Pratheek Nv Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 What is ISO use of ISO what tyoe of effect it will give Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Maybe this will help: http://www.iso.org/iso/home.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 7, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2015 I still don't understand why Pratheek is asking people to define terms he could easily look up himself. Google "film ISO", "film ASA", "film sensitivity" and "exposure index" for starters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Yanowitz Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 What is love ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 What is truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted September 7, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2015 When is now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 Tom, JD, Adrian, Are we allowed to talk about these things now? Some people do ask quite silly questions that do seem to basically waste the resource of intellect and experience that is offered. I'm not talking about...love?...truth?...now?. Those are very good questions, if they are serious, from a mind with some cultured receptivity. Without love, truth, now....what, no art? No truly great film, nothing for the cinematographers to aspire to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted September 7, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2015 I think though to a certain extent, I at least, always ask if a cinematographer should aspire to a truly great film. I am of the mind that in such aspiration one becomes so self aware of the process they often forget the project. Perhaps, then, it is better, to just make the film you and your director see-- and let greatness be ascribed by others. In such case, you could, in and odd way begin at a certain ISO and either push or pull the film up or down-- exposing yourself differently while still keeping the same environment-- yet also changing the way it is being recorded though such manipulations. Aye, but, it must be said, as well, that such modalities may be archaic, for now it seems less AS_A need to manipulate by changing things on the day-- as the DIN is more and more to shoot straight and accomplish your making in post--- an such a mindset is EVer the problem for what you can intend to do on the day-- to make a great film--because of the restless beat of technology can be undone in a moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 7, 2015 Share Posted September 7, 2015 (edited) It's not necessarily through a lack of humility that one arrives at a point where one talks about love, truth, now, art.. The world is changing. We are in a state of change, with respect to our ability to see what is valuable. An artist aspiring to achieve something great? If you are lucky enough to bump into one, either get out of the way, or join him/her and hang on for the ride. EDIT: I like you Adrian, and I hope that you will be someone who "hang(s) on for the ride". Edited September 7, 2015 by Gregg MacPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adrian Sierkowski Posted September 7, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 7, 2015 But i wonder what is better, to be called great by one owns peers in ones time or to attain greatest through the epochs-- in enjoyment and appreciation of the work? I am no artist, nor do I ever wish to ascribe such things to myself-- but I do think that perchance I may make something "great," when I've made something which people can sit in and appreciate. I just don't think it's an journey you can embark upon with sole intention for that notion would get in the way of the story you're trying to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I'm speaking up to help allow people to do, and become. It has nothing to do with what people profess to be. Or what others describe them as. Nothing is wrong with humility. Nothing is wrong with keeping the most valuable, creative part of oneself secret. But I think it is wrong to profess something ironic to our real self Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted September 8, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2015 I think it's common to see possibilities for a great cinematic moment in your work when you read a script, scout a location, watch rehearsals, or when everything comes together perfectly in front of the lens. It's normal to indulge for a moment or two in imagining where the film could possibly go. But you have to snap back to reality pretty quickly because you have concentrate on shooting the next scene or prepping for the following week's schedule. If one has time to indulge in extended fantasies of cinematic greatness, then that person is probably between jobs :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 We all have some films that we consider to be great. Were they great by accident? Part of a lottery, waiting to be called great by someone else? Perhaps (I think) one or two or a handful of people intended something, and then did it. Perhaps, in your view, they indulged an extended fantasy on the way.... For me, lets say, Bladerunner, a great film, took everyone decades to really get it. People such as yourself, might have called Ridley Scott a fantasist at the time. Or do you, from this more comfortable point in history, pretend that you would have got it straight away. I don't know how one can test oneself. One can't ask oneself whether one would recognize the next Ridley Scott and help him, against the odds, to achieve the next Bladerunner. That's with the benefit of too much education from history. Perhaps, imagine oneself back then, stripped of all foreknowledge. What would you think, what would you do. Supposedly, there were plenty of people winging about this fantasist pommie, so one would not feel alone Satsuki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted September 8, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2015 Maybe I'm having problems with the use of the word 'greatness' in the context of creating one's work. I think most creative