Joshua Robert Dy

I wonder why I had not thought of this before, but I wonder how Cinefade would work alongside a dolly zoom? The former effect might not even be very noticeable because the dynamic dollying and zooming are usually just overwhelmingly felt more than the oculomotor aperture change, however it may be worth looking at.

Greetings everyone! I've been using the Canon C300 Mark 1 as my weapon of choice and have been using its Canon Cinema Log picture profile for basically all my projects in film school. With this particular log, middle grey is at 32.8; 0% reflectance at 7.3; and 90% reflectance at 62.7. After a bit more diving into this camera, I've just learned that the Cinema Log has black and white levels set to 10-110 IRE by default. However, In this upcoming project I will be working on, I will be shooting under much dimmer light conditions; so then I have been contemplating on using a picture profile that is an exact copy of this log, but instead has shifted black and white levels to 0-100 IRE. With these, I would like to ask two questions: Would shifting the black and white levels actually help when shooting under low light conditions? Would the middle grey, 0% reflectance, and 90% reflectance numbers change because of the shifted the black and white levels? These two questions have remained at the back of my mind unanswered for so long, but I probably would never have posed these questions until I rewatched this absolutely informative video on color correction. Thank you and I look forward to reading your guys' answers!

That's so cool; thanks for that!

Good day everyone, I hope you're all doing well! I wonder if this method has been tried: while changing the aperture mid-shot, the strength of the N.D. filter is also being changed the same amount. I haven't tested this out myself, but theoretically in doing so, the result would yield in an in-camera effect of changing depth of field. Thanks!

Yep Karim, photographing two dimensional mediums is probably where this works best! I just had a realization that in a way this method kind of works like a scanner except that in the way I used the method I was trying to capture the 3d world instead of paper. The photo I took has its flaws, but I personally think that this is still worth a look into!

I was browsing through a wikipedia page, doing research for a homework, when it showed me a panorama picture; this immediately reminded of that Apple iPhone 5 panorama ad. What impressed me the most about these two pictures were their relatively flat perspective distortions as in the panorama of the giant Buddhist sculptures, the flatness is very much due to distance. It was very different for the iPhone ad because it shows the kids neatly lined up in a straight line in the final photo; there are two ways they could have achieved this: Kids were on a straight line Kids were in a semi-circular formation around the camera Based on feeling, the ad likely went with option 2 because I could feel a circular movement of the camera. Option 2 would also make more sense for the ad because it advertises the panorama to be done handheld in one smooth motion. I however found the possibility of option 1 to be interesting and so I looked for online materials, but I could not find any methodologies about trucking or dollying to do a panorama shot; so then that is what I set out to do. I took a panorama photo on the 52mm of the iPhone 11 Pro on a gimbal and had my mom pull my chair. There are two things in this picture to notice especially: minimal perspective distortion (at least to me personally) the appliances and furniture in the background are very elongated Both the jagged and elongated parts of the image may be attributed to the inconsistent speed at which the dolly was being pulled, however it is also very likely that the camera's processing had trouble dealing with motion parallax. Discussion I wonder if there is a speed that is just right to get the proportions of the background corrected or if this method just wouldn't work. My image clocks in at 10860x3960, but had the method been executed flawlessly, the height of the image could go up to 4032 and the width at 15 or 16k. Personally, the most interesting thing about this to me is that it makes me feel like I am working in medium format, but on the cheap.

I have the iPhone 11 with the 52mm 'telephoto' lens, but I'm confused why it's advertised as telephoto when 52mm lens is considered just standard lens. Does the iPhone have like a sensor or smth that turns the 52mm into an 85mm equivalent? Or maybe is the term telephoto just an umbrella term for lens of focal length 50mm and up. Also, the iPhone lens are primes right because it seems to just crop in rather than zoom in?

it's so so cute omgggg thank you for this David In stop motion, it actually does look like the Vertigo effect and it is fairly convincing! The downside I see to this is that there is a lack of movement of the background, which is what the Vertigo effect stands for; the watcher feels the Vertigo effect because the watcher feels like he is moving because of the moving background, but in this case, the background only zooms out rather than 'moves'. I personally think that it is still a very very cool effect (in stop motion it looks extremely convincing and it might be a way to cut costs), but I wonder how it would look on 24 fps. I'll keep you posted on what I find!

Hi David! Isn’t a zoom basically a crop while maintaining the same resolution? Also, the way I found it easiest to understand is when I remembered that lens does not compress/expand space. The common misconception is that telephoto is what makes space look closer or that wide is what makes space looks big, however this is not entirely true; if you truly want to compress space, you grab the camera and its telephoto lens and move far far back, while if you want to expand space, you take your camera and wide lens and move much closer. That is the essence of the Vertigo effect. Hope this helps!

Hi David! When you zoom in or out on a background, the background does not warp; the background simply only becomes smaller or bigger in the frame. Only when you move, does warping happen. If you notice in the video you shot, it only zooms in on the background, but in the Vertigo effect, the background 'moves'!

I reread my lecturer's message (attached and quoted w permission) and I realized that it is still possible to get the Dolly zoom effect with a stationary camera: one just needs to somehow move both the subject and the background (in this way, it is still all in accordance with the three points of interest)! In response, my lecturer said of this about my insistence that dollyless dolly zoom still being possible despite its impracticality: God bless my teacher for his patience with my tomfoolery.

I was mistaken in this statement: As kindly pointed out to me by my lecturer, what gives the dolly zoom its effect is the dynamic monocular cue of optic flow; as the monocular cue is dynamic rather than static, it is NOT possible to recreate the vertigo effect without camera movement. Despite this error, I STILL take refuge in the fact that I think I found a novel technique that might be worth looking into; thank you so much for everyone's inputs!

I found that really interesting! One could keep the camera stationary, but still be able to get the vertigo effect (that said, it probably would be way more difficult to execute). Thanks David!

Hi David! I believe this is the scene you are referring to: Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the camera only tracking the actor here instead of zooming in (the actor seems to be standing/harnessed to the camera dolly to me)? Edit: Yes, the shot is that of a dolly track instead of the zoom since you could observe the accretion of the table's feet on the upper left corner.

Yes Mark, it is indeed a zoom, but would it not yield an effect if one attempted to meticulously maintain the moving subject's size while zooming?