Jump to content

Joshua Robert Dy

Basic Member
  • Posts

    30
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Joshua Robert Dy

  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!
  15. bro Tyler, I think I can speak on behalf of cinematography.com in thanking you for all of the knowledge you've shared on this forum for years. I'm a scrubnoobbeginner when it comes to cinematography but everyone is so patient, supportive, and encouraging while we, the zoomies gen, are going through these learning periods. I will have a test go at all of them before ultimately deciding what is best for my film; to see if I can take up the challenge of Tri-X or maybe dial down and work with Double-X or 500T. Tyler, you da frickin bomb my guy
  16. oooohh Matthew thanks for your anecdotes; it seems more practical this way! I've been looking at the Sensitometry, Modulation Transfer, Spectral Sensitivity curves and stuff so I could make sense of what's going on between reversal and negative films, but your anecdotal evidences are really what's helping my decision making much simpler! Thank you so much for this Matthew!
  17. I've been making a bit of a decision for my super 16 movie: Tri-X reversal film or Double-X negative film. I believe my questions would be best summed up in these bullet points: How much does the 50 ISO matter between the 200 ISO Tri-X and the 250 ISO Double-X? Does the Double-X's more forgiving range actually affect your decision to take it over Tri-X? Can you tangibly tell if a place/spot wouldn't work on a Tri-X, but would work on a Double-X? Is it just more convenient then to use Double-X? Apologies if the questions were repetitive; I am fanboying rn on Tri-X because it's reversal (and I find reversal cool), but maybe I should open my eyes and convert to the negative film masterrace. edit: upon a quick lookie, it seems that maybe it's not to do with the ISO, but rather with the nature of reversal and negative film themselves (?)
  18. Thanks for the heads up Daniel; I'm preparing my tent in advance! I'm just kidding; thanks Daniel I am now strongly leaning towards taking this Australia route because it really is the safer option than the omegadirehopeless situation here in the Philippines. Brother Max, the profundity of this analogy shook me. Also, yeah it's just kinda sad there is not much equality of opportunity especially in this garbageheap of a country, but that's life for ya. I had thought that I would be able to cultivate from said hardships, but there is no need nor point to do that because in reality it would just hamper with my progress. I guess I just feel obliged now to give back because I've been so blessed man. Thank you brother Max again for sharing a nugget of your galaxybrain knowledge and thank you everyone for your cool insights!
  19. I have gone through a bit of a deepthink and I realized that while I may be away from my country, I could still very much bring these patriotic sentiments along with me wherever I go (sorry that was cheesy as hell). Also, I guess taking this less risky option would give my parents a sense of assuredness of my job security in the future. I just kinda feel bad because I'm in a pretty privileged position not everyone in my country could afford; so for this reason, I will work my ass off to pay it back to my country. Uli thanks my man for your advice
  20. That's a fair point Max! The grass is definitely greener over at Sydney, but I guess I still feel compelled to stay here in the Philippines because I'm hoping to learn something intangible from going through hardships, but thinking about it, it may just be wishful thinking. Thanks brother Max I'll be keeping your advice in mind.
  21. Sup cinematography.com imma get a little personal here if y'all don't mind. I am currently in the Philippines and am so decided on taking the Film course here at the University of the Philippines. Truth be told, the entertainment industry of the Philippines as a whole is dying and honestly, my job security after graduation is pretty rough as well. That said, I love this country; I love it so much because it may be a shxthole, but it is my shxthole (mods please have mercy). Basically I'm a nationalist and I want to further cinema here in the Philippines; that is until my family is currently pressuring me to go to Australia (Sydney Film School); they have all the bells and whistles and anyone in my position would take this opportunity had it been given to them; however, it is not the Philippines. It's not the same for me. cinematography.com, let me know your thoughts. I want to stay here despite the political instability and job insecurity, however idk I feel like I'm just not in control of my life man and I can't make decisions for myself and I have to follow my family's orders once again. Am I the Spoiled Brat?
  22. I've strayed away from chemistry since high school, but it's come to haunt me again 💀💀💀 Thank you David again because I had the wrong idea that films were spliced and worked on the ESTAR polyester print films; rather, it seems that the splicing happens on the weaker acetate negatives/reversal films! I'm learning something new everyday thanks David (see attached image)!
  23. Oooohhh thanks David I had not known that this was possible 😮😮😮, however upon checking on the prices per foot (image attached), the print films were still cheaper than the reversal films 😞; that said, I might use this method if I'm looking to do a really special screening where the amazingness of the reversal film could shine (I think this classifies as showprint? I can't seem to find the Eastman 2393 showprint stocks anywhere). Also, this is a very beginner question, but does this mean that reversal films can be cut and spliced just like print films (im hella excited if this is true!!)? I am sorry for my lack of knowledge because truthfully, I have never operated any film cameras in my life and have never seen actual film aside from Polaroids and Instax :(((( Thanks again David for the cool info!!! :)))
  24. Thank you for the explanation Charles! I am quite insistent on using the 16mm Tri-X reversal film because our uni has a 16mm projector that I want to use so bad, however I guess I should now seriously consider using Double-X negative film [im also very stubborn on making it B&W] instead so that I could print it on the cheaper Vision Color. I had not seen the alternatives to Kodak, so thanks imma take a look at them! Once again, thank you Charles for the reply; this is some really rad info 🥺
×
×
  • Create New...