Jump to content


Photo

I thought this was pretty special...


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 11 July 2008 - 12:51 PM




Come Clarity by In Flames, the dynamic range in this is unbelievable. Let alone the meteorites.

Thought I'd share it, I loved it. I can only dream of the day when I'm shooting stuff like this.
  • 0

#2 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 July 2008 - 09:49 PM

That is very nice. It's a nice looking simple video. I'm a big In Flames fan, too. I'm wearing a very old, well-loved tour shirt today, in fact.

It reminds me of something I thought of for future use in a music video someday. I found out that fuji makes a fast daylight speed film. In thinking of a use for it, I thought, "Wouldn't it be cool to use fast daylight film and double up on the two-stop POLA to have REALLY deep skies." One would have to test it but I think you could use two POLAS set ever so slightly off of each other and get an even more intense polarized sky look.
  • 0

#3 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 July 2008 - 06:18 PM

Yeh they're are pretty awesome, and their music videos are amazing, them and 30 seconds to mars. But then again Jarred Letto would have all the contacts in film he needs for a stunning music video.


I'm shooting a video for a friends band later this year (hopefully) and plan to use almost the same high dynamic range style.

One question though, you mention high speed film, to get darker skies, I've always been confused about this. Is it the slower films that produce higher dynamic range or is it the faster films?

cheers.
  • 0

#4 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 July 2008 - 11:35 PM

I think slower films generally are a tiny bit better in that respect. What I am talking about, though, is using a fast film to combat the huge light loss of two POLAs. You would have no light left very quickly if you stacked two POLAs on top of slow film.
  • 0

#5 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 25 July 2008 - 07:08 AM

Yeah it'd be a 4 stop loss, like ND 1.2 Though wouldn't it be easier to just use ND 1.2 grad for the sky? That way you can change your angle without changing to polarization effect?
  • 0

#6 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 July 2008 - 06:18 PM

Yeah it'd be a 4 stop loss, like ND 1.2 Though wouldn't it be easier to just use ND 1.2 grad for the sky? That way you can change your angle without changing to polarization effect?


Because NDs and POLAs do different things. I'm not even so sure anymore that two POLAS would darken a sky much more than a single POLA. Theoretically, a 2 stop POLA should cut nearly all of the light that is not polarized in the correct direction. Doing that twice would probably be a game of diminishing returns.
  • 0

#7 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 July 2008 - 08:32 PM

It also depends what brand of polarizer you got. I got a cheap one for my still camera and the compensation on it is 1 1/3 stops.

My understanding is that stacking two polas will double darkness if not polarization itself.

I remember doing a gig where my 1st AC left two polas on the mattebox by accident when the DP thought there was only one. He was promptly fired. Then his replacement and I were trying to figure out the compensation factor. But he said it was hard to figure out since we didn't know what part of the image they had crossed / by how much. So we guessed up to 8 stops depending how they had crossed.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 25 July 2008 - 08:34 PM.

  • 0

#8 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 July 2008 - 12:03 AM

If you have the polarization lined up the same way, the compensation would be 4 stops. You could obviously get much more if they were oriented differently.

What I was thinking is that darkening a sky isn't an on/off kind of proposition. When you turn the filter to check, the sky doesn't just become dark all at once, it's a gradual darkening. The light cut from the sky by a pola, if graphed, would look like a bell curve.

That means that there isn't just one "correct" orientation, but a series of slightly differing orientations that will darken the sky to different degrees. You could probably (and this would need testing) orient one of the polas just to one side of that bell curve's peak and the other one just on the other side and darken the sky considerably more than one POLA alone.

If I get a chance, I'll try it. If I'm right, it could be a super cool effect.
  • 0

#9 Tim O'Connor

Tim O'Connor
  • Sustaining Members
  • 860 posts
  • Other
  • Boston, Massachusetts

Posted 26 July 2008 - 12:44 AM

If you have the polarization lined up the same way, the compensation would be 4 stops. You could obviously get much more if they were oriented differently.

What I was thinking is that darkening a sky isn't an on/off kind of proposition. When you turn the filter to check, the sky doesn't just become dark all at once, it's a gradual darkening. The light cut from the sky by a pola, if graphed, would look like a bell curve.

That means that there isn't just one "correct" orientation, but a series of slightly differing orientations that will darken the sky to different degrees. You could probably (and this would need testing) orient one of the polas just to one side of that bell curve's peak and the other one just on the other side and darken the sky considerably more than one POLA alone.

If I get a chance, I'll try it. If I'm right, it could be a super cool effect.



I wonder if when you do your test if orienting the filters at different angles might also cover you a bit in that if you pan you'll retain a
polarizing effect longer than if you panned with only one filter at its best place for the first position of the shot?
  • 0

#10 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 26 July 2008 - 02:21 AM

. So we guessed up to 8 stops depending how they had crossed.


Hi,

20+ years ago I used to shot slit scan on a downshooter, we used 2 rotating polas to fade out the streaks, 8 stops sounds about right.

Stephen
  • 0

#11 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 July 2008 - 03:22 AM

I wonder if when you do your test if orienting the filters at different angles might also cover you a bit in that if you pan you'll retain a
polarizing effect longer than if you panned with only one filter at its best place for the first position of the shot?


I'm going to try to test my idea if I get a few in the next week or so. I'll check on this, too.
  • 0

#12 Nathan Martin

Nathan Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 August 2008 - 03:55 AM

i had a strange problem on an sr3 once.
Looking through the viewfinder i would get a honeycomb pattern accross the whole frame when the pola was at a certain orientation.
I talked to the guys at panavision and they were surprised by it but we nutted out that the sr3 (as oposed to the 2) has a groundglass made of some kind of fibre optic wafers (i dont know what it is actually made of) that have a polarization effect, and when we cross polarized infront of the lens the honeycomb would pop out.

Lucky it was on a test shoot just outside of panavision sydney when we realised.

oh and sort of on the topic, its good to see some good musical taste on the board hehe, My In Flames shirt is in the wash
  • 0

#13 Tim Wu

Tim Wu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 August 2008 - 01:53 PM

Hi all, student here~

So just to make sure I'm getting this right, this effect can be achieved by stacking polarizers?
  • 0

#14 Daniel Smith

Daniel Smith
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 791 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 August 2008 - 04:50 PM

I ran a few photographic tests, I'm not sure if anyone else has had this problem but with the polar on it tends to create a stupidly hazed picture where the sun catches the filter (atleast that what I think it is) and puts a nasty fog across the photo.

I guess a matt box would help solve this but, this filter isn't the cheapest, and the photos with this problem are virtually completelly unuseable.


Anyone get this problem with 4x4 linear pols?
  • 0

#15 David Rakoczy

David Rakoczy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1579 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • USA

Posted 18 August 2008 - 06:55 PM

Looks to me like a single Pola was used along with a lot of Power Windows on the Color Correction Session. Not sure about 'doubling' Polas other than they can Fade to Black and give you nothing.. a Pola is dialed in for a specific 'look' and adding a second Pola won't do a thing as it can not Polarized Light that is already 'Polarized'.. I don't see anything overly special going on here other than heavy Color Correction... using a lot of Grads esp. at the top and corners.. and the blue of the Sky was dramatically altered.. I believe all done in Post.

They were very lucky..or waited for.. the Storm.. Imagine that video without the Clouds...

Edited by David Rakoczy, 18 August 2008 - 06:57 PM.

  • 0


Abel Cine

Visual Products

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Willys Widgets

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Technodolly

The Slider

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc