPro 25/50 gear and Panasonic F525 cameras with Canon glass and post with Avid/Vegas/PremierPro/AE. Not the most expensive gear but we light what we need to and take advantage of the architectural surroundings and available light to keep our lighting to a minimum. And for the most part we get pretty pictures.
Then again, sometimes art just happens – just ask Steve Miller.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
[Tim Kolb] “My personal suggestion to you would be to look around you every day”
That’s probably the most dead on advice you can give, Tim.
A job I had coveted went to another and I’d asked why. The producer said, “You know how to make pictures, send me your reel when you learn how to see pictures.”
Changed my life…
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
And consider U.S. producer Roger Corman. The master of no-budget, low budget film. The master scrounger used sets from other films, standing sets, in some cases standing lights (blocking action to use existing set ups.) Along the way dozens of stars and revered members of various crafts began their careers with him. His $1.98 films have grossed millions over the years and, even with the label(by the critics)of tacky and poorly directed are part of the Hollywood look that other directors emulate today.
And speaking of Kubrick, (who could spend millions on a shot if necessary) one of the most exquisitely lit films ever produced was “Barry Lyndon”. Huge crews, tons of lighting (big-assed carbon arc 20k lights by the dozens), huge cast and plenty of movement. I always reccommend this film and “Day Of The Locust” as the most “Hollywood” looking films…as far as technical quality to classes that I lecture.
But…Time AND Money made those films.
Chris makes my earlier point that it can be done and maybe should be done by spending time. But not just the production.
Take classes in art – not how-to, but study the works of many artists. Study their eye for light and composition. Study architecture…see how artists and society contribute to building…anything whether it be offices, schools or homes.
And lastly, study society – not just today’s but globally and historically. Learn all that is learnable about the reasons behind culture including religion. All of this has to do with your craft and getting the look.
I say this because too many of the folks getting into this business know only the gear. They learn how to operate in school and they ask in this forum and others for “basic set-ups” and “standard methods” when there is no such thing. Yeah, you may set up the same shot, over and over…but is it really? Is that the same wall, the same action, the same motivation, the same story? Probably not. For an example of what happens when you shoot everything the same way, just look at all the television product from Universal in the 70’s and 80’s – regardless of theme or storyline, Columbo looked like Quincy looked like McMillan looked like Models Inc looked like McCloud…
Image makers (and I use the term for film, video or any art) need to understand more. Read articles from American Cinematographer, read interviews with DP’s, many who state that the Director will have a look in mind that resembles a certain painting or period…what I’m saying is the more you know about stuff that isn’t in a tech manual the better you be able to understand how to visualize the look and then apply known technical paramaters to it.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
Thanks, Mike…but there’s still so much to learn – I am so behind on transmission and delivery, storage modes and a lot of the digital hoo-haa.
Of course, it’ll all change next week.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
In those cases without a scope, I’ve lit the bg right to the clip (in this case 102ire) then lit the talent all while viewing on a calibrated crt until it was a balanced look between white and skin tone.
I’ve also done the bg to 98ire – or the top of the zebra and matched talent levels, then slightly boosted chroma in post to push the talent when I couldnt increase lumanace or alter black level.
I just used the HDV to shoot a overly lit, overly bright Vegas stage show for DVD release – the camera seems to handle a much wider brightness lattitude for a DVcam considering the size of the sensor/imager. I also like the color monitor/lcd on the camera…the ones we used were pretty true for colorometry.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
[virgilxavier] “obviously there is a tremendous gap between what I can do in a few minutes with limited resources”
Time and/or money.
The “hollywood” look isn’t limited to hwood…or feature films. It is limited to…time and/or money.
And we all like to say it’s the skillset of the DP and labor – you know the quote,”in the hands of a talented DP a video camera can look like 35mmm…” but that’s so not true. A 1/2″ or even a 2/3″ccd hasn’t the depth of modulation, resolution nor the colorometry of 5274 or 5279 stock and our current post for digital imaging is still only working on 10bit information recorded on digital/magnetic stock vs. the equivelent of 120bit information from the analog/chemical stock.
A “commercial unit”, (that is to say, professional producion of anything) will wait all day on location, rehearsed and in place, until the moment comes along when the lighting is just right. One shot we had for “The Wiz” at the old World’s Fair/Flushing site began at 4am with set up to 9am – sound playback rehersals until 2pm and then wait until 5:15 to do one shot of the principals walking on the yellow brick road to get the right “glow”.
Time and money.
Consider the shot I pulled for “Freewill” required coming out to the same location twice because of cloud cover occluding the full moon – the director was insistant that the moon be realized as the key light and be visable in the shot. I set a 1200w HMI on a 40’mast, poking over the trees – on camera it looked like a full moon but the director didn’t buy it…
Did it make a difference? No, the shot looked the same but it wasn’t “real” enough for the director. And his budget allowed for his arrogance.
Time and money.
We shot a spot for Nissan-International in just under three hours. One driver/talent for one car driving thru downtown L.A., three camera car drivers, two gennie ops, three gaffers, a D.P. and a director and A.D. Three camera cars provided lighting for the car, street and background…car C had four 6-color scrollers on four 2500w.HMI fresnels to change color for background, car B had a nine-light on a jib arm to repo the car fill light and the A car shot the product plus had a second arm with a 1200w HMI par for a moving street light effect. The result was a multicolored wash background with a very stylized key and fill for the car without having to plant a light. Not rehearsed – the Director called for light moves and color changes as we drove a ten block area. 48 minutes to shoot and 90 minutes to rig. Labor was expensive, equipment was expensive, crew was smallish.
But it was expensive.
To do the nine minutes of bar scenes in “High Desert” required a month of Sundays…literally. 7am call for 2 gaffer/grips with electric, 9am cast call and shoot two set ups by 3 pm when we got thrown out so they could open for business. Total crew of four (DP, 2 gaffers/grips, sound recordist) and director for five Sundays. Location was free, labor was small, costs were small
But it cost in time.
And consider all the shots you reference…most were shot with a Panaflex with Primos glass and with film stock specifically chosen for the light/look, then timed by a colorist in the print phase. You just are not going to get the look of film stock with a DV cam…unless you go the HD cam route and properly light for it – including items like wide apeture lights, 20×20 frames and silks/nets and the labor or time to assemble it all. And even then…close but no prize.
Time and money. And resources that cost money.
So, bottom line…you want the look of a feature it costs. Your time, your money, be it equipment or skilled labor.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
If you have all the rights to the video, have been paid to produce the video prior and made your nut on that, then this re-purposed sale is gravy, no? Not to say you can’t make profit out of it – you reached a realm not many of us get to – reselling the same material with minimal expense.
I’d shoot for a minimum of 600 units, 30% markup on the dupe fees and a base of four dollars per unit on the minimum buy, discounting the per unit cost .50 for each additional buy of 200 units.
You may want to add handling/shipping/packaging fees if you’re looking to increase profit – only you and your accountant know what your bottom line is.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
Not really…be sure your contract limits the corrections Network makes or you’ll be tweaking it forever. And all talent fees are theirs, including lodging, F&B/Craft Services or you could get stuck with talent demands like limo and driver, special meals, rooms etc.
It’s those kinda production costs that sneak up on you.
Cheers,
Frank Otto
-
Not at all unusual. I don’t know the scope of the program or production values, but quite a bit of network production is off campus and without network staff and gear. The last one I did was “Caesars Challenge” for NBC Daytime – staff and facilities were all out of house.
Cheers,
Frank Otto