Eric Soto

Right, so then its not actually wider, since you are only cropping vertically right?

Ok, I feel like a complete idiot for wanting to understand this so thoroughly and feeling like everyone else does but me, so what I do not understand is certain aspects of aspect ratio, no pun intended. So I am hoping you guys can clear this up for me. So like most DSLR shooters, I shot at 16:9 and to make things appear more cinematic people have suggested adding adjustment layers in post to create a letterbox on the top and bottom to give it a 2.39 look , but I've learned that this is not good for final output because of compression problems and viewing this export on larger monitors than the standard 16:9. So the alternative that I have heard is to change the sequence settings in premiere and keep the 1920 but change to 803 instead of 1080. Ok so this is where the really stupid question comes. Once that setting is changed why does the preview monitor when looking at a clip become wider than it was before at 1920x1080? I haven't changed the horizontal pixels, only the vertical amount, so why does it do this? Second this is a general question on aspect ratios, why do wider aspect ratios, such as 2.39 reduce their vertical size? compared to lets say 1.85 or 1.78? why not keep the same vertical amount and just extend the horizontal amount? And lastly why even use aspect ratios that will have letterboxing ? I understand the philosophy of having different emotional feelings with different ratios but as cinematographers wouldn't you want the most amount of image on the screen? If you want the shot to appear wider why not use a wider lens or pull back during filming, if possible. I really appreciate the patience of anyone who answers these questions, And please correct me if I am totally wrong about anything that I have said. I really want to understand this as much as possible, whereas right now I am just going along with these things because it's what I have been told, but I don't ACTUALLY understand it that way I want to. Thanks everyone.

Thanks for the example. I've always admired the look of that film.

Great thank you for the reply!

I think it does but I will double check. And unfortunately I looked into those sigma cine zooms but they are outside my budget.

I told you guys what my needs are. I need a telephoto lens and I just want some advice PURELY based on budget. And yes obviously the zoom is ideal for event shooting BUT the original question I asked puts into context my budget and getting the most out of it. I am not asking anyone to make any decision for me, like I said in my last reply which seems like you did not read but I will clarify again I am asking for peoples experience with the lenses just so I can make the decision myself. And i did not use term " event shooting " i said "live event" which yes would be more suitable for zooms because of the quick changing nature of what I would be shooting. " music video making" as you put it is much different, I have much more time plan therefore a prime might benefit me more in that situation. HENCE the reason for me not being able to quickly point my finger to a certain tele lens and just choose. I'd rather ask people have more experience than me on which tele lens they've tried and liked better so I can choose myself more effectively where to spend my money. You are making this for more complicated than it needs to be. Have you used either the Rokinon Cine DS lenses ( 14, 135, any fl really) or the Sigma 70-200? IF you have GREAT, I want to know your experience with them. Thats it bud.

Well that seems strange that you think that if I can't decide on which tele lens I want because I know I need one then that means that I shouldn't buy the lens? I need a telephoto lens I just don't know which would benefit my need more and I figured you guys might have some insight on which one of the two you guys liked and why. I have a 24-70 2.8 and 50 1.8.

No it's not.

Hey Stefano, Well I already have a 24-70 2.8 and it covers most of my needs except for the need for the tele. I love shooting ultra wide especially when filming musicians so that's why I'm tilting towards the Rokinon lenses. But I have used the Sigma and it's great. But I think would be fine with the 135 Rokinon prime. I just want to make sure I'm getting the most i can with my budget

Hey everyone. So I have a budget of about $1500-1700. I am looking to buy a tele lens and I was first going to go with the sigma 70-200 2.8 but I was then looking into the Rokinon Cine DS primes and saw that I could get a 135 and 14 for less than the sigma. I shoot on a 5d mrk3 and will mainly be using this for music videos, live events such as bands and weddings. Does anyone have experience with these? I'm not sure which I should go with. I am also open to any other options of brands. But I am mainly looking for a good tele lens zoom or prime. Thanks everyone!

