photo credit: Ricardo Diaz
As a camera assistant, I almost never touch the lights on a set. I don’t run power. I don’t set flags. I don’t drop scrims. I don’t touch ballasts. And I don’t mount Kinos on stands.
Basically — professionally speaking — I have no experience lighting.
But that doesn’t mean I haven’t picked up some cinematography tips by sitting next to the camera.
Even though I’m purely a camera assistant with only tentative long-term plans to maybe-kinda-sorta be a cinematographer at some point, working directly with the director of photography (DP) has illuminated the process of lighting for film.
So today I want to share five cinematography lessons I’ve learned from my spot beside the camera.
1. Less Lights Makes Everyone Happier
Cinematographers operate in a strange limbo where they have to reconcile their creative imagination with the practicalities of filmmaking.
And sometimes reality slaps them pretty hard. There might not be enough space for a light, the clouds might cover the sunset during magic hour, or there’s not enough money in the budget for the necessary gear.
But as my film professor would have said, “Creativity is problem solving.”
In many cases, the creative solution is to work with less lights.
From a practical standpoint, the less lights you use, the happier everyone will be. Literally, everyone. The assistant director will be happy with less setup time, the G&E departments will be pleased to lug less equipment, and the director will appreciate more time for rehearsals and takes.
There is, of course, a caveat — you must be able to use less lights in a way that satisfies your creative mind. If you are able to use less lights while still achieving the look you envisioned, everyone will love you for it.
While this can be a challenge, it is also rewarding and makes you more flexible as a cinematographer. You won’t have to fear lower gear budgets and you’ll be able to do run ‘n gun style shooting with skeleton crews with ease.
And you’d be amazed at some of the beautiful shots that can be had with few lights or no lights at all.
Often I stand next to the camera and watch a DP command 5 or 6 lights for a simple close-up shot. In the end it looks good, but I’ve seen similar shots use ambient light from a window, clever blocking, and 2 – 3 lights to fill in the gaps with similar results.
Basically, less lights will force you to be more creative while also saving time.
2. Just Point the Camera and Shoot the Story
As you begin to work on projects with higher budgets, it’s tempting to use all the amazing tools filmmakers have at their disposals: jibs, cranes, dollies, Steadicams, and sliders.
But just because you can use something doesn’t mean you have to.
Much like using less lights, a simple composition may be just what the scene you’re shooting demands. If the story, the characters, and the dramatic tension in a scene is strong enough, you don’t have to do anything more than point the camera and film it.
This is the first lesson I ever learned working on a large film set and one that I have subsequently come to believe 100% after studying several films.
And, again, like the lighting example above, this saves time.
I see a lot of DP’s panic and directors whine when their epic Steadicam tracking shot gets cut from the day because of scheduling issues. They’re then forced to re-think the scene in compositions that are easily achievable — usually static shots — and block the characters in a way in which they provide kineticism inside the frame instead of the camera.
Many times these shots become more powerful than the moving shot planned before it.
Of course not every scene or shot will benefit from this simplification, but you’d be surprised at how often they do — because nothing is worse than ruining the drama and performance in a scene by adding distracting camera moves.
Sometimes the audience cares more about what’s happening inside the film world than what’s happening with the frame.
And when a story is that commanding of the audience, don’t make your job as DP more complicated than it needs to be: just point the camera and shoot the story.
3. Ceiling and Wall Bounces Work Wonders
The ceiling or wall bounce blew my mind the first time I saw it used. I was in school at the time and I distinctly remember chuckling to myself at how brilliant of a trick it is. For whatever reason, I had never thought to utilize the location as a tool to manipulate light.
And when I showed some of my classmates how effective it was, they were also fascinated and stupefied they had never thought of it either.
(The concept of the ceiling/wall bounce is to shine a light at either surface in order to have it reflect into a scene or onto a subject.)
Now I’m no Roger Deakins so I wouldn’t be surprised if many of you reading this are thinking, “Well, duh. Everyone uses ceiling bounces!” To which I say, “Good!”
Because the ceiling/wall bounce is one of the most underrated lighting techniques in use.
I work with one DP who uses them heavily and the images he creates are stunning. He swears by them and, after several films with him, I’ve come to learn the advantages:
- The motivation of the light is natural (in most cases)
- The spill/softness of the light is natural (in most cases)
- The setup time is minimal (since you only set the light, not a reflector)
- The footprint of the gear is smaller
- The throw you can achieve is huge
- You can transform hard light sources instantly into soft ones without softboxes
If you’re as amateur of a cinematographer as I was when I first discovered this technique, you’re in for a treat. Watching others master this technique as a camera assistant (and experimenting with it on my own) is the single greatest lesson I’ve ever learned.
