Adam Paul

Thanks Scott.

I thought it was the CMOS because it's a known thing CMOS can't capture things like camera flashes and police lights because of the refreshing rates so I thought the same was applying here. I will give it a try with a 1/24th shutter.

How about slow motion at 60p? I can see the shutter setting being even a bigger problem here.

I will check cinematography.net as well.

The CCD camera filming the making of captured it just fine, so it has to be something with the CMOS.

Double post sorry.

We were doing some tests yesterday for a movie we will be shooting where there will be some blank gun shooting involved. Surprisingly, 5 times out of 6 the camera would not capture the muzzle flash. Now we are going through the trouble of using blank pistols and machine guns instead of gas or electrical ones because we want the realistic muzzle flashes rather than do it in post which always looks kind of fake. But that's not any good if the camera can't capture it. Is there anything we can do to get the camera to capture it? We were filming 24p with a 1/48 shutter. The camera was the Sony EX3 which is a full raster 1080p camera but has a 1/2" CMOS.

Thanks.

Well I get what you're saying Jamie. But the Cine Tape is hardly anything close to that. It's only there to take a bit of the guessing game out. But the decision and artistry is still up to the focus puller.

By the way, I just ordered one of these cheap measurers. I hope the super glue trick will work.

Found this in a search, it's called SinoMeter:

http://www.amazon.com/Sinometer-Laser-type...962&sr=8-10

 

I'm not sure if it shows realtime measurements, or if there's a delay in its readout.

Hi, thanks for this. I've been researching about this and other si9milar devices. Some of them don't read realtime and you have to press the button to update the display, while others if you hold the button down they will update realtime. This would imply supergluing the button down. So once you turn it on it's reading continuously. One advantage about some of these units is that they measure with the ultrasound waves and also have a receiver to help in longer measures. The receiver bounces the signal back to the unit to give it an accurate measure. Now this is great because the actor to be followed can carry the little receiver in his pocket so thing that cross in front of him won't affect the meaure, which happens quite often with the original Cinematography Electronics Cine Tape Measure. I heard even things like mic booms can throw it off. With a receiver in the actors pocket that shouldn't be a problem. I'm tempted to give this a try.

I'm using an engraved one. I opted for the colored clapper stickers.

Yeah, sure. Practice beats all. But until then. ;)

I don't understand why the Cine Tape product would need to be synced. It's not laser but ultrasound and so invisible.

You're right. In a extreme shallow DOF nothing but the eyes would help. But in dolly shots etc, where T2.8 or even T4 are not unsual it would still help.

I see what you are saying, but I personally think that it shows insecurity; depending on how you handle yourself it can make your job look very unimportant.

 

The thing with the Electronic tape measure is that it can be synced to the shutter, so when the shutter is closed the laser goes on. When the shutter is open, the laser is off. You get the same persistence of vision with film playback, and this scares most people when they "see" a laser on an actors body during a picture take.

Yes, a laser dot on a actor is a problem. It would have to be off frame. It would mostly work on medium to close ups.

Didn't know you could sync the Leica/Fatmax laser measurers with the shutter speed. How does that work? With any camera or?

It sure helps. But on a digital shot like with a RED I guess another solution would have to be worked if the laser dot cant be off frame.

sorry about that, I thought you were referring to something else.

 

I've know that tool to be a double edged sword, since the guys who can afford to be using one should be good enough to not need one anymore.

Yeah I know. That's why I was wondering if there was anything considerably cheaper.

Maybe using your idea in reverse and mounting the fatmax laser disto meter on the film plane so one could get instant measures when the camera or actor moves. Although it would have to be mounted low enough not to hit actors faces. Maybe chest or stomach level. Could work :)

About being good enough for not needing the Cinematography Electronics Cine Tape Measure, I can still see situations where even the best of the ACs could gain from it like action and steadycam.

Thanks for the tip. But it isn't really the same basic function of the Cinematography Electronics Cine Tape Measure which gives you real time instant readouts of distances, so when the camera moves closer or away to the actor or the actor moves closer or away from the camera it gives you the distance. (http://www.cinematographyelectronics.com/index_gallery.html)

Is there anything that will do the job for cheaper?

How many of you use something like that?

I recently caught the 2007 movie Pathfinder on DVD and absolutely loved the cinematography. But as I'm pretty sure most of the look was achieved in DI I thought I would post my question here. Does anybody know what type of process or technique they used to achieve that almost "painting like" look? I know it was not bleach bypass as the DP Daniel Pearl said it wasn't what they used in the AC article of the Sept. 2006 issue. It kind of reminds me of 300 but instead of that golden brown aspect it has more of a bluish and metallic feel. But the image itself is beautiful and looks like a painting. The grain and gradation is just so interesting. Any ideas of how they did it? I'm aware of the lighting side of it and the lighting strategy Daniel Pearl used. I'm more interested in the color grading side. Thanks in advance.

I guess my main question is, how many stops difference between 35mm and 1/2" to obtain the same depth of field?

Thanks.

Hi there. I have a depth of field and filed of view question regarding 35mm and 1/2" lenses.

In terms of field of view, a 6mm lens in 1/2" is equivalent to which focal length in 35mm?

In terms of depth of field, this same 6mm lens in 1/2" at a F2.8 would be equivalent to the 35mm equivalent at what T-stop? Just trying to figure the DOF differences here. For example, a 18mm or even 22mm 35mm lens is very wide and so the depth of field is quite large. So I'm thinking if there would be much noticeable difference in depth of field when you shoot with a wide 35mm lens as compared to when you shoot with a wide 1/2". It surely doesn't seem to be as noticeable as in a 50mm 35mm lens.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks. I need to rate it with a Letus 35mm adapter. Also, I guess the gamma settings would also affect the ISO rating. Is it possible to rate it using a 18% grey card and an incident meter?

It may be a dumb question but is it possible? I'm trying to rate a Sony EX1. Thanks.

Yes, yes...

 

2.5 stops more depth of field with 2/3" over 35mm; 2 stops more depth of field with 16mm over 35mm.

I'm curious how that would apply to 1/2" video. Shooting a f2 would be equivalent to shoot what in 35mm?

Hi,

Does anybody know what is the size of the standard Arri accessory port? For me it always looked like one of them socket wrench square fitting ports and recently somebody told me that this is actually what it is. Arri used the same size of one of the available socket wrench fittings, although he wasn't sure which one it actually was. Is this true? Since it works just the same it kind of makes sense Arri would do that in order to keep costs down as you can probably buy OEM parts rather than having them specially made. It would also make it easier for all other manufacturers like Chrosziel to keep the standard.

Thanks.

I have been looking for info on how they achieved that look but can't seem to find anything. I know it is a green screen movie, but does anybody know about the process they used to get that look?

These cameras will give different options and the pricing is pretty similar given the cost of kitting the RED to a shooting configuration.

Actually if you want to bring it closer to RED you need to add an extra $4,000 for a clumsy 35mm adapter, another throw back to the late 90's. The Silicon camera alone costs $23,500.

RED basic package with camera, recording media is $18400.

Much more for considerably less.

The SI 2k also has the advantage of having a removable camera head (SI Mini).

That's the ONLY thing that can be considered an advantage at all, for those who need it.

I can't see any TV series or episodic drama using a converted "security" camera to shoot their stuff. News wouldn't either. They would probably just go with the normal stuff like F900 or the new F23. Price is not a concern for them, just for the little guy, but the little guy is most likely buying RED. I don't think this camera lands itself well to documentary where people would most likely shoot tape and not have a cumbersome computer with lens. The more I think the more I see no future for this camera. It would have been great if it was out 2 years ago though.

Now that RED is closer to become a reality it's hard to say this camera is more attractive. I mean it has a smaller sensor, lower resolution, less frame rates and costs more? What am I missing here? How is this camera being marketed? Who will pay more for less?

I think after RED ships unless they either low their price considerably or catch up they won't be doing much business. RED has like what, 3000 reservations? The movie Wanted is using it and even Peter Jackson tried it and liked it with rumors of him maybe doing his next project with it.

I just don?t see how these guys can compete unless they are marketing it to a totally different market which is fully unknown to me.

Also, it seems they are trying to market it as a cinema tool, but with a 2/3" sensor? That's so late 90's and doesn't make much sense when everybody is going 35mm size.

Anybody knows their marketing strategy?

That was one of the many things I thought sucked about "Superman Returns"; a lot of the special effects weren't all that much of an improvement over what we saw thirty years ago! Too many of the flying scenes looked like a man being suspended from a crane.

Mainly because it was kind of trying to emulate the Donner film. But quite honestly I prefer it that way. I will take a man in a cable for take off and landing any day over a 3D doll.

Custom built?

Is it one of them machine vision/security camera projects?

What do you record to and what format?