Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
You can’t really compare the two because your shot is not in focus. If you zoom into it, you can see that you’re focused on the tip of his nose, not his eyes.
<p style=”text-align: left;”>The lens (and its f-stop setting) isn’t the only factor. You haven’t mentioned what camera you used nor the recording format nor the delivery format. Nor the source of the frame from “The Revenant”. Also in a small image seen on a computer or mobile device, the difference in sharpness between two similar images might just be the amount of electronic sharpening applied.</p>
The majority of cinema has been shot on standard 35mm for a century, not Full Frame. So there is no reason for filmmakers to always convert the focal lengths they are using to Full Frame equivalents in terms of field of view when discussing their movie. When we talk about Orson Welles’ use of the 24mm on “Citizen Kane” or the 18.5mm on “Touch of Evil”, we don’t convert those numbers to Full Frame equivalents.
“A 35mm lens on a Full Frame camera is around 27,5mm on a Super 35.”
No, a 35mm lens on a Full Frame camera is 35mm on Super 35. The format doesn’t change the focal length of the lens.
Larger and/or closer is softer, though too close and the rapid fall-off is noticeable, so just larger for softer is better. If the bounce amount is too much, you can either dim it by stretching a single net scrim over it (so you don’t have to back it up), or you can use a less white material such as Day Blue Muslin (or Day Grey), even a dirty unbleached muslin would be less bright if you also want some warmth.
I find that large Day Blue Muslins add subtle cool fill without looking obvious.
I would say because it’s not a scene about intimacy, it’s about an imbalance of power — he’s in a single chair, she’s alone on a love seat.
At least with 4-perf 35mm film, there was the advantage that anamorphic had over Super 35 cropped to 2.39 — the larger negative area used, resulting in a finer-grained image.
With digital, that advantage doesn’t really exist — with 2X anamorphic you aren’t using more of the sensor for 2.39 since most sensors are at least 1.5 : 1 in shape, plus there isn’t grain in digital anyway.
So that pretty much leaves using anamorphic in digital for the anamorphic artifacts, the squeezed bokeh, the soft edges, the flares… if you minimize or elimate all of that then what are you really getting out of anamorphic?
I think it makes sense (Lumet’s method of working on taped-out empty rehearsal rooms like stage plays do) because 80% of the time ends up being taken up of discussions with actors over meaning and motivations, not the blocking. So it’s good to get that out of way in prep.
Something like Half Soft Frost or Silent Frost should work but it will have a seam in a 12×12 I think. You can rent a rear projection screen from some video projector companies.
I don’t think it exists in the way you describe in the original post – lighting today is more based on emulating a source so if the men and women are lit by the same source then they get the same lighting more or less. The differences I was referring to is more subtle in terms of adjusting the light in a close-up for cosmetic reasons.
It’s a bit of an outdated view on lighting. Back in the 1940s-60s, you read interviews with some cinematographers who sometimes suggested that “realism” in lighting meant lighting men to look rugged and tough (more use of sculptural hard cross-lighting, no diffusion on the lens) and women to look beautiful (more use of a soft frontal key light and diffusion on the lens) — which is not how we define realism today.
Practically speaking, beyond lighting a space naturally with the impression of using only practical sources (whether true or not), we sometimes do “cosmetic” lighting adjustments for an actor if they need to be flattered visually in the scene, but that might hold true for a male or female character depending on the scene.
It’s true that more often, we are asked to light the female actor in the scene a bit more flatteringly, more glamorously, than the male actor, sometimes for a good story reason… but other times there are other external pressures to do so, or it is just expectation on the part of someone in charge. One could complain that it relates to the “male gaze” and the objectification of women in media, and that’s true sometimes, but there are other factors too.
Cinematographers often repeat certain tools and techniques to achieve the intended look of the project. And of course, they apply their personal taste on their work.
But personal style, outside of the project’s style itself, is not something one should try and develop self-consciously. That tends to look inorganic. Just tell the story visually in the way you think is most appropriate and effective.
