Iggy Heringa

Not really. I just can't imagine them rating the FX3 as 12800 ASA for pretty much most situations

Indeed, that's what I assume they did too. However, why say they shot at 12800 ASA if they rated it at 3200 or maybe 4000/5000 ASA? I'll just assume Fraser left this rating responsibility to the ACs. Thanks so the answers!! 😄

Bump 😄 He should have said something closer to ASA 3200 right?

Super quick question for you guys here 😀 I just listened to the Team Deakins podcast on Colour (100th episode) and at some point, Fraiser says that they shot most of the film at ASA 12800. For a split-second, it sounds like he wants to correct himself but then doesn't. We all know this film (that I have yet to watch) was shot on the FX3 and I happen to own the FX3's twin brother (Sony A7SIII) and I'm very skeptical that they shot it at ASA 12800. The correct thing for him to have set would have been ISO 12800 (which is much closer to ASA 3200 when overexposed by two stops, see below) right? Sony recommends we overexpose the FX3 and A7SIII by about 2 stops to get the biggest benefits out of the log format, which means your ISO 12800 is really ISO/ASA 3200 (it needs 2 stops more light!). On the A7SIII, when I shoot ISO 640 I often overexpose by just a stop, but even when it drops a little down from there, the latitude recovery flexibility is still quite decent. However, with the lesser latitude of ISO 12800, I often try to keep things within the 1 to 2-stop overexposure range. It's difficult for me to imagine that they shot the film at ISO/ASA 12800 with an average exposure of 0EV. Does anyone know the answer to this or can point me to a link with more info? Hope to hear back and thanks so much in advance already! 😄

Hi, I'm editing a ≈40 min short film and need help regarding a timecode matter :) Since the logos for my picture-locked film are yet to be made/supplied, I wonder if it is ok, to add them at the very last stage of post-production and ignore them in my current edit? Basically the logos would be added right after color correction and sound mix and just before the DCP creation. Or should I create about 20 seconds of logo placeholder time for the beginning of my film, and insert them, once they are created? The issue with this is that I don't know how much time the logos will take up, especially since one might be animated. Also, I found the following info here: https://2pop.calarts.edu/technicalsupport/using-standard-leader/ which I intend to use: Picture start is at 01:00:00:00 00:58:30:00 – 1 minute of color bars and tone 00:59:52:00 – countdown begins 00:59:58:00 – sync pop, also called 2 pop 01:00:00:00 – your movie begins, no picture or sound should start before this Must I really use the 00:58:30:00 to 00:59:51:24 at all? Can't I just start from 00:59:52:00. Summarized questions: Can I insert the logos at the very end of the post-production pipeline (right before DCP creation) AND can I start the lead in at 00:59:52:00? Thanks in advance and hope to hear back!

Agree entirely with everything you wrote. Thanks so much for writing this out in detail ? It's crazy how many people (and some filmmakers) are still very misinformed on this topic by the way.

Agreed, I am familiar with quickly doing these conversions in my head. Including matching the appropriate apertures ?

Excellent, excellent! Thanks so much for these answers guys ? They're exactly what I wanted to hear and they confirm what I hoped to be confirmed. As stated in my original message, the author of the article I linked to has no understanding of the matter ? Some extra notes, research I did in the meantime (and that I should have probably done before my original post) : Here are some quick notes from inputting research into my pCam app: Field of view of widest existing lenses: Arri S35, Widest 8mm gives a 120 degree horizontal FOV. ARRI LF, Widest 12mm gives a 113 degree horizontal FOV. ARRI 65, Widest 21mm gives a 105 degree horizontal FOV. In other words, the widest achievable field of view on “conventional” cine lenses appears to be achievable on Super35 designed sensors. Of course the usage of such wide focal lengths is rare'ish! ? As for depth of field, the Arri 65mm 1.8 DNA lens would probably be the toughest to find an equivalent full frame or super 35 lens for, to match the depth of field. However, the 0.7 and 0.95 lenses in super35 for example should not be too far off (don’t know the exact conversion ratio from the Alexa65 sensor to super35 and full frame to calculate more precisely. Nonetheless, besides field of view and depth of field, there are generally numerous advantageous elements to the larger sensors of course (lower noise, better color depth, resolution, dynamic range, etc) which is the primary reason for using them. If I write anything incorrect, please be sure to correct ?

Hey guys, I was reading up on some old saved articles today and came across the following: https://www.indiewire.com/feature/large-format-cameras-arri-alexa-65-film-language-joker-roma-midsommar-1202179944/ In my opinion there's a ton of misinformation present in this article and my understanding of the matter fully aligns with Lewis Ward's comment at the bottom of the article stating: "Rendering of space does not change across different formats. If you use equivalent focal lengths on s35mm, Full Frame or 65mm, they will all look the same". Medium Format sensor cams with 65mm lenses have a number of advantages over more traditional combinations but they don't compress space any differently. It's all a matter of field of view. The article got me thinking deeper about 65mm and I have the following question: Isn't the biggest differentiating factor of a (Alexa) 65mm camera really the large sized sensor with the unusual wider aspect ratio of about ≈2.1:1 (as opposed to the more common 3:2 sensors)? In other words, if I understand correctly, the widest primes that cover the Alexa 65's image circle will have extra width available that traditional Super35/Full Frame would not be able to achieve, correct? And thus Alexa 65mm format has some of the horizontal compositional qualities of Anamorphic by means of spherical glass, correct? Here's a link showcasing common sensor sizes: https://www.studiodaily.com/2018/07/download-phil-hollands-digital-film-sensor-chart/ I would love for someone to simply pitch in and let me know wether my thinking on all this is correct. I have no one to talk to about this stuff other than you guys here ? Thanks so much and best wishes!!

Thanks so much for your answer and info Dom.!These two links are super helpful. I'll be going through them later today! ?

Hi David, Thank you very much for your response ? I didn't explain myself well.. Sorry. Obviously I never intended to crop into 2k and then blow that back to 2k ? Just wanted to make sure if mixing say 150% or 200% crop in 4.5k files with none-cropped-in files would present any issues at all if the sharpening and all that is done appropriately. Thanks for the 2K vs 1080p info regarding screenings and extra movie references where aspect ratio changes occur ? Also, anyone know of a convincing zoom plugin? Thanks so much!

Hi, First of all, I could not find any better place than this forum to ask these questions. I know there is an editing forum on cinematography.com but it gets barely any views. If anyone knows of a better place for me to post these questions online please let me know ? I directed a "short-feature film" (≈50min) a few months ago and we are getting closer to final cut of the offline edit (Shot on Alexa LF, K35s, 4.5 Open Gate, ProRes 4444). The film was supposed to be 30-40 minutes but it ended up longer, which unfortunately is a less advantageous running time for festivals... I have a few simple questions: 1. Though I wanted my final delivery to be 4k, it has now become 2k. Because the shoot was a tough experience (no point in writing an essay as to why) I now have to deal with fixing certain things in post. 2k is easier on vfx amongst others ;). QUESTION: How much can I zoom into a shot without the audience at a festival noticing that the image stands out as softer? Is 150% the limit? Or can I go up to 200%? I know it also depends on the length of the shot, and also that I can get away with less sharp footage if it's a very short clip. I also know that these zoomed-in shots will need some sharpening, de-noising, etc. I much hope someone with professional experience on feature films post-production could give me their opinion ? Should 150% be the max? Or is 200% fine? 2. Zoom-in effect. I know that one can add digital zooms via keyframing in post. I don't plan to do a lot of this and on-set we used a dolly for various sequences so its not like I planned to add this in post. However, there are a few moments in the film where adding a zoom in post was considered during prep or feels useful. QUESTION: Is there a plugin that very realistically emulates the zoom in and out of a cinema-zoom? I know that this slow-in-and-slow-out effect can be replicated with careful key framing but I'd ideally want something that speeds up the process or even makes it look better than what I can do. One thing I found online is this: https://nofilmschool.com/push-post-vashi-nedomanskys-premiere-pro-preset I'm sure there are other tools no? 3. Changing aspect ratios. We shot the film for 2:1 but I'm thinking of changing the aspect ratio to 1.85:1. Something I did not want to do but overall feels better. And there's also this other thought that I've been thinking of... QUESTION: Could you guys recommend films that change aspect ratios throughout the film. I know of The Grand Budapest Hotel/The French Dispatch and a few others but my online research can't find many other good examples. Obviously I don't want my aspect ratio to change every 2 minutes (though for a more experimental film this could be great) but I wonder how far I could go with this, which is why I'm seeking out references. Not to copy but be inspired by at best and to know what's out there! Really hope someone can help me out here and wishing you all a great Wednesday! ?

No problemo at all ? Have a great upcoming week and all the best too!

Haha. It's a matter of perspective Satsuki! ? Obviously, that perfect light meter does not exist, yet and your sarcasm is unnecessary here because I truly believe that there's a market here for other brands to take on Sekonic and provide something that is better thought out. I just wished the 858D would have at least met my expectation of being a decently designed tool. It of course does need to be perfect. Nothing is. It's fine if some features are missing. However, when essential stuff is implemented poorly, it's inexcusable. What has Sekonic done since 2017 and why did they release a product that feels so unfinished for cinematographers. I'm done complaining for the next weeks!

Hey Satsuki, I have to respectfully disagree :) Some multi-tools are better than others. For an example of a more successful one, take the very successful Audio Devices Mixpre field recorders. These are also, amongst others, audio interfaces! In both instances they are perfectly designed. Pretty much every feature from the hardware & circuitry that any user would ever want is implemented in the software. Nothing is an afterthought. The software interface is also incredible. The designers at Audio Devices are geniuses. Also, what about RGB fixtures? To a degree these could also be seen as multi-tools. Imagine that one of the brands would release a RGB fixture where the dimming capabilities in Bi-Color mode were crippled, whereas all works as it should in RGB. This Bi-Color dimming capability could have easily been implemented, but the designers just didn't do it. An afterthought. In this consumer world of competing products, I would expect a brand with as much name recognition as Sekonic to put in a little more effort into designing their products. Instead it seems more of the money is going to the marketing department. My feeling is that the Sekonics are much more geared towards photographers. It's absolutely ridiculous that a $599 light meter is so average with its lux/footcandle readings. Unless I'm mistaken, the sensitivity is there for it to be much better in this regard. And, as I said earlier, it would probably take just a day (max!) for any half competent person in this field to write the code into a new firmware. If Sekonic would pay me, I'd adjust the menu system and add features to make the whole experience of using the light meter faster, more efficient, less cluttered and more professional. Cinematographers especially, would be happy :) So yeah, the 858D is a workable tool but a poorly designed one (as of 01/17/2021)