Vitor Delduque

On 1/9/2023 at 10:40 PM, Phil Rhodes said:

What did you think of it?

Great camera, amazing colors, and highly versatile. I would choose it over a Sony anytime.

ProRes, All-Intra, 4.2.2 10-bit, and the wide range of bitrates are the technical aspects that I love. But those are just specifications.

Fuji has done an excellent job with the user experience (UX) and user interface (UI). I chose this camera over Sonys, Blackmagics, and even a Komodo (once) because of it. These were jobs with tight schedules and multiple locations in a single day. Switching between different setups (gimbal, tripod, and handheld) was extremely easy, and the absence of a recording time limit was a big help. The 1.5 hours of battery life were also impressive.

During an interview, I used an Anker 26,000mAh power bank to simultaneously power the camera, monitor, and transmitter. It lasted for 4 hours without any issues! There was no overheating, and I didn't notice any problems with sensor temperature during extended use. The power bank takes 3 hours to fully charge. If you get two batteries and two power banks, you'll be able to run all day.

There's something about this sensor. The footage I captured with it was noticeably different from my old XT3 with the same lenses. I can't quite tell why yet, but I find the H2's images more pleasing.

The colors are amazing, and grading the log footage is a breeze—much easier compared to Sony, etc. It also offers a nice dynamic range that works well for exteriors and window shots.

Lower bitrates are unusable. They have tons of artifacts that can ruin your footage. It's best to start with All-Intra 720.

The sensor stabilization is decent, although I don't use it much. If you're using an adapter, manually setting the lens focal length can yield better results.

While this camera may not be designed for high-end productions, I would still choose it over any "mirrorless" camera and some "Blackmagic Pocket" level jobs.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask.

On 9/26/2022 at 8:00 AM, Mark Dunn said:

Perspective.

Thanks ?

2 hours ago, Uli Meyer said:

Did you try a different lens?

 

Yup. Same effect with the 35mm, but I noticed something about the next quote

1 hour ago, M Joel W said:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/111006/how-does-light-bend-around-my-finger-tip

I've noticed while comparing blue screen composites with real images that a foreground object will distort the background and also make the background appear more in focus than it otherwise is because the foreground is working as an aperture somehow. 

Edit: except it seems to be the foreground that is acting strange for you? Try it at other apertures. I think it's optical but am not sure. 

When I tested with the 35mm I started at the same distance I was with the 50mm (T1.5 also) cause I wanted to maintain the same "size relationship between foreground and background" (sorry.. what do we call this in english ??). The effect was almost imperceptible. So I tried again a little closer to the candle and the effect was back.. I think it was due to the DoF beeing closer to the one I had with the 50mm. This should add some credit to the article. I think that's it.

Thanks very much for all the answers ? Feel free to add any ideas!

LongGOP doesn't seem to be the problem. Here's the All Intra test.

On the other hand, it seems that the effect follows the background, specially the white chair and brighter objects. Back to diffraction? 

OBS: shutter speed, distance and fps don't change a thing.

9 hours ago, Karim D. Ghantous said:

It looks like diffraction except it isn't. I don't have any idea.

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

You're not shooting through strange bits of glass, filters, etc? Looks optical to me.

Yeah! It does looks like optical stuff. But I wasn't using or shooting through glass, filters, etc. I was testing a Cine Rokinon 50mm at T1.5, somewhere around 30cm (1ft) from the object. Despite this, the lens looks as it should.

7 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

I'd have pegged it for a LongGOP encoding artifact of some kind? What format did you record in?

 

Good one! I'm gonna try to get the effect again and if I do, I'll try All Intra next.

Some parts of the metal frame around the candle seems to "teleport" a little bit, haha. Please pay a special atention to the seccond one from left to right that's out of focus, right at the beginning.

Thanks!

Hey,

I'm working with some drone (A2s) files and I can se the footage quickly "popping up" every second or so. At first I tought it was due to the arm's leds, but that's not it. I think this may be due to compression. What do you think?

I'd love to hear some advice on to handle it. Sometimes it's nothing, sometimes it's really noticeble.

i-frame noise reduction? - is this a thing? haha

Thanks!

Obs: not a colorist, as u can see

Just now, Satsuki Murashige said:

1. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘different’ CCT values..

2. Generally...

1. It's just a poor English case, hahaha. Not the best, but it'll be improved soon.

2. Got it! Thanks ?

I couldn't understand what's happening to my readdins to make the sekonic suggest values that put the target at a lower IRE in some cases.. mostly when I try to measure dark surfaces. 

