boy yniguez
-
Posts
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by boy yniguez
-
-
Hello, I am wondering if I can use my Canon Rebel DSLR camera as a light meter if I set the shutter to 1/24. Would this give me an accurate reading that translates to motion picture film?
In case it's relevant, I am using a Bolex reflex with Canon FD lenses. Thanks.
of course you can use a stills camera for metering but do remember that doing so you are reading reflected light not incident so you must take into consideration the difference in metering methods. also the correct shutter speed equivalent is 1/48sec, and also the bolex reflex , if it is the RX model, eats up a third of a stop in its split-prism.
boy
-
hi
i am about to shoot music video
it's is all in ultra violate lighting
and the artist will be paint in glowing colors
do i need to use ultra lighting or i can us tungsten light with dark blue gel
i am shooting with canon d5mark2
here is a reference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OP3bZZLGBlo
from:3:16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMxASjxRk1w&feature=fvst
from:3:07
is there a way to light in ultra but still see face detail in "normal" light
thanks
you're correct rami,
only surfaces or objects painted with phosphorescent paint (day-glo) with show under ultraviolet light. you would need daylight lamps gelled with congo blue to keep the look of untraviolet (light from tungsten lamps will be reduced to zero with congo blue) warning though - congo blue transmits less than 1% of the light so you may need big daylight units!
boy
-
Hello,
Does anyone know how to obtain this effect?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdZZLdjBfCI
about 39 seconds into the trailer
It's in the movie "the Sister Keeper"
The car headlights and other highlights appear square
Could be a special iris or maybe just one of those filters with square grids,
any thoughts?
thanks
Francisco
hello, francisco,
sherman is correct about the mattebox. it happens when the ac puts an 85mm mask on the mattebox when shooting with a telephoto thinking " hey the angle of acceptance of the 85mm is wider than longer telephotos so it must be fine". WRONG! the diameter of the front element has to be taken into consideration, a smaller mask actually is cutting light that's supposed to enter the outer edges of the lens thus decreasing exposure. since objects very near the telephoto lens disappear, you won't see this cut-offs in the sides of the image, only in the bokeh!
boy
-
Sean, how you been buddy? Saw the trailer for the feature you shot, great job on that! Sorry to hear about this. I actually just spoke to George about it, and he said that it maybe could have something to do with the video tap optics leaking light into the light path. Definitely something to investigate as the camera has probably been modified quite a few times over the years.
a light leak from the video tap or from elsewhere in the camera body would just produce flares in the negative, not focused images. now if the tap was actually bouncing back images, then it would be from within the scene visible through the finder, not outside the frame!
-
It's funny that would do that rather than just split off from the first signal.
a split mono is not stereo.
-
This page has been around for about ten years! Yes, it's a joke.
When I first saw it, I forwarded the link to a cinematographer's forum (it was before this one existed I think) and also to a telecine forum. In general, cinematographers either got the joke, or reacted in horror. Most of the telecine folk rushed to ask where they could get the technology. OMG! :o
The worrying news is that exactly this process is now genuinely available - at least for still images. Look at this.
even time magazine was guilty of this when they had to feature the pyramids of egypt on their cover some years ago. they couldn't fit the two pyramids in a vertical compostion so they they just moved them closer to each other digitally. is it any wonder photographs are no longer usable as evidence in court?
-
Got footage back from my first 35mm shoot. Exposure, focus, framing, etc. were all spot on, but we did run into an odd problem. For some shots, bright offscreen objects were mirror reflected as a mild fog in the lower right part of the frame. Has anyone seen something like this before? It was not apparent in the viewfinder while shooting, which initially led us to think something might have been wrong with the gate... but we can't shake the feeling that this must be a lens issue of some kind. Below are links to a still frame and a short clip of one of the shots.
Thanks for any help!
the key words to your query are the "bright OFFSCREEN objects" getting mirrored into the frame. this strongly suggests improperly aligned two or more filters in front of the lens that were causing reflections in between them. this occurs a lot when using more filters than a matte box can accomodate and a filter is taped onto the front of the filter array of the box. did that happen at all?
-
I need to make some short movie clips,subject is kinda free, the clip can be any lenght. what i do have to follow is ths rule... need to film some situation or action, but from a wierd point of view!Any good suggestions?thanks a million!!!
how about the point of view(?) of a nose smelling the scene?
-
Hi I am shooting a documentry on film.My dir wants long streaks of moving traffic lights.please let me know how to get it. thanks .ravi sudarshan
shoot at the slowest frame rate the camera allows but of course that speeds up the action!
boy y
-
An Obie is an old school trick.
There's a trick I like for this: I take an 8' X 4' sheet of 1" single sided styro and mount the 8' dimension horizontally, white side toward subject. I cut a square hole in the middle big enough for my lens and shade to poke through. Then I set up 4 1KPars to bounce off both sides, top and bottom. The barn doors keep some of the light off of the lens and camera but it still gets pretty damn hot. But, the light is fantastic and the subject is soft, soft, and lovely. The set up is a pain and clumsy to move. I use it mostly for CUs and head shots but it will hold up even with medium body shots.
yup, the ring light is the ultimate erase-all-the wrinkles solution. similar to paul's contraption i usually use a 4x4 styro with with a hole in the middle but use 4x1 tube or 4x2tubes of kino 40 taken out of their housing and assembled into a 4x4 square light on the styro. just gives an alien-look catchlight on the talent's eyes though.
-
instead of placing a flex fill on the floor and use the bounce light, what if I get a kino flow and place it low (pointing at her from a lower angle)? would that work? or is it still too strong?
Also, will a soft filter work?
thanks!
M.T.
the flexfill would still give a broader therefore softer source than a kino. the strength of the underlight would be varied depending on how much eyebags and bone structure the talent has!
-
AGUIRRE, WRATH OF GOD by werner herzog
-
Thanks for the info Boy. I'll try that sometime.
you're welcome, brad!
i found a photo of an upsidedown cockroach with its legs pointing up taken with an ordinary 24mm lens mounted backwards on a nikon D40. note the eyes, the globes at the bottom of the frame.
for a larger size of this photo check http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2266/170467...52cb8759c_b.jpg
-
Hey everyone,
I just finished watching 'Coffee and Cigarettes' by Jim Jarmusch and started thinking after seeing the credits and noticing it was Cate Blanchett playing both characters in the short segment 'cousins'.
I've seen this before in films where the same actor/actress playing 2 or more characters but always figured the effect was created by using standins, lookalikes and strategic camera placement ... however in this a lot of the coverage was in a simple '2 shot' where it was definitly her playing both characters talking to each other.
I'm sure theres some simple explanation of how this is done but i'd be interested to hear how this sort of scene would be filmed.
I've read a little on the technique of blocking half of the frame then shooting and the blocking the other half and shooting, and also it being done digitally now ... but it is just so seamless, is this how its done??
In laymans terms ... how do they do that?!! :huh:
Thanks in advance
hi, one would normally shoot the scene with the actor playing the first role in the real set then shoot the scene again with the same actor playing the second role against green screen so that he can be keyed in the the scene. if it involves camera movement then a motion-control rig would be necessary to repeat the movement done in the first pass!
-
If you are going to use just one lens in reverse you get a reversing ring and either extension tubes or a bellows unit.
like i mentioned earlier there's no need for extension tubes or bellows thus no need for compensations on exposures!
-
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean using a wider lens as the front element of this setup, or do you mean a 25mm by itself?
hi, brad!
sorry, i was not too clear about my reply but what i meant was that it was totally unnecessary to stack two lenses together as mounting a wide-angle lens backwards wherein the front element is towards the mount and the rear element is pointing at the subject creates a much higher magnification and a sharper rendition compared to a regular lens pulled away from the camera body with several extension tubes. of course to date i don't know of any accessory for film cameras to facilitate that but we've successfully mounted a backward-mounted lens with lots of gaffers tape (sorry, in the philippines we need to improvise a lot). since a wider lens covers a wider field of view, a backward-mounted wider lens projects a bigger image on the film plane thus creating a larger magnification. in still photography i have an adaptor ring with a nikon mount on one side and a 52mm thread on the other such that you can screw on a regular nikon lens (pre-digital) backwards. my attached photo was created with such contraption! i hope i've made in clearer to you and thanks for the reply!
-
So I did an interesting shot the other day for the feature I'm currently on. The director wanted a shot of a tear on a guys face with a reflection of another face in the tear. The first thought was to use a close focus lens (we had a CF 135mm), but the DP had heard that if you put a 100mm on the camera and then a 50mm face to face with the 100mm you could focus through the back element of the 50mm very close. Hope this is making sense.... So we actually ended up doing the shot with a 100mm and an 85mm, and we had to have the tear less than an inch from the back element of the 85mm to get focus, and I had to slide the camera on the baseplate to get it sharp. The shot looked great and worked really well once we figured out the logistics and after a bit of fiddling and trial and error.
