Tiago Pimentel

Thanks David! I was also curious about the Tiffen Black Satin. How is this filter different or similar to the Low/Ultra Contrast filters?

Thanks

Hi guys,

I ended up buying a Tiffen Low Con 1 to test it with my Ursa Mini camera and I have to say I do love the look. I don't think it's as simple as just lowering contrast. It's doing something to the way everything rolls off (especially the focus to out of focus areas). Everything looks more natural and less "digital" to me. I wanted to try the Ultracon to see the difference but the strength that people usually recommend (Ultracon 2) is not available anywhere. Do you think I should go for 1 or 3?

Cheers

Tiago

Thanks Miguel, glad you enjoyed it!

Hi,

Did this shorter version of a short film I directed last year. It got much more enigmatic, but hopefully the final "twist" really shows what this short story is all about.

Hope you enjoy it and please share your comments, critiques and suggestions:

Password: inside2020

Cheers

Tiago

Hey guys,

I am currently interested in trying a filter that might allow my digital camera (Blackmagic Ursa Mini Pro) to achieve a more pleasant rolloff from shadows to highlights. I know that with controled lighting we can get close to whatever look we want, but sometimes (especially with strong sunny days and high contrast situations) the rolloff gets too "digital". So I've been reading a lot about contrast filters, especially the ones I mention below.

Tiffen Low Contrast

Tiffen Ultra Contrast

Tiffen Satin

I know they are different and the best would be to rent and try them out. Unfortunately, I can't even buy them where I'm from, so this will have to be an online purchase as informed as I can get it to be... So here's what I want from these filters:

1 - pleasant rolloff in high contrast situations

2 - subtle glow of hot spots (preferably not enough to make the filtered look too obvious)

I'll be using them with Zeiss ZF.2 glass.

Thanks for helping!

Tiago

Hey David. In my case, with my camera, I feel like I can't really push saturation too much if the image is dark. Otherwise it will introduce that horrible chroma noise. But in dark scenes, saturation should be low anyway, so... I was just curious as to how other DPs were approaching dark scenes. One question: if you're using a camera rated at 800iso, would you use 200 or 400 for a dark scene? 

13 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Why would pulling your exposures down in post require flagging to be done on set?

I generally expose exactly as I want it to look. There are many people who will be watching dailies, and not all of them are overly blessed with imagination. If a scene is dark when it should be light, or light when it should be dark, questions will be asked. It's much better to expose as you want your images to look, that way there is no confusion about your intent. 

Hey Stuart. Yeah, I forgot about dailies, they are always the main "issue". I was mentioning flagging because if you light a dark scene and expose it to have the skin tones falling where the camera is "expecting" them, then a lot more light is needed and, as such, a lot of flagging to keep ratios clean. 

But what you said makes absolute sense. But not all cameras deliver clean footage in a dark scene. 

Hey guys 

I was curious how you are handling exposure with digital cameras, particularly with dark scenes involving people. Most cameras will render great skin tones if skin is exposed for 70IRE, but can mess everything up if set is lit and exposed to the end result. So my question is: are you exposing skintones for 70IRE or close and then pull everything down in post (a nightmare for any gaffer because of all the flagging he'll be doing) or do you expose exactly how you want it to look? Or maybe something in the middle? 

Thanks! 

14 hours ago, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

Very nice! Good range of photography and it looks good.

@.+/- 53 the guy looks kinda choppy coming into the frame.

@ +/-1.47 it looks kinda choppy with beginning of the couch scene. (Or did you want it that way?)

Anyway, no big deal. But the real issue is your text at the end is hard to read. I'd say may your text bigger and more readable. 

Good luck!

Hi,

Thanks! Yeah, you're right about the text at the end. I will correct it. When you say the guy at 0:53 looks choppy, is it because of the jump cut of him already partly in the frame? 

Thanks! 

Hi! 

My new director/DP reel. Hope you guys enjoy. 

Thanks 

Tiago Pimentel 

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

On a film negative, the shadows and bright highlights are lower in contrast compared to the midtones thanks to the characteristic curve, but print stock is designed to create deep blacks when a bright light shines through it onto a screen, so shadows in a print from a negative drop to black below a certain level, and even if they didn't, grain in the shadows makes it less flexible to lift in digital color-correction of the negative compared to shadows on a digital image.  On the other hand, film has a long roll-off to white in bright highlights compared to digital.

So most of the complaints about digital have been grayish blacks in digital projection and overly open shadows in cameras like the Alexa, hence more people talk about getting good blacks with digital than they ever did with film.  In the early days of digital, any LUT I created was basically contrasty in the shadows to get good blacks but flat in the highlights to retain overexposure detail.

Ah yes, completely agree with that! BTW, how do you correct for contrast in digital sensors? Do you create a custom LUT or use the contrast ratio with pivot? Or maybe a luma curve?

