Jump to content

Daniel Lo Presti

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Daniel Lo Presti

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Brussels, Belgium

Recent Profile Visitors

509 profile views
  1. The problem with the audio analogy is that there's a very specific reason for having chosen 44.1 / 48 kHz, and that's due to the upper limit of human hearing; Nyquist sampling theorem as it pertains to audio says you can capture the entire audible sound spectrum by sampling 2x the highest audible frequency (~ 20kHz, and that goes steadily downhill from your 20s onwards!). A pure fundamental tone (sine wave) can be perfectly described with two bits of data, the peak and the valley. And digital to analog converters are able to "perfectly" reproduce a sine wave from just those two points, there's no audible aliasing or "stepping". And for the record (no pun intended), many recording studios record in 44.1kHz, though modern DAWs and plug-ins internally process at higher resolutions, to avoid accumulating rounding errors - just ilke bit-depth in colour correction apps. (There are actually valid reasons to record at 96kHz but they're more to do with latency, not the sound itself.)
  2. Interesting, I wasn't aware. I never managed to make it there - by the time I was actually interested in checking it out, it was cancelled due to that horrible tragedy...
  3. I have no prior experience with Betacam but I would think a lot of the blown highlights (river) would be characteristic of the low dynamic range of the early generation video cameras. You have an apparently overcast sky with trees in the shadows, and water reflecting the bright sky. Probably even quite a challenge for many of today's lower end cameras. And the "fog" could be due to low contrast (possibly uncoated/single coated?) lenses... I suppose a doc like that would've used ENG style zooms... And a lot of the colour casts, even outdoors, seem to be simply mixed lighting (warm sunset with sun in frame contrast with cool shadows). Not sure what kind of colour correction was being done back in the SD tape-based days, but budget would've been a consideration too. The rest would just be the camera's white balance settings and/or colour temp gels. Esp. in the music videos a lot of that would've been done as an artistic choice. Are you specifically trying to reproduce that look? Or just trying to figure this out to avoid those same issues?
  4. Well it has certainly been made crystal clear in this thread which career path I should pursue without any further trepidation. I'll dust off my rusty Fluffy Sausage quick smart.
  5. Less glamorous? "How very dare you!" Ah ok, I might've just picked it up from this forum then... fair enough.
  6. Ok, I had to come back to this. I'm far from being a practising professional in this field (one can hope) - I have more of an audio/music background - but I'm really curious about where this stereotype (justified or otherwise) comes from? At least from the perspective of the music production industry, it would seem the film industry weathered the economic downturn, not to mention the digital revolution, a lot better, and while it probably has little in common with film production sound (something I'm being made increasingly aware of), I'm still baffled by this generalisation. I realise it's something of a running joke, but is it based in any truth at all?
  7. I was about to write "please enlighten us", but curiosity took over and I did a reverse google image search.... https://www.hearinglossjournal.com/radar-great-big-hearing-aids/ ..and the one above isn't even the most preposterous-looking device! There was an article on BBC recently about this massive parabola-shaped wall somewhere in Southern England that was supposed to achieve the same thing .. found it. Fascinating stuff, especially for someone acoustically inclined/curious as I am.. https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-46348917
  8. Yes absolutely... I guess I was mostly referring to the fact that even most DLSRs don't have the dynamic range of higher end cinema cameras. There seems to be a trade-off, where stills cameras focus on resolution, whereas for video cameras it's more about dynamic range / low noise. I did a time-lapse video of the lunar eclipse we had here a few months ago, with the moon setting behind a monument, with a mirrorless camera; unfortunately the speed of the moon's orbit was such that I had to use a slow-ish shutter speed, and the night photography with a long, slow-ish lens didn't help! So I ended up still being quite limited in how much I could lift the exposure in post... Edit: I just remembered what the biggest problem was: the eclipse was past totality and it was tough capturing both the darkened part of the moon still in the penumbra, and the bright crescent now illuminated by the sun.
  9. I've wanted to do something similar in the past on a BMCC 2.5k but with the idea of getting long exposures (not light streaks specifically but same principle), however the camera only has a shutter angle option, not shutter speed, which limits the maximum effective shutter speed to 1x the frame rate. At least on the BMCC, the slowest framerate is 24/23.98 but then you have a timelapse option which basically allows for skipping certain frames. So eg. your framerate would still be 24fps but it would only expose a frame once a second (or however often you choose). So a 360 degree shutter would still only work out to 1/24s. And from what I've heard/read, it seems to be the same on other digital cinema cameras. Apparently this sort of thing would not produce a clean image on a cinema camera whose sensor is not optimised for long exposures - whereas a DSLR / mirrorless is perfect for this. Also, since you're essentially taking single frames, you can capture higher res frames on a DSLR (though probably with lower dynamic range - probably not ideal for light streaks on a dark background - although being such a stylized effect, I guess any clipped highlights in the streaks wouldn't be too distracting, and if anything, probably expected/desirable).
  10. Probably veering off-topic somewhat but I guess the ease with which people assume the DP title is the fact that anyone these days can own a DSLR or mirrorless stills camera that happens to record video (and pretty decent video at that, compared to the camcorders of olde), probably has a manual mode, not to mention live mode / EVF which gives a decent enough idea of exposure and general look, all of which requires zero knowledge and understanding of exposure tools - all of this in contrast with owning/renting a film camera and all the know-how inherent in its operation, getting a decent image, lighting (a necessity for relatively slow film stock), film development, etc. Just like everyone and their dog is a music producer / engineer these days because they have an audio interface, a DAW, and a few virtual instruments.
  11. Would I be wrong in assuming a global shutter might help a lot here? I recognise the "confused" description and I usually associate that look with a rolling shutter, particularly shooting handheld on a small, light camera. And possibly also shooting at a larger shutter angle could help, although pausing on some fast action in that video doesn't seem to reveal any particularly excessive motion blur.
  • Create New...