Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'latitude'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • Cine Marketplace
    • Cinematography News
    • Lighting
    • Camera Operating
    • AC's & DIT's
    • Grip & Rigging
    • Visual Effects Cinematography
    • Grading, DI and Telecine
    • Students and New Filmmakers
    • Cameras Systems and Formats
    • Lenses & Lens Accessories
    • Camera Accessories & Tools
    • Film Stocks & Processing
    • Books for the Cinematographer
    • Cinematographers
    • In Production / Behind the Scenes
    • On Screen / Reviews & Observations
    • Business Practices
    • Jobs, Resumes, and Reels
    • Please Critique My Work
    • Regional Cinematography Groups
  • Not Cinematography
    • Producing
    • Directing
    • Sound
    • Editing
    • Off-Topic
    • Forum Support

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





My Gear


Found 2 results

  1. From most of the sources I have read, it was always written than overexposing film (thicker negative) would lead to increased latitude in the highlights and underexposing film (thinner negative) would lead to increased latitude in the shadows (the opposite is true for digital which makes sense). However, I am currently reading Glen Kennels excellent book on "color and mastering for digital cinema" and am now a bit confused if what I have read regarding overexposing = more highlight detail and vice versa is true. Perhaps I must be misunderstanding something. 1) Now in this book he mentions that to obtain more details in the shadows, you would want to overexpose to obtain a heavy negative and then print down to extend the range into the shadows. This would lead to deeper blacks as he shows in a diagram, but as he also mentions, is that can uncover "details that might otherwise have been lost". As well as to underexpose the negative to assure that all the highlight information is obtained in the negative. Perhaps I am confusing underexposing to ensure that all the highlight details are captured and overexposing to obtain a larger range of details in the highlights as the same thing, when in reality they are different. However, it seems like it would make much more sense to underexpose and then print up to obtain more details in the highlights. Furthermore, I don't understand how underexposing would lead to more details in the shadows compared to as is mentioned in the book, overexposing and then printing down. I hope someone could maybe help me clear up some of my confusions regarding this. 2) Another point I would like to mention is that overexposing the negative is said to lead to more contrast; however, when I'm looking at the curve of the color print film, the gamma of the curve seems to be the same, which is theoretically the definition of contrast in projected print. Although I thought that perhaps the reasoning is that we now have a larger difference between the minimum and maximum amount of density on the color film print. Is this correct?
  2. I'll be shooting soon a short film (as DP), and I only have a small amount of choices in term of which camera I can use. I was wondering if anyone has personal experience to share as for how these cameras work in a low key light system, which of these cameras render the black at the best, with which one we can play with sort of gamma settings so as we can get a good latitude? I also have the opportunity to work with Panasonic AF101, but I don't like codec so much beside the fact it crashes the highlights very quickly and can't go beyond 2 stops 2 stops and a half in the blacks, so I was wondering if actually opt to shot with a DSLR. Any ideas? What about how each of them react in a low light situation, if I have to compare these cameras? CANON 5D Mark3 SONY A7s AF101 thank you so much!
  • Create New...