Stip

Posted on by

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 186 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215882
    Stip
    Participant

      Thanks David,

      I notice that I fail to explain myself properly and only confuse people.

      in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215879
      Stip
      Participant

        P.S.: I’m a filmmaker, not a technician, also English is not my native language – so the words and terms I use may be too imprecise and cause confusion.

        in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215878
        Stip
        Participant

          I think we’re talking past each other. I don’t talk about bit depth or effects of compression.

          My point is that changing ISO does nothing to the recorded raw file. But it does something when recording to a codec – if you raise ISO above base, the camera adds gain. That added gain is baked into the file – contrary to when shooting raw.

          E.g. if you raise base ISO one stop, 1 stop of gain will be baked in, which will push the values 1 stop closer to clipping point. This does not happen when shooting raw, as it only changes metadata and your behaviour (exposure) when looking at a, now brighter, screen.

          I’m not talking about highlight information, but clipping headroom.

          Anyways, enough input from my side 🙂

          in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215873
          Stip
          Participant

            With raw it’s just metadata. But when shooting to a codec, and raising ISO, you are now baking (the camera’s) gain into the file, which pushes the highlights closer to clipping point with every ISO / gain step added.

            High dynamic range cameras may deal better with this but others won’t. I see more risk than benefit.

            in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215871
            Stip
            Participant

              When using a compressed codec, if you rate down you’re still under-exposing the image and retaining more apparent highlight information.

              Yes but this is about rating ISO higher, not lower, aka baking gain into a compressed codec.

              in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215867
              Stip
              Participant

                First sentence should have been a question and not sound as rough, sorry but I couldn’t edit it.

                in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215866
                Stip
                Participant

                  What do you mean (please in easy words).

                  Recording to a compressed codec is not the same as recording raw. If the ISO setting applies a gain, you will bake that in.

                  in reply to: High ISO for shooting daylight exterior #215858
                  Stip
                  Participant

                    This is only valid when shooting raw, not when shooting a compressed codec.

                    You can do that, it will distribute more of the overall dynamic range to the highlights.

                    Personally I find it mostly unnecessary and stick to base ISO’s and expose from there.

                    I do often lower ISO in low light though to distribute more dynamic range to the shadows.

                    Stip
                    Participant

                      Sure you can.

                      On “Joker” they used a large number of different lenses including Arri, Canon, Leica, Nikon, Zeiss and vintage 65mm lenses. 1st AC Greg Irwin called it “a bit of a Frankenstein lens package”.

                      If you only have one lens that needs to be matched in post it should not be a problem. You can shoot a color chart with all lenses to make it even easier.

                      in reply to: how can i light like this? #215819
                      Stip
                      Participant

                        That’s not a regular light, it’s a laser. You’ll also need haze to make the laser beams visible.

                        You can get both from event rentals I would guess.

                        in reply to: Continuity with Haze #215792
                        Stip
                        Participant

                          A plug-in to introduce haze is akin to a plug-in to introduce a filter or any other optical variation. It is inherently possible to do so, but it will never be truly accurate.

                          I encourage you to look into Scatter (Video Village). It is accurate in emulating filter diffusion to a point where it’s visually indistinguishable to the corresponding filter.

                          The haze emulation filter (Smoque / Tiffen) within Scatter is not meant to replace haze – of course it cannot – but to even out differences between shots should they occur, and it does a nice job of achieving this.

                          in reply to: Continuity with Haze #215780
                          Stip
                          Participant

                            I’m not sure what Ridley Scott uses but if you mean older films, chances are they used the oil based DF-50 hazer. It’s great but leaves nasty residue.

                            The finer the haze, the longer it hangs in the air, the easier continuation. The likes of Pea Soup Phantom Hazer and MDG Atmosphere produce ultra fine haze that leaves almost no residue.

                            But maybe you want to ‘see’ more of the haze. Common names like Antari, Martin/Jem, Look are more affordable and produce much bigger particles, but also continuity gets tricky – imo you’ll need a guy just to take care of the haze.

                            There’s also a different kind of solution to fix continuity: a fantastic software plugin called ‘Scatter’ by Video Village, reproducing physical accurate diffusion of various filters – among them the haze-emulation filter ‘Smoque’ by Tiffen. Scatter could be used to compensate continuity differences in shots within a scene.

                            in reply to: Am I a rubbish cameraman or is it my autism? #215774
                            Stip
                            Participant

                              do you think, this is good enough to keep trying, even when you are useless at networking

                              It’s good! Your handheld work in my opinion is the best and I could instantly tell that you have a feeling for framing, creating depth but also pacing and an understanding of what needs to be told.

                              The first thing that came to mind was…London. I would guess there are many, many cinematographers trying to make it besides you. So networking may be even more important in that environment.

                              I’m as old as you, am an introvert plus for the most part of my life I had a metabolic disfunction that made me chronically tired but also social interaction was exhausting. I did not talk much on jobs and was quite concentrated, because I always feared to run out of energy before the job was done. I also had mild but constant social anxiety – even though people always liked me – but that’s something I needed to learn: no-one is ill-willed and people like me.

                              For these reasons I was very bad at networking too, but was lucky to live in an area where there is lots of demand but little supply, so to speak, and the agencies I work with somehow had larger clients.

                              So I have no tips how to network, however, I can tell that I went through phases that felt like things are going backwards, too. I think this is rather normal in our business. And I’m afraid luck and being at the right place at the right time plays a larger part than one would like.

                              Which leads me to our industry’s famous saying: the most important thing (in networking) is to show up. Whatever opportunity rises, just show up. The rest will write itself and in my opinion, cannot be controlled fully. Show up. Much will lead to nothing but some things will.

                              You said being on the autism spectrum causes anxiety and resistance when meeting new people. Maybe this is something you can work on with a specialist? It seems to be what holds you back from creating more opportunities.

                              One last thing, if you feel you need more work to showcase to get better/other jobs, you may consider shooting a short film and make it as good as you can. I noticed people often are more impressed by narrative work than commercial work or music videos.

                              Sorry for my chaotic response and good luck!

                              in reply to: Shaky cams. #215750
                              Stip
                              Participant

                                since the camera  got closer to the actor so gently and slowly that the first time i didn’t even notice it

                                I love the very slow and subtle push-in.

                                There is a great version of it, albeit more noticeable, in “Good Will Hunting”, where Will has a job interview at the NSA and he starts a long monologue, forecasting a list of consequences if he took the job. The camera slowly pushes in on him and stops at the climax of his forecast,  then pulls back out again when Will summarizes what all this would mean for him personally. It goes uncut for 2 minutes and is powerful, intriguing and serves the story.

                                in reply to: Shaky cams. #215746
                                Stip
                                Participant

                                  I wouldn’t agree that it’s always a bad tool. For example it helps uphold the constant stress level in “Uncut Gems” or “Good Times” by the Safdie brothers, which is an important part of their story telling and the experience. The camera always moves and often it’s handheld and shaky. There are also director’s and cinematographers who use a handheld, shaky camera only once or twice in a film, at very specific moments, and that can work very well, too.

                                  I agree it’s often a bad option though, especially if it doesn’t serve a purpose or it’s only done for time and budget reasons (TV shows come to mind).

                                Viewing 15 replies - 1 through 15 (of 186 total)