A Simple explanation of Persistence of Vision

I have decided to write a post about Persistence of Vision. I figure it is fitting being as that is the name of this Blog.
To put it simply, Persistence of Vision is the ability of the mind to interpret a fast succession of still images as a moving image. In the early days of Motion Picture production, it was decided that the projection of 16 still frames per second would give the appearance to the viewer of a moving image (speeds as low as 10 frames per second would still give the illusion of motion, but would have a jerky, strobe effect, much like the stick figure flip-books we played with as kids).  Most early films where therefore shot at 16 frames per second. With the advent of sound pictures, the frame rate was increased to 24 frames per second to better accommodate the audio track (which at the time was printed on the film projection print). As a result, many early silent films were later accidentally screened at 24 frames per second giving them the sped up look that many of us associate with early silent films.

Persistence of Vision example

The images above were shot in 1878 in an early attempt to study the way horses run. It is important to note that these images were taken by 10 separate still cameras triggered by mono-filament "trip lines" that the horse was running through, and were never intended to be a moving image. (This system is also the basis for the "Bullet Time" effect from the motion picture "The Matrix" that used hundreds of cameras that fired in sequence along a path thus giving not only a slow motion shot, but also a "moving camera" effect.) The bottom right image is the previous 10 images played one after the other at a rate of 16 frames per second. As you can see, the horse appears to be running smoothly even though you are actually just looking at the 10 still images being shown in rapid succession (on a loop). 

All modern forms of moving image technology still rely on these principles. Most films are still shot at 24 frames per second. Some are shot at 30 frames per second. The analog video signals we grew up with were based on 120v 60hz power that required images to be interlaced. interlacing split the frame into 2 fields with 60 fields or 30 full frames being shown per second on NTSC systems. PAL systems used 50hz power, and therefore showed the images at 50 fields, or 25 full frames per second.

There is a growing belief that showing movies at 48 frames per second will give a more realistic experience to the viewer. The 2013 film "The Hobbit" Directed by Peter Jackson will be the first major motion picture to be shot and released in 48fps.
Persistence of Vision is the basis for many "special optical effects" commonly used in the motion picture industry. Cell animation, and stop motion animation are both fine examples. Each uses individually shot still frames that, when shown at 24 frames per second, give the viewer the illusion of smooth, fluid motion.
Time Lapse photography Also uses the principles of Persistence of Vision. Time lapse is created by shooting still frames at a slow interval, and then playing them back at a higher frame rate. The following Video was shot at a rate of 1 frame every 5 seconds.

* Check out my other blog for some real cool vintage photos

view my website daviddefino.com

buy my prints at Deviant Art

buy accessories with my photos

follow me on twitter

Iconic Buildings in Southern California

Hollywoodland Reality

 Design has always been I subject I enjoy photographing. Architectural design has fascinated me since I first picked up a camera. It seems to me that a building is a snapshot of the design aesthetic of the time it was built. Remodeling and additions add subsequent styles into the mix adding a sometimes surreal element. The Photograph on the left is of the Hollywoodland reality office (originally the Hollywoodland sales office) built in 1923. You can find a lot of great photos and history about the building (and the Hollywood sign) on their page.

Hollywood Tower

Some buildings can be better known for their fictitious counterparts then for the real building.  The picture on the right is the infamous Hollywood Tower. Known to most people as the inspiration for the Disney Hollywood Tower of Terror ride. Of course the real building looks little like the ride. I have never actually been inside the building, but I have heard countless tales of it being haunted. I suppose the rumors of ghostly residents, along with the foreboding style of the architecture, is where Disney came up with the idea.

Pasadena Suicide Bridge

The next photograph I have today is of the "Suicide bridge" in Pasadena. Built in 1913, several people jumped to their death from this bridge in the early 20th century (and continue to do so). There is a famous story of a woman who leapt from the bridge after tossing her 3 year old daughter over. The child was the only person to ever survive the plunge. (read more about that here). This picture shows the advent of progress, and the change in style for the same structure. In the foreground is a modern freeway overpass (the Arroyo Seco bridge). Although obviously built with cues leading back to the original bridge, its style is different.


