Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aperture'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Cinematography Forums
    • General Discussion
    • News & Press Releases
    • 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
    • On Screen
    • Cine Marketplace
    • 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

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


My Gear


Specialties

Found 5 results

  1. Hi group, Well I was always wondering: Why don't lenses provide the F stop which exactly corresponds to the light actually hitting the film emulsion or sensor (not accounting for lens flare and other random factors, just the glass inside the lens)? So in reality: if I get an F stop value from, say, a light meter, I most likely will get it in T stop. Otherwise the "exposure triangle" would make no sense (to me that is). Looks like some lenses are reducing as much as one stop while others perhaps a third of a stop. There is some information for some lenses regarding the actual T-stop, but many don't come with that information - and even with that information: what to do? Now add certain filters and you're into some serious math.... The only thing that remains the same (F stop/T stop) is of course the depth-of-field/focus. Fully automatic digital cameras with 100% matching lenses (or built-in ones) most likely take all that into account (to varying degrees of success IMHO). But what about using different lenses with no electronics and a 100% manual exposure? With film, once it's in the camera (and you don't have a variable shutter angle) your only way(s) to control exposure is/are lighting, filters and F stop. Please let me know how you go about the F stop vs. T stop issue and avoid under exposure. As always: any reply highly appreciated. Christian
  2. Hi, I'm Ben, a learning camera assistant who chose not to study film and is now catching up on production etiquette and techniques! I recently pulled focus on a short film for a great DoP (Tansy Simpson) here in London and at one point she asked me to push the iris to a 'two plus' Now i assumed this meant something like a t2.1, or did it mean 2.5? I'd love to get clarification on this as I was too worried she might think I was an amateur if i asked! Thanks in advance for any help offered, Benjamin
  3. Hi all :) When using a metabones speedboster, how do you really gauge the true aperture the lens is giving you? I mean from a practical point of view, you keep it mind that you get +1 stop of light hitting the sensor. But from a tech point of view, if your lens is set at let’s say 2.8 (and it’s the fastest the lens can get to), does the camera shows you the added stop? Or is it a passive speedboaster that doesn’t trasmit aperture values? In case it doesn’t trasmit that, you just keep in mind that if the lens is set at 11, you could set f/8 on your light meter? So in practice can you use a ND 0.3 paired to the speedbooster to get a slightly shallower depth of field without having to change your lens aperture? Thank you, Stefano
  4. Hi everybody, I was wondering how people control the aperture and pull focus during a steadycam shot for example. Is it possible through only one remote? Or I'd be necessary to do so with 2 different motors and and remotes? Thank you in advance for the help, Davide
  5. The fact that I'm creating a topic of this nature may come to a surprise to many of you, but I feel it's necessary because I'm getting at least three different answers based on my own research. 1) Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_mm_film#Super_16_mm WP states the camera aperture is 12.52 by 7.41 mm (0.493 by 0.292 in). This gives us an aspect ratio of 1.6884:1 (1.69:1). Unfortunately, nothing is cited clearly in that article (shocker!). For an interesting twist, the entry also lists regular 16 mm as having a height of 7.49 mm (0.295 in). I thought Super 16 just extended the horizontal dimensions of the format, not also shrink it's vertical dimensions. 2a) Arri: http://www.arri.com/camera/film_cameras/16_mm_film/arriflex_416416_plus.html (click on the "Technical Details" tab) 2b) Panavision: http://www.panavision.co.uk/pdf/downloads/equipment-info/other/formats-guide.pdf I lumped these two together because they both cite the same specifications: 12.35 by 7.49 mm (0.486 by 0.295 in). This gives us less horizontal resolution than what's listed in WP's entry, but now matches the height of regular 16 mm. We now have an aspect ratio of 1.6475:1 (1.65:1). 3) Kodak: http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/Kodak/motion/Hub/eb/choices/Choices_INFOGRAPHIC.pdf You'd think these guys would offer evidence corroborating with the camera makers, but they say it's 12.42 by 7.44 mm. Their Super 16 "Sell Sheet" (http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Format_Choices/index.htm ; click the Super 16 mm tab) at least confirms that regular 16 mm is still 7.49 mm in height. Their Super 16 film dimensions calculate to an aspect ratio of 1.6694:1 (1.67:1) which is the closest match to the often touted 1.66:1, in my opinion. So we're left with three different physical descriptions. Which one is correct? What does SMPTE, ANSI, and/or ISO state for the record? (I'm not a member of any so I'd appreciate it if those who were could chip in.)
×
×
  • Create New...