Like any lighting technique, the ceiling/wall bounce isn’t meant to be used in every instance, but it can be a great trick to have up your sleeve as an alternative to reflectors, when in tight spaces, or to adhere to lesson 1: shooting with less lights.
4. A Great, Talented Gaffer is Invaluable
Behind every talented cinematographer there is usually an equally skilled gaffer.
Gaffers — the department head of the electricians — have a wide range of responsibilities that differ depending on the project and their relationship with the director of photography. But many times, they play just as much a role in lighting a scene as the cinematographer.
Though the DP is most definitely the creative head of lighting, they are often heavily influenced by the talents of their gaffer.
It’s not uncommon for a DP to describe the type of mood or lighting they want in generic terms and the gaffer to deliver on it. For instance, I watched a DP once request “a little bit of a hair light” on a character in a wide shot. It was the gaffer who then chose the light, dimmed it to the correct brightness, and set it in the scene.
Once he got the nod of approval from the DP, it was finalized.
How many DP’s does it take to screw in a light bulb?
Just one, if he’s got a good crew to do it.
That may seem like “cheating” if you’re used to making all those decisions yourself, but it’s not — it’s simply leveraging an important work relationship between your crew and yourself. If you trust the skills of your gaffer, you can spend much more time focusing on the overarching “look” of a shot and not get caught up in the tediousness of “how many stands are left?” or “do we have the right scrims?”
Without the trust of your gaffer, you’ll be wasting that relationship. Anybody can set a light stand, but not everyone can interpret your creative direction and execute on it the first time you ask them to.
Great gaffers — just like any talented below-the-line crew — are indispensable in helping you execute your vision as cinematographer.
So once you find one you like, hang on to them and cultivate that relationship.
5. Perfection is a Commodity
If you offer a DP to spend all day lighting one shot, they might just take you up on it. There’s always a kicker to add, a shine to remove, or something in the frame not quite right. They could spend hours trying different silks, cutting with flags, and shaping shadows to perfection.
But perfection — at least, true perfection — is a commodity on a film set.
That’s because perfection clashes quite loudly with reality.
And the reality of filmmaking is that you’re on a budget with a tight schedule and rarely have the time, crew, or resources (or all three) to get the image in a state where you are completely happy with it.
(Even if you do manage to make an image you’re completely happy with, your tastes can change years later after your skills improve.)
All too often I’ve sat next to the camera for unbearable amounts of time while the contents of the frame were touched up and detailed. DP’s, directors, producers, and anyone else with creative input are all equally guilty for succumbing to this vacuum of perfection.
It’s good to ambitiously strive for perfection, but it’s hubris if you are unable to see the damage you do when you fail to give it up after awhile — lost time, lost takes, and a rushed production.
So take it from the guy who’s almost always ready by the time a scene is lit: perfection is rare. So, if you’re allowed to chase it, don’t spend the rest of the day doing so because you won’t find it.
Bonus Tip: There is No “Right” Way
By no means do I consider myself a cinematographer.
But I do consider myself a pretty good camera assistant who has worked with talented cinematographers. I have sat next to the camera and soaked in their knowledge, watched their practices, and witnessed them indulge their habits — both good and bad.
The five tips I’ve provided above are what I have taken away from my career as an AC and they are lessons you can apply right now if you’re striving to be a cinematographer.
It’s hard for DP’s to see each other work without dipping their toes below-the-line, but if you’re OK with doing so, I highly suggest you take the opportunity to work on another DP’s crew. Watching others work is one great way to improve your skills.
My last piece of advice is what any (smart) person giving advice ends with: Nothing is gospel. Do what you want. Ignore the rules if you need to. Forget my tips if they don’t serve your vision.
Because the most important cinematography lesson I’ve learned from watching various cinematographers is there is no “right” way.
About the author: Evan Luzi is the editor and founder of The Black and Blue as well as a freelance camera assistant.
Part of it’s going to depend on the director’s choice, but I’m not sure if I go back to shoot on emulsion again.
I really think this year and next year will be it, really.
Roger Deakins talks about his Oscar Nomination for True Grit, and the end of film for the Movie Line Magazine
The startling beauty of Joel and Ethan Coen’s Oscar-nominated True Grit — and in most Coen brothers films, for that matter — owes to frequent collaborator and award-winning cinematographer Roger Deakins, who’s lensed all but one of their films since 1991’s Barton Fink. But as much as the nostalgic Western serves as a throwback to simpler times, simpler heroes (and heroines), and a yearning to stick to one’s principles in the face of obsolescence, True Grit could also mark a wistful point in Deakins career — his last film shot on film.
Following his ninth career Academy Award nomination, Movieline revisited theTrue Grit shoot with Deakins, learned which scene was almost shot with CG, and heard the legendary DP (and recent digital convert) predict the imminent death of film.
Is it still as exciting as your first Oscar nomination?
It’s great. I’m so pleased the film is getting the kind of recognition I think it deserves. I mean, that’s what’s so good about people getting nominated; the recognition for the film. Nothing changes, you know. The film is the film but it’s rewarded when it gets more publicity and more people see it.
You’ve worked for a very long time with Joel and Ethan Coen. When they came to you with True Grit, was it a no-brainer that you’d be on board?
Oh, yeah. They said that they were writing the script and I hadn’t read the original novel, so I went and read the book. I’d seen the original movie, but that didn’t really relate to what we were doing. So I went back to the novel, read it for the first time. What an opportunity, but it’s always an opportunity working with them because they’re always going to do something different and imaginative. It’s such a pleasure working with people who have such a love of the medium.
True Grit takes a much more straightforward visual approach from your recent Westerns, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford and No Country for Old Men. How would you describe the difference in approach?
So much comes from the script. The script for Jesse James reflected the book of the same title; it’s very much a tone poem and meditation on the West and this particular character, and that the world is basically passing him by. It’s much more a poem in a way than a linear narrative. No Country is a meditation, too, but probably on the nature of evil. It’s much more of a brutal, stark, nihilistic view, you could say. So that fuels the imagery. And True Grit is probably more traditional, it’s much more of a straight linear narrative. Joel likened it to, on the one hand, a teenage girl’s adventure story, but also like the trials of Job, really. The poor girl — how could it get any worse? So the three films have very different starting points, and the way the visuals evolve very much come from those starting points.
Your field is in a very transitory stage right now.
Very much so, especially with digital imagery and cameras. The whole way of making movies is changing. Pre-visualization of shots. The amount that you do live and the amount you do as a CG element afterwards is changing enormously.
Are you particularly interested in integrating 3-D or motion-capture technology into your work?
Again, in animation we did 3-D on How to Train Your Dragon, and I was in a motion-capture studio the other day at DreamWorks Animation. I’ve not done so much in the live-action world, but I’m experiencing quite a lot in animation. I’m not sure about 3D in the kind of dramatic live-action films that I work on. I can’t imagine True Grit in 3D. I think it would be appalling. You’re actually trying to create a different experience for an audience.
Will you continue to shoot features on film, or are you being drawn more to shooting digitally?
You know, I’m not sure. I just finished this film Now, which I shot digitally for the first time, and I was very impressed. Part of it’s going to depend on the director’s choice, but I’m not sure if I go back to shoot on emulsion again. It depends on the project. If I had a digital option when we started True Grit I’m not sure I would have shot it digitally, just because of the nature of the film. But I don’t know, it’s a real transition now. I don’t personally think film emulsion is going to be used for very much longer at all. I know people have been saying that since — well, since I started in the business — but I really think this year and next year will be it, really.
To read the whole Interview, go to the MOVIELINE main site
La AMC Felicita a Antonio Riestra por su Premio Goya a la Mejor Dirección de Fotografía por “Pa negre”
Antonio Riestra a ganado este domingo el Premio Goya 2011 a la Mejor Dirección de Fotografía por su trabajo en la cinta ‘Pa negre’, de Agustí Villaronga, imponiéndose a sus colegas Kiko de la Rica (‘Balada triste de trompeta’), Rodrigo Prieto (‘Biutiful’) y Eduard Grau (‘Buried’).
By: ART ADAMS
Career Advice for the Young DP
The true barrier to cinematography success isn’t youth—it’s experience. Here’s what a budding DP needs to know about building a career.
This is my response to a question posted to the Cinematography Mailing List by a young film student who is chafing at the bit to be a director of photography as soon as possible.
(To read this thread go to Cinematography.net and sign up for the CML-Chat list. If you’re a film student I’d recommend signing up for any list that interests you, and even some that don’t, particularly CML-Students—where you can ask questions without fear of being trolled for posting beginner questions to the wrong list.)
What everyone else has said so far is true [to the series of responses posted prior to mine]. I’d add:
(1) It is more important to be liked than to be competent. If people like you, you’ll have the chance to be competent. If people don’t like you, you won’t get those chances as easily.
There’s a very big ASC DP who, when they started out, did work that made me cringe. Over time they got better and better, did bigger movies, and really polished their craft. I once asked someone what it was about this person that allowed them to essentially learn on the job. “They are the nicest person you will ever meet” is what I was told. I later met them, and they are.
(2) You must exude confidence. Not arrogance; that’s different. Over time you’ll acquire what I’ve heard people call “set presence.” This will come with experience, when you’ve been thrown into a lot of crazy hopeless situations and learned to dig yourself out.
(3) Be nice to everyone. You never know when today’s PA will be tomorrow’s producer. I just got hired onto a job by a guy who used to be in business development for a production company I still work for. He’s moved on, and when he needed a DP he remembered me from the shoots I did for his old company where he came along to shoot stills. Apparently he liked my work and I was nice to him as well.
(4) Find good crew who can support you. Gaffers, camera assistants and key grips generally work more often than DP’s do and see a wide variety of situations sooner in their careers. Surround yourself with good people, tell them what you need and let them tell you how they would do it. There are times when you’ll know better than they how achieve a specific effect, but that won’t happen immediately.
To read more go to the original post:
You’re a surfer who has gained fame as a photographer—what exactly is your background?
I’ve been on Oahu’s North Shore for over thirty years—so I’m kind of raised here on the shore and in the Waimea Bay shorebreak. I’ve surfed the shorebreak off and on for years, and the love and joy for the oceans has always been with me. So, a couple years ago—maybe two and a half years ago—I decided to bring a camera. My wife wanted a picture for the house and I went and did it. What I do when I go out is use my surfing experience with the camera.
There’s a photo of you inside this overhead barrel (above) and you’re kind of just standing there, with camera in a hard casing with a dome for the lens and a handle on the bottom. Why do people use that setup in the water?
I preset everything before I go out in the water. When you’re out there and the big waves are coming in you don’t have time to look through a hole and be fiddling with things. You just point and shoot—once you have that sweet spot on all the settings it’s pretty much keeping the drops from the dome. It’s a matter of being in the right place at the right time. That’s where the knowledge comes in, so you can get into the most gnarliest impact zone as possible but you don’t get hammered.
For the most part, I try to stake out the back. I get doughnuts and get beat-up sometimes for sure, but at the same time I love to be in there and feel the thunder and the bass and the turbulence. It’s pretty cool. Mother nature has a lot of beautiful things to offer. It can get scary also—don’t get me wrong—but the ocean is my comfort zone fortunately, and I want to be out there. It’s not like I have to be out there, but I want to be out in the ocean, you know?
When you’ve got a camera in your hand and a big wave is coming, explain what your body does. What do you do with your body to make sure that you don’t lose your camera and you don’t get hurt?
First of all you get a good breath. It’s just anticipating. If I’m standing knee deep and a ten-foot wave is coming in, I’m actually going towards the beach because it’s sucking me out. You want to get in towards shore because you don’t want to miss the wave. If you get sucked out, sometimes it’s past the wave. You want to be in the impact zone, so you’re going the other way, knowing kind of where it’s going to break for the most part—you’re anticipating the sweet spot. And so you’re going the other way, and right when it breaks, you’re going to pull the trigger and try to get as many frames of that gnarliest barrel shot as possible. Of course after it breaks, for the most part, you try to sneak out the back of the wave.
You’re wearing fins?
Yeah you’re wearing fins for sure. That’s my life vest to be honest. I wouldn’t go anywhere without swim fins.
Is that because you have to carry a camera in your hands, so you can’t be paddling?
Yeah, the camera definitely is not light. It’s a chunk. When the waves are big, you forget about it, believe it or not. When you’re rocking and the waves are huge and you’re excited, you don’t even know. It’s like instinct, the hand goes up and click click click, and down and back and behind the wave, it turns in to an instinctive kind of thing.
Sometimes I run up and down the shore to get into position to get those weird ones that break right on the sand. For those I don’t wear fins because I gotta be fast—move in, move out. You get toasted every time you get the ones that are on the dry sand because there’s no way out, you can’t really get out the back of them. You just have to roll with it up the beach 30 feet or 40 feet.
Without giving away your secrets, can you tell us about your camera and your settings?
I use a Nikon D3 with a 16mm fisheye lens, and then I also use a D200 and D300 with a 10.5mm lens. I preset the focus—there’s like a sweet spot on that. Depth of field is insane with that setup, so, pretty much everyone else can figure out the rest of it.
I’d like to see you with a Canon 5D Mark II and get some video to be honest.
There’s also the Nikon D300s. I could use my same waterproof housing and lenses and go out there and get some footage, I don’t know what 24fps would look like, but at least we could get an idea with this new camera.
All right so, just imagine you’ve got this buddy with no experience. How does someone with a point-and-shoot camera take pictures of waves?
For me with experience it’s different, but for the inexperienced, to start off I would just go with like a little SD Canon and a little underwater housing that costs around $150. [Ed. note: You can also buy one of the new waterproof point-and-shoots from Pentax, Canon, Panasonic or Olympus.] You definitely gotta know how to swim, and you gotta have swim fins. You obviously gotta know your limits.
Be familiar with the ocean. Watch the waves prior to going out for at least 20 to 30 minutes, because sometimes there will be lulls or periods when there are no sets and then out of the blue a big 6 to 8 foot wave can come in and clean house. So you have to respect the Mother Nature, that’s huge. Once you get out there, you just give it a whirl and try to take some images. You gotta keep the lens clear, the front of the case. You can use Rain-X or you can spit on it. There are different methods that people use to keep it clear.
How many hours a week do you shoot?
It all depends—when the waves are good I’ll go out for a five-hour session and pretty much be fried all day. Or I’ll even do two two-hour sessions. On average, I would say at least a couple hours a day. When it’s good, I’m out there five hours.
Are you hunting waves the way surfers hunt waves? Going to places looking for hidden breaks?
I have a couple spots that I’ll call secret. There are maybe one or two guys that have found them. In general, I’m lucky to get everything right here in my home, and when I’m home shooting big Waimea shorebreaks or Waikiki shorebreaks, for the most part I’m by myself, which is good. A lot of photographers don’t want to get into the big shorebreaks and shoot waves. So I’m lucky in that aspect and I can just feel the motion of the ocean and play.
It’s like a playground for me. I’m like a kid in candy store, just having fun getting these images and coming home and looking at them and then sharing them with the world. It’s hopefully a win-win situation and, besides my family, it’s my joy.
Some people are painters, and they paint—it’s cool and it’s amazing and their talents are awesome. But it’s kind of neat to add that extreme factor to the art, trying to capture the art of the wave.
If you enjoyed Clark’s story and his amazing wave photos, check out hundreds more at his site, where you can order prints or limited-edition posters. Also, check out his brand new coffee-table book of shorebreak art, with forewords by Jack Johnson and Kelly Slater.
On March Friday 19, at 1:00pm Guillermo Navarro will give a talk about cinematography and his experience in Mexico & USA at the CCC.
There will be screenings of his films: Thursday “Laberinto del Fauno” (where he got his Oscar) & Friday in the morning “Hell Boy”
AMC members are invited
There is no info about were to reserve or confirm, we recommend to talk to direct to CCC
tel: (55) 41 55 00 90
Congratulations, on the Nomination to all the crew
and our friend: Eric Goethals, A.M.C.
Today, I’ve got more for you: say hello to Fred Lebain…if you can see him.
Fred’s technique is similar to Liu’s, but instead of painting himself, he uses large photographs. He goes to various spots in NYC, take a photo, then returns a few days later with a poster-sized print of the photo. When he holds it up in front of him, he nearly vanishes into his surroundings, save for some giveaway feet and shadows.
By Cristy Lytal
The big-screen cinematic adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s beloved children’s book “Where the Wild Things Are” bears the unmistakable stamp of its director Spike Jonze, but Steve Newman played an integral role in helping the hipster auteur realize his creative vision.
The Australian Cinematographers Society member was tasked with filming the miniatures created for the movie — specifically, a detailed cityscape constructed on a tabletop that depicted one character’s idealized vision of an alternate land where he lived with his fellow furry “wild things.” It was also up to Newman to figure out a way to share that world with the audience from the point of view of one imaginative boy, played by young actor Max Records.
“It’s a miniature city, but instead of roads, it has canals running between the buildings, which look like snow-capped mountains,” Newman says. “In the canals are little, tiny boats with little, tiny figures, which are the characters made in miniature. There’s a table with the big model on it, and Max sticks his head up through [a hole in the middle of] the table and looks, and we see what he sees.”
Born in England and raised mostly in Australia, Newman’s fascination with photographing interesting objects began early — he used to take pictures of airplanes as a boy with a Box Brownie camera. After high school, he continued his large-scale pursuits, studying architecture for seven years. But he found himself incorporating so much film into his design projects that he decided to apply to the Australian Film, Television and Radio School in Sydney.
For his first miniatures job, he filmed the most massive creatures ever to walk the Earth — dinosaurs — in a stop-motion animation sequence for a documentary. He subsequently worked as miniatures director of photography for films including 2004′s “Anacondas: The Hunt for the Blood Orchid,” 2005′s “House of Wax” and 2006′s ” Superman Returns.”
“The thing that’s interesting about the job is that it’s always full of incredibly complex challenges and problem solving,” he says. “I just love cinematography, but I’m interested in visual effects because I find it a greater challenge.”
Thinking small: “Usually on films, I’m shooting miniatures that are supposed to look like the full-sized things,” he says. “This particular job was quite different because the miniatures in the film are actually supposed to be small. All the miniatures are a model built by Carol, one of the main characters. It was great to see Spike Jonze sit down with the model makers at a table full of Plasticine and actually start making some of the tiny figures himself.”
Size matters: “The problem is, when you film something very small, you don’t have a lot of depth of focus,” explains Newman, who is currently working as studio director of photography on the long-running Australian soap opera “Neighbours.” “So to get enough depth of focus, you have to light up to an incredibly high level. Producers often think, ‘Oh, miniatures. That’ll be a small unit.’ But in fact, the miniature unit has a larger lighting component often than the main unit does. You need bigger lights and more of them.”
On the waterfront: Sometimes, Jonze’s dictates placed unusual demands on Newman and his team. “Because the boy is putting his head up through a hole in the table, his eye height is very, very low,” says Newman. “So Spike wanted the camera to be virtually at water level in these canals, and the whole miniature was built on a table that only had about 4 or 5 inches of water in it. So we hung the camera on a crane and used the snorkel lens. This is a bit like a periscope, but it’s like an upside-down periscope. Instead of going up with it, we were going down into the water with it.
“The snorkel lens comes with its own waterproof housing, but the housing was so big that it stopped us getting the lens down into the water. So I got the model makers to make up a little splash box that we could put the lens into so that we could lower the lens right down to the water level.”
When worlds collide: Charged with giving each locale a unique feel, Newman often found himself trying to visually distinguish one fantastic setting from another.
“The table with the model on it was inside a cave, but we wanted to try to separate the cave backgrounds a little bit from the actual miniature city,” he says. “We used a very large, 20-foot-by-40-foot-wide net. [It was] a bit like stocking material, a white gauze, so that we could diffuse the background and make it feel like it was slightly removed from the world of the miniatures. It makes the things outside the miniature world have less contrast.
“The challenge was creating a world within a world, because the world of the film is a fantasy world anyway. But this is another little fantasy inside that fantasy.”
Source: Los Angeles Times
Mark got some light art photographs before, but the new ones in this gallery are so spectacular that they look like frames from a sleekspanky superhero movie. Except that, instead of using computer effects, these are done in real time.
Like Picasso’s light drawings, the photos by Lapp-Pro are created using a camera with an open shutter. But instead of just using a simple light, these people use a variety of lighting sources that make their photos look from another world. Another world where dorks fight with actual balls of plasma instead of just pretending to do it while making whishwhoosh sounds with their mouths. [Lapp-pro.de via Daily Mail]
I found this trully interesting, Shane Hurlbut, ASC, (Terminator Salvation (T4), We are marshall, into the blue), Is doing a contest to find out who gets what format is and where.
Watch closely and see if you can tell the difference between film and the two HD cameras. Then, try to notice the subtle changes of the 10 Bit HD with the Sony 950 and 8 Bit color space with the Canon 5D!, Please post your responses on Shane Hurlbut blog and he will let you know the winner! Be as specific as possible in your responses. To make it more fun, the person who gets it right will receive a prize from Hurlbut Visuals as a thank-you for taking the time to watch and give us your input. The deadline is November 1, so have fun and watch closely!
(press the picture, and reload until you are in the contest site)
In this Mio footage from our current Navy SEAL film project, he used two HD cameras the Canon 5D Mark II and the Sony 950. He also shot some of it with the Arri 235.
Read more: Vincent Laforet Blog (He says that he has seen it in a 50 foot screen and it’s hard to tell)