[Todd Terry]

[Greg Ball] ” I asked him what venue the conference was goung to be held at, he said the Holiday Inn Express, 3 miles from my office.”

I got almost exactly the same email a couple of weeks ago, almost the same wording, except the event was a wedding. I started to simply reply that we don’t do weddings, but since I could tell it was a scam from the get-go I decided to trade a few emails just to jerk them around a bit.

I, too, asked what the venue was, and was given the address of a hotel in San Francisco. I replied that was all fine and good, with the minor exception that we are 2,300 miles from there on the opposite coast.

To my surprise they did reply, saying “We will take care of your travel expenses.” For a wedding video. Yeah.

By then I was bored, told them I knew it was a scam and to peddle their crap somewhere else. Didn’t hear back that time.

Amazing what people will try.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

This sounds much like a scam where they will send you a check that just happens to be for “too much” and asks you to refund the difference… or will cancel and ask you to write them a refund check.

And of course, their original check is rubber.

Who in their right mind would send a check without ever even discussing prices? Answer, obviously…. no one.

Laugh it off and steer clear.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

If I follow you, I think you are wanting to basically put a window-shaped screen on your flat and project your exterior image into it?… right?

If so… and you are able to flag your projection exactly to the window, and it is bright enough compared to the ambient light (remembering that to look natural the exterior should be about 2-3 stops brighter than the interior), then technically I think you can do it.

Aesthetically, though… I don’t think you want to.

Since this is a Steadicam shoot, then obviously the camera will be moving. Every time the camera moves, in the real world the perspective of the view through the window would change. In this case, though, it won’t… the view out the window will just stay flat flat flat… as it painted on the wall (because basically it is, just with light). It’s going to really look phony.

I would say by far the best looking results would come from using a greenscreen there, and motion tracking the exterior so that you can achieve a natural-looking perspective (probably using Mocha to do the planar tracking would work well).

But… you said you won’t do greenscreen because it is too post intensive…

As an alternate, I’d suggest installing a real window in the flat, and behind the flat putting a large monitor (plasma, LED, LCD, whatever) to show your exterior footage. I think that’s doable since that it looks from your drawing as if the window isn’t too big. In that case you’d use the biggest monitor that you can get your hands on, and put it as far back behind the flat as you can and still cover the edges from the camera view. I suggest a monitor since that will typically be much brighter than any projector. You appear to have a fairly smallish vertical window… if so, something like a 60″ monitor mounted vertically might work and let you put it some reasonable distance behind the flat.

That way when the camera moves around it will still maintain some of the dynamic movement of the background’s perspective changing.

In this case when doing your DP work, you’d want to start with seeing what light levels you have for the window, and light all the interiors about 2 stops below that.

There are probably other options, but that’s what comes to mind.

Here, though, in that situation I’d greenscreen it… I wouldn’t even really consider any other method.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Yes, Shurtape is definitely the “industry standard” and is what we have always used…

EXCEPT recently, when we needed several rolls in different colors for a certain project, and we bought another brand (only because they came in colors that Shurtape didn’t, at last not at FilmTools). I’ll have to say, the tape was not nearly as good. For plain ol’ black gaf we’ll stick with Shurtape in the future.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I’m going to get on my usual soapbox and rant about using the wrong tool… using a wrench when you need a screwdriver.

You list all of these needs and features and requirements for video work, and want to know which DSLR to consider… but you didn’t mention shooting needing to shoot stills even once. So why are you considering a DSLR? Why not go for a proper video camera?

For the needs you have, specs you require, and money you can spend… I’d say the C100 is a hands-down great choice. That will do everything you ask, shoot great images, and do it with the ease of a camera designed to shoot moving imagines… not the clunky made-do method of using a still camera that also just happens to shoot video.

But… it’s not a DSLR.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Exposing with a gray card is ok… if you are shooting a movie about gray cards. But in real life the exposures, in various places and orientations and lighting situations, just aren’t going to be the same as your card.

Also you said this was for a documentary… usually those are sort of loosy-goosy run-n-gun (or at least quick and unpredictable setups) situations. I really can’t conceive of the practicality of, for every shot, taking your gray card and placing it exactly at your subject (say, right at the face of someone you are shooting that is in frame) and adjusting the exposure for that, and then getting your shot. That’s the only way a gray card is both accurate and useful. Also, a card is by its very nature a flat plane. Most objects, say a person’s face, are not. What reads as “perfect” exposure for the card might be completely wonky for a person’s face… because of highlights, shadows, and the way the light paints on a person.

