Jump to content

Jeff Hammond

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Hammond

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    Portland, Or

Recent Profile Visitors

2780 profile views
  1. That'd be cool. When you say it's part of Cooke's showcase, do you mean on YouTube?
  2. Interesting. I’ll look into that. Yes.
  3. True. However, the orientation of the camera and lens matter based on what is being shot. So if I wanted to shoot in a 9:8 aspect ratio vs 8:9 I would need to rotate the camera while keeping the lens level.
  4. This is probably an odd question but has anyone ever shot anamorphic sideways? I’ve thought about experimenting by mounting a 2x anamorphic lens to a camera at a 90 degree angle then turning the camera on its side so that when unsqueezed you’d get a 9:8 aspect ratio (assuming you were shooting with a 16:9 sensor). I think I’ve got most of the logistics figured out but is anybody aware of a way I could monitor this properly? I’d presumably need an hdmi or sdi monitor that could turn the image on its side and de-squeeze. Thoughts are welcome. And yes, it certainly does seem like an absurd idea, it’s just something I’m curious about, probably no real world application.
  5. Got it! Thanks so much for that clarification, David!
  6. Very interesting. Thanks for all the feedback! So if I understand correctly, in most cases, if I'm recording RAW, the ISO will always be the same (ie., 320 for the RED M-X sensor). But if I light the image by monitoring/rating the sensor at 800, I'm effectively underexposing by 1⅓ stops. What I don't get is, why is there more noise introduced in the raw image by boosting the ISO if the S/N ratio isn't actually changing, rather it's being artificially changed for monitoring and then (during post) processing? Is it simply the noise that occurs as a result of underexposing and then lifting the noise floor in post?
  7. I've been researching the native ISO of RED cameras (primarily the Dragon and MX). What's been confusing isn't the notion of a native ISO, but rather that in the debate between 320 and 800, people are referring to shooting at ISO 800 as underexposing when compared to ISO 320. From one such individual: "At 320 (which may be closer to the sensors "native" sensitivity- or the point where the raw matches the redcolor as far as middle grey) you have much less range in the highlights. By rating 800, you are underexposing the sensor a bit and protecting the highlights." Bear with me as I'm more of a lighting guy, but my question is: how is it that by increasing ISO by 1⅓ stops are you underexposing the sensor? What am I missing? Thanks so much for your help!
  8. For this shoot, I was monitoring with the FS7's LCD monitor in Log. Not ideal, but applying a LUT to the monitor eliminates the ability to view the waveform. As for the grade, I think you're right. I haven't done this. It could very well be the case. It's definitely underexposed (attempting to protect overexposure in the clouds), which is no doubt part of the issue. According to Sony, native ISO on the FS7 is 2000 with 14 stops of DR at that ISO. The odd thing about the FS7 is that in CineEI mode, the ISO is locked at 2000. Anyway, thanks for the responses! Next time I have the opportunity to shoot with the FS7, I'll have to look into the black shading.
  9. Shot tests with the FS7 recently, and noticed a surprising amount of color noise, and compression artifacts. Haven't seen many others having this issue. I'm not a regular Sony shooter, so it may well be personal error, but out of curiosity, has anyone else experienced this? For reference I was shooting: XAVC-L CineEI mode S-Gamut3.Cine/S-Log3 ISO 2000 T2.1 on a Zeiss CP.2 Built-in ND 1/16 I appreciate any feedback people are willing to offer. Thanks!
  10. Thanks everyone for responding, and thanks to Freya, and David for their more in-depth explanations. I just checked. They did indeed shoot Super 35. Interesting approach. On the surface, it seems to make more sense (when it comes to maximizing the frame) than shooting with 2x anamorphic lenses on a Super 35 frame, like Blomkamp and Opaloch chose to do on Elysium (RED Epic with Panavision C-, E-, and G-series anamorphics). However, I'm sure they had their reasons to prefer the Panavision glass over 1.33x alternatives.
  11. I don't know a whole lot about 35mm having grown up in a digital age, but I'm wondering if someone can school me a bit (or provide some helpful links). I was reading about 12 Years a Slave in American Cinematographer, and the article mentioned that McQueen and Bobbitt chose to shoot 4-perf with a 2.39:1 extraction. My question is: what is the advantage in that method (which seems more common) vs. shooting 2-perf (or even 3-)? Is the quality significantly reduced when calibrating for 2-perf vs. 3- or 4-? I understand using 4-perf when shooting an anamorphic picture, but when using spherical lenses, is it really necessary or beneficial? Presumably the extra negative in a 4-perf frame can be used for re-framing, etc.,. Is this correct? Any insight and knowledge (or just some links) would be tremendously helpful. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...