Jump to content




Photo

A midsummer nights dream 1953 and Diffusion

1935

  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:14 AM

I mean 1935 of course!

 

Wondering about the diffusion in this film. Is the look just nets behind the lens?

Sometimes it looks like the net isn't entirely over the mount, so a kind of mix.

 

I'm looking to shoot on Super 8 so fixed zoom and no nets so I would need to try something else.

I'm also wondering if I'd be forced to use milder diffusion because of the smaller frame although the look of "A Midsummer Nights Dream" is quite extreme I guess, so if I was going for something more like that then maybe it wouldn't matter.

 

Any ideas or suggestions?

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 27 May 2016 - 11:23 AM.

  • 0




#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:19 AM

I'm not aware of a 1953 version... Are you thinking of the 1935 version?
  • 0

#3 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:22 AM

I'm not aware of a 1953 version... Are you thinking of the 1935 version?

 

You are quick on the draw!

I saw that as soon as I hit post and went straight to the edit button! :)


  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:22 AM

I made a post here:
http://www.cinematog...30&hl=midsummer
  • 0

#5 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:27 AM

 

 

Thanks I bookmarked that now.

 

Ah! Sequins! Well that might be possible I guess. I wonder if it's some kind of sequined material as it doesn't look entirely random.


  • 0

#6 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:39 AM

I think I have some Wilson Supra Frost diffusion like 00 and 0 strengths etc. The weird plastic filters.

They used them on "American Horror Story" I think?

 

Would those be anything like classic softs?

 

I guess they are less like softs and more like early pro mists?... but I don't think I have much in the way of softs even tho I'm a filter fiend.

 

I have Cokin Diffusion and even the light is quite strong but with the  classic softs they get softer the further from the centre you are?


  • 0

#7 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 27 May 2016 - 11:41 AM

I'm also wondering now if the sequins will fail on the Super 8 camera as it might be too close focusing.


  • 0

#8 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 May 2016 - 10:49 PM

SupaFrosts are like ProMists.

 

Classic Softs are not "mist" filters, they have dimples in the glass to blur portions of the image while letting sharp images pass through the clear areas.  Most diffusion works on this principle -- for example, a net or pantyhose diffuses the image because the threads will bend light rays throwing them into soft focus but the gaps in the material allow sharp images to pass through.  All good diffusion filter designs create a mix of sharp and blurred detail to create a diffused effect rather than an out-of-focus effect though some do it better than others (for example, later Mitchell diffusers tend to throw the image a little out-of-focus overall.)

 

So if you took a microscope and compared a Classic Soft to a Soft-FX, for example, you'd notice that Soft-FX had little kidney-shaped dimples that were smaller and more randomly placed than the round dimples in the Classic Soft.  

 

A "mist" diffusion uses a suspended particulate matter that scatters light to create a glow around points of light.  There is some softening that happens as well.

 

And with diffusion like Classic Soft or Soft-FX, the dimples also cause some spreading of light so there sometimes is not a clear distinction between the mist diffusion and the regular diffusion.

 

In the 1930's, nets were the most popular form of diffusion.  There were also glass filters with etched concentric rings, sometimes called ring diffusion, sometimes "Dutos". There were also some soft lens used.

 

If you look at this shot from "Spellbound", you can see the artifacts of the ring diffusion in the out of focus points in the background, they look like a thumbprint:

 

spellbound4.jpg


  • 2

#9 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 28 May 2016 - 05:06 AM

Thanks David,

 

Yeah had a feeling the suprafrosts were way off base. It's probably the oldest diffusion I have however and most of it leans to  pro-mist style effects as that's where my taste is. I think I have a glass net filter too but I'm very low on other diffusion effects.

I do have a few cokin filters tho including a set of the "Dreams" filters too I think which might work a bit for what I have in mind.

 

That screenshot is especially helpful too.

I have a feeling I might have some Tiffen soft-fx somewhere too but I'm going to have to tear through my unit to find it and I've no idea what strength it might be. I definitely don't have dutos but I know what you are talking about as I saw a filter with the rings and thought "that looks interesting".

 

I strongly suspect I might need the right kind of sequins to get even close to that effect too... Looks like a lot of testing ahead.

Going to try on a small sensor camcorder and see where that takes me.


  • 0

#10 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 28 May 2016 - 09:18 AM

So I decided to make hay while the sun is shining and run some tests.

Please excuse the model, she was all I could get at short notice.

 

M1090013.JPG


  • 0

#11 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 28 May 2016 - 09:27 AM

Okay so that's working!

 

M1090021.JPG

 

 

I discovered that moving the material I had, even just slightly, made massive changes to the colours and ... well everything really.

 

Might not be as much of an issue in B&W but I'm worried how reproducable this stuff will be in the field.

Also I like the colours so that could be an issue if I try it in colour sometimes.

I can see this turning into hours of faffing about.

 

M1090079.JPG

 

M1090086.JPG

 

The material needs to be very close to the lens on the small sensor camera indeed, otherwise you start to get focus issues even with a cm difference.

 

M1090137Small.JPG

 

All of these shots are with exactly the same material just moved about slightly to different positions.

 

Freya


Edited by Freya Black, 28 May 2016 - 09:31 AM.

  • 0

#12 Freya Black

Freya Black
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Right on the edge in London

Posted 28 May 2016 - 09:57 AM

Now the other issue is that these are all shots with flash photography because I have been messing about with that lately.

I started out just to get the red eye effect (no problem getting that with my eyes!) in the hope I could make profile pictures that looked more threatening and evil instead of the usual please hurt me look i wonder around with usually in life. Then I discovered that flash would do all kinds of other interesting stuff to boot. Thus the camera was already set up for the flash stuff.

 

So yeah I've been trying to achieve stuff more like this:

 

M1090136Small.JPG

 

Instead of the please hurt me type look I wonder about with in real life:

 

M1090143.JPG

 

I'm an expert in those crazy looking 1000 mile stares.

 

Worth noting while we are here how you can end up with strange dissolve looking effects depending on the position of the material too.

 

Anyway if I'm shooting video there will be no flash, so I turned it off but sadly that led to very different and minimal effects which is the opposite of what I was expecting because I was thinking less light, more shallower depth of field, and it should all work better.

 

This is what happened. It's an interesting effect because it looks sometimes like textured walls and a it like front projection too:

 

M1090164.JPG

 

Not what I was going for but maybe worth remembering for the future.

I'm wondering if this means that I require very frontal light to get the effect.

I don't usually have the key light that front and centre and I'm going to have limited access to lights in the field too.

Midsummer was presumably all shot on a stage which makes things easier in that respect.

 

Anyone else tried anything like this and want to comment further?

The room is lit by a window to the right of the shot (should be obvious from the last photo but just thought I would say)

 

Freya


  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18788 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 May 2016 - 10:33 AM

Looks interesting -- can you take a picture of the front of your lens so I can see how you are doing that effect?  I may want to steal it!


  • 0


Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

CineTape

Zylight

Tai Audio

Pro 8mm

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Pro 8mm

CineTape

The Slider

Zylight

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks