gels and diffusion

Started by Witkacy, September 27, 2003, 06:27:57 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

Witkacy

September 27, 2003, 06:27:57 PM
I've always worked in 16mm but am now doing a project in mini-DV from what I've seen there seems to be alot of white out and hot spots.  I figure using diffusion won't solve the problem so can someone let me know if I should be going with coloured gels or just light it as I would for a 16mm shoot.

mutinyco

#1
September 27, 2003, 09:21:57 PM
Yeah, if something is overexposed in digital it's going to burn out. The information is completely lost -- not like film where you can alter the image while printing it. The ideal thing to do is light it properly. If you're using a decent mini-DV it will have t-stops just like shooting with film. Adjust the exposure as needed. But the only way to get rid of a burn is to avoid one in the first place.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

aclockworkjj

#2
September 27, 2003, 09:31:29 PM
The zebra effect is sometimes a handy little tool, depending on the lighting situation...

what's a t-stop mutinyco?..hehe

Ghostboy

#3
September 27, 2003, 10:51:46 PM
I'd suggest slapping an ND filter on the lens, though, rather than adjusting the iris too much. It'll give you a whole lot more flexibility.

Recce

#4
October 01, 2003, 10:29:13 AM
I say light like film (i.e. three point lighting), but keep all the camera's exposure, shutter speed, etc. on manual. If you can, rig a field monitor. That way, you can judge manually whether its too bright or too dark, etc. Don't, I repeat, don't, trust the LCD screen. It's surprisingly deceptive. Oh, and keep in mind, DV is not like film. It's not better to overexpose then underexpose. Just get it right.
And I think that other guy meant F-Stops, not T-Stops.
"The idea had been growing in my brain for some time: TRUE force. All the king's men
                        cannot put it back together again." (Travis Bickle, "Taxi Driver")

SoNowThen

#5
October 01, 2003, 10:38:32 AM
f stops and t stops are basically the same thing
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Witkacy

#6
October 01, 2003, 11:35:40 AM
If I'm shooting 16mm colour I usually keep a 3:1 or 4:1 key light to fill exposure ratio but my senses tell me this ratio my still cause burns and hot spots on DV.  I'll do a bunch of tests but my real fear is having a very cold abrasive looking image.  If I warm it up with some orange tinted gel will this actually warm the picture or make it look like everyone's around a fire? Lastly, I don't want to overlight and think my usual set up with 6x500W mini moles would be overkill for DV.

SoNowThen

#7
October 01, 2003, 11:40:10 AM
Yeah, you get a really low ability for contrast ratio when you shoot dv. Tho, I figure (but haven't tried yet), that since video is so contrasty, maybe if you did 2:1 or even 1.5:1, it might come out on video looking like 3:1 or 4:1 would look on film...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions