Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I think Team Deakins didn’t get further then their opening question “How did you get into filmmaking?”, haha.
But it’s a great episode, full of interesting stories and anecdotes.
Well explained Max.
Looks like there also is some software stabilization going on that might give it a ‘manipulated’ feel.
Thank you!
That’s a very good point – the goal would indeed be to emulate mercury vapor street lamps as they looked on film stocks (of the past). I have a good idea now where to start and what to look for.
Thank you both for sharing your knowledge.
A close collaboration with the set designer and dressers makes so much sense and pays off. The easiest way to get an interesting shot is to point the camera at something interesting.
Thank you!
I’ll follow David’s routine then.
A follow up question: did mercury vapor street lamps in the 70’s / 80’s have more tint than later variations?
You may want to reduce the number of ‘main lights’, that provide most of the luminance for exposure on the subjects.
From there you could supplement small accents of light that do not really add brightness but solely mood – like a small lava lamp, tiny light chain, a computer tablet lying somewhere or get creative, e.g. a t-shirt hanging over a lamp shade if it’s a messy teenager’s room. You may also make use of color contrast and have the main light sources have vastly different color temperatures.
You may also find a single lamp that’s design does something special to the room (see pic). You could place reflective items or mirrors in the room that provide isles of light when reflecting the main light.
You may want to reduce the number of lights but add ‘detail’ to the room itself (textured wallpapers, pictures, blankets, pillows, magazines, clothes ect).
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
