Instant Films 17!!

[Barry Gribble]

In your other post, didn't you describe this as "70's softcore"?... it looked pretty, ummm, hard to me.

Seriously though, nice job on the shots... the filtered look worked, and the overall cinematography was excellent as usual.

So really... thanks for sharing :).


(Just got Mr. 3000 from NetFlix... looking forward to it)

[Mark Sasahara]

<<<-- Originally posted by Richard Alvarez : Charles,

So, in a project like this, when choosing a lens, is longer better than wider? -->>>

It's not really the focal length, but how you use it. In a tight spot, sometimes you might grab your favorite, or maybe put on something bigger. Depends.

[Charles Papert]

Barry: yeah, I guess it would have been a hardcore spoof. I'm not an expert (really!) but I guess back in the day they had story lines in hardcore movies, now I think they just reserve those for softcore. This film was written to be set in the 70's but the director ultimately felt we didn't have to go overboard with the accuracy of the period.

Richard, to me choosing lenses is sort of an internal alchemy that is hard to pin down. In some instances it was dictated by the layout of the rooms; the dolly shot back from the bathtub used every inch of available tracking room before we banged into the vanity, thus the longest lens I could use and still get a 2-shot was (I think) a 32mm. When the director asked for an establishing shot of the exterior walk-and-talk, it felt natural to park the camera at one end of the long driveway and use a 135mm (our longest lens).

In general, as Mark says it comes down to the shot itself and a "feeling" that one gets. Sometimes I have done shows that are specifically designated as wide-angle or telephoto styles. One of the directors on "Scrubs" used to frown on anything longer than a 28mm as not being "funny". If I would try to sneak a few more millimeters into a close-up of one of the actresses (as most like to be shot longer-lens) and he happened to catch sight of the lens, he would frown and say "hmmm...not funny". I'd quickly zoom out again and he would brighten up and say "funny!". Other shows we constantly have the camera backed up against every wall or through windows in an effort to get as much glass as possible between us and the subjects.

I have noted with some interest that many DV users who get hold of a Mini35 or build their own seem compelled to shoot things on the longest lenses possible so that they can achieve the shallowest focus and be able to rack etc., possibly because it is a novelty to them. I just like having the flexibility to be able to choose that as an option.

[Richard Alvarez]

Mark, Charles...

Thanks for the insight... really. I guess the pun of "Longer or wider" just missed the mark, huh? Ah well, the risks of being a writer... either too 'on the nose' or to 'obtuse'.

But good info anyway!

[Rob Lohman]

Poor "ted"! <g>

[Mark Sasahara]

I was with you all the way on the pun. I saw it and laughed. Maybe I was too subtle, or Charles is trying to elevate the conversation above the beltline. The weiner jokes were getting kind of limp.

[Charles Papert]

Darn, I sort of look like a wet noodle now. I forgot that this had become a string of double-entendres and took the last few posts at face value.

[Mark Sasahara]

No worries, it was actually a really interesting insight as to how other directors work. Call me old fashioned, but you always want to be kind to the ladies and make them look good. Which you did try and do.