Jump to content

Fiza Chughtai

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    NY

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Ya I understand how variables effect the impact of different lights' outputs. Thanks On which factors to decide the baseline value (WB)?..for single source it may be easier to decide. But mostly I guess you are always using more than one light source, so whether day or night what are the factors to evaluate the decision of what to set as WB? and are there any common tried tested go to preferred values for shooting day and night scenes?
  2. Aperture balancing to certain value is called changing stops, but changing certain color temperature from one value to other value cant be called changing color stops?
  3. What would be the technical term to say changing color temperature values?
  4. Why not white balance 1 or 2 stop over to save the extra step of adding half CTO?
  5. May you please explain it more. CTO is the orange gel, so it will throw orange tiint..isnt it? so how will it show blue moonlight? Do you white balance your camera for night shots at 3200? and 5600 only for day shots? Also, if camera is white balanced at 3200, wouldnt HMIs will show blue light without help of any gel?
  6. Till now I have found 2 technical reasons to opt for 1.85 if one has to; 1. To fit the max size of cinema screens (i.e. if this is the ground reality that screens are of mostly 1.85 ratio..are they? 2. To use the max film negative area to avoid degradation of quality as one of the contributor mentioned in the comments. (Though with such High Tech DI services available nowadays would resolution even matter when image resolutions are already too high to worry about any kind of degradation cause of not using full area of film negative?
  7. It would be better to compare same scenes/compositions in different ratios
  8. So we can say that 1.85 is shot to fit the extreme size of most of the cinema screens without pillar boxing and letter boxing? Aint cinema screens mostly in 2.39 aspect ratio?
  9. I guess it was the other way around isn't it? 1.85 existed before 2.00:1, 1.85 wasnt wide and 2.39 was too wide, so Vittoria came up with 2:1
  10. Based on your given technical reasoning, may you please elaborate; 1. Why 1.85 is easy for Film Projection'? and 2.00:1 and 2.39 are not 2. Even if some directors likes to shoot on film, those films are later Projected in Cinemas Digitally, so what is the hindrance in shooting 2.00:1 or 2.39:1 to get the desired wider aspect which 1.78 does not provides, and makes hardly any difference in 1.85 so why not just opt for 1.78 if does not want as wide as 2.00:1 or 2.39? > This happens to be my original posted query to know the specific Technical or Creative reasoning to shoot in 1.8
  11. You mean the cinema screen sizes are 1.85 and that is why still movies are shot in 1.85 cause 1.78 will not fit the cinema screen size?
×
×
  • Create New...