and would just like to say hello...
okay i am not. but i just finished the last filming session tonight so you
will be hearing from me more. and i guess i am going to update the website!
atta
i am new to this group
-
Ken Wilson
Re: i am new to this group
"Atta Chui" <forums@theiac.org.uk> wrote:
We are deeply into pre-production at the moment with a number of projects
waiting to go. I guess that most of the rest of you have been/ are in the
same position at present as this forum has been quite stagnant for a while.Perhaps
we need some controversy to stir things up a bit.
Ken Wilson.
Likewise, I have been missing from here for quite a while.and would just like to say hello...
okay i am not. but i just finished the last filming session tonight so you
will be hearing from me more. and i guess i am going to update the website!
atta
We are deeply into pre-production at the moment with a number of projects
waiting to go. I guess that most of the rest of you have been/ are in the
same position at present as this forum has been quite stagnant for a while.Perhaps
we need some controversy to stir things up a bit.
Ken Wilson.
-
AN
Re: i am new to this group
"Ken Wilson" <kw@phase4.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
The B/W lighting cameramen of yesteryear could make rings
around their modern digital cameramen.
Albert....stirring the pot.
OK.....I prefer a black and white film to a colour one anyday.Likewise, I have been missing from here for quite a while.
We are deeply into pre-production at the moment with a number of projects
waiting to go. I guess that most of the rest of you have been/ are in the
same position at present as this forum has been quite stagnant for a while.Perhaps
we need some controversy to stir things up a bit.
The B/W lighting cameramen of yesteryear could make rings
around their modern digital cameramen.
Albert....stirring the pot.
-
Ned C
Re: i am new to this group
"AN" <Animation@btopenworld.com> wrote:
let's compare films shot on b/w film v color film - there are many superbly
shot color films, here are a few: Barry Lyndon, The Duellists, The Road to
Perdition, Chicago, Days of Heaven, Moulin Rouge (the Houston version)and
a roster of great color cameramen, Jack Cardiff, Freddie Young, Conrad Hall,
etc. (if you need more I can extend the list) All wonderfully lit and shot.
B/w is an inherently impressionistic medium and well suited to some subjects
and your preference for b/w films is your personal choice and I would also
point out there are many dreadfully lit and shot b/w films..
Now, let's have a look at how digital cinematography stacks up against film.
Recognise that it is different in a number of ways not least the enormous
depth of field inherent in the present generation of digital cameras particularly
the case with the amateur cameras with their very small CCDs. The inherent
gamma and color discrimination of digital is very different to that of film,
so the newest digital cameras offer a wider range of adjustments of the picture
elements. Even the best digital cameras do not yet have the ability to handle
the contrast range of film and there is a tendency to blow out the highlights
or/and lose detail in the shadows. There is a desire in many quarters to
make digital look like film and all sorts of methods from the original shoot
to post production software have been brought into play to achieve this.
Lighting for any shoot is not easy but lighting for digital has the advantage
that the effect can be immediately assessed in the monitor or LCD.
Finally many of the lighting cameramen of yesteryear were just as skillful
with color as with b/w and most of them worked in both.
Ned C
something important here. The confusion is b/w film v color digital. FirstOK.....I prefer a black and white film to a colour one anyday.
The B/W lighting cameramen of yesteryear could make rings
around their modern digital cameramen.
Albert....stirring the pot.
Let's try and analyse this rather cryptic statement and see if there is
let's compare films shot on b/w film v color film - there are many superbly
shot color films, here are a few: Barry Lyndon, The Duellists, The Road to
Perdition, Chicago, Days of Heaven, Moulin Rouge (the Houston version)and
a roster of great color cameramen, Jack Cardiff, Freddie Young, Conrad Hall,
etc. (if you need more I can extend the list) All wonderfully lit and shot.
B/w is an inherently impressionistic medium and well suited to some subjects
and your preference for b/w films is your personal choice and I would also
point out there are many dreadfully lit and shot b/w films..
Now, let's have a look at how digital cinematography stacks up against film.
Recognise that it is different in a number of ways not least the enormous
depth of field inherent in the present generation of digital cameras particularly
the case with the amateur cameras with their very small CCDs. The inherent
gamma and color discrimination of digital is very different to that of film,
so the newest digital cameras offer a wider range of adjustments of the picture
elements. Even the best digital cameras do not yet have the ability to handle
the contrast range of film and there is a tendency to blow out the highlights
or/and lose detail in the shadows. There is a desire in many quarters to
make digital look like film and all sorts of methods from the original shoot
to post production software have been brought into play to achieve this.
Lighting for any shoot is not easy but lighting for digital has the advantage
that the effect can be immediately assessed in the monitor or LCD.
Finally many of the lighting cameramen of yesteryear were just as skillful
with color as with b/w and most of them worked in both.
Ned C
-
AN
Re: i am new to this group
"Ken Wilson" <kw@phase4.free-online.co.uk> wrote:
old B/W cameramen stirrrrrrrrrrr.
So here's another...
We all know that in general, an untidy car interior means an untidy
home. Do untidy gardens also mean untidy homes? Bet they do.
SO, can an untidy person ever be a good editor, which in its
broadest sense, is a tidying up process?
Albert....still stirring it.
OK Ken, I see that Ned has fallen for the bait and picked up on myLikewise, I have been missing from here for quite a while.
We are deeply into pre-production at the moment with a number of projects
waiting to go. I guess that most of the rest of you have been/ are in the
same position at present as this forum has been quite stagnant for a while.Perhaps
we need some controversy to stir things up a bit.
old B/W cameramen stirrrrrrrrrrr.
So here's another...
We all know that in general, an untidy car interior means an untidy
home. Do untidy gardens also mean untidy homes? Bet they do.
SO, can an untidy person ever be a good editor, which in its
broadest sense, is a tidying up process?
Albert....still stirring it.
-
Ned C
Re: i am new to this group
The answer is no. Editing is a selective process and the first requirementOK Ken, I see that Ned has fallen for the bait and picked up on my
old B/W cameramen stirrrrrrrrrrr.
So here's another...
We all know that in general, an untidy car interior means an untidy
home. Do untidy gardens also mean untidy homes? Bet they do.
SO, can an untidy person ever be a good editor, which in its
broadest sense, is a tidying up process?
Albert....still stirring it.
is to know exactly what material you have to work with, have every shot
logged, assign a quality value to each shot, and know where to find it at
a moment's notice. The editing process is about selection and evaluation
of the best juxtaposition and relationship of each shot to those around it
to deliver the desired effect. This means lots of alternatives to be looked
at and evaluated, relatively easy with NLE and an organised system, chaotic
and frustrating without. I use CatDV to log all the shots and then evaluate
them and write in comments, print into a log and only then get ready to edit.
I am not a particularly tidy person in general but for editing I learnt the
hard way that from disorganisation you get lousy results,
Ned C - taking the bait yet again.
-
AN
Re: i am new to this group
"Ned C" <steve@wonder.com> wrote:
I'm not a tidy person either and this is reflected in how I go
about putting film/audio clips in correctly arranged folders/
titles etc etc. This seems to be the complete opposite how
you, Ned, go about things. Maybe my final results are 'untidy'
and it shows on the screen?
Are there anymore tidy/untidy film makers here who think their
'tidyitus' is reflected in the results?
Further, can a bad tempered person make a good tempered film,
or does he make a better film if plenty of agro is contained
within it? Do our films really reveal anything about ourselves
or can we hide behind the camera?
Albert....still, still stirring it.
Gee, I'm really getting 'hooked' (pun intended!) on this.OK Ken, I see that Ned has fallen for the bait and picked up on my
old B/W cameramen stirrrrrrrrrrr.
So here's another...
We all know that in general, an untidy car interior means an untidy
home. Do untidy gardens also mean untidy homes? Bet they do.
SO, can an untidy person ever be a good editor, which in its
broadest sense, is a tidying up process?
Albert....still stirring it.
The answer is no. Editing is a selective process and the first requirement
is to know exactly what material you have to work with, have every shot
logged, assign a quality value to each shot, and know where to find it at
a moment's notice. The editing process is about selection and evaluation
of the best juxtaposition and relationship of each shot to those around
it
to deliver the desired effect. This means lots of alternatives to be looked
at and evaluated, relatively easy with NLE and an organised system, chaotic
and frustrating without. I use CatDV to log all the shots and then evaluate
them and write in comments, print into a log and only then get ready to
edit.
I am not a particularly tidy person in general but for editing I learnt
the
hard way that from disorganisation you get lousy results,
Ned C - taking the bait yet again.
I'm not a tidy person either and this is reflected in how I go
about putting film/audio clips in correctly arranged folders/
titles etc etc. This seems to be the complete opposite how
you, Ned, go about things. Maybe my final results are 'untidy'
and it shows on the screen?
Are there anymore tidy/untidy film makers here who think their
'tidyitus' is reflected in the results?
Further, can a bad tempered person make a good tempered film,
or does he make a better film if plenty of agro is contained
within it? Do our films really reveal anything about ourselves
or can we hide behind the camera?
Albert....still, still stirring it.