Personal View site logo
Disappear: short film on hacked GH1
  • 34 Replies sorted by
  • arnarfjodurarnarfjodur

    @endotoxic Don't remember how much I used the 14-140 - but definitely in the cinema lobby scenes, as in on: 04:50. Needed the wide angle to create the awkwardly flat an symmetric look. In that case you don't need shallow depth of field, cause the frame is anyway quite 2D.

  • endotoxicendotoxic

    @arnarfjodur thank you for the information.

    im amazed by the 14-140. I really didnt thought you have used a zoom, less that one. Taking post production away, the way the light and the lens was set up really impressed me, seeing the facebook page, all was simple and clear. Well done, you have good eye.

    I had a Gh1 but got robbed last year. I think it has the best looking sensor of the three.

    congratulations.

  • arnarfjodurarnarfjodur

    @producer wow, thank you. Of course, a lot of the credit for the look goes to Jonni, the colour grader. And the director and everyone else.

  • producerproducer

    @arnarfjodur:

    This is the best of the best ever I've watched shot with GH1, GH2, GH3, etc.!!!

    You don't even need any hack, you simply proved that the battles for patches with higher bitrates are not the truth for creating a valuable production! If I didn't know, I'd swear that this film was shot with Canon or Sony high-budget cinema cam but no Panasonic GH1.

    And, of course, the post processing is the right one! No artificial gradings, vignettes, thin sharp colors and shapes with digital characteristics.

  • arnarfjodurarnarfjodur

    Thanks all!

    @matt_gh2 Shot in Reykjavik, Iceland.

    @endotoxic Probably most used lenses was Voiglander 25mm F0.95 - after that Canon FD 50mm 1.2. Used the 14-140 some places where I needed a wide angle. Sorry, it was actually shot some time ago and hacked even longer ago, just used some generic hack, think "C" or something like that.

    I have a kit of Arri Tungsten lights with a soft box. From 150 to 1000 watts. Also a lot of natural lights and a reflector. Quite simple as I did not have any gaffer to work with me, although some crew helped me set up lights and stuff. If possible, I played around with curtains, found objects and practicals to manipulate the light, and chose locations and shooting times with that in mind. I did much more of containing light than increasing light. The blue screen for the cinema scene was simply moved around in a sports hall with big windows until I got an even lighting from the sunlight.

    I was actually ALSO the producer of this short, which I thoroughly don't recommend.

    @Manu4Vendetta I did not do the post myself, although I participated in the process as well as the director. The muted look, softness and graininess probably has a lot to do with the post.

    There are some beind the scenes picks here, perhaps they give some idea: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.213580765344126.47685.160040357364834&type=3

  • Manu4VendettaManu4Vendetta

    Good job. Look like from an Arri. I love this look and not digital look. What about lenses and post? I speculate that some old optics in the digital lenses I think only with Zeiss or Leica would be possible.

  • matt_gh2matt_gh2

    @anarfjodur Nice film. Where was this shot? Thanks for posting

  • endotoxicendotoxic

    WOW, this is really nice work. Yes, the controll of depth of field is very well executed. Im amazed how GH1 has the more cinematic look of the GH series. That sensor is so grate at low iso, it gives you a texture GH2 or GH3 cant achive. I think its the lack of detail and sensor size that gives that overall look.

    Can you please tell us about the patch used in this shots, and more about the lighting used, type of ligh, watts, etc.

  • tinyrobottinyrobot

    Nice cinematography controlling the depth of field. Can you tell about the camera and choice of lenses?

Add a Comment