RETURN to Sonycine.com
Jump to content
Welcome To Our Community!

Discuss, share & explore cinematography and making the most of your gear.

IamOakley

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    74

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by IamOakley

    Is sci-fi getting more cinematic because of extremely senstitive dual ISO?

    in Cinematography

    Posted

    Here's my theory.

    As a lifelong sci-fi addict, I will watch even the most cringe-worthy science fiction flicks. But this year, there have been so many good sci-fi titles that are just crazy cinematic, I [almost] can't watch them all.

    I recently had the pleasure of speaking to Salvatore Totino about DPing 65. (You can read the article on SonyCine here.) Totino is a wonderful human, and 65 is gorgeous, shot on Sony VENICE and Hawk V-lite anamorphics.

    Totino mentioned that once he decided on the Hawk anamorphics, he knew he had to shoot Sony VENICE. Because anamorphics are slower, and he didn't have a ton of lights in the middle of the 65 swamp, he NEEDED the Sony VENICE dual ISO. So I started wondering, because the sci-fi realm is often characterized by the aesthetic of anamorphic, is the increase in visual innovation in the genre linked in part to Sony's dual ISO letting DPs use anamorphics with less restrictions, lighting and otherwise?

    Here's three good examples:

    • 65: DP Salvatore Totino, Sony VENICE + Hawk V-lite anamorphics
    • Andor: DP Adriano Goldman, Sony VENICE + Panavision anamorphics
    • The Man Who Fell to Earth: DP Tommy Maddox-Upshaw, Sony VENICE + Panavision G Series anamorphics

    Anyone have opinions on this?

    If anyone has any other sci-fi titles to add that I should look into, please share.

    I'm also dying to find someone who has shot a sci-fi, short or feature, on FX9, FX6, or FX3. If you know of anything, let me know!

    What are your professional opinions on 48 FPS vs 60FPS vs other High Frame Rates?

    in Cinematography

    Posted

    I'm working on a project that's intended to play on a very large (somewhere near 100 ft x 25 ft) curved cylindrical screen. Because of the size, the consensus is that 24FPS will look too juddery on such a big, immersive screen. Some of the team is keen on shooting and delivering in 60FPS. However, I'm worried about the consistent thing where audiences hate high frame rates because of the perceived 'soap opera' effect. I am currently suggesting 48FPS. Basically, I liked how Avatar: The Way of Water employed both 24FPS and 48FPS throughout the film. (And it helped with me a LOT with 3D motion sickness that I usually get.) Audiences don't seem to even notice as far as I can tell. My thinking is, maybe Avatar is setting the stage for more 48FPS content?

    Are any of your currently delivering in higher frame rates like 48, 60FPS? Or do you have a personal opinion on how it looks? Did you notice it in Avatar?

    SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket launch with 4 Sony cameras

    in Cinematography

    Posted

    Hi Steven, I'm glad to hear you like my launch videos.  They are certainly fun to shoot.

    All my cameras have excellent electronic viewfinders, so external monitors are not needed . . . or wanted.  I've never used monitors on any camera I've ever shot with and never will! 🙂    There is no substitute for a good EVF.

    Curious, with four cameras (and four and EVFs) what's your strategy for focus?

    What recent TV shows have beautiful lighting?

    in Cinematography

    Posted

    I’m stuck at home with COVID (through the worst of it, luckily) and I’m in need of some good shows to watch while I recover. I’m thinking I could learn from a show with either really beautiful lighting OR with something interesting going on lighting-wise.

    A good example of what I mean by interesting lighting (and show I’ve already binged all of) is Kevin Can F**k Himself. Each episode is half multi-cam sitcom (with a laugh track!) and half sorta indie single-cam drama. Both worlds have distinct lighting, and without any spoilers, Season 2 has some REALLY cool dramatic moments that are delivered almost entirely by lighting changes between them. (The final episode in particular!) You can read an interview with DP Shannon Madden we did a few months ago here. I thought it was really clever, and it made me think about how lighting can not only set the tone and look, but motivate the story as well.

    Have you seen anything you’d recommend for me to binge watch, and get lighting inspiration from while I’m at it? Either that’s interesting, innovative, or just plain beautiful?

    Shooting the Northern Lights with the Sony FX3 and FX30

    in Cinematography

    Posted

    The brightness of the Aurora varies immensely. One moment it can be dim, low contrast and barely visible and 30 seconds later it can be bright enough to cast shadows on the ground with great contrast. Additionally the location I go to tends to have extremely dark skies as it is well away from any city lights or other light pollution. Plus, when it is very cold (and it normally is -20c or colder) the air becomes very clear, so contrast increases and this is a big, big help.

    There is no one magic setting for every Aurora. Generally most of the Aurora footage was shot with the FX3 with the 24mm f1.4 GM as having a second base ISO of 12,800 in S-Log3 is highly beneficial and contrary to what I would normally do, adding a bit of gain in camera by going to 25600 using the flexible ISO mode proved useful. As the Aurora doesn't move very, very fast you can get away with a 1/12th or 1/15th shutter. When the Aurora is dim it also tends to be moving much slower. So, rather than increasing the ISO still further or adding ever more post production gain I will use S&Q and lower the frame rate, perhaps using 8 frames per second and a 1/8th shutter and then return this to normal speed in post with a bit of subtle frame blending. When shooting the Aurora I am constantly tuning the camera settings to the way the Aurora is behaving and how bright it is while shooting. The tips of my fingers suffer every year from constantly touching the extremely cold camera controls. It's like repeatedly touching a red hot surface. 

    In post production I do add noise reduction as without it the images would be noisy without it and there will be some grading to provide the best looking image. In the past when I shot mostly time-lapse with longer exposures, I tended to go for a more vivid look, but recently I have dialled things back a lot as I wish to give a more true to life representation of how the Aurora actually looks when you see it in person.

    The final factor is time outside. As the aurora comes and goes, often quite quickly, you have to spend the time outside with the cameras setup and ready to go in order to not miss the brightest flare ups. These are often short lived and it is all too easy to miss them if you stay inside and just pop out occasionally. So, that means long periods standing and waiting in the cold. In the early part of January, up in Northern Norway it was dark enough to see the Aurora between 3pm and 9am and each night I would be outside for around 11 to 12 hours at a time, but possibly only shooting for a couple of hours during that period. Then do that for 2 or 3 weeks at a location with very clear skies and you have a chance of getting some great footage.

    Super interesting! Especially to hear about the shutter you can get away with during the Aurora. Thank you. Hope your fingertips are recovered!

×
×
  • Create New...

ABOUT SONY | CINE

We provide the cinematography community with information, inspiration, and news.

SonyCine is here for the filmmakers and cinematographers who like to stay in the know, keep innovating, and connect with the world in meaningful ways. You bring your curiosity and ideas, and we'll provide the knowledge, inspiration, and state-of-the-art tech to help you bring your vision to life.

 

Press Inquiries:
Tanya Lyon
tanya.lyon@sony.com
858-914-8936

NAVIGATION

Social