All Forum Comments
Ken, that is not so impressive as how they land on Sint Maarten
Comment by Anvh posted on Beach runway at 31/01/2010 - 18:33
Prieni wrote:
Don't know what you mean by the tilting suggestion, Stefan. You want to have enough of the pebbles in the frame to tell that it is a beach.
Yes but it now makes up almost 50% of the shot and that does not work for me.Don't know what you mean by the tilting suggestion, Stefan. You want to have enough of the pebbles in the frame to tell that it is a beach.
So the amount of pebbles stays the same but with just a bit more sky to change the balance, that would work better imho.
Comment by Anvh posted on Beach runway at 31/01/2010 - 18:18
Don, it depends on the product, there are digital manuals already around and in the commercial aircraft industry you use nothing else.
Comment by Anvh posted on The Humble Instruction Book... at 31/01/2010 - 18:13
Don wrote:
oh, and let's not forget Sin City...
Indeed Sin City, nice movie.oh, and let's not forget Sin City...
Minority report was also quite good they used a blue colour tone almost through out the movie the get that cold feeling.
And for scenes, it's an animation but oh what nice sometimes.
link
About black and white, this has a great atmosphere.
link
Have anyone seen The New World?
It does have some nice scenes but never liked the film as an whole
Comment by Anvh posted on Things to Learn from Cinematography at 31/01/2010 - 18:08
With a linear you've 1 stop difference when turning and with circular none... that's still pretty good measurable in my eyes.
Still if it has no effect when shooting then it isn't a problem.
Although you said here.
Then comes the question does it really alter the light with 1 stop or is the metering getting confuse?
If it's the first then no problem but if it's the later you can get an over or underexposed photo when using linear filter.
Still if it has no effect when shooting then it isn't a problem.
Although you said here.
johnriley wrote:
If there is no polarised light, then you won't do a thing by turning a polariser.
With circular that's true but with linear it does, it can alter you exposure with 1 stop.If there is no polarised light, then you won't do a thing by turning a polariser.
Then comes the question does it really alter the light with 1 stop or is the metering getting confuse?
If it's the first then no problem but if it's the later you can get an over or underexposed photo when using linear filter.
Comment by Anvh posted on Why are polorising filters so expensive? at 31/01/2010 - 17:04
Great idea only the composition is just a bit off, if you had it tilted up a little bit it would have been bettter.
You should have waited for a plain to to land, it would have make for a more dramatic photo
You should have waited for a plain to to land, it would have make for a more dramatic photo
Comment by Anvh posted on Beach runway at 31/01/2010 - 16:58
johnriley wrote:
In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Ah okay In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to make much difference.
Comment by Anvh posted on Why are polorising filters so expensive? at 31/01/2010 - 16:55
Thank you John, that's correct but I believe we are/were talking about Cedric's results from page 1.
I asked him to do this test
I asked him to do this test
Quote:
there is an easy test which can often indicate whether or not a camera needs a circular polarizer. Attach a linear polarizer to the camera and take a TTL meter reading off a blank wall illuminated by indoor (tungsten) lighting. Don't use any kind of shiny (reflective) surface. A carpet might also make a good target. Rotate the polarizer and see if the indicated exposure changes. If it does, you need a circular polarizer.
And this was his result with a linear filter.there is an easy test which can often indicate whether or not a camera needs a circular polarizer. Attach a linear polarizer to the camera and take a TTL meter reading off a blank wall illuminated by indoor (tungsten) lighting. Don't use any kind of shiny (reflective) surface. A carpet might also make a good target. Rotate the polarizer and see if the indicated exposure changes. If it does, you need a circular polarizer.
cedricd wrote:
Hi Stefan, I have tried the test by pointing at a blank non reflecting surface and the shutter speed alters from 60th. to 125th. I tried both K10 and K20 and the same result. This was in AV mode. In TV mode the F stop altered from 5.6 to 8. I would expect these sort of changes but how can we determine how this affects the auto focus?
Hi Stefan, I have tried the test by pointing at a blank non reflecting surface and the shutter speed alters from 60th. to 125th. I tried both K10 and K20 and the same result. This was in AV mode. In TV mode the F stop altered from 5.6 to 8. I would expect these sort of changes but how can we determine how this affects the auto focus?
Comment by Anvh posted on Why are polorising filters so expensive? at 31/01/2010 - 16:53
Great summary Don, you put it nicely.
It seems there are Linux version that can work on ARM chip, now things are getting interesting.
It seems there are Linux version that can work on ARM chip, now things are getting interesting.
Comment by Anvh posted on iPad or iPad Which One? at 31/01/2010 - 16:50
John just tried it with my circular polariser and it does not change exposure if I turn it.
That was when looking at a matte object, or else the highlights that change can effect the metering.
That was when looking at a matte object, or else the highlights that change can effect the metering.
Comment by Anvh posted on Why are polorising filters so expensive? at 31/01/2010 - 16:43
