Jump to content

Sam Kim

Basic Member
  • Posts

    97
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sam Kim

  1. Does anyone have any experience with this?

     

    I work in LA, work a bunch of new media and work off W4's. I'm technically an employee of the companies I work for. I don't work every day but I can be shooting anywhere from 5 days to 20 days a month for a company doing random things as a DP. Baby will be born in February and wanted to be able to take some time off.

     

    Do I qualify for Paid Family Leave (PFL)? Being the holidays I can't get a hold of anyone until next week but I thought I'd reach out to y'all.

     

    Cheers

  2. Used it a number of times, if you want decent 3D it works well as long as you are not planning on too many close ups as it cannot be closer than a couple of meters in and zooming in does diminish the 3D effect in my opinion. Also noise can be a problem in low light. Never had a problem with vertical alignment appar from some initial beta units. You will always end up doing some horizontal adjustment in post no matter what cam you use. Ghosting can be wrong glasses with monitor, but most likely you haven't set your camera up right...

     

     

    ghosting is more of glasses+ monitor thing? i was hoping it'd be that simple. time to ask them to give me all their glasses until i can get it right.

  3. i've been testing it in a rental house and plan on shooting a short on it next month. there are different things i'm hearing about the camera itself (such as that it still needs Horizonatal and Vertical image translation later on even though it's advertised to be perfect in this aspect.

     

    also, because of the inability to change your IA you are limited to what feels like 3D depth. i've seen footage of massive landscape wides that just didn't feel... stereo/3D ish. it was flat and 2D images have felt more 3D. with that said... the word is that the spot for your depth is about 9-25ft. which is a limitation i'm going to try and work with and use the "strong" 3D depth feel only when it's emotionally needed to set it apart from the rest of the film.

     

    i was monitoring off a 3D panasonic monitor and i saw a lot of ghosting but i have yet to find out if it's the monitor or the camera. i'm trying to get my editor to run some tests with me and hopefully but it through some dynamic range and EI tests.

     

    cheers.

  4. Anyway, on Season Two of "United States of Tara" I had to record the Genesis in Rec.709 gamma so used the gamma tables and knee compression to create a fake PanaLog effect but it wasn't the same, I couldn't get the same highlight protection. Luckily I was allowed to go back to PanaLog for Season Three.

     

    you used the Genesis and shot to rec 709 but created a gamma curve on top of that to create a fake panalog? that sounds like you had to fight against yourself a lot then?

     

    thanks for the information.

     

    what i'm understanding is that gamma curves are used because that gamma in tv monitors and such. and that log encoding was made to match the film world and the characteristic curves of film. is this right?

     

    to me it still sounds like they're doing the same thing with linear sensors just matching to different output destinations in mind but that curves are being manipulated by companies to match what they think best serves their product.

     

    one thing that concerns me, is that my colorist mentioned that since we're correcting everything to a rec709 plasma (no money for a big room with P3 color space) i was wondering how that will look when projected in environments that i have no control. at school we have a 4k projector that the projectionist can set to rec 709 so i can expect similar results to what's being displayed in the color correct, but what about everywhere else? is this just a normal thing though? exhibiting is always up for grabs?

  5. i'm working on a sony f800 and i have put in a gamma curve that matches panalog.

    i'm also working on the genesis and capturing panalog.

     

    by eye and by tests of color correct this works fairly well and then a friend asked me to define the difference between a gamma curve and log.

     

    i had no real answer for him. please correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding of logarithmic curves is that they are taking the sensor data and making quantization points to make a better curve to get the most from your sensor. does a gamma curve not do the same thing?

  6. so the test now involves an F800 with a gamma curve built to emulate panalog.

    instead of recording to the XDCAM Disc we're also going to be testing the 10 bit HDSDI signal to HDCam SR.

    hopefully, this will yield the results we're looking for.

     

    I'm trying to confirm that the HD/SDI signal is in fact 10 bit. Does anyone know by chance?

  7. Seems silly to "dumb down" a Genesis to match the quality of an EX3 for A & B camera shooting (as opposed to just using the EX3 as an action camera or for inserts, etc.) There's about a 3-stop difference in depth of field for one thing, plus the EX3 doesn't shoot Log. I suppose you could try to set the Gain on the Genesis to +1 stop to allow you to stop down a bit more, and you could switch it to Rec.709 mode and then play with the settings and the EX3's settings to match each other better. But you lose almost two-stops of headroom by not using PanaLog on the Genesis.

     

     

    i agree. it is silly but i don't think we'll make the day without another camera.

     

    and it looks like we'll be using a Sony F800 instead now with digiprimes. would you still suggest the 1 stop gain? i'd definitely be trying to match the depth of field a bit better.

     

    the plan is to make the b cam an action/insert camera and butting the cameras up as much as possible.

     

    Bob Primes mentioned to me today that I should shoot cine1. that shooting the camera the flattest i could would be the best bet.

     

    I'm doing a test at Panavision on Monday, so I guess I'll have my answers soon to see how correctable things are. I really worry about the dynamic range though.

     

    Thanks for the reply, David. It's always appreciated.

  8. My A Camera is a Panavision Genesis. We have heavy days that would benefit from using a second camera. I have access to a Sony EX3 and a KiPro, potentially, to use but I'm worried about getting their colors to match. We'll most likely only have the EX3's stock lens to shoot with so this is an issue also compared to using the Primo's on the Genesis.

     

    Also, my editor will be editing in AVID and capturing the Genesis footage to DNxHD files. What would be the best way to get him the files from the EX3/KiPro? I'm thinking of possibly just shooting the Genesis with the SSR when we use a B cam and then capture files onto the SRW from the KiPro and also let the KiPro record also onto its hard drive as an extra precaution.

     

    Suggestions on how to get them to match as well as how to deal with it all in post are welcomed!!!

  9. btw, sfstate, which you're right by and is where i went to undergrad, is a top 5 film school. they have a good program for a lot less money. not the best equipment but you can learn a lot. i would recommend going to their thesis film screenings that happen soon. contact the production coordinator there for the cinema department and take a look. it's worth at least that since it's so close.

  10. i always find this topic fascinating. i'm currently a grad student at one of these schools and i can tell you there's much to learn for everyone who goes to these regardless of how much real world experience you have. the technical things you learn are so minor from what you can learn if one is willing to talk less and listen more to the meanings of what's going on.

     

    personally, if one wants to be a technical DP these schools aren't the one to go to. these schools have equipment, sure, but they don't sit down with you and teach you everything. it's an organic process of exploring for yourself and learning from your peers. i'm not by anyway the top of my class but i'm lucky to be surrounded by so many people with such various backgrounds that can help me learn something when i need it.

     

    the true beauty of these schools, when utilized correctly, is how to tell a meaningful story visually, the technical stuff is sort of second hand. my professor puts it beautifully: " a dp is three things, an artist, a technician and a manager." but he also follows up with this: "without the last skill (manager) the other two are meaningless." good luck on your path.

  11. am i the only one?

    i think a dp's job, for narrative shorts and features, work doesn't really get shown by a reel. the reel is more of a flashy thing that shows you can get "cool" shots. story telling isn't dictated by "cool" shots alone.

     

    sorry... just thought i'd vent.

  12. What is meaningless?

    f/t: 2.8 on the ultra prime and Zeiss ZF , f/t: 4 on the canon and cooke

     

     

    f/t? canon still lenses don't have t stops on them do they? i've yet to see one.

    if you have the budget go cine lenses. if you don't go still lenses. in this case paying more gets you more.

  13. If you have any sort of access to a video projector, you could simply shoot some travel footage out a window, and then project that in a loop onto a white muslin or similar material. Maybe adjust the brightness and contrast on the projector to get the blown out look you mentioned.

     

     

    no projector. i've talked to my team and found the perfect point to stop the vehicle to move and it's towards the beginning of the scene thus... we limit our green screen dance and i am happy.

     

    cheers everyone for the options.

  14. Sure, those and many more. It really depends on the look of the movie. I particularly like The Girl With the Pearl Earring for its Vermeer content and look. But I also love the Francis Bacon biopic film Love Is The Devil. As I said, each has its look and it may fit one project better than others. IMHO, being inspired by the quality of the light as represented by specific individual artists (or moments in time, experiences, visions, etc) to fit the mood of and complement whatever project is at hand is really what cinematographers are all about.

     

    totally agreed. now that i think about it i wish i didn't limit it to painters. i'm curious about inspiration and references in general. :] it's truly pretty fascinating what speaks to people and how they found it or interpret the art.

  15. it's all about how it's used.

    when subtle and used right it's so effective.

    watch Unforgiven and watch the english dude get his ass kicked and most likely on the first pass you'll never notice it.

     

    i have a feeling though it's just this generation. :]

  16. Most of the characteristics of your image will be dependent on size of the chip, including DOF. Lens format (2/3", 35mm, etc) only generally describes the largest format imaging plane you can put the lens on and still be sure the image circle cover it throughout its zoom/focus range and tells you the image plane format that the lens is optimized for. The only characteristics that might be affected by the lens format are vignetting (not relevant here) and sharpness. Some lenses designed for 2/3" 1080p might look soft on a 1/2" 1080p camera since the lens MTF stays the same but 1/2" camera has smaller photosites, effectivey blowing up the lens's image a bit more, however this might be somewhat balanced out by the fact that MTF is usually higher in the center of the lens, which is the part you are blowing up by using a smaller sensor.

     

     

    MTF?

    This is how I understood it as well. Shooting digiprimes on an ex3 is extremely sharp. It's actually sharper than I want it but it's free and I can't complain with that. The other option was to shoot on the stock lens, which I don't think is that bad, but I want more control and accuracy in control, also I have no need for a zoom.

     

    Thanks for the technical info. Much appreciated.

  17. Hey Sam,

     

    Maybe see if they will let you dye the tent fabric to a bluer color? Or live with the difference and split the color balance between daylight and tungsten, say 4300K. I think that it the easiest way to do it without lighting.

     

    splitting the difference seems to be our only option at this moment, Satsuki.

    dying the tent isn't an option and the camera will be moving.

    i'm looking into a blue or green screen but that's more work than i would like to do.

    i'm hoping they'll follow my advice and shoot it at certain time of day where i can control things a bit better.

    we shall see.

     

    thanks for always dropping some advice. DAMN you're on this site a bit.

×
×
  • Create New...