Ryan Elder
Forum Replies Created
-
But what if the OP shot at 1/60th shutter speed at 60 fps? Then the shutter speed will not be narrow looking, and you can still have the option of slow motion if the whole movie is shot at 60 fps, wouldn’t you?
The only thing then is, is that their will be more motion blur in the slow motion, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing, is it?
-
Okay thanks for sure. Since the steadicam operator is not available now, I just want to buy the least amount of gear that I can but still get some good movement if possible. I’ve already decided no on things like jibs and drones ☺
But as for the slow moving Tom Hanks shot, is there any kind of stabilizer that can specifically handle an 85 mm better, so I won’t have to buy a dolly for the Tom Hanks shot, and can use just one stabilizer for both the Tom Hanks type shot, as well as the walking and running shots, with an 85 mm?
-
I also wanted to do some running shots as well, but I was told before that I shouldn’t run on a dolly and I should use a steadicam for running. But if I want to run with an actor while doing a face close up on an 85 mm, what should I do then, if the steadicam is not the best for 85 mm?
-
Okay thanks. Well a lot of the shots I want will be on an actor’s face who’s face looks best on an 85mm in my opinion. So even for other shots such as following him while he is walking on the streets, will an 85 mm still look bad on a gimbal or stabilizer?
-
What if you shoot at 60 fps, but at a shutter of 1/60… Because then it won’t be a narrow shutter speed when you convert it to 24 fps.
However, your slow motion will have more motion blur in than usual, but will others think that is okay or acceptable to have slow motion at 1/60?
-
Okay thanks. I went to the store but they didn’t have monitors that were specifically designed to add different overlays, grids, aspect ratios, etc. Do you know of any cheap monitor brands particularly? I will look up to see if I can find any.
-
Okay thanks, you’re right about that, I was just paying way too much attention to the subtle difference probably. I could shoot in 2.20:1 and do really like that aspect ratio, but that would mean that I would not be able to pan and scan the 4:3 archival footage, cause it’s too wide for panning and scanning 4:3.
So I would have to keep the 4:3 footage as 4:3 without any choice of changing my mind later, unlike an aspect ratio where you can get away with panning and scanning 4:3 and it can still look good, such as 16:9.
-
Okay thanks. I am having trouble picturing what you mean though. Can you give any move examples that do this when it comes to moving the camera around an old TV, if that’s what you mean?
Also, the reason why I didn’t want to shoot in 16:9 is I don’t really like the look of it, and feel that it’s not quite wide enough, which is why I thought 1.85:1 or 2.20:1 would be better.
-
I am also watching Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired to get ideas, and I noticed how they pan and scanned all the 4:3 footage from back then as well, to fit the same size of the interviews. So it makes me think that it’s normal, as I cannot find documentaries that keep the original aspect ratio of the archival footage.
-
I have a DP but he is just covering the cinematography for the interviews. He is not covering the decisions for if the aspect ratio on the historical footage should be changed. I told him about reframing the footage to fit the interview aspect ratios we choose, and he said that should be fine.
But I thought I would get opinions on here. Well what are some documentaries then to learn from where they switch aspect ratios constantly, while cutting back and forth between archival footage and interviews?
As for destroying someone else’s work, I thought I would just be showing it in a different context that goes with my movie, rather than look at it as destroying it, but if I should keep it the same, do you think the constant changing of aspect ratios could come off as distracting?