* Check out my other blog for some real cool vintage photos
view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Behind The Scenes Horror Fun

Elvira and Clones

 In honor of Halloween, (and I was slacking on this blog this week, and didn't have anything prepared), I thought I would share some behind the scenes horror themed photos I've taken while working on various gigs over the years. The Photo on the left was shot in 2007 during shooting of "Who Want's to be the Next Elvira". The photo was shot in a ballroom on the Queen Mary in Long Beach after a long day of shooting. The photo Features Elvira: aka Cassandra Peterson  (in the center) and two "Elvira Impersonators" on either side.

Easter Bunny Kill Kill behind the scenes

Easter Bunny Kill Kill behind the scenes

David Stamp: Someone's Knocking at the Door

 Although this is Halloween, I thought these next two pictures from the shooting of Chad Ferrin's "Easter Bunny, Kill! Kill! " would be appropriate to share. This photograph on the right, shows the death of David Stamp's character Ray. Also in the photo, you see Cinematographer Giuseppe Assaro (holding the camera), and A.D. Rachel Sever. In the background, you can see the leg of Wolf Dangler. This movie was shot in 2006 mostly in a small house in Hollywood, and a few other local locations.
One of those locations was the small store we shot the opening scene in. The photo below was from that days shoot. In it, you see Timothy Muskatell (In the mask). Behind him you can see Trent Haaga, and on the right is my good friend Key Grip Greg Ewing (who is no longer with us).
These last two pictures are from the shooting of Chad Ferrin's Someone's Knocking at the Door . I did a more in depth post about that shoot here, but I didn't add these behind the scenes photos. The first photograph is of actor David Stamp undergoing his make-up transformation before shooting his scene with actress Andrea Rueda. (Make-up Effect by Tom Devlin's 1313fx. The majority of this film was shot at the derilict Linda Vista Hospital in Los Angeles. There are many stories of that hospital being haunted, I have heard them from many a crew member, and saw some of it with my own eyes.
The last photo is from Trent Haaga's death scene. As you can see, he is checking out a shot of the same thing on his cell phone.

Trent Haaga: Someone's Knocking at The Door

* Check out my other blog for some real cool vintage halloween photos
view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Photographic Repetition

Transamerica Building, San Francisco

"A master painting has multiple repeating threads running through it. These hold the painting together and unify it in much the same way a great symphony is tied together by a repeated main theme. Variety in these repeated elements, as in music, adds interest to the painting. Repetition, variety, unity, harmony are characteristics of all great symphonies and of all great paintings." (Barry John Raybould)

Old style Overtaken by the Modern

Repetition has long been a staple of any artistic medium. The uniformity soothes us. We like it when everything is organized, and lined up. Of course repetition has many uses. It can be used as the subject itself, as in the above photo of the Transamerica Building in San Francisco. Or this photo on the right that juxtaposes the repetition of the sleak modern architecture with it's singular recurring pattern, and the early modern building and its many recurring patterns in the center.

Roast Duck

Repetition can also be used to draw attention to your subject. The Photograph on the left is so cluttered with reflections, that without there being multiple ducks hanging in the window, the viewer might not know that the duck was the subject of the photograph. (Now granted, I could have used a polarizer to clear up the reflections, but I wanted the chaos of it, I wanted it to be a "through the shop window" kinda thing.)

Chinatown

Repetition does not have to be the exact same thing being repeated. In this photograph on the left, the cars, and the buildings are the repetition that create a path through the image.
Repetition can also provide a frame of reality in a surrealist view. The photo below uses the reflections in the window of a building to show a distorted view of other buildings. I used the buildings repetitive architectural cues to provide a counterbalance to the distortions.

Reflection in San Francisco

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Has Digital Won?

Grasshopper: Shot on Digital

 Recently, a dear friend of mine was updating their website. They asked me to shoot some new photos for the site. My friend is an artistic person, and wanted the photos in Black and White. This seemed like a no brainer. I love shooting Black and White Film. I process and print my own negatives, and really feel the organic flow of the darkroom brings out the artistic side of me. So I convinced her to go digital. I know, I was shocked myself. I questioned myself later about why I did it. was it time? cost? Sure, at about $5.00 a roll for Ilford 35mm film (a little pricier if I wanted to shoot medium format since you get half to a third as many shots per roll.) Add in a few bucks for chemicals, and paper, multiple that by 300 photos, and it all starts to add up. In money and time spent in the darkroom (300 photos in the darkroom... no thanks).
That is not the real reason why I talked her into digital though.

