Josh Mitchell Frey

This most likely isn't a primary reason, but as TV content is necessarily subject to compression, reducing background information in the frame would lead to nicer results on TV. This especially applies in a standard definition context, where there simply aren't enough pixels to handle a complex wide shot nicely.

Thanks for your replies guys. Could it have been the Alexa cameras that have the varied gain outputs? I was reading about this last night “The key to the increased performance is what we call ‘Dual Read Out’ – we have on the sensor 32 output channels and we read every pixel twice through a normal gain and through a high gain. Each of these read outs happens in 14 bit depth. We then combine them and get 16 bit pixel depth for every pixel element. So that results in a very quiet image with very low noise. This is a philosophy which is similar to our scanner with its double flashing, however these read outs are happening at the same time.” http://www.definitionmagazine.com/journal/2010/5/13/the-story-behind-the-launch-of-alexa.html You're probably right though, it makes more sense to vary sensitivity rather than shutter speed to capture a high dynamic range

I may be tripping.. but I could've sworn I've read that Panavision's Dynamax sensor uses photosites with varying shutter speeds to capture greater dynamic range. Eg, some of the photosites would be capturing light at 1/50th, while some would capture at 1/500th in order to recover highlight details that would otherwise be lost, etc. Am I out of my mind? I've been searching the internet to find the place where I read this, but I can't find any mention of it. And in addition, you'd think there'd be strange motion blur problems introduced by capturing at 1/50th and 1/500th simulataneously.. etc, so maybe I dreamt all of this up. In any case, does anyone know how the "HDR"-ness of the dynamax sensor is meant to work?

I'm doing a shoot tomorrow on a 2/3" ENG-style camera (a Sony DSR-450). The script involves a disorienting dance sequence in a post-apocalyptic wasteland - and I'm wanting to find a way to cover this scene with my 9-155mm zoom lens set reasonably wide (to exaggerate the disorientation), while still achieving shallow DOF. The lens I'm working with is a 17x fujinon lens with a macro ring. I've found, in a couple of informal tests, that by deliberately defocusing my focus ring, and then correcting the focus using the macro ring, I can create extremely shallow DOF at the wide end of the zoom range (at around 40mm, on subjects around 1 metre away). I'm just wondering whether this technique has been used before, or whether there's some reason why no one would even consider using it. I'll most likely find out the hard way tomorrow.. But in any case, I'm curious, if anyone here has any thoughts. Thanks

I'm new to shooting on film, and hence new to using filters, so forgive me if my question seems basic. I'm wondering what the reasoning is behind assigning filters a specific number. eg what does the "85" in "85B filter" connote? I can't make sense of the fact that an 80 raises colour temperature, an 81 lowers it, and an 82 raises it again.. are the numbers completely arbitrary or what?

Hey all. I'm DP on a student documentary (something fairly abstract/experimental), to be shot in the near future. And a possibility has been raised: it could be interesting to project stock footage over the walls of the subject's home, or onto specific objects inside the house, etc etc. I quite like this idea, could make the shots a lot more interesting. But essentially, I'm worried that the light output provided by a conventional projector may be insufficient to record a good picture, given the nature of our gear. We're shooting DVCAM, using a Sony HVR-Z1p. Doesn't have the fastest lens in the world, it's got 1/3" CCDs, and I'm not sure whether this will cut it. Even at wide angle, with the iris wide open, with 1/25 shutter speed... I'm not confident about it (and I'd be reluctant to boost the gain on a Z1p.. small CCDs packed with pixels usually means lots of noise) If anyone's had experience lighting a scene with projected footage with a similar sort of camera, I'd really like some tips. Should I be looking to get a specific sort of projector that will output a lot of light? And will there be a myriad of framerate syncing complications between projector and camera? Thanks.