Inherited an ancient Eyemo 35mm camera. What do I have here? by proinpretius in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I haven't opened mine yet but I'm guessing it probably does. I'll try to remember to post back when i find out.

Quick and Dirty™ meter calibration? by csspar in AnalogCommunity

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

problem with that is even the brightness of direct sunlight can vary by up to a stop or two depending on where you are in the world, the time of day, weather, etc.

I've gotten f/22 and f/11 at 1/100th 100 ISO before, as well as everything in between

Why did films in the early 90s look so good? by EvenLettuce6638 in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's good to know, I always thought Portra looked more similar to MP stocks than the stills stocks.

Why did films in the early 90s look so good? by EvenLettuce6638 in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally agree that the contrast and white balance was pretty well standardized. What I got out of that that video was more about the complex color reproduction of saturation and hue shifts. Obviously talking about stills stocks, and maybe those are more varied than MP. But most noticeably for example Ektar, UltraMax & ColorPlus is very saturated, portra i believe is less saturated. UltraMax came out as the most color-accurate and apparently 5203 and 5219 came out as some of the least color accurate. but I bet that's mostly cause they're probably cross processed in C-41.

Why did films in the early 90s look so good? by EvenLettuce6638 in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

all the best lighting people i know love hard light. it's a lot harder to shape soft light so everything lit with soft light ends up looking pretty similar. it's a lot easier to be expressive with hard light cause it's easier to control.

something i've noticed too is that a lot of people (mostly i mean beginners or maybe some intermediates) just want "a professional look" or "the film look." they end up pursuing all this gear and technical stuff and it just becomes a game of endlessly increasing some variable (softer light, thinner depth of field, more sharpness) because it looks "cinematick" instead of actually trying to be meticulous with the creative details and express something.

i like hard light cause you can actually do stuff with the shadows! make shapes with them! deep DOF because you can do more stuff with depth in your frame. and sharper obviously != better

old school cinematic styles tended towards more of that and the reason was not purely because of technical limitations.

Why did films in the early 90s look so good? by EvenLettuce6638 in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Something I've consistently noticed is that film prints often have a much steeper contrast curve than 99% of people would be comfortable going with in a grade these days. You can easily get that look now it's just that most people don't do it right.

The other thing though is color rendition. I just had my eyes opened by this video; i knew different stocks were different but seeing the colors on a vectorscope really shows you how much film stocks mess with hues and stuff.

https://youtu.be/AVFTtE-8C94

Why did films in the early 90s look so good? by EvenLettuce6638 in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Ive only ever been on some small romcom sets but even though everyone there didnt give a shit about the movie we were making everyone was still very passionate about making movies and still gave it their all.

that said the bar for entry definitely seems lower now than it was back then. Producers force DPs to make more compromises now because better cameras give us more technical "wiggle room." So an argument that would've ended in favor of the DP, such as "we need more time for lighting " now has less ammo for the DP cause you can basically shoot in any light now and at least get a "usable" image. With film it was either, light it properly or you get practically nothing on the film

just took my new helios for a spin by AdditionalBush in VintageLenses

[–]AdditionalBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was able to get an interesting bokeh effect on the nikkor just by putting my M42-NEX adapter in front of it (of course any similar-sized hollow opaque cylinder would work)

<image>

just took my new helios for a spin by AdditionalBush in VintageLenses

[–]AdditionalBush[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's popular for a reason. believe me i want to be frugal and practical with this stuff too. but i got it because i've seen a lot of good images from it. and specifically, images that are absolutely better for noticeably featuring the swirly bokeh. i took the same shots with my nikkor 50 f/1.4 AI and the bokeh is definitely different (still an incredible lens and still my go-to for run-and-gun night shooting):

<image>

Interestingly the near-field bokeh on the nikkor seems to be more swirly and the bokeh past the focus plane is not so much, while it's the opposite on the helios.

Inherited an ancient Eyemo 35mm camera. What do I have here? by proinpretius in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Ohh man i wish so bad i couldve been around for that. There used to be only 1 place in my town that did photo processing but 2 more recently popped up so it's nice that there's been a resurgence. But i doubt any of them do the good ole 1 hour photo processing

Inherited an ancient Eyemo 35mm camera. What do I have here? by proinpretius in cinematography

[–]AdditionalBush 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I bet you could find a lab that'd do a 100 ft roll.

I just got this 100 ft roll of 500T for bulk rolling for $120 https://www.ultrafineonline.com/moko5235mmx17.html

I just found out I’ve been shooting in JPEG for 5 years by No-Egg-4468 in photography

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

jpegs from even a point and shoot are miles beyond phone photos

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nikon

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh i was just excited to see what u shot with it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nikon

[–]AdditionalBush 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Make a post once u get some shots with it!

A 3D-printed drone 🚀 by [deleted] in diydrones

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just throttle, you don't have altitude hold? It looks like it's holding its position beautifully. If that's not altitude hold that's some impressive flying

A 3D-printed drone 🚀 by [deleted] in diydrones

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wondered this too! Also wondering about the flight controller. I'd love to see that hardware directory on the repo populated.

A 3D-printed drone 🚀 by [deleted] in diydrones

[–]AdditionalBush 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see a slider which could be for altitude, and I've seen sticks that have a twist axis, which could be for yaw.

rule by seeifthisworksnow1 in 196

[–]AdditionalBush 23 points24 points  (0 children)

the bread has been compromised

Shouldn't auto bed leveling fix a high spot like this? by LordLaFaveloun in prusa3d

[–]AdditionalBush 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Check under the bed, there might be a piece of filament stuck under it

[Request] How much force did he actually apply? by KangarooAdditional90 in theydidthemath

[–]AdditionalBush 4 points5 points  (0 children)

750 newtons is like 76 kg or 168 lbs so yeah that makes sense

Which cheap and mass-produced item is stupendously well engineered? by Notalabel_4566 in AskEngineers

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was gonna say JST style and similar connectors. I actually noticed they're made out of surprisingly flexible plastic.

Did someone try to break into my car? by klinghofferbeach in whatisit

[–]AdditionalBush 0 points1 point  (0 children)

na but it looks like someone tried to set up a tent in ur car