Right, well I guess what I am asking is how do you go about exposing for the background. Lets say you have your subject and the background. And you want the background to be 2 stops under the key on your subject. Assuming there is no sunlight coming through windows, how would one go about exposing the background. Would you do that first? and then light for the actor ? Also I've used false color to expose and I tried to keep the background one consistent color around 50 IRE, but I haven't found a way to get a good clean exposure of a background. Is this a method you would use? And lastly do you tend the expose background with direct light or bounce? Thanks!

Yes, I have noticed that too, mostly from my peers which are beginners when it comes to cinematography. I find because of this ease of just bumping up the ISO it doesn't encourage one to expose for the most important light in the frame, and they will allow a lot of clipping when it doesn't need to be so.

Can you name any modern films that point this out ?

Hey everyone, just wanted to get a general idea of how one exposes the background in relation to the subject, in F stops. I understand that every situation is different but in general if people could give me ratios that they use it would be helpful. Thanks everyone!

Yea that makes sense. Thank you for the help

Interesting, I would've assumed that F stops would be easier for lightning ratios. Thank you for your responses.

This might seem like a redundant question. But lets say you are scouting a location and you go to a living room with some practicals in there but they are turned off. And you have a corner of the room that has a window to the outside. To meter the sunlight coming through, in order to know how much lights you need to bring for the shoot, what would you meter with? F stops or FC ? and why would it be more efficient to do so. I really appreciate the feedback from everyone. Thanks.

Hey sorry for the late reply, but thank you so much for the info. It will help out a lot. I will be trying it out soon.

Hey everyone, I am still learning how effectively to use my light meter. The conclusion I've come to, not that it is correct which is why I am asking, is that I use my light meter to measure the differences in F stops of light sources. When scouting a location to get readings of practical lights I use fc readings, to see what extra lights I will need to bring. I understand the mentality of " it doesn't matter how you use the tool, as long as you get what you want from it" but I would just like to know how you guys with more experience use your light meter, specifically when it comes to metering light in FC. Thank You.

Hey everyone, I am looking to build a 6x6 frame with some unbleached muslin on it. The price of muslin used for professional film purposes is out of my budget so a few questions come to mind that I would appreciate any help on. I will be using tungsten lights, the most powerful being a 1k. 1. Is cheaper, more affordable muslin that can be bought at a local textile place be trusted not to catch fire? 2. If I want something for diffusion and a bounce should I use cheap muslin for both? or maybe go with some type of silk ? so long as it does't catch fire. Or use both ? 3. In terms of being able to be set up quick, and easy to transport (relative to being a DIY and not professional gear) what is the best suggestions for a frame? Wood? Staple the muslin/silk onto the wood? Tie it through grommets? Or use PVC pipes? I understand that these might be easy questions that have quick solutions that i could google but I would like to know your experiences doing this and the most effective and affordable way to achieve it, again, in your experience. Thanks, appreciate it! Eric

Thank you everyone for the advice.

Yea well I have rented tungsten, fluorescent Kinos, and I've worked with LEDs. I am just torn between which to use because I like aspects of both tungsten and LED. I mainly need something that will last long and is durable since I will be "practicing" with them a lot but also offers a good look and tungsten seems to be the way to go.

Yea well I have rented tungsten, fluorescent Kinos, and I've worked with LEDs. I am just torn between which to use because I like aspects of both tungsten and LED. I mainly need something that will last long and is durable since I will be "practicing" with them a lot but also offers a good look and tungsten seems to be the way to go.

Well it seems the main argument everywhere is between tungsten or LED. I have a limited budget to work with and to get my moneys worth I think the Arri kits are what I'm leaning towards. LED's are too expensive, for at least good quality. I've used the Kino Flo Diva kits and they don't make skin look very good. I might look for a used kit as well as was suggested here. What do you all think about red heads or blondes?

Yes I mean to buy for my own use. Thanks for the reply!