Search Results for 'no'

[James]

Now that I’ve got the technology down, yes! I’m talking with Greig Fraser now about doing one.

[Frank]

I know what you mean and the thing I would compare it to is anamorphic lenses, which seemed to lose some of the ‘character’ that differentiated them from spherical as more and more of their artefacts got ironed out. To me the resolution of the Kodak EXR and Vision stocks from the mid-1990s looks radically different from the movies released even a few years prior to their introduction, to the point where for instance 1992 and 1997 can feel like two completely different eras of filmmaking.

[Davinki]

Hello, so to me, 35mm motion picture film just doesn’t have an aesthetic quality over modern digital cameras as I struggle to tell the difference half the time, unlike with say super 16 which I find does register with me as being filmic, even with grain removed. Like, I have to tell myself as I watch a modern 35mm film that it was shot on film, some examples for me are don’t look up and the northman, and even with films that attempt to emulate older time periods like licorice pizza and once upon a time in Hollywood, I just don’t see the image find it looking like eras they’re emulating, they look modern to me, which is not to say they’re bad, they look great, I just struggle to feel those films as being shot on film despite the fact they were.  and whatever textural quality there is to 35mm film, I find is easy to replicate with film emulation, and I even heard of some 35mm productions like hbos winning time using film emulation as the film was too clean on its own so they added grain that would look more like 16mm film and at that point I ask, why not shoot it on 16?

[Pranav Veluri]

I watched a video recently that talked about how DP Steve Yedlin tried to make Knives Out feel and seem as if it was shot on film through artificial halation and very mild artificial jitter and other techniques. This got me thinking, have you ever shot a movie on digital with the intention of making it feel like it was shot on film, or is that not something you think about as much while filming?

[giodashorts]

When you expose for the camera (if it’s an Alexa, a Sony, Red, or Film), you have to “choose” an area for which you would like to expose for—just because the log encoded image has detail in the highlights or above middle grey, doesn’t mean any of those areas of exposure will be “selected” to be the primary area for which the image was exposed for—when not in log, the brighter exposure of the sky will be “brighter” and less “detailed” than it may appear in log gamma.

In the case of this, the human face, and how people on the ground are exposed are dictating how the exposure is set—after that, the sky will land where it may, depending on that exposure, and depending on how the tonal curve of a LUT may affect the image. If the sky was the more important area of exposure, the people would appear darker, and the sky would show more “detail.” I’m not sure of any of this makes sense, but that’s what I would say to this.

[dmullenasc]

One doesn’t always want or need shadow detail. I mean, a silhouette shot is a black shape with no shadow detail.

In my case, I had plenty of shadow detail, this was 100 ASA film stock, well-exposed, and I was flashing the negative 15%. But the prints went through a skip-bleach process to increase contrast, so I deliberately shot a low-contrast negative and in the video transfer from a low-contrast IP, I had to simulate the higher contrast of the theatrical prints by crushing the shadow detail down or else everything would look flat.

[sanghamithran]

Yes master David , to not disrupt continuity with defined cloud formations seems like understandable in case of 1917.

 

In the shot you posted , would you not be worried often having little shadow details.

 

Thanks for the reply

[dmullenasc]

Larger formats use longer focal lengths for the same field of view so have less depth of field, so yes, you have to stop down if you want to counteract that.

Generally that means more light… but larger sensors tend to handle higher ISO settings because the increase in noise is less obvious, so you can partially compensate for the lower depth of field by increasing the ISO — you could, for example, go half and half, boost the ISO a little, boost the light level a little.

However, some people shoot larger formats precisely because they like the shallower depth of field.

[Max A.]

Thank you very much for your answer and clarification Mr. Mullen.
I agree and maybe I was overthinking that, sometimes is better to trust to what an eye sees in the frame rather than use energy doing math. Especially during a stressful day of shooting with a number of tricky situations and events.

Great to know the proportion between sensor size and iris aperture in order to match the depth of field of different sensor sizes.

Thinking a bit about the depth of field, therefore when we shoot on a full frame or even a large format sensor, do we need more light (so even a bigger light package) if we don’t want a rapid fall-off of the focus related to a big sensor?
Maybe I’m overthinking again..

Thank you again for your answer Mr. Mullen

I wish you a peaceful day.
Max.

[Davinki]

Kemalettin wrote:

Also, i wanna add this question i just didn’t want to open a new thread. Have you ever used Panavision glass spherical or anamorphic?

I’m not sure if he considered panavision anamorphic as they have the flaws that make him shoot spherical in the first place, but I do wonder if he’s shot on the primos.

[Stip]

There are instances where it’s justified to walk away if you’re working for free but it’s impossible to give advice from a distance.

Your safest bet is to give the best you can right n0w – simply because that way you will feel much better once it’s all over. But very hard to give advise without knowing the exact circumstances.

[dmullenasc]

I know it’s hard but if you’re a beginner in the industry, you want to me known as the person who maintains a positive attitude even when things get tough, not the person who is only pleasant when the hours are pleasant. However, if you’re not being paid and the job is terrible, then I don’t think anyone would object if you left for a better job that paid.

[dmullenasc]

First of all, many times on overcast days there are NOT distinct cloud formations. Here is a shot I did in the movie “Northfork” in Montana where there were great dark clouds rolling in just as I arrived that morning so I rushed to get the shot — within a half-hour it was a solid grey.

Second of all, if the goal was to make the whole story look like it took place in one day, you probably don’t want a lot of variation in skies from shot to shot over the course of shooting for many weeks.

[sanghamithran]

yes , i understood that , but usually on overcast days there would be great cloud formations happening , was curious why roger choose to not show that much cloud detail in 1917 , obviously alexa would capture all the details , so . maybe it was to avoid overly dramatic images from first sections of the film , also curious to know what rogers process in coloring if he wants that kind of sky , is it a highlight keying or some other process.

[Stip]

None of the cameras you mentioned has a better sensor and/or will give you better image quality than the S5.

I think it’s a bit harder to get V-Log footage to a good grade compared to REDraw or Braw, but once you found a way, the S-line sensors provide great dynamic range and color.

As already mentioned, a BMD VideoAssist or Atomos Ninja V will let you externally record Braw/Prores Raw for even better image quality.