Thread: VistaVision and Monstro and cinematography?

Reply to Thread
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 148
  1. #121  
    Senior Member Tom Gleeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Björn Benckert View Post
    How many days was it gone if I may ask?

    Waiting for mine to come back.
    Björn,

    Around ten days including travel.
    Tom Gleeson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #122  
    Senior Member Marcus Friedlander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Gleeson View Post
    Björn,

    Around ten days including travel.
    Can we all take a second and appreciate how impressive that is?

    Oh how times have changed (for the better )
    Last edited by Marcus Friedlander; 12-08-2017 at 11:38 AM.
    Cheers,

    Marcus Ian Friedlander





    RED EPIC DRAGON #03179 "Squillium the Dragon"


    "Perfection is the goal, excellence is the standard."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #123  
    Senior Member Tom Gleeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,126
    Just a quick update that with the ACS we shot some "basic principle" tests looking at VistaVision sensor versus S35mm sensor. Collating results at the moment but using Resolve and FCPX is a slow and arduous process as I am only a part time user of post software. There is much cussing and gnashing of teeth. Its also school holidays and Summer break so this will also slow the process but it is happening. Looking back at the test footage I will also admit I suck at the scientific process.
    Tom Gleeson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #124  
    Quote Originally Posted by David Mullen ASC View Post
    If you use a longer lens in VistaVision to match the field of view of a shorter lens on a Super-35 camera, there is no "flattening" effect... the perspective, the view, is the same -- the only difference will be depth of field unless you compensate.
    I am confused, it must be the language and terminology.

    My tests with S35 and FF from the same position and compensating focal length to match FOV showed more natural volume representation and less object enlargement towards the camera on a larger format. The larger the format, the less size discrepancy in z-axis. Like the shot in Steve Yedlins test, where in a wide shot IMAX format shot shows more natural proportions of a man sitting in a chair with legs closer to camera, while on Alexa's shot his legs are disproportional to body. Same with portraits and face depth proportions in general. The shot is not "flatter" in terms of inter-object relations, as when switching to a longer lens on a same format, but the objects are less distorted through scene depth.
    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    I am confused, it must be the language and terminology.

    My tests with S35 and FF from the same position and compensating focal length to match FOV showed more natural volume representation and less object enlargement towards the camera on a larger format. The larger the format, the less size discrepancy in z-axis. Like the shot in Steve Yedlins test, where in a wide shot IMAX format shot shows more natural proportions of a man sitting in a chair with legs closer to camera, while on Alexa's shot his legs are disproportional to body. Same with portraits and face depth proportions in general. The shot is not "flatter" in terms of inter-object relations, as when switching to a longer lens on a same format, but the objects are less distorted through scene depth.
    Are you keeping the nodal points of the two systems the same? It's not the distance to the film plane you have to keep constant, but the distance to each lens's nodal points that must be constant.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #126  
    Senior Member Tom Gleeson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,126
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    I am confused, it must be the language and terminology.

    My tests with S35 and FF from the same position and compensating focal length to match FOV showed more natural volume representation and less object enlargement towards the camera on a larger format. The larger the format, the less size discrepancy in z-axis. Like the shot in Steve Yedlins test, where in a wide shot IMAX format shot shows more natural proportions of a man sitting in a chair with legs closer to camera, while on Alexa's shot his legs are disproportional to body. Same with portraits and face depth proportions in general. The shot is not "flatter" in terms of inter-object relations, as when switching to a longer lens on a same format, but the objects are less distorted through scene depth.
    David's statement "If you use a longer lens in VistaVision to match the field of view of a shorter lens on a Super-35 camera, there is no "flattening" effect... the perspective, the view, is the same -- the only difference will be depth of field unless you compensate." is correct with perfect lenses. The perspective is locked by the geography and position of the camera. The "confusion" comes from the design of the lenses themselves and the difficulty of creating lenses that have no distortion which gets more and more difficult as focal length decreases. In our tests we used the Zeiss CZ.2 28-80mm zoom and we compared a 28mm 35mm(4.5K) shot to a 40mm (8K) and the pin barrel distortion at 28mm changes objects position and size compared to 40mm. I think a major advantage of large formats is wide FOV shots without using short focal lengths with all their limitations. Dan Sasaki of Panavision talks about this issue that a lens designer has to make compromises and to correct all the geometry in a wide angle lens they sacrifices their ability to add character to the lens.

    Note: We also used FOV to match shots in our tests to take into account a moving nodal point on our zoom lens.
    Tom Gleeson
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #127  
    It's not the barrel distortion. Barrel distortion also distorts the image in X & Y axis.
    Camera position, angle and distance to object are the same.

    Objects closer to camera always get larger.
    The larger the format the reduced discrepancy between distance/size and more natural depth proportions. That's why a large format intuitively feels better. More natural depiction of volume .






    Toggle between Steve Yedlin's Alexa 35 and IMAX grabs and watch the facial proportions.
    Head angle differs so a bit confusing but still noticeable.







    Last edited by Hrvoje Simic; 12-28-2017 at 06:22 AM. Reason: Clarity
    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    [...]
    Camera position and angle is the same.

    Objects closer to the lens always get larger. [...]
    So you are not respecting the nodal points of the lenses. If you want to compare apples to apples, it's not about locking down the tripod position, the camera position, nor even the image sensor position. It's about locking down the nodal point of the lens and ensuring that the master ray (central ray of the subject) lands at the center of the image. Anything else and you are just comparing whether a subject is more flattered by pushing in some inches or pulling back some inches. Pushing in a few inches is not going to change the rendering (or the apparent size) of a distant background very much. But it can change the perspective on a close-in subject very much. Given that cinematography is, indeed, a game of inches, you don't want to let those inches confuse what you are measuring.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #129  
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Tiemann View Post
    So you are not respecting the nodal points of the lenses. If you want to compare apples to apples, it's not about locking down the tripod position, the camera position, nor even the image sensor position. It's about locking down the nodal point of the lens and ensuring that the master ray (central ray of the subject) lands at the center of the image. Anything else and you are just comparing whether a subject is more flattered by pushing in some inches or pulling back some inches. Pushing in a few inches is not going to change the rendering (or the apparent size) of a distant background very much. But it can change the perspective on a close-in subject very much. Given that cinematography is, indeed, a game of inches, you don't want to let those inches confuse what you are measuring.
    I've edited the upper post for clarity.

    Same distance to object (not push in), same camera angle, same angle of view, different formats/focal length combos depict volume differently. Check the face in that example.

    There is no way a portrait on a wide lens shot up close on a smaller format can look as natural as an equivalent angle of view lens on a large format. It matters less as distance increases and matters more the closer the camera gets. If the talent in that shot was even closer, framed for the face to fill the frame the effect would be more apparent and face more distorted in depth. Nose would look noticeably larger than it is for example.
    Analog > Camera feel optimization http://omeneo.com
    Digital > Camera performance optimization http://omeneo.com/primers

    imdb


    "Como delfines en el fondo del oceano
    volamos por el universo incentivados por la esperanza"

    "L'esperanza", Sven Väth
    "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards"
    Jung/ Carol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by Hrvoje Simic View Post
    Not sure where this is heading so I'l try to clarify.

    Same distance to object (not push in)[...]
    Measured from what? The image plane? The front of the lens? The nodal point of the lens? My claim is that keeping the image planes the same may still provide different "depth" or "volume" or whatever other sensual term you'd like to use, unless the nodal points are also the same. It's the measurement from the nodal points that brings all the math into alignment.
    Michael Tiemann, Chapel Hill NC

    "Dream so big you can share!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts