Perya (Town Fair) - a Canon 7D Short

Perya is just great.

Yes maybe it could be technically better (not that I think so)...At work I film a lot of stuff snatched from people with only a few minutes to spare..whilst trying to keep them comfortable cos they "dont usually do this sort of thing".
...I recently made a film with "Showmen" in the uk about the importance of going through education...I had a night at the fair..and looking at my results to theirs is a wake up call for me(moment of honesty there).

I think the form of the camera helps soooo much in this field (at least until people get used to seeing a video cam disguised as an SLR)

We should look at the overall picture and not just nitpick cos that film is lovely. :)
 
Kholi said:
Hunter Richards started me on that path a while ago but it's now really coming to eat at me. I can shoot as much RED as I want, but I really am ready to start shooting some 16mm.
Click to expand...

Word Kholi! Thou I manage it to come pretty close to 16mm with my combination of HVX200, vintage Zeiss medium format lenses and LEX (at least with enough light) sometimes, we decided to do "Swing da Gals" on 16mm - and I never regretted it..

http://exposureroom.com/members/FrankGlen.aspx/assets/041e58cdfcc349f8a721355fdcd1a224/

In the "Making of" you can see how much magic 16mm adds compared to video.

http://exposureroom.com/members/FrankGlen.aspx/assets/5a58175adbaf4080a0250a64864d4cda/



The cost of celluloid is a "below the line" thing when it comes to multi million $$$ films. Catering is more in most big productions.
It´s just a matter for us (always on a budget) independent folks.

Frank
 
Last edited:
ChipG said:
Does anyone know another place I can download this? Vimeo is over thier limit. I want to apply gamma curves and flim stocks to it in post.
Click to expand...

Seconded. Has anyone mirrored this? I've tried for two days now to snag this thing, no luck yet. Maybe when the next day's bandwidth rolls over...
 
Ryan Paige said:
It's funny because, I saw that when it was first linked to here and watched it again, and I don't like the look as much as a lot of the digital footage I've seen.
Click to expand...

This is the same conclusion I came up with… even when I first watched it some months ago. It’s not that I don’t like how film looks but this didn’t make me go WOW. I might be so used to seeing digital projects that anything other than that makes me shrug…but really…I do love how 35mm film comes out when watching Hollywood trailers. They, for the most part, are just as uber clean as most digitally shot movies I’ve seen. We are starting to see less and less of a difference in how they look (at least to me and maybe untrained eyes).
 
Ian-T said:
I might be so used to seeing digital projects that anything other than that makes me shrug…but really…I do love how 35mm film comes out when watching Hollywood trailers. They, for the most part, are just as uber clean as most digitally shot movies I’ve seen. We are starting to see less and less of a difference in how they look (at least to me and maybe untrained eyes).
Click to expand...

I know my eyes are untrained. LOL These are differences I see

Film: Softer, more organic, grain in blacks, handles light falloff well, less saturated, fewer gradations of color

Digital: Sharper, less organic, less grain if any period (with trained hands), doesn't handle light falloff well, saturated, more gradations of color

I "like" film, but I also "like" digital and really am coming to peace with it. Like someone explained on something I read a while back - Film is like what 100 years old. It took years to get film looking almost "perfect". Digital is less than what 10 years, 12 years old. It'll take a while as well. I still lean towards digital it's biggest flaw to me the light falloff which someone will fix maybe with the first 16 or 20 Bit Sensor. LOL
 
Kholi said:
I kinda see it as what everyone else explains it to be: Film is Organic, Digital is Data.
Click to expand...
Bah. Do you still listen vinyl music, or use reels or audio cassettes? You cannot even buy this stuff anymore. If audio CD is not good enough then spring for SACD or DVD-audio. Same will happen with film. I watched BTS of Blade Runner, they made how many? 7? 9? 11? shots onto the same film when making FX using scale models. No one bothers anymore exposing the same film for 10 times, and if you screw up in the middle, you have to start over. Just not practical.

Hollywood wants to save money, indies want to save money, and amateurs have no money at all. Film production will die pretty soon, when 12- or 14-bit cameras like RED become ubiquitous. File size? So what? 10 years ago a 500MB HDD was huge, now a 500GB drive costs the same or less. in 5-10 years RAW will be commonplace. You already can have RAW stills in a $400 consumer DSLR, just give it some time for a consumer RAW videocam.

