Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
This reminds me of a quote from Benoit Debbie on his work for the beach bum, I don’t completely agree with the idea that digital cant do what says it cant do as certain cameras have a wider color gamut than print film but that’s besides that point ill let uall read and give your thoughts “The outstanding merit of using LEDs with celluloid film is that you can see and feel the separation of the colors you create on set. With digital, it’s very difficult to see any layers of color. Take green for example, you can record green digitally, but it’s hard to register the cyan, red yellow or red inside this green. But the nuances are all there on film.”
I’m not saying it’s of tantamount importance but I’m just saying it’s there as a theoretical technicality (an ironic one at that) and it doesn’t have to be the master anamorphics, it could be any 2x anamorphic really.
Realistically any production that could afford a V-Raptor and a set of Master Anamorphics wouldn’t be so stretched for budget that the data rate would become the deciding factor in something as essential to the look of the film as the choice of lenses. If you wanted to shoot 2.39 but were agnostic on whether or not it should be spherical or anamorphic, would the data rate really be what pushed you toward anamorphic before every other characteristic of the lenses themselves? The width of the sensor is to some extent arbitrary, you could match the field of view of the Master Anamorphics with spherical lenses by using wider focal lengths. The widest Master Anamorphic is 28mm, the equivalent field of view on Super 35 would be around 14mm. As David said, if you wanted to also match the depth of field there are a number of wide aperture 14mm lenses.
hence, debatable.
I mean I do think the master anamorphics still have some anamorphic qualities to their out of focus backgrounds but beyond that I do think there is a practical purpose to shooting 2x anamorphic on these newer sensors, that being data rate. For example on the red vraptors, you save 21% shooting 8k 6:5 (269mb/s) compared to shooting 8k 2.40:1 (340mb/s) natively and you get a 21% wider fov if you use 2x anamorphic lenses in 8k 6:5 (51mm effective width) vs shooting spherical 2.40 image (40mm image width), it’s like shooting techniscope but with 2x anamorphic lenses and a wider fov, which i find ironic. Now that’s not a big difference so whether that matters is debatable but I did want to point that out
Hello, what would you say is a good rule of thumb is for assembling a cove light setup in regards to the number of lights, the intensity of those lights, and the size of the fabric?
Reading your answer made me realize that I wasn’t following my own ethos of having a versatile light as the reason I was looking at using a light was that I wanted something to double as a key when not in sun, but that’s limited and now I found a 1.6kw hmi better in my price range that claims to be the equivalent of 6kw of tungsten light but can also outright use 2kw tungsten bulbs, now could either of these work for augmenting daylight as a key light just off camera in a wide shot?
Alright then, from your experience, what kind of light would be the bare minimum in working against sunlight in the context of something handheld like a sun gun?
Okay then, is there any situation where a par light would be the best option? Reason I ask is the light I’m considering owning has the best output with a par reflector by a long shot but is there a way to make the uneven beam usable so I don’t feel like I have to switch out for the fresnel and compromising on output?
Oh, I thought that since the master anamorphics seemed to have solved every issue you have with anamorphic lenses that they would be your first choice but I guess not
In the past I have certainly pushed film to get more grain. I disagree that it is the imperfections that are missing in today’s work. To me there is a lack of risk taking and of pushing the possibilities of film (by which I mean film as opposed to film or digital capture).
Ironic considering with modern technology, you’d think there would be a drive to push limits more often. Also, would you agree that 35mm film stocks don’t really have that layer of unobtainium and aren’t that different from digital cameras once post production comes into question?
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.
