Jump to content

Ryan Emanuel

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ryan Emanuel

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Recent Profile Visitors

2753 profile views
  1. Something like this for a whole bunch of ,chip charts, cameras, exposures, and color temps? EXP ALEXA R ALEXA G ALEXA B BM R BM G BM B f2.8 180 shutter, xrite, 5600k 585 592 588 614 622 606 690 787 818 774 908 928 855 799 683 935 919 725 776 832 831 875 938 923 675 683 683 748 757 740 818 738 790 933 839 886 813 823 726 932 938 781 770 783 821 875 896 930 754 759 759 859 868 852 877 841 713 935 938 759 685 660 713 752 724 778 701 720 661 787 804 709 811 814 821 929 936 924 791 656 645 919 724 689 823 718 729 933 815 801 738 774 805 830 885 908 855 858 862 934 935 934 720 782 707 829 901 778 691 735 811 758 839 927 838 800 790 936 931 885 892 895 895 940 941 940 630 687 778 659 776 883 842 749 661 935 868 704 716 677 653 801 750 697 f2.8 90 shutter, xrite, 5600k 520 527 526 522 531 515 624 723 751 681 815 834 789 734 610 899 822 636 710 776 765 799 879 846 606 617 617 656 664 647 750 670 722 854 748 795 748 764 654 853 869 703 706 714 754 783 804 838 687 694 693 776 776 758 811 784 643 933 898 687 618 596 649 661 632 687 635 658 592 695 712 617 747 751 752 853 861 845 728 592 580 825 663 599 757 652 663 859 718 709 672 708 740 736 791 814 792 795 796 917 926 909 650 713 635 735 806 687 627 671 747 664 746 832 773 736 722 882 835 792 826 829 830 934 938 923 565 622 718 569 685 791 776 686 591 894 766 617 650 613 587 709 659 606 22.5 shutter, xrite, 5600k 395 403 402 356 365 350 489 596 623 500 632 646 658 608 482 711 639 458 578 649 633 614 694 662 480 490 490 475 486 470 624 545 596 666 586 612 617 640 519 668 682 523 575 588 627 597 618 646 559 566 565 580 591 574 674 653 500 751 713 501 492 469 522 483 455 506 508 530 468 516 529 438 616 625 624 665 675 661 600 464 456 640 453 424 629 525 537 674 533 523 542 579 610 552 612 629 661 667 667 730 738 723 521 593 509 550 622 504 495 542 620 483 565 644 643 610 591 693 648 609 697 700 700 784 789 770 432 495 590 400 501 605 648 557 466 706 585 439 523 486 462 522 477 430
  2. Does there exist a data set repository where there is camera color response data for several different camera all for 100+ chip chart samples organized into a spread sheet or dataframe. It would be so useful.
  3. If you were going 400 ISO, do 2x 1200 HMIs or 2x 4ks make sense in the water for a wide at 2.8/4. I see there is still an upstage backlight, but the pool is doing a lot of the work.
  4. I was thinking about hydroflex HMIs in the pool, but I haven't worked with them before.
  5. Extras will be in it Anchorman cannon ball style.
  6. Man I'm failing at this third times a charm maybe! https://th.bing.com/th/id/OIP.GQod-WeMpMnechUC0s_DaAHaDH?pid=Api&rs=1
  7. https://shotdeck.com/browse/stills#/s/kiss+kiss+bang+bang hopefully this works
  8. I have a pool party scene for a horror film coming up and I love this shot from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, how would you go about the underwater lighting?
  9. Its a long thread so I'll just add a quick 2 cents. The point of the demo as a far as I'm concerned is "the camera is a tool" is not the way to think about digital, its not a saw or a hammer, digital is a two dimensional array of over 1 million measurement devices for light, that can capture 68 billion unique measurements per pixel 24 times per second. Its not a tool, its big data, so the issues of color science are really a statistics and data science problem. A lot of people will say film is too complex for digital to replicate, but there are statistical machine learning algorithms for emulating a function that is too complex. Thats basically what Yedlin is doing. If filmmakers open themselves to programming, digital signal processing, and data science, the only limits to what you can do with digital is your own programming skills. I know Davinci has been mentioned a couple times, but the math davinci uses makes it almost impossible to effect small color idiosyncrasies, its better suited for global color grading. I think instead of clinging to film, filmmakers should ask for better tools for digital, specifically interpolation algorithms, so you can make your own emulations, with samples and targets, and design a transform matrix iteratively and efficiently so everyone has their own personal looks.