Has anyone done a shot like this before? I'd never heard of this technique, but it was pretty cool and worked great for what we were doing. It looked so cool in fact that the whole cast and crew was crowded around the monitor looking at what we were shooting.
if it was just a matter getting very close to a tiny subject without using a macro try inverting a 25mm lens or even wider. the wider you go the stronger the magnification.
-
Also, I was shooting a film a while ago in a big cornfield and a storm came up which, as often
happens, resulted in a big drop in barometric pressure. It was still sunny and the colors became
incredibly beautiful and everything was much sharper.
don't you think it is due to the storm sucking up all the particles and moisture in the atmosphere that the sky became unobscured thus showing more brilliant colors and sharper images?
boy y
-
They simply use a slower shutter speed. Without a corresponding adjustment of the frame rate, it comes off looking stuttery... I wouldn't quite call that normal. :huh:
daniel, you don't seem to understand video! in video you can not adjust frame rates from the 30 fps (NTSC). the slow shutter setting is done electronically such that there is no corresponding change in frame rate unlike that of film.
-
hi there,
i had a technical question of how to create slow shutter speed shots on film or video?
i used to take lots of city portraits by night with a very slow shutter speed so that all the traffic looks like different color lines. i was wondering how to create an effect like that on video or film? is it done in the camera or in post? have a look at attachments.
thanks for your thoughts,
rob
it is a whole lot more difficult to execute on film but in video there are consumer handicam models that have slow shutter settings that will give you those streaks but keeping motion normal!
-
Yeh, who needs expensive shift lenses when you can spend the same money on a 4-perf shoot instead.
I suppose a shift lens is never going to reframe a hair in the gate out of shot though is it :rolleyes:
he means recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for, not racking as in shifting focus perpendicular to the lens axis, which is by the way the least important use of a shift lens!
-
Yeh, who needs expensive shift lenses when you can spend the same money on a 4-perf shoot instead.
I suppose a shift lens is never going to reframe a hair in the gate out of shot though is it :rolleyes:
he means recomposing the shot by using part of the image above or below what was composed for, not racking as in shifting focus perpendicular to the lens axis, which is by the way the least important use of a shift lens!
-
nice ot see my thread bumped back up... :)
best of luck to anybody on here that might happen to be going on the show.. I guess there's the whole reality tv star crap element to it, but instead of getting wrapped up in real life, you'll be able to pursue something in the field with few distractions
a former apprentice of mine, now practicing director-cinematographer paolo dy entered his short film QWERTY. http://films.thelot.com/films/34972.
"A mentally-afflicted young man is accused of murdering his longtime benefactor. The truth of what really happened lies in his mad obsession with his supposed victim's old typewriter, on which he types relentlessly, day and night. /// The original upload of this film has received 31,000 views and a consistent 5 stars after 470 ratings :)
the exposure alone could be a big boost to his career!
please view the film and send comments!
boy y
-
No,
This may sound logical - but it is not the reality, RX lens f-stops are f-stops - not re-calibrated pseudo-T-stops (B-stops ?? :rolleyes:)...
The RX refers to the collimation of the lens itself so that the 'widening' of the rays by the prism is corrected to focus on the film plane (and ground glass) - the prism takes %17 of the light and Bolex countered this by offering its own light meter which was indeed re-calibrated, you see them on eBay every now and again...
Without the light meter you have to multiply your exposure time (in seconds) by 0.83 to get the effective speed that you would put in your standard meter...
If you are working in the 'fps' mode of thinking then multiply this by 1.2 to get the effective speed
1/1.2 = 0.83 100 - 17 = 83 see what I mean ?
In both methods you will also need to account for the adj shutter afterwards...
i stand corrected! thank you!
for more info check out http://www.city-net.com/~fodder/bolex/truth.html.
boy y
There is a lot of slightly underexposed bolex footage out there.
Lightmeter help
in Lighting for Film & Video
Posted
ambient is one of the settings for a flashmeter, the others being cord or no cord. all it means is that it is reading continuous light, not a pop of a strobe. go ahead, use it. i use one too!