[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
The original question was about episodic television, and I stand by what =
In this form, most DPs who want to keep working base their selection of
stock on a lot of practical criteria, only one of which is the quality of
images, and very rarely is it the first criteria. =20
You imply that the DP as an artist is somehow above all those pedestrian
considerations I mentioned. Sorry, but I've been on a lot of episodic =
and that's *generally* not how it goes. =20
The DP, like most of the other below the line people, has to work within
the budget, space, time, and talent temperament he or she is presented
with, or the producer will find someone who will. Now within those
practical constraints, if the DP has a choice of several stocks, then
aesthetics become the major consideration.
I won't even get into how the subtle nuances of individual stocks get =
in the noise when an image is transmitted over a poor cable system to a
1987 Sylvania with the brightness and contrast turned all the way up. =
should not, of course, be a consideration because we should all strive to
do our very best no matter what the eventual venue. =20
But as a practical matter, the electronic transmission of the image tends
to be the great homogenizer where subtle differences in stocks are
concerned. And once heavily compressed images beamed to small home
satellites really take off, most stock won't be recognizable by its own
In a perfect world, the same attention to detail would be given to each
setup in a four camera episodic shoot that Allen Daviau gives his feature
work, the DP would be able to go to each person's house and individually
adjust their set for optimum viewing, and I would be 6' 2", 20 pounds
lighter and 20 years younger. But it ain't likely to happen any time =
On Thu, 03 Oct 1996 22:26:38 +0400, you wrote:
>Hi,dear telecime colorists,
>It was extremely enlighting to know how DP "love to brag about "amount
>of the lights used or/and unused, but frankly this area of bragging
>belongs to UPM, who justify their existence by cutting almost impossible
>budgets to even lowest levels. DP cares about quality of images, not
>about how much lights he will be used or/and unused.
>Photogrpahic qualities of stock is a main element, not a speed, not a
>temperature, nor crew comfort. I know DP who is using 10k with 5 layers
>of diffusions in 1 meter away from actor, and actor was literally burnt,
>but certainly effect of 10k in 1 meter distance almost impossible to
>repeat with any other technique.
>The stock 5298 is very "forgiving" and therefore lighting for this stock
>requires almost no correlation between sensitivity of the eye and
>sensitivity of the stock, which is helpfull in uncontrollable situations
>as practical interiors.
>The stock 5279(640T) beside the speed,has a very important advantage-
>increased resolution in shadows.And when this factor is a most important
>for the visual design of the show, then this a stock!
>The stock 5287 is a softest stock on the market, designed primarily for
>hi-contrast scenes, like barn lit by sun in Texas 12 noon in July, with
>ratio almost 1:1000, then stock with ability to reproduce ratio 1:256
>( 7 stops, -4/+3 from Key T Stop) became very handy.
>Today are about 22 stocks on the world market, and at least 6-7 of them
>have a unique characteristics, and those characteristics are the most
>decisive factors for DP.
>Yuri Neyman, Director of Photography,
>Gamma & Density Co.