Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


M Joel W last won the day on August 3

M Joel W had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

14 Good

About M Joel W

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

5940 profile views
  1. A lens's focal length is the distance between the optical center of the lens and the film back when the lens is focused on infinity. (I think?) When you change focus to focus on closer distances, you're moving the lens forward and effectively "zooming in." At least with most standard unit focusing lenses... with my old Nikon still lenses, I notice they zoom in as I move toward "macro" mode. Very slightly. The effective f-stop also decreases but only slightly. Which is why there's exposure compensation for macro and for large format. A lens designed to minimize breathing minimizes zooming in or zooming out when you change focus. Perhaps the lens zooms out a bit as it focuses close.
  2. I usually consider a focal length equivalent to the diagonal of the sensor/film back size to be the "normal" regardless of aspect ratio. 36X24 would be: 43mm Super35: 25mm Canon APS-C: 27mm 6x6: 80mm I shoot most often with 50mm on 36X24 and 28mm or 35mm on Super35/APS-C, though, and consider those the "normal." So I guess I round up. If 50mm is "normal" for you on Super35, then the full frame equivalent would be 85mm.
  3. I once graded film to match digital and paid special attention to vectorscope peaks. Even when the chroma and saturation matched, the digital vectorscope had a more diffuse point cloud, as if blur had been applied to the image. (It hadn't.) Subjectively, the film looked more saturated to me. This is just one camera and one film stock and one person's experience. But I noticed... something. 2383 is a print stock, for which there are emulation LUTs. Never had the fortune to finish on film (well, except when I shot reversal) so I can't speak to how saturated it is or isn't compared with scanned film, an emulation LUT, and digital projection. Guessing the real thing looks better still, but I do post digitally so I may never know. There are other differences, too. Reversal/digital vs color negative film. Look up the "Linny LUT" for an interesting take on that. The spectral acceptance curves for some very saturated films (Velvia, etc.) are quite narrow compared with what I believe a Bayer pattern filter achieves. The "trichromatic" digital medium format back is similar in this regard, though the marketing is misleading and there is still a lot of overlap between filter acceptance curves despite what they imply. Regardless, look at images from it and compare with the standard back. The "colorspace" etc. is all the same. Just different dyes in the Bayer pattern and a slightly slower (ISO) sensor as a result. Could you just grade one to match the other with a LUT? I couldn't say. I've read a lot of information indicating a lot of contradictory things about this topic. I think you just need to trust your eyes. I think another part of it is that everyone is drawn to video or film for a different reason. If you like shooting in one format or another, embrace it, I guess. Or maybe not. I thought Michael Mann's style or Fincher's in Zodiac would be the future of digital cinematography, but instead the Alexa and a "film look" seems more popular now..
  4. I don't think they're interchangeable. Every lens is different the same as every type of diffusion is different. The artifacts you're getting from a Speed Panchro, for instance, include edge softness and different types of chromatic aberration and flares that are far more complex than a simple promist filter could ever simulate. Even the MTF characteristics of modern lenses are distinct from older classic designs and those design choices filter down into bokeh and CA and coma, too. On the other hand, I agree diffusion is given too little consideration and lens choice too much, particularly on Internet forums. A lot of DPs are already doing what you mention, I've liked the look of modern Angenieux zooms with a light Promist filter, for instance, on von Trier's films. If that look works for you, it certainly seems easier. It can look great. It just won't replicate a Cooke Panchro or Super Baltar imo. I have no idea if it's true, but I've heard Game of Thrones is shot with a Hollywood Black Magic filter except during vfx sequences. Could be totally wrong. So the approach you're mentioning is a really good one, it just results in a different kind of softening imo. I personally miss over the top diffusion like Kaminski and Richardson used in the 90s. The way Kaminski used nets and classic softs is just as (if not more) interesting to me than the way contemporary DPs use vintage lenses... I really love the look of the non-HD classic softs at higher strengths.
  5. Look for responses from others, too. I'm an amateur DP (work in post), but I know a bit about HDR/SDR workflows as a result, too. So take the above with a grain of salt.
