Search Results for 'no'

[neeraj.jain]

I also recently shot with a Bolex H16.

I will add that one of the challenges of it is that the image through the viewfinder gets darker as you stop down the iris or add ND’s. Another thing to consider is how loud it is — so if you’re recording sound, that might not be possible with that camera.

Also, one thing I struggled a little with is that the Bolex I used had to be cranked for each take. We got about 26 seconds (24 fps) for a fully wound motor.

In the results I got back, I feel like the footage I shot on the 10mm lens generally felt a bit fuzzy (even stopped down a bit) while the footage shot on the 25mm lens came out a lot sharper and crisp. I can’t share footage/stills yet otherwise I’d post a couple here for you

[dmullenasc]

I had a chat with Richard Crudo, ASC at NAB one year about that — he said every cinematographer is different in terms of how many layers of the onion they want to peel back. There’s a vague point where, of course, it crosses the line from practical knowledge to merely satisfying intellectual curiosity. We need to know enough to identify and solve problems, or at least, know who to ask. We need to know enough to get the results we desire, or at least, hire people to help us get those results. There are plenty of technical experts in this industry to get answers from, so to some degree, it depends on how reliant you want to be on other people. Ultimately the one thing that we have to supply is the artistic idea, our visual taste, and our storytelling skills, and then we have to know enough to achieve our ideas, even if that means consulting with experts when necessary.

Certainly one has to know the fundamentals of photography and lighting.

[quijotesco24]

First time film and you going with reversal?
You are a brave man that’s for sure.

Also test all equipment thoroughly, as you have been told, reversal has no latitude. So any error mechanical or human will be hard on your final images.

 

[dmullenasc]

Reversal film has no latitude for mis-exposure — I spent ten years shooting Super-8 and 16mm reversal before and during film school. You lose detail at either end so quickly that you really have to bias your exposure for the subject’s tonal values.

Spot metering may help though I used an incident meter, so what I did is that if the subject was mostly dark tones, I’d open up and if it was mostly light tones, I’d stop down.

[MS1350]

Hi, I would like to know Mr. Deakins, how much time do you spend in “knowing/understanding” the camera (film or digital) and how important is it to do that?

[gabj3]

Hi Sir Deakins,

A quick question. I remember listening to an interview where James mentioned the hardship of Teradek over the long shots of 1917.

I’ve had this issue; I resorted to pulling an EIRP output from the chipset controlling a video router, and setting up multiple bolts with the video router selecting which input has the best SNR. Therefore having a seamless transition; however, it’s finicky and unreliable.

Did you ever consider using COFDM diversity? It’s typical in broadcast to have a single receiver with multiple antenna inputs; the receiver decides which antenna has the best SNR. Therefore you can set up numerous antennas along a path, and it automatically switches to the best one. Perfect for long takes!

Of course, it inherently has a smaller carrier size (6-8Mhz instead of 20-40MHz of Bolt; note, each time you half the carrier size (channel), you half your SNR), but I’ve never seen this technology used on film. And 1917 seemed like the perfect candidate for it! So I’m curious if you considered it.

Infinityvision.tv
Gabriel Devereux - Engineer

[gabj3]

To through a spanner in the works.

The term ‘motion cadence’ is thrown around too much.

Your digital sensor will inherently perform differently to film. You’re dealing with the analogue movement of negative through a gate. Not a bunch of photodiodes being line reset. You’re probably seeing a multitude of aberrations in film like gate weave and so forth.

However, it’s very important to note. The likelihood of there being a difference in ‘motion cadence’ between digital cameras is minuet.

A CMOS sensor is inherently a line of MOSFET diodes; electrons absorb the magna of energy from photons, which allows the charge to bridge the gap between a PN junction – thus giving voltage proportional to the amount of light that hits x photodiode.

A photodiode is shorted every y interval, and this is your shutter speed. If it’s an APS ‘global shutter’ (adding local capacitors), it still has a line reset (the line going across the horizontal row of diodes/pixels that resets them). It just adjusts the interval in which each line is reset, as the local photosite can hold the voltage (local capacitors).

However – motion; the idea of each pixel receiving light over a period of time. Is the same. Adjusting your shutter (reset interval) will change this.

Infinityvision.tv
Gabriel Devereux - Engineer

[Roger Deakins]

For ‘1917’ we did shoot on a 40mm on the Alexa LF. To me this lens length was equivalent to between a 35mm and a 32mm on a standard format but that seems debatable. Some suggest that a 40mm is equivalent to a 27mm on an academy format. This doesn’t feel right to me and I only really am interested in what feels right. On ‘Empire of Light’ my favored range on lenses was between 32mm and 65mm but I sometimes shot much wider than that as well as longer. I was just judging by eye as I set a shot. Best not to get obsessed with numbers!

[Roger Deakins]

The scene in Wallace’s Office was lit in a quite different way to those shot for the far more red ‘Las Vegas’ sequences. For the former I was using direct sources both for the reflections off the water, which were achieved using 10K Fresnels, and the circular ‘chase’ of 300 watt Fresnel lamps that was lighting the characters. For this scene I wanted something a little more ‘golden’ and clean. For the Vegas sequences I was using a filter on the lens. This filter was specifically made by Tiffen for the shoot, a deep amber that was not available ‘off the shelf’.

[tedsuo]

Thanks for the answers, “motion cadence” sounds like the right term. I don’t think this issue is related to rolling shutter, which creates more of a skewed or warped image. And I even see this issue in CG, so it’s not really related to any particular camera technology.

And I completely agree that it is a can of worms.

For example, smooth camera motions which are too quick, but not quick enough. There is a bad middle ground where a camera pans quickly, but not quick enough to induce motion blur like a whip pan.

Strong specular highlights, and having too much of the frame sharply in focus also seem to cause it.

I’d link to examples, but I don’t really want to bag on anyone’s work. I have seen it come out of an Arri, so nothing is sacred. Never seen it in Mr. Deakins work though. 😉

I think much of this may fall under general “rules” of good cinematography, so there’s no need to explicitly worry about this particular issue, just worry about getting the shot you want. But I was curious if it was something that others actively thought about when planning their lighting, composition, lens choice, etc.

[Max A.]

Thank you very much for your answer quijotesco. Although your reply could appear a bit pedantic I think it is very important. I think that the fact of where to put the camera related to the action is one of the most important aspects of storytelling and often it is underrated (also by me when there is no time to shoot).
My question was a bit specific about technician aspects of physics and sensors, related to the field of view, perspective distortions, depth of field, and so to lens choice in order to better execute the theory that you rightly explain.
Your point is crucial, and of course, triggers me so much interest because I really feel that is a big narrative tool for a DP and a filmmaker.

Thank you again for your reply.

I wish you a great day.
Max.

[quijotesco24]

Check the term “Motion Cadence”.

I don’t know it it’s what you mean.

All I can say is some people is more prone to see the intra movement of frames than others.
We did a little experiment among some friends checking different frame rates. Being shoot with 3 different cameras. From 24 to 240 on a high refresh monitor.
We also check 24fps with different shutter angles. We try to use different screens and projectors and different viewing programs.

It’s really a can of worms as there are lots of variables. Camera, camera motion, the motion inside the frame, monitor or TV, all the settings you can choose in each of them. It’s endless. And in top of that some people can see more differences than others.

You can really get lost on it or simply use what you feel is the best and focus on more important issues.

But remember that the camera and the viewing monitor/tv/projector are as much as important when checking. And no matter what you do people will experience it different than you because their viewing device is not the same as yours.

[tedsuo]

The “digital motion” look I’m referring to is a strange kind of smoothness and sharpness. I’m not sure how else to describe it, except to say it is extremely noticeable in HFR films such as the Hobbit and Avatar 2, and it is made worse by whatever horrible motion smoothing algorithms they are inflicting upon televisions.

But, it’s completely possible to have this look occur at 24 fps, using high end digital cameras, including RED’s and Arri’s. Possibly it can even occur in film cameras, though every time I notice it it seems to be a digital camera. Some kinds of motion can cause it, and certain lighting setups can make it worse.

My questions are:

* Is there a common name for this issue?

* Is this something that can be intentionally mitigated? Are there any rules of thumb as to how to avoid it?

Apologies if I’m being a bit vague.

 

Thanks,

Teddy

[quijotesco24]

IMO to understand lensing you have to understand the effect each lens has to you and by definition the effect you want the audience to feel.

I know it sounds pedantic but it’s the reality. At least to me.

You don’t start choosing lenses by choosing the lens itself. You choose first where to put the camera relatively to the action or the thing you want to shoot.

The variables here are the distance to your subject and the angle you shoot from.

Then you choose which focal length to use for your desire framing in that position.

Position, angle (no lens related) and framing (lens related).

Photographers and cinematographers who have been shooting for long time develop their own style because their approach and reaction to compose an image is usually always the same. It’s their vocabulary. Other great ones force themselves to vary project to project.

Study photography, look for the camera position relatively to the action. Look what they want to say and how. Look around and see what lenses they used if you like.

But their language and approach to create an image is way more important than to know exactly what focal lengths they used.

If you know this then no matter the format or sensor size you will be able to adapt it on your own work.

 

[GeoffreyKenner]

I feel like when we get entangled with this discussion of film / digital, it only compares the sensor block to the film stock while in reality the whole chain has changed.

Scanner sensitivity and modern film development coupled with cleanup software (grain / scratch / dust removal) are so top notch today. Add on that the fact that Lights with the performance of modern LED have completely revolutionize the speed but also the shape of lighting. You can quickly make decision on the fly if the prep doesn’t play out. The fact everyone now has a feedback on set even shooting on film is also a huge step with the makeup artist able to determine if there are imperfection between takes on the fly. What you see less and less are this kind of imperfection in every department. Also film history has been to remove film imperfection (grain, halation) and optimize dynamic range to such a point that what people romanticize with the film look is actually what the film creator were trying to fight and ultimately managed to get rid of !

Not to mention the Finishing suit / Color grading process that even movies shot on film use today.

A lot of the feelings comes from mistakes, I remember Christopher Doyle speaking with Wong Kar Wai saying they shot with a diffusion filter the entire movie because they forgot to remove it the next day. Or they printed the film wrongly or forgot to put the frame for the correct aspect ratio but now people love this film that way and do really think that’s the film look while a lot of time, these were actually mistakes or to say it differently “happy accident” and I feel like the discourse we have today with DP saying “I pushed the stock because I wanted more grain” is something I’ve never heard or maybe in rare cases in the past before the digital era.

The monitors and theatrical projector have also become so good that everything today seems to reach their max sharpness.