people set out purposefully to create something fanciful, beautiful, resonant, relevant. Those are qualities that I think can be quantified or at least constructed into ideas that can be filmed. But in my humble opinion 'greatness' is too general of an idea to really be useful in the creative process. It's only use is to describe (what one hopes will be) the size, scope and importance of the finished product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted September 8, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2015 I was born in 1980, so I only saw 'Blade Runner' after it was released in the Director's Cut on DVD in the early 90's. I thought it was great when I saw it for the first time! :) I think the real question is, did Ridley Scott set out to create a 'great' film of historic importance when he took the job, or did he just go about doing the best job he could? I highly suspect the latter. In fact, I think much later when he began to think of the film and the Blade Runner universe as a great work of art, the quality of his work suffered under the strain of upholding that 'greatness.' Witness the self-importance of 'Prometheus' compared to 'Alien.' Clearly the same thing happened to Francis Coppola with 'The Godfather, Part 3' and to George Lucas with his Star Wars prequels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 (edited) I wanted to say (agree) that something beautiful, resonant and relevant is great. I mean, I do say that, it seems common sense to me. Then I noticed the word "fanciful", and the common ground for the conversation disappeared under me. Fanciful, the word, can be confusing. Was Greenway's film Prospero's Books fanciful. For me it was a sojourn through what are normally hidden layers of life. Not perfectly expressed in a literal way, but using some poetic licence with the actual forms, and the way the entities populating his world appeared. Lets say that for me, I might call Prosperos Books a poetic realism EDIT: So what's fanciful? Edited September 8, 2015 by Gregg MacPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Satsuki Murashige Posted September 8, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2015 I originally wrote 'meaningful' then thought it was basically synonymous with 'relevant' so I changed it. But I would interpret 'fanciful' as having elements of fantasy, playfulness, humor. Maybe I should have said 'fantastic' instead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 I was born in 1980..... .... did Ridley Scott set out to create a 'great' film of historic importance when he took the job.... Some years later I saw the documentative footage (xtra features on a DVD) and from that it is clear to me that the answer is yes. And it it is quite misleading to use the words "took the job". Further, it looked like he was not alone in the degree of intensity of committment that he brought to this project. A collection of people, at extreme risk, indending something great, proceeded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Can you create a body of work and call it great? Or to be a great body of work (in an artistic or creative medium) must it be recognized as such by others? Anyway, what is art? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted September 8, 2015 Share Posted September 8, 2015 Tom, JD, Adrian, Are we allowed to talk about these things now? What are "these things"? Is it ever "now"? Or the infinitesimal instant that time becomes "now", does is it just as quickly become "the past"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted September 8, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2015 ISO stands for International Standardization Organisation. The name is International Organization for Standardization today. The ISO exposure indeces were adapted from the American Standards Association. The exposure index of a photosensitive material is given as Arabic numbers. A plate or film designated ISO 200 is twice as sensitive than a ISO 100 one under equal conditions. Processing is part of the conditions. You will find films of ISO 4 through ISO 3200 on the market. Have a look at some ciné film products here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 What are "these things"? ... See above. What is love. What is truth. When is now ...Is it ever "now"? ... For some, always. For others, almost never. So "now" is, or is governed by, a condition of experience. ...Or the infinitesimal instant that time becomes "now", does is it just as quickly become "the past"? IMO, it depends on who is experiencing it. Just my thoughts or opinions. Why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted September 9, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2015 "If it be now, ’tis not to come. If it be not to come, it will be now. If it be not now, yet it will come—the readiness is all." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John E Clark Posted September 9, 2015 Share Posted September 9, 2015 (edited) ISO stands for International Standardization Organisation. The name is International Organization for Standardization today. The ISO exposure indeces were adapted from the American Standards Association. The exposure index of a photosensitive material is given as Arabic numbers. A plate or film designated ISO 200 is twice as sensitive than a ISO 100 one under equal conditions. Processing is part of the conditions. You will find films of ISO 4 through ISO 3200 on the market. Have a look at some ciné film products here. I tend to pronounce ISO as iso- as in isosceles triangle... I also pronounce ee-kayah... for that swedish meat ball restaurant and attached home furnishing store... But on the topic of ISO and Digital camera ratings... there are several standard methods to determine the set of camera settings that a particular camera may have available. One of which sort of reads like 'whatever the engineers thought best'. Left unsaid was how much arm twisting marketing could use to induce the engineers to 'see' the higher numbers as 'valid' settings... Edited September 9, 2015 by John E Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now