Dominik Bauch

Thanks Uli, very nice work btw.

I did some camera tests for a project and generally 48fps was liked but my co-director felt it might be a little too dreamy and suggested 36fps.

I’ve never shot this frame rate. Any considerations or issues that might arise as it’s not a direct multiple of 24? 

Thanks all for the tips, so what's the best work flow for anamorphic?

Set 5D to 16x9, match horizontal FOV for full frame lenses to the anamorphic focal lengths I'll be using and then apply a 2.39 mask in PS on the output jpegs? Rough for sure but at least the horizontal FOV should be close.

Is there a more accurate way to approach this?

Thanks David, so in my case I would multiply by 1.3 if I wanted to go the crop factor route?

But with horizontal FOV comparison, I would just take my cine lenses and find canon equivalent's that match? No other calculations necessary?

For scouting purposes, I'll be using a 5D mkIV. I'll be using an Alexa Mini on the shoot and I've used my high school math to arrive at a 1.3x crop factor vs the mk IV.

I've built a template in PS to mask out the Canon photos to equate them to the Alexa aspect ratio and resolution I'll be using. 

Question is, using the crop factor, how do I figure out what a full frame 50mm lens on the 5D would be equate to on an Alexa Mini. (To complicate things I'm using anamorphic lenses but that's just halving those focal lengths to arrive at the spherical equivalent for horizontal field of view...) Is it as simple as 1.3 x the focal length? I thought it might be more complicated as it's not like the traditional thing of using a full frame lens on a smaller sensor... kind of but not quite.

Yes I have Artemis but we wanted to storyboard with lens compression and nicer looking images than Artemis spits out.

Just got my Athos insurance renewal quote and it’s pretty steep to say the least....
Are there any other solid insurance options around?

But if we take Netflix acceptable resolution of 3148 x 2636 for 2x anamorphic, then the alexa mini open gate 4:3 mode spits out 3424 x 2202, so the width exceeds that specification but the height is 400+ pixels short. In that instance surely the appreciable DOF difference between an LF and a regular Alexa is going to be virtually zero as the photosites are the same size and distance apart.

Also the Cooke Anamorphics have an image circle larger than the master anamorphics; 33.54mm vs 29.26mm. So will the Cooke Anamorphics cover the LF's 3148 x 2636? I'm guessing yes, do they also cover the full height of the LF sensor?

Obviously as the Alexa LF is a larger sensor the depth of field will be shallower vs a S35 Alexa but.... if I'm shooting anamorphic 2:1 on the LF (2880 x 2880) using a S35 anamorphic lens and I compare the image to shooting 2:1 on the Alexa mini (2160 x 2160) with the exact same lens / T-stop, I would imagine that there would be negligible depth of field difference between the 2 images, the Alexa LF image would have a slightly wider FOV than the Alexa Mini image. Same for a 2.39:1 image, Alexa mini would have a slightly smaller FOV.

Is this correct or am I missing something, I'm primarily interested in whether there would be an appreciably shallower DOF when shooting Anamorphic on an LF vs a regular S35 Alexa. The difference in pixels used seems so small that I can't imagine it would make a visible difference. I can totally appreciate that a Full frame spherical lens does have a shallower DOF than an equivalent S35 spherical lens given the greater difference in sensor size being used vs the example above.

Thanks in advance for any insight.

Does anyone know whether Lee or Rosco make the classic 'Steel Green' gel to infuse some steel green tone to the shadows? i.e. as used on Guardians of the Galaxy, Maze Runner etc.

I've attached stills for reference (massive compression...) Check out the tint of her down side. For sure also DI but if I wanted to gel very mild fill to get a similar result. 

Lee's and Rosco's version don't look the same from color swatches. Which version is the go to for this kind of look?

I'm involved with a low budget short film and will be providing high $X,000's of camera / lighting gear for free, plus no day rate and large amount of prep; test shoots, scouts, storyboarding in CG etc. I'm happy to do this for a cool project that has potential upside down the road but when I brought up the fact that as I'm investing significant resources and time in this, is it unreasonable to expect a commensurate return if the short film serves it's purpose and is sold to a studio or network to either turn into a full length feature or a limited run series, I got blank stares and awkward silences.

I mean without physically filming a script on equipment, it's just a great idea on paper. I'm super passionate about creating cool stuff and I'm happy to be involved with interesting projects that push my boundaries creatively but working for free with no upside down the road is pretty embarrassing to admit to oneself, let alone anyone else.

They are seeking funding and I was asked if I know any people who would be interesting in investing. So I said 'sure, what the upside that a potential investor can look forward to in the event of success down the road?'. To which they replied that investors would receive an EP credit and nothing else, apparently they look look for people that have a 'spare cash' lying around who want an EP credit for the fun of it. Needless to say there was no-one I could approach with this kind of one sided 'opportunity'.

Is this the norm or is there a precedent or standard practice in the low budget short film arena that I can use to leverage a fair deal?

I want to invest in a solid LED light. I’ll be using primarily as a key in various guises. One man operation at times is a definite plus.

Im leaning towards the litegear lite tile 4x4 In their lite box soft box. Large, soft source with good punch and relatively lightweight and portable. Very slim profile etc.

But at that price point. I can’t help but compare to a Skypanel S60. Cons of that unit are the weight and the necessity of a chimera to get that large source. Even then it’s not as large as the lite tile 4x4. Also not portable but it’s a skypanel and very powerful and proven with full rgb control. (I’m not interested in party colors)

Any thoughts? I want to make a good choice here as I freely admit to having wasted far too much cash over the years....

I have a potential beach shoot coming up and wanted to protect my gear from sand.

What is the best way to protect an Alexa Mini from sand? I'll be using anamorphic lenses so it's doubly important that sand doesn't get anywhere by accident.

I'll be either on sticks or a slider and right on the sand at times... 

I'm looking for a flexible softlight alternative to a litemat 4 through a 4x4 diffusion frame. In many instances with siders / toppers, this can become very unwieldy.
I've been checking out the chimera octoplus, with the chimera Triolet head. I love the large source, the built in light control and the easy ability to walk in the light for close ups but the tungsten nature is a little scary. If I have to dim the light it's obviously going to head sub 3000k fast. How is the best way to deal with this? Carry lower wattage bulbs? Gel outside the softbox (tough as the 5x5 shape is large, can you add get to the inner baffle or does it get too hot?). This is where the compact nature becomes less time efficient vs an LED though diffusion frame.   

Any idea what kind of T stop a 650W halogen bulb would roughly give at 6 feet?

Also are daylight balanced fluorescents bulbs at all useful? (imagine that they would be pretty dim once pushed though the diffusion and an eggcrate)

Thanks.

I thought this looked interesting for super quick applications. I have a DF50 and a V hazer, these are great obviously but heavy and at times cumbersome to use. This could be sweet to whip out and haze up shots where you might not have bothered in the past. 

Anyone tried this?

https://nofilmschool.com/microfogger-pocket-fog-machine

Looks like it could be useful but concerned about hang time and ability to get haze look. Anyone know if the 'fog' can be wafted into shape and actually mix with air without swirling constantly?

On 4/5/2019 at 7:19 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

It's a complicated subject because the size of the eyelight relative to the size of the subject and the distance of the camera to the subject can all affect what you use.  Plus the contrast of the image will be a factor -- if your grade is on the high-contrast side, the fill from an eyelight will be less obvious.

I often use a Litemat 1 as a low fill / eyelight, and if I want to reduce spill, I will put a Litetools snap grid on it. It does act as a fill though, but I also get a nice reflection in the eyes.  Sometimes I've used a small Aputure onboard LED light under the lens and the reflection in the eye is very tiny, like a dot, so it doesn't always read unless the camera gets very close so the light is larger in relation.

I think the key is to dim the light down just to the point that it barely reads as fill but you can still see the reflection of the unit in the eyes. Then add some contrast in the color-correction to reduce shadow detail.

Or position your key light so that it reflects in the eyes as shown in the previous reply.

Thanks, great advice. I was concerned about a 1x1 source being too 'hard' but obviously depends how close or far away you are.

On 4/5/2019 at 2:05 AM, aapo lettinen said:

I like to light from the side with a semi soft source so that the key already makes good eyelight reflections depending on the angle how the actor is facing the camera. 

the 'eyelight' is a reflection of a source and thus it matters how big it is compared to the distance and eye curvature. 

I have never been a fan of very sharp small eyelights so I rarely do the dedo or pocket par with a snoot trick. another reason is that it often takes lots of time to adjust it correctly to make it look good and work for the actor movement at the same time so I usually don't bother with it...  another big reason is that bright lights pointing directly to the eyes distract actors heavily and they may start to blink more often in addition to the performance being less perfect. there is little point of doing killer beautiful eyelights if they distract the actor so much that the performance is compromised. 

anyway, you can do makeshift snoot out of cinefoil if you want to experiment with them. I also may use small round shiny kapa boards (about palm sized DIY shiny surfaced reflector) as a eyelight source, they work great is some situations and are easy and fast to use.

 

I don't know how much contrast you want but the semi soft side source without fill can still create quite contrasty look though may need some other fixtures as well for not becoming "too indie looking" .

 

here done with bouncing a 300w tungsten from a 3x3 styrofoam which is about 2 meters away if I remember correctly. no fill or specific eyelight used. 

similar type stuff would be possible with the "deakins lighting" where one would use large soft side key with SAME SIDE harder but still relatively soft fill which is more frontal. key side filling of the eye sockets with a snooted 'eyelight' source might be the answer you are looking for?

Thanks for this info, great lighting in your frame grab btw. Simple is always better, totally agree with everything you're saying. 

What is the cleanest way to lift up dark eye sockets and not destroy contrast etc of a lighting set up?

i.e. I have lit a subject to taste, nice down side - key exposure is right where I want it but the eyes sockets are too dark. If I fly in some beadboard or similar it will flatten out my contrast somewhat, same with a soft light (although I could dim it down majorly but then the effect might be minimal).

Also for backlit exteriors when the sun is high; similar issue but here a bounce card would probably be fine and not break any contrast etc.

Any tips or tricks would be much appreciated. Thanks!

It's amazing how popular anamorphic lenses are right now. I was watching a new episode of "Drunk History" and the historical recreations are shot in anamorphic, and then during the commercial break, the first commercial was shot in anamorphic. Plus "Doctor Who" is now being shot in anamorphic.

It's pretty prolific for sure. NIghtflyers for Syfy looks great, C series. Netflix Glow, Amazon Homecoming etc etc. And almost every 3rd commercial. Panavision must be raking in cash.

Anyone know what lenses are used on Star Trek Discovery season 2? Looks like Cooke Anamorphic i SF from the flares. No info anywhere online.

Looks great, very cinematic.

Just got the Arri 4x5 mattebox and it's amazing. Expensive but totally worth it. I had a Bright-tangerine misfit before and that's not even in the same universe.

When reading BTS articles etc, one of the advantages of the Alexa 65 is it's supposedly superior dynamic range. Surely as it's essentially 3 x Alev III sensors strung up together, the dynamic range should be the same as a regular super 35 Alexa with an Alev III sensor? Or is there additional computing magic that increases it?

By lens compression, I mean how close the background appears. So I'm wondering if an extender makes the background appear closer; so a 100mm with extender will not only be a tighter framing but will it also have lens compression similar to that of a 200mm lens or will the lens compression be the same?

Will a 2X extender also increase the lens compression when used with an anamorphic prime lens?

So will a 50mm prime with a 2X extender have similar lens compression to a 75mm prime for example? Im guessing that there is some gain.

When using a +1 diopter with a 32mm Cooke Anamorphic i, I get pretty pronounced distortion at the edges of the frame.

This isn't noticeable with other focal lengths. It's acceptable with a .5 diopter.

I'm guessing this is because the 32mm is so wide that it's seeing the edges of the diopter? Is there anyway around this?

(I'm using a Schneider 138mm diopters)