Jump to content

RichardSwearinger

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by RichardSwearinger


  1. 1 minute ago, Mike Eden said:

    Hello all,

    I’m Mike, a photographer of 15 years who’s dabbling in filmmaking. I have a particular interest in making social & cultural micro documentaries.

    Hi Mike—micro documentaries sounds like a very cool idea but I've never heard of them. Could you explain the who, what, when, where, why, and a little bit of the how. 


  2. Real cinematographers only use black Fogal Nobelesse 110 silk stockings  (which I think haven't been made in years) glued to the rear of the lens. 

    But you know there is a whole other group of filters that specifically cut contrast? Tiffen makes a bunch and I believe Schneider does as well. 


  3. What makes one video camera produce images that are described as "sharp" while another is criticized as producing relatively soft video. Interchangeable lens cameras specifically. For instance I've seen reviews saying that the C300 isn't as sharp as the competing Sony camera.

    Is it something in the processing? Is it an internet quality of the sensor? Is it a tradeoff somewhere in the processing chain where we're trading sharpness for another desirable quality? 

    And if a particular model of camera is truly "soft" is there a post-processing step we can use to sharpen it up—there are a million ways to sharpen video, does one method work better than another? 

    Or is it baloney because all cameras have more or less identical components and the reviewer who said it was just having a bad day? 


  4. Do I need to start saving up to buy equipment so I can shoot in 4:4:4 color? Will it make my footage even more fantastic and nuanced?  Or are current compression and processing so good that it doesn't make much of a difference anymore? 

    I have zero experience with anything higher than 4:2:2 but I notice that at the high end 4:4:4 12-bit color is always touted as an important step up.  

    The cameras that feature it, like the high-end Sonys, have bitrates of 800mbps so maybe it's not a feature that fits into a typical client workflow, but is it useful for personal or very high end work? 

     

     


  5. image.jpeg.3f7af2a25df6176940d183823c044209.jpeg
    Richard Basrhart in “He Walked By Night.” 
     

    That soft light comment is on target.
    To me the difference seems to be that in film noir, even though the scenes tended toward dark, the  cinematographers included the full tonal range of the film in most shots. It’s harder to get that crisp look with LEDs bouncing off muslin. 

    And yes, of course it’s all circular.

     


  6. This is a theory so come at me if you want, but I always thought "cinematic" lighting was a byproduct of budgets and time constratints.

    In a movie, everything is rented, props, furniture, and of course lighting equipment. Setting lights also takes money, and time—the more lights you use the more time, more cables, more generators, and more crew the show requires.

    In response to time and budget pressure, the industry has developed the technique of only lighting what is important to the story. The result is scenes usually have two or three pools of light—rest of the set has to make do with the base exposure which is the standard one or two stops down. 

    The flipside is sitcom TV lighting with its wide banks of lights and reflectors that throw the same light level on everything. That's also a response to budget and time, because once a soundstage is lit, it's lit. 

     


  7. 4 hours ago, Nezih said:

    I don’t think it’s so straightforward to compare...

    I mean, all of the top-tier digital cinema cameras are single chip, as are many top-tier system cameras. Do you feel they suffer from the problems you describe?

    Also worth noting that there are 3-chip cameras around now, but that use 3x CMOS sensors instead of CCDs. Such as Sony PXW-Z280, HDC-P43, and the brand new PXW-Z750 (which is also global shutter).

    Sorry, I misspoke. I meant 3-chip cameras in general not 3mos or 3ccd. I meant all of them. 
    I’m wondering whether 3-chip cameras provide more image quality per dollar spent than single-chip cameras, especially in the price range of the cameras you named.


  8. I know this will sound insane to most people but there's something I like about the look of video from 3-chip cameras—to me it just looks more solid. And watching clips of older broadcast shows, the picture quality seems to hold its own against footage from single-chip cameras.

    I'm also interested because it looks like used 3-chip cameras are getting cheaper. 

    My question:  For documentary and narrative work can 3-CCD cameras provide better balance between cost and image quality than single-chippers? 

    Assuming I can work around the too-deep depth of field problem do 3-chip cameras offer any real advantages anymore? In particular I'm thinking about ability to withstand abuse in the broadcast chain and YouTube compression, picture quality on viewer's cheap monitors and  television sets, and issues like bleed between adjacent colors, artifacting, and overall color deliciousness.

     


  9. I'm the typical/non-typical sort of news shooter; I was a food editor and writer for about 20 years; first at newspapers then at Better Homes and Gardens magazine.

    For the last seven years I've been shooting freelance, both video and stills.

    I still write and if you need something written I can do it better than just about everyone. 

    My showreel

    www.richardswearinger.com

     

    • Like 2
×
×
  • Create New...