Alex Zustra

Thanks for all the replies. I have been reading up on DSLRs forever since I've been debating buying one, so I knew to turn the sharpening down, which clearly failed. In some cases the soft focus method worked beautifully, the depth of field on that sensor is just so shallow that he would go too soft if he moved a little bit. Having the face out of focus and a shoulder sharp is new to me, ha. I've had some success since the shoot sharpening in post but this obviously isn't desirable. It's mostly going to be for web viewing, so maybe it won't be as noticeable after being encoded, and I'm definitely giving him 720P files. Edgar- Are you saying that longer lenses/more distance can increase the problem? How so? If that's the case, I was only a few feet from the subject. This didn't help though, obviously narrowing my DOF even more, but I desperately needed to throw the hideous tie dye background of focus as much as possible.

I recently had my first experience actually shooting with a DSLR and it was rather disappointing. It was a 5D. The rolling shutter showed up on a small, slow pan even (luckily I was just playing at this point). I was shooting a little interview/talking head bit, and knowing about the infamous aliasing/moire, I made sure to tell the subject not to wear any tight patterns. He arrived, we did a quick test and I popped it into the computer, and there was a terrible moire pattern all over his jacket. I walked back into the room about to (politely) scold this guy for not listening when I realized it was just the FABRIC of his jacket, which was nothing out of the ordinary. I had read all about the problems with these cameras but I never expected it to be this bad. To top it all off, we were short on time, and my instinct was to ever so slightly soft focus the guy, which seemed to work until I looked at the footage later at proper size, and much of it is just unacceptably out of focus even though it looked fine on the camera monitor. What would you do/should I have done in this situation? I feel like I would at least look like less of an idiot had I just focused and dealt with the moire. The average eye-brain is at least more forgiving of that than out of focus shots.

Lost again. At the end of Mitch's video, we have the 2k/25mm on the left, 4k/50mm on the right. Same distance to subject, same size of subject and background, much different DOF. If focal length doesn't actually change depth of field (because it is really just apparent as a telephoto lens simply compresses space, making the background object appear larger in the frame and magnifies the same blur that was there with a wide), then I still don't understand why the 2k/25mm with the same relative sizes and magnification at the same distance has more depth of field. Logic tells me that difference here is that the magnification from taking a smaller section of the image circle is different than magnification by focal length. Yet this contradicts that focal length does not actually change DOF. I wish I could just live with knowing that there is a difference, but I'm too curious I guess.

Thanks guys. So is it correct to say the difference is both apparent due to the need to use different focal lengths between formats to achieve a similar frame and actual due the focal distance (shorter focal distance to the subject = shallower depth of field, correct?)

I've known forever now that larger image formats characteristically have shallower depth of fields. After reading a ton about crop factors/FOV, I recently asked myself if a full frame "x" millimeter lens has the same field of view as for example a 4/3 "x" mm lens. I found the answer to be yes after a quick bit of research, which made sense because I remembered using something like a 14mm when shooting S16 for a wide. But what got me was that depth of field would be the same. So it has nothing to do with the intended lens format or the image circle it projects. Now I just don't understand why/how the larger format has less DOF. I understand how F-stops affect it, is it kind of the same principle? Also, I'm having trouble visualizing how a closed aperture can soften the image even in the focal range. Thanks in advance ladies and gents. Edit: I think I confused myself before even getting to the question. A 50mm is a 50mm, yes, I know. But, cropped or not, a 50mm on 4/3 is still comparatively telephoto, FOV is not the same, which is why you would use a 14mm or something for a wide on 4/3 rather than 28ish on 35mm. Am I getting this right? It's been a long night of staring at numbers and charts. The other questions still stand.

Things like shutter angles for different lighting/exposure situations as well. Sorry for double post.

Does anyone know of a comprehensive guide to cinematography math/conversions? I'm talking about everything from crop factors to FOV calculation to say stops lost with an ASA change (easy I know, but think comprehensive). I think this would be an amazing thing to just laminate and have handy for those less experienced or for those brain dead moments.

weigh the camera down as much as possible as well, and having two cameras would help with the overheating if that's possible.

replace those bulbs with something higher wattage for more light. You can get flourescent bulbs to match incandescent color temp. And then your light kit, assuming it's tungsten (which may be a poor assumption), will match as well.

I don't have any equipment. I'm broke. I have next to zero professional experience. How do I get my name out there and start freelancing?

Generally the progressive formats imitate film more closely since film obviously isn't interlaced. I'm thinking though, My television only does interlaced and it doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect on films, but maybe that's just because that's all I see. Also someone correct me if I'm wrong, but interlacing leads to a reduction in apparent contrast because the brain has to composite the interlaced lines.

So I'm sending resumes out to crewing companies and rental houses all around. Do you all have any advice as to what these companies want to see on a resume and cover letter? I'm recently out of school with only a little professional work under my belt. Am I aiming too high right off the bat or am I being realistic? http://www.mediafire.com/file/n2j2oxxmzxx/AlexZustra2010.doc You can download my resume there if you so desire, any advice is much appreciated!

Do it as late as possible, when the sun is on or near the horizon. Not only is this usually the most aesthetically pleasing, but the suns rays are going through much more atmosphere at this point.

Thanks for the responses guys. To Paul, (I forgot to mention this initially, but..) we've realized that the powerboat isn't ideal, but our budget is limited to our bank accounts, since we have yet to break even on DVD sales/other income. We certainly can't afford a new boat, nor chartering one for each regatta. Also, we do like to try moving shots, but for the most part we set anchor at the rounding points and shoot. To others, thanks again and I'll look into the Mako head and perfect horizon, I haven't checked the links yet so I don't know if they'll be financially possible. -Alex

Ok, here goes. Answers to any question much appreciated. 1. I do a decent amount of shooting regattas (sailboat racing), We are looking for some sort of stabilization method, since we shoot from a powerboat to get around the course. Any recommendations or suggestions? Is a plain old glidecam or steadicam all we need, or something more specialized? 2. Is there a site that lists camera equipment and/or lighting diagrams used on particular films? 3. Somewhat similar, is there a site that has comparisons between different lenses/cameras/formats? CML does this to an extent. I don't have access to a lot of equipment, so I'd like to be able to see and compare images captured with different equipment.