As for “I have seen plenty of people posting that they like to use higher ISOs (although nothing as high as 6000) because of the textured effect it can produce in certain situations”… well… these days, with the single exception of depth of field, there are virtually no effects that years ago were accomplished in camera that cannon now be achieved in post, with much greater finesse, accuracy, and changability. Say, if you want a particular effect that you can just as readily do in post as in camera, doing it in post is almost always a better choice. If you do it in camera, you’re stuck with it… there is no dialing the effect up or down (or removing it) if in the editing phase it’s not something you like. These days there is hardly ever a filter in my matte box anymore, if at all. Maybe occasionally ND (just for exposure), but that’s it. Everything else is done in post. In-camera effects are, obviously, baked in and there’s no opportunity for adjustment.

But again, if it looks good… do it.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

[Joseph Livesey] “do they all affect the image in the same way?”

No, they all affect your image in different ways.

For example, stopping down your iris reduces exposure, but it also greatly increases depth of field. I.e., if you were to want a shallow depth of field, then using a higher f-stop is not the desired way to decrease exposure.

Riding your ISO up and down can compensate for exposure differences, but you don’t want to do that too much… ideally all shots in a particular scene should be shot with the same ISO, or at least in the neighborhood. Riding it up too high will increase grain. Your camera has an “optimal” ISO which I’m guessing is 850 (I’m basing that on the fact that it’s 850 for the C300, so it’s likely the same for C100).

I agree that your combination doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. If you are shooting wide open at 6200 you were likely in a very very dark environment if you got good exposures. It makes no sense to add ND and also jack up your ISO to such a high level. It’d be smarter to use no ND and a lower ISO, you’d have much less noise in your images. Neither the ND filter nor the ISO settings should have any effect on the contrast range in your images. In your case you were doing a combination of two less-than-desirable things (adding ND and jacking up the ISO) in order to achieve a look that would likely have been better without either of them… no ND and much lower ISO.

Toss your grey card and don’t use it for exposures at all. Yes, look at the waveform monitor and use that as a guide to make sure you don’t have any blown-out overexposed areas (unless they are areas that you are okay with blowing out, as is sometimes the case)… and keep in mind as a general rule the lower the ISO, the better.

You didn’t mention the fourth way of controlling exposure, shutter speed. Unless you are doing it for a particular effect, it’s best to stick with a “normal” shutter speed… which is “one over twice the frame rate.” That is, if you are shooting 24fps, a “normal” shutter speed (one that emulates a 180° shutter in a film camera) would be 1/48th. Best not to play with that setting unless you are looking for the specific “narrow shutter look” like you see in action movies way too much, or you are doing a remake of Saving Private Ryan.

The bottom line, though, is that as long as you are perfectly happy with the images you got, then what you did is ok. It doesn’t matter how you make the soup, the only thing that matters is what the soup tastes like.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Can’t say I’ve ever heard of that.

Personally when I’ve had to go the do-it-myself route I’ve never used anything except translucent powder. When we have makeup artists do it, well, who knows what all voodoo potions they have in their bags full of tricks…. I don’t ask.

I will say though that a quick eBay search for “Lancome Pure Focus” yielded 80+ results… might try there.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

I’m in total agreement with Mark. He’s always much quicker to sing the praises of the rental route than I am, but in this case it’s a no-brainer.

Your 10-$20K Isn’t going to get you anything that the kids might see on the set of Hawaii 5-0, where a single prime lens they use will probably top $20K. But a portion of that will definitely let you rent an Alexa, probably another body or two in various flavors, a bunch of glass, accessories, and someone who knows how to put it together and show everyone how it all works. And you’d still have money left over to buy something else, or rent again next semester.

And almost all camera rental houses will have student rates, so I bet they would give an educational institution quite a break, probably a pennies-on-the-dollar break. Heck, they might almost give you gear to use during unrented times, as long as you can front the insurance.

It’s definitely worth a call… no doubt there are several cine rental houses in Hawaii.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Todd Terry]

Should anyone be interested, I actually accidentally stumbled on that list, with discussion of the anxiety-producing soundtrack.

The movie was Irréversible, a 2002 French film.

According to what I read…

      Director Gaspar Noé added low-frequency background noise to the soundtrack of his revenge thriller. Though such extreme bass waves are inaudible to humans, infrasound “has been demonstrated to induce anxiety, extreme sorrow, heart palpitations and shivering,” the BBC reported in 2013. “Naturally-occurring infrasound has been associated with areas of ‘supernatural activity’ as well as being produced prior to natural disasters such as storms and earthquakes.”

      “Our response to certain kinds of noise is something so profound in us that we can’t switch it off,” science writer Philip Ball told the BBC. “Film composers know that and use it to shortcut the logical part of our brain and get straight to the emotional centres.”

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com