Thanks for your patience and all the content! It'll help me a lot.

16 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Have you tried metering an 18% grey card yet?

Hey,

I've tried it today using 10 different light conditions. I've positioned the card and camera, lighted the card, got the mettering, applyed the suggested settings on the camera (same ISO, adjusting aperture and S.s)... 10 times. All the shots stayed between 42 and 48%. The ones lighted with different CCT values were way more consistent: 44-47%. I used a portable RGB in 3 scenarios - because I was curious - and those were the ones that expanded the range to 42-48%.

7 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

If you take readings of the white paper or your cat’s black fur, and set the camera and lens to those settings (and if your camera’s ISO is accurate) - then yes, they should come out at 46% on the waveform, or 18% grey. 

That's it. It's not aways coming out at 46%, or 18%.

If this is happening, even if I set the camera using a grey card and then measure something brighter like a white card, I won't be able to tell if the difference between them is real. 

7 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

Not sure you should be spot metering to a white card -- "white" can be any number of luminance values above a certain level.  If you're going to be spot metering a card, it should be an 18% grey card.

Based on your still life arrangement, the closest thing to 18% grey was closer to your f/2.0 reading.

Thank you both ?

I thought that every surface and color could be measured with the spot and it would be at 45% (or 41%, calibrated for Slog3) if the camera and suggested values were matching. Am I wrong about that?

I'm struggling a little bit to understand the different results I had. 

Thank you for all the help and patience!

Hi, Satsuki!

Thanks for replying ?

1. Done. Using a white card, it matches perfeclty. Using different surfaces (leather, post-its, blue sheets, a cat, etc) it's kinda inconsistent. I've calibrated the l858 to 45% at ISO640 (Fuji XT-3). I've got values between 25-50%. 

Quick test: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1djiSs0jfr4ClqLpHmiziN_kJOgdF25Vj/view?usp=sharing

2. Cine Rokinon. The Calibration above was made with this lens.

3. Tried that today. Dark blue sheet lighted from brehind the camera. Got something around 25%.

4. I tried to stay as close as possible to the camera. The test above is the result.

5. That's the thing: is this kinda variation normal and the readings not aways precise? I'm wondering if there's something wrong with my tool ?. I really hope it's a lack of experience on my part because this I can fix with some pratice, hahaha!

Thanks again!

Hey,

Yesterday I was shoting a scene for a comercial and my L858 got me pretty good. I took some measurements with the spot meter from where the camera was (we'll 'rebuild everything later) and I got a underexposed footage (something around 1 stop) following the f3.5  sugested value.

OBS:

- I had some light hitting the spot's lens, but not in frame;

-I tought about recalibrating the meter, but I tried to measure different scenarios around the location and the L858 gave me 3 correct values out of 5. I used waveform to check;

-Last time I used my Sekonic it was perfect.. about a week ago;

-I'm new using lightmeters, so I hope it's just some problem with my interpretation of the situation, lol.

Any suggestion?

Thanks!

Woah,

A lot of good comments! Thanks! - Taking notes, haha -

So, let's go inside the story: the house where all happens is a camp house, away from any city. This scene is about a blackout. The only source left is the moon.

I'd like to fill the interior without too much shadows. Just enough light to make the room visible. And use the moonlight to contrast the subject and define some shadows (from the big window) on the ground.

I'll try to post a reference from the storyboard!

Thanks veery much for all these awesome answers :D

Hey!

My name is Vitor. I'm a cinematography student and I'm recording a short film in Brazil :)

We pretend to record an interior night scene this weekend: lights out, moonlight comming from a big window of 3x5 meters, in a 9 meters height room.

Sooo.... Do you have any sugestion about how can I light this with the equipments bellow? My first idea was -basically- light the ceiling from below and use it to fill all the room. And put some lights outside to simulate the moon.

The equipments we have here are:

-A6000 Sony Alpha

-24 f2.8 Nikon

-50 f1.8 Nikon

-6 1000w quartz flood lights with bandoors

-Ctb, 2x ctb and cto

-Diffusion paper (I mean... The paper we use in kitchen to make cookies, haha).

-Black flags (0.6x0.6 meters, 1.2x0.6 meters and 1.2x1.2 meters)

Thats it.

I love this page and all the coments here. You all makes me feel confortable to wright my firt post :)

Thank you veery much! And sorry about my english, haha