soft screen

Started by metroshane, February 01, 2004, 06:29:26 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

metroshane

We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

kotte

Damn, what is up with this "wanna make Digital look like Film" debate?

Want film? Shoot film.
Want digital? Shoot Digital.
Want film but can't afford film? Save up some money.

Or shoot HD and get the professional digital look.


But no, I've never used it. :)

metroshane

Actually, it's pretty much a joke since it's not a filter or anything...it's really a sheet of translucent material.

What I'd like is a digital camera that better depth of field control.  Tell me how to get that.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

kotte

Quote from: metroshaneWhat I'd like is a digital camera that better depth of field control.  Tell me how to get that.

Mini35.

metroshane

Thanks for that link.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

You Never Got Me Down Ray

That's gotta be the ugliest dog I've ever seen.
My life has taken another turn again. The days move along with regularity, over and over. One day indistinguishable from the next. A long, continuous chain. Then suddenly, there is change.

metroshane

I wouldn't go so far as to call the brother ugly.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

Recce

Quote from: metroshaneActually, it's pretty much a joke since it's not a filter or anything...it's really a sheet of translucent material.

What I'd like is a digital camera that better depth of field control.  Tell me how to get that.

Control your own depth of field you lazy bum. Always blamming the camera's

Shallow depth of field=lower f-stop (bigger aperture) & less natural or synthetic light. Also, bring the camera as close to the subject as possible (the one you want in focus).

Wide depth of field=Higher f-stop (smaller aperture) & provide more natural or synthetic light. Also, get the camera as far away from the subject as possible. Avoid zooming in, however, as this will constrict your shot.

I've managed to get very shallow depths of field following these simple instructions. The shots didn't exactly look like film, but its a step in the right direction.
"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

Movement and light and even colors just don't turn up the same on video as film, so yeah, why the hell try to make digital look like film.

Fuck, why not make a movie and use the massive depth of field? Orson Welles would've killed to have these kinds of videocameras on Citizen Kane (well... maybe not, but y'know what I mean). :wink:
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.

metroshane

Yes, thank you for that very precise video instruction, Reece.  No really.  As a photographer for many years, I can now safely say you've shown me the way to depth of field. 8)

You're just not going to get the same depth of field control without nice prime lenses and a large plane.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

metroshane

I see your point SoNOWTHEN...and in many ways a agree wholeheartedly.  We do have to start thinking of video as a different medium as oil is to charcoal, etc.  However, I like the way a short depth of field allows you to control audience focus.

But like I said, I agree with you for the most part.
We live in an age that reads too much to be intelligent and thinks too much to be beautiful.

Recce

Quote from: metroshaneYes, thank you for that very precise video instruction, Reece.  No really.  As a photographer for many years, I can now safely say you've shown me the way to depth of field. 8)

You're just not going to get the same depth of field control without nice prime lenses and a large plane.

Ok, I didn't mean to sound so smart assy, but I jsut mean that video isn't as bad as everyone on this forum seems to imply. Sure, it ain't film, but it costs a shit load less and I've managed to get some pretty interesting footage out of video.
"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")

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: metroshaneWe do have to start thinking of video as a different medium as oil is to charcoal, etc..
You could think of film as oil paint, digital as acrylic...

Link