Thanks!

10 minutes ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I think of digital as being flat in the shadows and contrasty in the highlights, and film as the opposite. But that’s based on printing film.

Could you elaborate a bit more on that, David? ?

Thanks 

Thanks! Good advices. Exposing with digital sensors kind of changed a lot of the reality in the way we light. Are you guys using practicals (not everytime of course) as main lights or just as motivation for other bigger lights? (not counting HMIs for sun light). I've been reading that more and more DPs are using practicals on their own to light a scene.

Hey guys,

How are you exposing skintones on a digital sensor? I know the principles should be the same as exposing for film, and a skintone should look good most of the times if you're using something like False Color to nail exposure, but sometimes you need the scene to be dark. Take the example below. Would you expose for the "right" skintone (let's say around 70 IRE) and take it down in post or would you expose for the end result? I'm asking this because digital cameras interpret skin tones differently according to where they fall in the waveform and sometimes, if I expose for the end result, I get very little headroom in post to push some colors without unwanted noise.

Here's an example:

Hey guys,

So what motivated to start this topic was the fact that most interviews I see online (even tutorials) don't quite nail the backlight effect that they mention in those videos. Most of the tutorials I find, the backlight seems to fall short from effectively making the talent pop from the background. Most of the times, I feel the backlight wraps around the key/fill light too much.

I'm looking for those razor sharp, beautiful cinematic Conrad Hall kind of backlight. So, I was wondering what is usually your approach to get this kind of backlight when shooting a cinematic interview? My feeling is that most people are using soft light as back light and then point it at the talent as if it was a hard light. And that makes it wrap too much for my taste. So, I would say hard directional light as backlight is the way to go. Also, maybe using a warmer color temperature might also help with color contrast against key. And definitely more intense than key.

As for positioning the light, that's always where I struggle most. Where and how high do you usually place it, without making the light spill too much to the top/front of the talent while avoiding veiling flares and other stuff like that?

Here are two examples of what I mean (second example is over the top, but it's great to really highlight what I mean):

Thanks!

6 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

The advantage of glass diffusion tends to be that it comes in degrees of strength as opposed to using a Dior net, for example.

The Hollywood Black Magic has a 1/8 Black Frost as a base for all strengths for a bit of a misty glow, then degrees of softening from an HD Classic Soft, which also adds a bit of a blurred glow.

Thanks David! For this Mulholland Dr effect, what strength of Hollywood BM would be more adequate? 1/4?

Thanks 

Hey guys

The trailer is out:

Thanks for watching

Tiago Pimentel 

David, you're absolutely right. I meant a filter that would affect more the highlights than sharpness. Because for this net filtering to work, I feel you need to start with a really sharp lens, otherwise the image would look too soft when the desired halation is reached. On the other hand, soft lenses also tend to halate more, so maybe things would balance each other. 

Thanks David. Any particular filter you like that could recreate this effect? Something that could make the highlights glow like that without affecting sharpness. 

Hi guys, 

Anyone knows what diffusion Deming used on Mulholland Drive to capture that Hollywood glow? And what would you use on a digital camera to achieve the same? 

In case you don't remember, here's the trailer. 

Thanks

Tiago

Thanks guys. Anyone knows if there are any real and pragmatic differences between the Zeiss Contax, Milvus and Otus lines? There sure is a huge price gap. Just wanted to know if it's optically relevant.

Thanks! 

19 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

That didn’t work with the lenses we had. The CA was bad at every stop.

We also had some Zeiss Otus lenses which flared like crazy. Very unimpressive considering the price tag. It was a very low budget show, and the lenses were forced  on me as I was replacing someone else, but even for a low budget project, I would never use these lenses again.

Stuart, would you recommend the contax Zeiss instead? Any other recommendation on a set of primes for a similar price tag? 

Thanks 

2 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

 

I haven’t really used CP2s, but we did have a lot of problems with Zeiss ZE lenses (which share the same glass) on a recent show. Awful chromatic aberration on highlights.

That is bad, Stuart. I've read so many good things about that Zeiss glass. People usually rave about the Contax Zeiss which is basically the same as the ZF and ZE. I think the T* coating on the Contax might help with more organic flares. Was the problem with the highlights related to purplish flares or was it more about fringing? Were the lens wide open? 

Thanks guys. What would you say are the main differences between the Zeiss Zf.2 and the Leica-R? 

Hey guys. 

I'm looking for a set of primes suitable to render a modern and snappy look that we're used to getting in Netflix and other platforms. They need to have that sharp but organic look. Whatever set I end up choosing, it's going to be used with Ursa Mini pro cameras with Ef mount. I'm torn between the Zeiss Zf.2 and the Leica-R though I never tried the Leicas. Any suggestions? 

Thanks!