  10. Bleached mus is probably the issue, it murders light, and depending on the source, it produces a mixture of hard light and soft light. If you see a hot spot in the muslin, there will be some hard light coming through, personally I'm a fan of magic cloth, you have to try really hard to get a hot spot and it doesn't completely kill the unit. Mus is kinda like silks, they sound freakin beautiful, "soften the light with a silk", but the fact is they are very inefficient at diffusing. If the budget has some excess room, booklit through mus with big lights, but if the budget is tight, you gotta make each foot candle count. I'd go double break 250 litegrid, or bounce off ultrabounce way before shooting through mus.
  11. If I'm understanding things correctly, depth of field or more importantly blur circle size is based on the opening size of the iris, the distance the subject is from the lens, and the distance of the out of focus objects from the lens. Higher focal lengths will have larger pupil openings for the same f stop. 100mm at f4 has a 25mm iris hole, 50mm at f4 has a 12.5mm pupil. But if you open the 50mm to f2 it will have a 25mm pupil and will be the same blur circle sizes as the 100mm with the focus set at the same distance. It seems like the notion of bigger sensor means thinner depth of field is the wrong emphasis. There are pros and cons for any focal length on any sensor size, it just seems more important to know how the variables influence one another to get the right pairing for the project. I think its a great time now, because with larger sensors on most modern cameras you can crop in and use difference sensor sizes for different situations and still retain enough quality. More recently I've been experimenting with shooting super35 for wides and mediums with the 25mm 35mm, then cropping the sensor to micro 4/3 for close ups and cutaways and staying on the 35mm instead of switching to the 50mm. Since the 50 will have thinner depth of field at the same f-stop, the close up might require stopping down to get the subject completely in focus, then the lighting has to change or ND has to be used for the wides, either way the set needs to be lit for an extra stop. But if I just crop the sensor, the 35mm will have the field of view of a 50mm, but the depth of field of lets say a f2.8 on m 4/3 will equal a f4 on super 35mm with the same exposure. So the wider depth of field of the sensor lens pairing saves the gaffer a stop of light for the scene. Just trying to show an example where bigger is not necessarily better, smaller sensors can produce the same depth of field with less light. That might come in handy. Big sensors have thinner depth of field for the same f stop, that might come in handy too. Also for shooting wider lenses on a smaller format, barrel distortion can be corrected. Longer lenses will have pin-cushion distortion on larger formats, which can be corrected as well.
  12. I'm really just trying to understand Yedlin's article here http://yedlin.net/lens_blur.html So if the exposure on different sensor sizes are the same, then are the examples from the article for Alexa are lit to a f4 while the imax shots were lit to a f11 to match the depth of field?
  13. I'm a lil confused and wanted to ask for some clarification. From my understanding the f stop is calculated from the ratio of the focal length divided by the entrance pupil size. So a 50mm lens at a f2 has an entrance pupil of 25mm, and a 100mm lens has a entrance pupil of 50mm at an f2, so F stop's entrance pupil size are relative to the focal length. An f2 is a different size opening at different mm's. The reason why a 50mm at f2 has the same exposure to a 100mm at f2 is that the 100mm proportionally projects a larger image. The pupil diameter is twice as big on the 100mm, so the surface area of the hole is 4 times bigger letting in 2 extra stops of light at a f2 but the projected image of the 100mm is proportionally larger so the exposure evens out. When comparing large format vs smaller formats, that sensor size is not fixed so that extra light of the 100mm vs the 50mm would be captured by the sensor. So lets say you are comparing micro 4/3 (2x crop) vs full frame, to get the same angle of view you need a 50mm to roughly match the 100mm on the full frame camera. But f2 on both those lenses will not be the same amount of light. So will the full frame camera be brighter at the same F stop? Will you need to adjust the f stop proportionally to match the change in sensor size, so a f2 for the 50mm on micro 4/3 would be around a f4 for the 100mm on full frame to match exposure and depth of field? Thanks for the help.
×
×
  • Create New...