Jump to content

Olivier Metzler

Basic Member
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Tallahassee, Florida

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Doesn’t the notion of “lighter grey shadows” inherently mean that there is more information though? Or is it an apparent increase in detail (even if there isn’t any from a technical standpoint)?
  2. I see. Now, would you say that shooting with uncoated lenses gives you more control over your shadows though? Considering that instead of having to build a big soft source to lift your shadows, with uncoated lenses you might “only” have to add negative fill to get them darker? Controlling the toe of the exposure can be quite tricky - at least from some shoots I have participated in - and I feel like uncoated lenses could offer a solution to that? Though as you said, it doesn’t only affect just the shadows but the entire exposure.
  3. David, I’m assuming going into a shoot knowing this, you can increase your light levels to compensate for the loss in exposure and still get away with not needing/wanting to fill in the shadows as much? It also reminds me of a photo of your dog you posted on your instagram quite a long time ago where you compared two different lenses and their rendition of saturation and contrast - I remember being so suprised by the difference in look.
  4. Hello everyone, I recently listened to Suzie Lavelle’s interview regarding her work on “Normal People” and at one point she mentioned that she often relied on lens aberrations of Canon K35s lenses to give her the fill she needed. I was wondering if someone would elaborate on this practice a bit more and clearify what she meant by that? I’m assuming the K35s either increase or reduce image contrast overall and one could use that inherent quality to get higher or lower fill levels right out of the gate? Thank you!
  5. Hello everyone, I find myself a bit in the weeds of things and I would greatly appreciate it if someone would help me find my way again. I recently listened to the Team Deakins podcast with Matthew Libatique, and at one point, he said that there is no relationship anymore between his meter and the camera's exposure setting, unless you use a LUT. Now, I am a cinematography student and my program unfortunately does not spend a lot of time on LUT workflows - we shoot on RED Epic Ws with a Helium sensor and use one of RED's LOG-to-Rec709 LUTs. I almost entirely rely on my light meter to evaluate exposure because I know the LUT we use tends to crush my blacks and clip my whites before they actually are - the saturation is also a little excessive to my taste. And since I am still wrapping my head around how to build an effective LUT and how to apply it on set, I trust my meter more. However, when I hear someone like Matthew Libatique talk about the disassociation between light meter readings and camera, I find myself questioning my exposure method, and I feel like I need to start from scratch when it comes to understanding exposure. And so, I am wondering if I need to change my approach, or if I can stick with it while considering additional exposure-reading tools, or if my meter is indeed outdated and "all" I need to do is build my own LUT to use in camera to determine my exposure on set. There is so much contradicting information online and even in cinematography books about this topic, and I was hoping that this forum would be able to help me see the light. Thank you!
  6. I wish I could upload this picture, because I literally did the same thing with a 2k Blonde during a night shoot a few days ago haha
  7. Thank you for sharing your insight on all this! And I'm sure it's been done before for those same reasons, but that last one made me laugh!
  8. I hadn’t even thought of that, but that makes a lot of sense! Thank you! Would you foresee any other reasons why a DP would overlight then use ND to lower open up again, other than planning to shoot high-speed overcranked shots?
  9. Hello everyone, I have a question about a BTS shot that I saw for a music video (here's the music video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlBKCwydtPY) The cinematographer was shooting at: 23.976 fps 180 shutter T/2.0 EI 800 ND 1.2 Now, my question is regarding the use of the ND 1.2. I understand the use of NDs in exterior locations or when trying to balance an interior with an overexposed exterior, but in this case, the music video was shot on a stage. And so I'm wondering why the cinematographer decided to use an ND 1.2 and shoot at T/2.0, instead of say, have the lighting set for a T/2.0 exposure without the need to use the ND 1.2. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...