Jump to content

Joshua Robert Dy

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Joshua Robert Dy

  • Birthday 12/17/2001

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
  • My Gear
    iPhone 11 Pro Max, iPhone gimbal, and Nikon D3100
  • Specialties
    Research, Premiere Pro

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. 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?
  2. 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!
  3. 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!
  4. 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'!
  5. 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.
  6. 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!
  7. 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!
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. I'm sorry if this sounds and comes out like a shower thought, but is there an inverse of the dolly zoom, where instead of the camera body moving, it is the subject that is moving (the lens would also adjust by going wider if the subject moves nearer or tighter if it moves farther)?
  11. In my quest to get as small an aperture as I can go, is it worth slowing down the shutter speed? Hi! I'm planning on shooting a day-for-night scene in a bedroom with a static camera on a tripod. This bedroom has glass windoors (covering the entire wall) where sunlight comes in, but I'm blocking all this sunlight off with green fabric or green screen ovals; the reflectiveness of this green (splashes of green on actor's skin and other objects) is actually advantageous for me because the film will be B&W; I theorize that these green splashes should be similar to the soft diffused light of moonlight. As much as possible, I would also like to limit the lighting plan to outside these glass windoors to really simulate a night scene in a bedroom where there are no other lights except the moonlight and, I forgot to mention, lightning. As I will be blocking off the light coming through the bedroom, I'm now sort of doing exposure calculations. The native ISO of the Sony F5 is about 1000 (and I would love to stick with this) and for this film, I would love to keep the aperture as small as lets me (f/5.6 max if it allows); as it is a day-for-night scene, there is also merit to underexposing the image so this and my quest are sort of in harmony with each other. I watched a couple of videos showing 1/24, but they didn't look too bad in my eyes. Moreover, the direction to the actors will be that they'd be slow-moving/static for the majority of the scene, however question still remains: is the motion blur of a 1/24 video bothering/unbearable to you guys (scene runs about 2-3 mins)?
  12. Thank you Tyler and Robert for your answers! I frankly do not know how to respond because I have zero (0) knowledge on this topic, therefore I shall read up on these as soon as possible; it's actually really cool to know that it's possible so now it's imperative for me to learn them! Thank you again Tyler and Robert!!!
  13. Below is an illustration of a rough estimate of the resolutions of Super 8 and 16 mm Perforated One Edge films. I would like to ask: does the Super 8 film take on the aspect ratio of the blow-up or like does its ratio remain the same just that the resolution is higher? Sorry I'm confused, but what is also the aspect ratio of 16 mm Perforated One Edge film (Kodak Print Film 3383/3302)? 1.37, 1.66, 1.85? And then...here's a very dumb question: Is there a way to print four Super 8 films onto the 16mm print film? If I had to guess, it should be done digitally with Avid, but is there possibly a way to make this happen manually/physically using the more traditional/old equipments? I'm really sorry if this question does not make any sense.
  14. Good morning, afternoon, or evening cinematography.com! I am currently reading a book about color in cinema and stumbled upon the Ds and the Ts. The color temperature of interior lights like tungsten is 2800K (yellow) while natural light has one of 5000-6500K (white/slightly blue), which is kinda mindblowing to think about because I have always perceived the lights at my home or stores or any interior lightings as white light. The book states that the human eye kind of tricks itself into seeing these 2800k tungsten yellow light as white, however cameras are not as advanced and should be balanced to keep with what human eyes see. My question therefore is, as I haven't seen this asked anywhere, what would it look like if you shot D film under interior lighting and T film under daylight? I could only theorize that with the D film under interior, it would be able to capture the true 2800k tungsten yellow color of the light while the T film would show daylit stuff as more blue than they should be. Cheers!
  • Create New...