  6. Personally, I aim to keep everything (except point sources and specular highlights) within the camera's dynamic range. You can always burn highlights out in post or lift shadows (to an extent). However, I suppose if I were after a really punchy, rich, vibrant look I might aim to shoot really flat and add a high contrast grade. I'd never considered it, but using an ND grad filter would be an interesting thing to try instead of a power window, however I sold mine once I got a camera with dynamic range similar to what you mentioned above. I wonder if it offers any advantages. I think color negative film looks different from digital in a way where a lower contrast scene can appear more vibrant, and there's an interesting LUT I saw that emulates this but it occurred to me most while watching 90s blockbusters. Regardless, those films were exposed for the film then telecine'd for video without throwing away half the dynamic range, so I wouldn't do that with digital, either. For me, I would worry about exposing properly at key or where I want to be relative to key first (not the case with those who strictly ETTR with digital), then I worry about not losing highlight and shadow detail, and adding fill or an ND grad or streaks and tips or a flag or ND gel or whatever as necessary. But aesthetics are a separate concern. If I want a very rich image, I might worry about my contrast ratios and keep them conservative then add contrast in post. So I wouldn't say shooting for a smaller dynamic range is strictly crazy, but I would say it's a stylistic choice, not a technical one. I do find that these cameras encourage lazy lighting, and if using a lot of light gets you an image you like, go for it.
  7. Thanks. The original plan was shooting 4:3 16mm... I might still... The best vfx I saw this year (the Thor fat suit) were mostly practical. But if you do it wrong practically it's much harder to do it right in comp. Vfx deaging imo requires the cleanest source possible and that's not just grain, but practical effects and makeup that muddy it. Smaller things like wigs present good questions... I just need to shoot tests, which I don't want to do since 16mm is expensive, but whatever. I think shooting coverage a little tighter will help sell the effect because I'll have a little more meat to work with and/or shooting additional plates digitally in close up for the wide shots (to composite in over film). Figuring out how to stack the lenses to obviate parallax might be an issue, though. I lack resources to Timecode sync my digital camera and a film camera, I think. Or maybe I don't. Not sure. I'm very very curious about the deaging workflow on Irishman and how they used multi-cam (for tighter coverage to cut in with, for motion capture, etc.) but it has little to do with what I'm doing personally, so I won't pretend it does. They're working on a much higher level. I'm working entirely in 2D for a quick scene. Still, could be an inspiration for how to tackle a tricky problem. But just from this thread I've decided to light flat and user a slower stock, so it has been useful, thanks everyone. And I'm sure I'll be asking about timecode syncing a digital and film camera... or might just roll 120p for digital and hope to get some overlap. Very curious to see the breakdowns here, too.
  8. Does Pfister mean he's lighting at +6 stops over key (through the incident meter) or +6 stops over 18% gray through the spot meter? I think CML found the Monstro to hold to about +2.5 stops over key in their test scene, which would translate in their test scene to +5.5 over 18% gray or just under I suspect. Alexa held to +5 I believe, which would correlate with the rated +7.8 over 18% gray. I believe... I like the look of the Vimeo link btw.
  9. Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Well maybe I will shoot 7213 rather than 7219 for this sequence at the very least. Of course, film grain is also the best thing there is to help sell a composite. 😉
  10. Any idea why they had to shoot digital to do de-aging? For the multi-cam stuff or to get a cleaner image to start with? I was planning to do a project with simple 2D de-aging and shoot on super 16. Now I'm contemplating shooting those shots digitally–in fact, I had been before–but I can't imagine it would matter much since I'm just doing 2D de-aging. (Yes, I have done this in the past.) My needs are modest, I think I can get by shooting super 16, but I'm very curious about this if anyone has more information about the de-aging process they've used here. It's funny, I can see some tells here (signs of frequency separation: too smooth base, too much fine texture), but this blows me away: Whereas the CGI-based de-aging largely doesn't. The Tony Stark work was very very excellent, though, and I believe combined 2D and 3D.
  11. And do I know it. I might just settle for ultra 16 but that's a discussion for another thread.
  12. I missed the boat! A friend told me the same thing when I asked about getting back into shooting 35mm. Well, it's a good sign so far as I'm concerned. I far prefer the look of film. 16mm is more my budget anyway.
  • Create New...