Max Field

Trusting other crew members is extremely hard when you know they aren't taking it as seriously as you are. At the lower levels you 100% need to micromanage or your production will be a disaster, not just in cinematography, but any form of direction. I could only imagine the great crew David Mullen here gets to work with on the regular. It also gets to a point where you might be working with other people who are farther than you in the field, and they try something you dislike, however you're too afraid to correct them as a result of their seniority. Micromanaging falls to the wayside in the interest of ingratiating yourself with more experienced talents.

The tall community wants to lift their arms without their potbelly showing

I know Adam Sandler/Happy Madison upsets you artsy types but I found the color palette and lighting arrangement to be eye catching. Very creative with the fill lighting and really taking advantage of how wildly sensitive digital cameras are nowadays. Anyone else seen it? Please give it a skim through on Netflix.

What part of New Jersey

Messaging you with offer

Sounds like she's recording under a blanket

Sorry to bump but was still looking for a visual or demonstrative sample of inserting a 21fps clip into a 24fps timeline (Youtube has next to nothing). If the camera doesn't have a project framerate setting but you have a 21fps file, when drug into the timeline does it slightly speed up or just get under sampled? Or is there an entirely different workflow I should be mindful of?

Do you need people to be in the pool for the shot? Or just walking around it? If just walking around and never closing in on it you could try an empty pool with diffusion gel/sheet over it. Under that diffusion blasting some strong blue-gelled light (not sure if setting up a few mirrors under there would help that wall-like blast). Lastly, getting fog machines around to further diffuse the light into more of a glow. ...That's how I'd do it with the stuff I own at least.

Was scratching my head when it came to articulating why a Zeiss Digiprime retailed for around $20k, and a CP2 retailed for around $5k. Was it simply because the Digiprime had a slightly more specialized application for the market's era? Even then, I notice quite a few people today holding Digiprimes in the regard they'd hold an Ultraprime. I've used both extensively and they both look fantastic, however I can't really discern where there's a $10k difference with 2 amazing pieces of glass. What are the practical short comings of a CP2 I'm not seeing?

I'm just worried that when my projects lack establishing wides due to budget, it looks like poor cinematography as opposed to a creative decision. Like I'm partially worried I'm cheating the process if I say stuff like that in regards to my own work.

Just my luck this gets uploaded literally a week after I buy the camera

I still think it looks great.. although my taste is highly commercial

According to the forum guidelines!!!!! I don't actually care I just found it curious that this was in the rules.

That makes sense, but the next thing which I'm confused of is why the image doesn't chromatically aberrate with little RGB slices as opposed to this incredibly soft bloom. When a lens messes up from adaption I guess I'm just used to it being weird at all settings instead of making a couple stops off limits.

I saw that my new Pocket 6K camera would crop the sensor to a 2.7k slice, making it small enough to cooperate with the image circle of my Zeiss Digiprimes. I put a 14mm on via a B4 to EF adapter (no glass element between), backfocus adjuster set to 0, and with the lens at T2.8 everything seemed pretty nice from what I could see. HOWEVER when I slipped the aperture all the way to T1.6, the optics had a very sudden dropoff and went wild with bloom on the highlights: Any lens experts (maybe @Dom Jaeger ?) have any insight on what's going on? Flange distance? Coating? Poor adapter? Thanks for anyone's help on this mystery.