Jump to content

Miguel Bunster

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Miguel Bunster

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. David, \thanks you for the reply. Yes what you say makes sense and the asa has been changing a bit but is Between that range. About the diffusoin in wide shots you are right is not the best to drop it there but what really kills it is the quality of the fujinon HD eng lens we are using is really bad...looks so soft in wide shtos wide open so trying to work around it. The othter thing i am trying to figure out (this movie i couldn't test the camera but a day before) is how grainy it is in the lower range of the latituted. Way more grainier than other f900's i used. I am using the Hyper ga
  2. David, cause its low budget......so low and i got this filters that don fauntleroy lent me as a favor and really like whatthe #1 is doing but cause i am lighting low con i was concerned. But thank you for your input and time. Things are looking good and made some mini tests where i increase the contrast (which was planned) and helps so all good. On another note I am curios but i tested the ASA of the camera by exposing to a gray card (quick way) with my low ocn setting in hyper gamma 3 and was getting a 160 asa. In other cameras I was always getting more around 320. Have you came acroos t
  3. Hey man, I really like the nanoflash, is small and practical and you get alot out of the 32GB cards. Only a couple times I would have problems like i press record and it wouldn't even if the card wasn't full but then switched cards and no problem. Nice to playback shots and so on. Yes I read the same that the sweet spot is 100mbs and called the company and the same info. I was curios that HDcam is putting 1440x1080 with a 3:1:1 on a 144mbs and the nano flash is putting more info in the same bandwidth which is 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 so there is more compression I guess but was explained its st
  4. David, Thank you for your response! I agree with everything you say but I came to a situation where I cant really do it in post or hope (I know how to do it and did post myself for some time) because is a small movie and the "DI" will be limited and I will be lucky to color correct properly. That said, my concern came from the right term you used "degree of fuzziness" the Soft-FX #1 would do. I don't have a 1/2 so my only choice is #1 which i like a lot and have been able to judge only from the 17inch HD monitor. I been using it in all the shots because as mentioned I am pretty sure doing
  5. Do you feel the Soft-FX 1 lowers "sharpness" or "focus" to much in wide shots and mediums? I am using it on the F900R on a Fujinon HD lens for a really low budget movie and I like how it feel but haven't been able to see it on the big screen. I tested it in different frame Sizes and I see the effect but felt it wasn't a to much of a compromise in the image vs diffusing in a nice way. Just curios to see how you feel about it, if it will make the image overall feel a tad out of focus the #1 Soft FX. thanks! M
  6. Bobby, I am using the nanoflahs on the f900r but keep in mind to get the fast cards like the ultra IV (i am using extreme III) and it can only get now a 140mbs data rate (which is pretty much the data rate for the hdcam tape on 3:1:1). IF you get the faster cards you can go up to 220mbs on 4:2:2 best m
  7. phil, thanks for your response. Yes I agree with what you said. But this mini deck is so small is ridiculous. It hooks to the back of the camera and thats it. I think money wise for the small production it makes more sense vs the tapes need plus the HDCAM deck. The expenses are pretty much the same. Originally i we were going to tape but I emntioned I would like to use the P2 deck and get 4:2:2 for better color correction range and the rental house got this other deck called something I cant remember but s like a Nanomicro deck and goes to flash cards. It can record up to 220mb but
  8. Hi, I am shooting a movie pretty soon in the F900R and originally we were going to tape but Ideally I wanted to go to P2 cards though the panasonic deck to get 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 The production company has a Nanoflash recorder (or something like that) that takes 32GB cards and what we will be recording from the F900r is 1920x1080 at 4:2:2 at 160mb/s not 220mb/s because of the cards limitation. So my questions is what is better. I understand and know 4:2:2 is better over 3:1:1 but I am curious how compressed is the higher color space of 4:2:2 at 160mb/s vs 3:1:1 at 140mb/s and as well
  9. walter, thanks for your response. Yes I am looking at Kinos for the safe film speed thing. any other suggestions in tubes? I had a couple bad expericnes with florecents even at safe speeds.... best m
  10. now i came to one option (money is better) to use single 8ft tubes and 4 ft tubes verticallyon the seems of the tiles where each one will give me about 70fc individually and whn i add them up will get more..is not gona be even but at least a geometrical lighting pattern. May shoot them directly at the white plexy or shot them at a 20*20 silver on eaach wall and spot reading should get about a T8...gona put them vertically.... any suggestions? thanks! m
  11. Hi thanks for your reply. Was looking at skypans but not sure if they will do the job with only 4.5 of distance and scpecially if I want toa void the hotspot of the fixture behind it... as well i can hang them but the falloff is huge to the bottom in that case... any suggestions regarding them? m
  12. So I am here dealing with the usual "make it great with little resources" type of situation. I am shooting a spec for a guy and he is abuilding a set (attached image) qhich has three walss 20ft wide by 12ft high. The walls are made of plexy glass and the plan is to backlight them evenly....thats the plan but now reality is this... Between the set walls and and the stage walls I only have 4.5ft of separation and I am trying to figure out how ti light as evenly as possible this walls... I have been bouncing through diverse optitions as Kino rigs (I would need a lot of them), Luma Pa
  13. Called the pilot and look serious, Is a 4 person chopper so me plus 1, the camera mount and the pilot. IS a 4 hour flight over LA and PCH. In LA the pilot told me 400 feet is safe, some times could be 300 but 400 is safer so we will do that. On the PCH we can get really low to get closer to the car. AS well using a 10-1 zoom thats 14 inchs long and the pilot feels good about it so its not steaking out the door. We got a flight route so all good...now I was trying to get a UV filter with a 100% filtering of UV and couldnt find one! prf....so jsut got a 10% one.... Most probably I will be ope
  14. yea i was thinking of the 250mm zoom but the pilot ask me not to use it because the way the setup is done the lens would be sticking out the door and may interfere more than help so it looks like i may go with a shorter version. As well shooting 4k 2:1 but frmaing for 2k 2.40 so that will give me less field of view and make it a tighter shot...oh well... thanks m
  15. thanks guys. I am talking with the pilot tomorrow for sure and explain him the shots. As well planning to shoot 4k but framing for 2k so in post they can do some stabilization and in some shots shoot at 30fps or so to smooth when working on a longer lens. Best M
  • Create New...