Jump to content

Thomas McNamara

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Thomas McNamara

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Montreal
  1. Don't the dimensions of the sensor come into play with regards to cropping the image though? Or do you, with the Helium 8k super 35 sensor in 8k 6:5 get the entire field of view of the given anamorphic lens with no crop?
  2. So shooting on the Helium at 8k 6:5 and aiming for a 2.40:1 final aspect ratio, how much of the image would have to be cut from the sides, or would the de-squeezed frame not be that much wider?
  3. Thank you guys very much for the replies! These really helped!
  4. Hi Phil! Thank you very much for the reply! Good to know I don't need to scale in that much for an effective stabilization. I'll look into stabilizing in AE. I'll actually be shooting this with a fairly wide lens on a Ronin 1, so there wouldn't be much to stabilize, I just want it to be steadycam steady (budget cut my steadicam operator). So for the frame guide in camera, would you suggest to crop by eye and then later scale in post to match the frame guide? Thanks again for your informative answer!
  5. Hey everyone, Wondering if anyone can help with this. I'm shooting a project on my Helium 8k in 8k WS and I'm going to want to stabilize in post. I'm looking for the best way to achieve this. I've heard of the technique of framing for 4k in the monitor and then scaling in in post to find that "framed for 4k" shot value and then stabilizing. So, utilizing this technique, is any normal stabilization within commonly used NLEs (like stabilization within fcpx or warp stabilizer in Premiere) the best way to stabilize given all that extra room? Or is there another, better way? Also, how do I frame for 4k WS (or any other lower resolution than 8k WS) in the monitor? Couldn't seem to find how to do that. And also, how do I get a mathematically perfect match for the 4k WS frame in post when I drop the clip in the timeline? Do I just approximate that frame by scaling in until it looks correct? Thanks for the help!
  6. Thanks for the replies guys! I can see now that it probably is a big soft overhead source moving around them mechanically on some kind of system. I won't have the grip crew necessary to pull something like this off on this project but I've had an idea that I want to share with you to see if it's valid. I was thinking about placing a number of fresnel units (with chimeras on all) around my subject, all on dimmers. Picture a half moon setup around my subject. At the beginning of the shot, one of these units would be on, keying the subject. As we dolly in, the key would gradually dim down as the unit next to it dims up, and so forth until we've wrapped completely around. These would be ground units, raised as high as they can go and pointed down. Would this accomplish something in the ballpark of the inspo link?
  7. Hi everyone! I want to achieve something like in this video at 00:12 (shots on Rihanna and then Drake). The lighting seems to be moving as well as some dimming happening at the same time. Does anyone know how this is achieved? Is it a matter of putting some of the lights on a dolly-like system and assigning a light operator to pan/tilt the heads as the lights moves? Or is this just a dimming thing in which they dim down certain units and dim up other units simultaneously? My project is quite simple. It's a series of commercials in which we do a dead center dolly-in on subjects standing in the middle of a cyc wall studio going from a head to toe wide into an extreme close-up. I'd like my key light setup to move a little like in the link above. Right now, I've ordered my gear as if I'm not doing moving the lights, so it's kind of a bulky setup. But depending on your suggestions, I can change it up and optimize it for motion. Thanks!
  8. And while we're at it, here's a pic of the book light setup https://www.dropbox.com/s/hjosyu4r5tu0erf/DSC05345.JPG?dl=0
  9. Sorry about that! Here are the stills. The white cyc stills are using the 12k booklight (ultrabounce into 1/4 silk). The sit-down stills are direct, fully and evenly filling an 8x8 bleached muslin about 10 feet away from the subject. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3kw388ruh6w8ewa/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-01%20at%2012.41.47%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/d54ades6izh0zzh/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-01%20at%2012.42.56%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/sdhz4bkizm0itob/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-01%20at%2012.38.25%20PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/j0sqgn0063gs47x/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-02%20at%2011.13.42%20AM.png?dl=0
  10. Funny enough, on this very shoot on which this post is based on, I actually got a chance to compare both of these approaches on the same day, my book light (arri t12 into ultrabounce into 1/4 silk) and going direct through diffusion (the t12 through the bleached muslin). For one of our setups, I had to change things up from the book light setup because of space restrictions. So I got to literally see both side to side. I'm attaching some stills from our shoot so you can see the difference (or lack of) between the two. The first is the book light setup, the second is direct through bleached muslin. These are ungraded: http://file:///Users/thomasmcnamara88/Desktop/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-01%20at%2012.41.47%20PM.png http://file:///Users/thomasmcnamara88/Desktop/Screen%20Shot%202018-02-01%20at%2012.38.25%20PM.png As you can see, the two are very similar in terms of softness, if not identical. From what I'm reading here and from what I saw during this shoot, with correct distance between diffusion, lighting unit and subject/scene, you can achieve pretty much the same quality of light with both techniques. So, I guess it comes down to output. With the book light, I'm losing around 3 stops of light vs let's say 1 1/2 stops by going direct through diffusion.
  11. Thanks for the replies guys! Lewis, thank you for that breakdown. Very informative and very cool of you to fully document it like you did. So I guess depending on your power and space situation, it seems even preferable to light utilizing several smaller sources to ensure that both sources, bounce and diffusion, are evenly lit.
  12. Hi there! I have an upcoming studio shoot in which I want to do a large booklight key (with the usual spacelight cyc wash in the background). Now, I usually do this a certain way but I'd like to know if the same can be accomplished in another way. What I usually do is blast a 12k (Arri t12) into a 6x6 ultrabounce then into a larger 12x12 silk or muslin (depending on the shoot). My question is what is the comparative difference between a single large source blasting into the bounce then into the diffusion vs multiple smaller sources (let's say a series of 2k open faces) filling the bounce frame then going into the diffusion? Is it more common place to utilize the bigger single source?
  13. Thanks a lot for the responses guys, really really helpful! So I guess the idea is don't stray too far away from Rec 709 with your custom LUT should you choose to go that way, and if you do, rigorous testing is in order.
  14. Thank you for your response Robin! Part of my question has to do with what you brought up in your response: "but using your own or other LUTs is fine also, as long as you know those levels for that LUT". How exactly can I be sure what the levels are for my created LUT? Say I create one in Resolve and I really give it quite a distinct look; say I really push the heck out of it or vice versa. Then I generate the LUT and load it into my camera. How can I be exactly sure what my tone levels should be exposed as? I know for a variety of LUTs because I've seen published numbers from camera companies about the tone values for those specific LUTs (like the LC 709A, 709 800, etc). But how can I know for my own custom LUTs with that degree of exactitude? Or is it just a matter of toggling it on and off to check the LOG values like I usually do?
  15. Hi everyone! I’m curious about working with custom LUTs in camera during productions. I haven’t really dabbled into that too much yet but I’m hearing a lot of DPs who work this way for many reasons: exposure, nailing down a look early on and committing to it, making sure director/producers/clients have a nice image around the monitor that’s close to the final graded look, etc. Right now, I do what most people do when shooting log on cinema cameras: I use the go to 709 LUT the camera has to offer (Arri 709 for Alexa, 709(800%) for Sony and so on), expose looking at that (as well as my exposure tools of course) and toggle the LUT on and off to double check the log every now and then to make sure I’m not loosing certain things. That’s worked fine for me and I have no problems doing that at all, but I’m very interested (for commercial, film and music video work) in looking into developing a look or a series of looks beforehand and sticking to it throughout. I just want to hear about common practices for creating these show LUTs and how each created LUT relates to exposure in camera. I’d also like to hear about common workflow practices structured around working this way, like what is the basis of the creation of a custom LUT for a project? Is it Raw footage from a pre-light for the project? Or just random test footage? I’m curious to hear your answers!
×
×
  • Create New...