As to DSLR look: I really liked this piece. Clean, colorful and yes, cinematic. As to film grain and other crap, these are defects, people -- defects of the film stock, of processing and handling. I will take clean "DSLR" look anytime, just like I prefer clean CD Audio to a hissy tape.
 
Looks awesome.
On the first pic you posted, when you click to the next one, it's a double shot. The shot on the right (face close up), was that with the same system? That one looks amazing too!
 
Cranky said:
Bah. Do you still listen vinyl music, or use reels or audio cassettes? You cannot even buy this stuff anymore.
Click to expand...

Where do you live? Vinyl is everywhere, is still being printed, sounds amazing, and I listen to records all...the...time! I find that people who identify themselves as musicians (or have a voracious appetite for music) usually have huge record collections that are treated holier than anything else.

The band that I am in just got finished recording on an Otari 2" 24-track analog open reel deck at a recording studio. Recording to tape is a luxury and sounds incredible.

Granted, I don't buy audio cassettes anymore, but I still listen to old mixtapes, which is really fun!
 
Cranky said:
Hollywood wants to save money, indies want to save money, and amateurs have no money at all. Film production will die pretty soon, when 12- or 14-bit cameras like RED become ubiquitous. .
Click to expand...


By this statement, I assume that you're currently a working, successful producer at the top of the chain and can quantify this with experience. Adversely to that, while I am not at the top of the chain I do have several friends that are and what you're saying makes sense from a perspective that also thinks Hollywood is "bad".

AkA, it doesn't make sense to me.

DVXuser or the INternet is the only place where a Camera is THE most important part of the process. It's the least, everywhere else. Especially in that so-called system you just said was going to die... over cameras.
 
I think celluloid will stick around for a while, if only by sheer inertia.

How ever, let's not forget all the die hard still photogs a few years ago that said that digital could never achieve anything close to real film, especially for commercial work. That film would never "die".

Flash forward to today: get 50 magazines from a newstand, I bet that all 50 covers were shot on digital.

Once you have a sensor that captures enough pixels, decent latitude and color gamut, you can pretty much make it look like any film stock using 3D LUTs. You're also free to add grain in post. You can go so far as to shoot/scan a few seconds of 18% gray on real film stocks and use that to add true "organic" grain.

We're just starting to scratch the surface of this thing... which makes this a very exciting time!

-X
 
xbourque said:
let's not forget all the die hard still photogs a few years ago that said that digital could never achieve anything close to real film, especially for commercial work. That film would never "die". Flash forward to today: get 50 magazines from a newstand, I bet that all 50 covers were shot on digital.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The very fact that hi-end manufacturers like Hasselblad offer digital cameras confirms that digital does not have to be cheap.

Though I prefer old-style mockup FX to modern digital effects, which more often than not look cheesy and unreal.
 
Kholi said:
By this statement, I assume that you're currently a working, successful producer at the top of the chain and can quantify this with experience. Adversely to that, while I am not at the top of the chain I do have several friends that are and what you're saying makes sense from a perspective that also thinks Hollywood is "bad".

AkA, it doesn't make sense to me.

DVXuser or the INternet is the only place where a Camera is THE most important part of the process. It's the least, everywhere else. Especially in that so-called system you just said was going to die... over cameras.
Click to expand...

LOL and agree.

Now, the issue that we are now have with digital that was never a problem with film is: a digital camera is a one trick pony. While you can tweak settings and have a certain level of "flexibility" with RAW recording, you are limited to a camera's sensor. You cannot change the film stock. The camera does matter more with digital (though not as much as we like to give it credit).

An Arri 535 on a crane will produce the same image as a 235 on a Steadicam with the same glass. A Genesis on a crane will not create the same image as a handheld F900.

Anyone who says film is dead is acting the fool. Anyone who denies digital is becoming a better contender is similarly foolish.
 
Last edited:
Taylor Rudd said:
Now, the issue that we are now have with digital that was never a problem with film is: a digital camera is a one trick pony. While you can tweak settings and have a certain level of "flexibility" with RAW recording, you are limited to a camera's sensor. You cannot change the film stock. The camera does matter more with digital (though not as much as we like to give it credit).
Click to expand...
Uh, is not it the whole point of RAW? You get as much information that you can grade it any way you want. With film stock you are practically grading (pre-grading?) when shooting, with RAW you are grading in post, so you can have any look you want. Am I wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top