Andy Zou

Yeah, now realizing "short-siding" or any of the other terms has an actual name...good to know. The Manhattan shots work well. Can't say it doesn't have its moments, it's just something I'd only choose very deliberately.

It's something that bugs me every time I see it: simple shot, two people are facing each other. However, during the singles, the one previously on the left side of frame is framed on the right, cutting out their scene partner and leaving negative space behind their head. In general, it always looks more natural to me to put someone who is looking frame right on the left, especially in a dialogue. If they are being pensive by themselves, it can work, as it seems to imply they are deep in thought, or maybe the scenery is just that good, but otherwise it strokes me as bad framing.

Yes, it is a bathroom. I will pack some cardellinis just in case.

OP is the question, although I also am wondering if these drop ceilings in the attached picture work with scissor clamps? I can't tell if the gap/space down the line is just cosmetic or functional, and these pictures are being sent to me.

I know they're cheaper, do they have better polarizing ability/extinction ratio?

A deal like that is unlikely to come about again, but I could consider it. Where are you based? I did have to pick up a fresh set of blue bulbs for ~150.

Was at a blowout sale of some gear recently, I got 2 2'x4 Kinos with ballasts and all for about 300$, probably wouldn't have picked them up otherwise. My other buddy lucked out even more, got 2 4x4 Tegras on the last day for 200$. I was holding out for some deals on good LED bi-panels, but the tech is new enough that the used market isn't as good as for KInoFlos, where there will be a used market for ages to come. I'd wait for LED tech to really settle before picking any up when you can't guarantee resale later on...whereas the Kino ecosystem will likely persist for a while. Replacement parts, etc, etc...

Ended up pulling the trigger on a 1x1 sheet of two way mirror, hah! I figured for 30 bucks why not make a fun experiment out of it. Now I just gotta mount it all together!

Hm! That's a very fascinating idea with the 45degree glass; essentially the mechanics of a teleprompter. Never even thought about that, although it may be more complicated than the setup I'd be able to do in this. I'll probably rely on increasing distance from the subject so that the angle is more acute.

Hey y'all, doing a pretty simple lighting setup where the artist wants to emulate / make an homage to Fiona Apple's Criminal BTS where the director actually talks about the cinematography here: They wanted to emulate the red-eye flash look in video, which I understand is easy enough to do with a tiny source coming from the same direction as the lens as possible. Ringlight is too big and soft. You can see in the video reflections the single source, and I believe there's one moment where it's clearly reflected enough to see a bare edison bulb. This is easy enough to do with a small flashlight strapped to the lens with a tiny bit of diffusion on it, but I want a little more control/dimmability. The tungsten Dedolight seems like the best solution, as it's tungsten, small, camera-mounted, dimmable, and can be powered with a battery. However most rental houses seem to only rent these in large sets and I only need 1... There is an LED Dedolight that could work, it's gotten good reviews on its color temperature, but I'd try to stick Tungsten if I could. I'm really inspired by the Profoto's Hardbox, a flash accessory that is designed to make the point as small as possible. If anybody had any advice or ideas besides getting a dedolight, I'm all ears.

I am playing around with anamorphic adapters, and obviously am limited by what sort of taking lenses I can use. I wanted to use a Zeiss 35mm but found it vignetted very slightly, so I moved up to a 50mm. This is on a GH4 with a Speedbooster, so fairly fairly close to simulating a Super35 sensor. Also shooting 4:3. For Super 35, ~35mm-ish seems like a standard for a "normal" fov on spherical and 50mm seems a bit tight, better for close-ups (imo). But since the 2X anamorphic stretches the horizontal focal length, I am a little unsure of what should be a go-to focal length for anamorphic. I myself usually compose based on the vertical size of the frame, which doesn't change, but obviously I wouldn't want so much more negative horizontal space so I'd probably move backwards to compensate. I don't have many other great primes that will take the anamorphic adapter, so I am trying to avoid too much trial and error by seeing what others think.

So I just read this article: http://www.provideocoalition.com/before-you-rush-out-to-buy-v-log-l-for-your-gh4 They discuss V-Log being significantly noisier than a WYSIWYG profile. Why would that happen? I assumed that noise was something that "happened" at the raw sensor level, before the information is put into a container.

I understand that much, the advantages of log as an acquisition format. But why don't more cameras have it? Why did it take so long to develop for the GH4? Obviously I'm not a camera technician, but since they know what they can do with the RAW files from the gh4 for stills, how come it is so difficult or development heavy to simply apply what amounts to a logarithmic curve?

I understand that shooting Log on the gh4's new V Log profile is supposed to afford me two more stops by the way it packs the information in the allotted bits but... Where are those stops coming from? Where were they before? If the sensor can acquire more stops than it can cram into rec709 h.264, how does it discard that information? How does this relate to the noise floor or clipping in the highlights?