Hammock: Shot on Ilford 35mm 3200ISO

One of the things that captivates me about photography is the process itself. Light being recorded by the degassing of tiny crystals creating dark spots where the light was, then doing the process again using that reversal to make a reverse of it. (Are two negatives making a positive?) The organic nature of that gives life to the flow of the grains in a film image that is unique. The Photograph on the right was shot with Ilford 3200 speed 35mm film, and the grains are magnificent. It is as if the picture was created using black and white grains of sand. I enjoy the flaws in film also. The clouded spot from where your film kinked while trying to load it the spool for the developing tank has added unique accents in many of my favorite photos.

Missing Spot Op: Shot on B&W Film

I read a story once of a famous Photograph from photographer Jacques Henri Lartigue. The photo had an odd pattern on it, and people couldn't quite make out what it was. Eventually  the conclusion was made that it was Lartique's fingerprint that was left in the emulsion on the glass plate he took the photo with.
*Before Kodak brought "Film" to the world by putting photographic emulsion on a thin flexible plastic, photographers would often mix their own emulsion, and paint it onto optical glass plates. They would let the emulsion dry, and load the plates into a "quick change magazine" that they would later load into the camera to shoot a picture.
It is these "happy little accidents" that endure me to film so much. It is also these "happy little accidents" that cause reshoots, client complaints, and hours of "fixing" in front of photoshop. So I guess what I'm really saying is If I am heading up to Yosemite National Park, I am bringing the largest format camera I have, loaded with B&W film. But if  someone else is paying me to take pictures while I'm there, I'm also carrying my Digital.
The Photo Below is a set of contact prints from a shoot I did for the film Someone's Knocking at the Door ( more can be seen from this set in my previous blog here) These photos of actors Vernon Wells and Melanie Doyle have many "Happy accidents" that lent to the look I was going for for this shoot.

Vernon Wells and Melanie Doyle: Medium Format Ilford fp4 plus

*If you to like gritty Black and White photography, feel free to check out my other blog Found Snapshots. It is a collection of pre 1950 snapshots that I have picked up at swap meets, flea markets, and paper shows over the years. It is new, but will be updated frequently.

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

The Wilderness of Florida

Graffiti on a RR bridge

This past summer, I took a trip to the east coast of Florida. I have been there many times before. I grew up there. 16 years ago, I left home and moved to Los Angeles. I have been back many times since, but this had been my first trip since 2007. While in Florida, I couldn't get over how much things had changed. The place looked beat up. I'm not sure if it was the poor economy, or if a decade and a half really puts that much wear on a place, but it looked beat.

Boardwalk: Turkey Creek Florida

I found myself photographing the natural landscapes more then city itself. Nature has a way of enduring. The undeveloped lands look the same as I remembered them. (maybe a bit less foreboding now that I have GPS in my pocket). I'm sure this wilderness looked much the same when Spanish explorers first walked through these woods 500 hundred years ago. (Some historians say Ponce De Leon first landed in this area, and may have walked through this same wilderness in search of his fountain of youth).

Birds Congregating on the Indian River

I think there is a lesson to be learned in this. You see, the Birds aren't stressed about the economy. They are not affected by the constant advance of progress. They still find places to perch, food to eat, and a place to spread their wings and fly. I imagine ole Ponce, pushing through the wilderness (like I did as a child), coming out to the shore of the river, and seeing birds congregated in the trees much like these birds. So to, must the sights have been the same for the early pioneer families and former slaves that settled the area in the mid 1800's creating the town that is there today.

Pelicans on the remnants of a dock

Yes, the birds were there when we showed up, and they don't seem all that bothered with the concerns of society now. Some things change, others do not. but as long as you have a place to spread your wings, you'll be okay. And sometimes, the decay of what was, just brings us something new.
So in retrospect, maybe it wasn't the town that looked beat. A little more weathered, sure, but not beat. I just wasn't viewing it from the eyes of a 20 year old kid anymore.

Pier on the Indian River. Melbourne Beach Florida

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

A City in Images

Los Angeles City Hall

Every town, and City across the globe is alive. They teem with an evolving character unique to the place and the day. Buildings stand as quiet testament to the history and styles of the city's past, just as their upkeep tells the story of today. Photography can capture a cities pulse like few other mediums. Photos show the city from a perspective brought by the photographer. Framing, composition, and subject matter all can mold an image into an statement.

Los Angeles at Night

Sometimes a building itself can be iconic and draw you to it. Isolating itself from the architectural cacophony that surrounds it. Rising triumphantly and demanding attention. Other times the city as a whole can merge together as one imposing, monolithic beacon. It stares you down from a distance and takes control of the image.

Pay Phone in Los Angeles

Some say the true character of a city only can be felt from within.  The streets and alleys pulse with life. The signs and graffiti speak truths, and the shoulders of the people bear the weight of the times. The history of a city is tucked away in it's streets. the bright and shiny and new can be found side by side with the craftsmanship of days gone by. Some of this history stands proudly deteriorating, reminding you of what once was. Some is obstructed by a new coat of paint, or gilded facade. It all bleeds out though, it show you signs of what was and what may be coming. You just need to look, aim, and snap a picture.

Weathered Palace Newsreel Theatre Sign

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Technology and photography

Lamborghini Aventador at the L.A. Auto Show

*Pictures not related.
Is modern Technology killing the art of photography? It seems to be a topic that comes up a lot these days. I've seen photographers on twitter complain about being told "it's the camera that takes great pictures, not you". If you follow the news much, there seems to be a global uproar about magazines "Photoshoping" pictures. Of course the reality is, this is not new. There is substantial evidence (see this CBS News article) to show that photo manipulation has been around since... well, before photos. The theory is that Renascence  painters would use a camera obscura to project an image of their subject onto the canvas, and then they would simple trace the projection. This would allow them to get very good detail without having to make the model pose for days. After the model leaves, the artist would go back and paint over the sketch. Sounds like Photoshop to me. I would speculate that many King and Queen left artists with explicit instructions to "trim the waistline" or "drop the double chin"
"That's Different" you say. "There was no photographic emulsion then, there were no image sensors". True, but did people stop manipulating images once photographic emulsion was invented? There are many documented cases of people being added, and removed from photos in the mid 1800's. (As seen in this discussion on civilwartalk.com). There was also a cottage industry of "Spirit Photography" where unscrupulous photographers would use double exposure, and darkroom tricks to add "ghosts" to images. (See this article by Kristi Finefield on the Library of Congress Blog).
"But what about the true artists? they didn't do that". Have you heard of Man Ray? Andy Warhol? Even Ansel Adams, the king of natural landscapes, heavily manipulated his images in the darkroom. He even wrote a very good book on the subject that I suggest all of you read. Ansel Adams: The Print . In the book, Adams goes into detail on photo manipulation and the many techniques to accomplish it (like burning and dodging... yes like the photoshop tools.) He even goes as far as to theorize that the actual taking of the photograph is just the "visualization" of the photograph. The actual printing (and manipulation of the negative) is the true creation of the photograph.

A tree on a hill at the top of Reseda Blvd

*On a similar note, early in my career when I used to work for an optical effects house in Glendale Ca, I had the pleasure of working with an effects artist named Gene Young. Gene once worked for a guy named Linwood Dunn. Linwood Dunn is one of the pioneers of motion picture optical effects. Gene told me a story once about how Linwood (while working at RKO for Howard Hughes) would take a small piece of gauze and use it to blur the cleavage on an actress while making a film print so the censors wouldn't attack the film. So now you know where photoshops Gaussian blur comes from.)

Skull Beads

I personally believe that post processing of an image is a part of the art form, but the ability to frame and capture a distinct moment in a way that conveys an idea is the true art. Does the modern camera lessen that in anyway? It makes it easier, true. A photographer can now focus on finding that moment. With a modern camera you no longer need to worry about whether you have the right speed film in your camera for the conditions you are shooting in. (Of course you could always push or pull your film in processing if you screwed that up). A modern photographer doesn't need to worry about focus with auto focus lenses. (but let's face it, if you are like me, that is set to manual most of the time anyway because the auto focus always pics the wrong thing to focus on., and auto focus lenses have been around a lot longer then digital cameras). Modern camera's automatically set the exposure... yes, so photographers don't need to pull out exposure meters every 5 minutes now... They still need to determine the depth of field they want for the image, and set the iris accordingly.

Culver City as seen from the Getty Center

The real "problem" with modern technology and photography is that it puts the tools of the professional in the hands of everyone. and since a pro can't be everywhere at once, regular people are getting great shots that they can sell, and it is cutting into the pros pockets. Even though Bob from accounting may make an extra $20.00 a month from selling his vacation photos on istock, it will still be the professional who is hired to get the shot of the couple at the romantic candle lit dinner, shot in a studio, professionally lit, with a make-up artist touching up the models, prop people making sure the food, and wine look perfect, and an agency exec in the back complaining that the out of focus deep background corner of the room is to dark. True, the professional photography industry has to adapt and change because of technology, but that is true of all industry. As a true fan of the art form, I dare say this is a good thing. Imagine for a minute how amazing it would have been if everyone had their cell phone cameras out during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the fall of the Walls of Jericho, the construction of the pyramids, the battle of Waterloo. For the first time in history, everyone can be involved in documenting our society, and our times. In a hundred years, history students will know us because they will be able to look into our eyes, and more importantly they will be able to see the world through our eyes. That is the job of the photographer: To capture this moment in time. the more shutters going of the better, the more people sitting in front of their computers manipulating an image to better convey a thought or feeling the better.

Occupy Protester in L.A. 2011

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Review: Canon Powershot ELPH 500 HS

 If you would have asked me about point and shoot cameras a year ago, I would have told you they are dead. With the increase of good quality cell phone cameras, why would anyone want a point and shoot?
Well recently I discovered why. I was in need of a camera with a real optical zoom, and better quality then my cell phone camera could provide, but still small enough to not be a nuisance. I wanted the total package. something with a respectable pixel count, shoots HD video, and was inexpensive.  I found it in the Canon PowerShot ELPH 500 HS .
The day after I bought this little (about the size of a pack of cigarettes) point and shoot, I went on a Google+ photo walk at the Old L.A. Zoo, and Travel Town in Griffith Park. I brought my new point and shoot along with my Canon EOS Rebel T2i . I had an old Canon 35-70mm EF lens on the T2i. The Power shot is a 12.1 megapixel camera with a 1/2.3-inch CMOS senosr. (the T2i has an 18 megapixel APS-C sensor). Although the T2i images are better in a side by side comparison, the 500HS performs very well for the drastically cheaper price. The touch screen on the back is a good size, and works well, although the touch focus can be a little off. (Often selecting an area just to the side of where I actually touch).
The auto settings work very well, and the images look really nice. The largest image setting in the camera is 4:3 and I personally find that to be an ugly aspect ratio, but I guess the logical argument to that would be to crop the image later (as I did with all the images in the post except the one on the right, and the bottom photo). The battery life is exceptional. (I charged the camera when I purchased it, and a week ( and 150 photos, and a few dozen video clips) later, it still is reading a full charge. In a standard Canon flaw, the SD card slot is in the same spot as the batter, and both are inaccessible when the camera is mounted on a tripod. This, however, has little relevance on a point and shoot that under most circumstances won't be used on a tripod. (at least not enough that you would need to change the card and/or battery while it was still on the tripod). The camera has an ISO range of 100 to 3200, and although there is noticeable noise in the higher ISO's, it is still better then I would have expected from such a low cost camera. The image stabilization on the video is ok, and it kicks in on low light stills.

The smaller sensor size (although many may disagree) is a good thing on a point and shoot as it tends to give you a wide depth of field (see my blog on the subject of depth of field). I feel when you need a point and shoot, (quick photo opportunities, vacations, etc) a wide depth of field is a good thing. This is clearly demonstrated in the bottom photo. So if you are looking for a pocket camera that can still shoot good images, and HD video, I would suggest the 500HS. It's quality is better then I would expect from a camera in this price range.

*Check back for low light and video comparisons with the 500HS.

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter

Everyone Needs Some Good Glass (pt-2: Prime vs Zoom)

Los Angeles's El Ray Theater

 Last month, I was in San Francisco. I took some time to go shoot the Golden Gate Bridge with an L-series 24mm lens, and a standard Canon zoom. I compared the photos shot with the different lenses, and wrote a blog about it. (You can view the original post here). It was pointed out to me that since I had manually set the L-series lens, and left the zoom on auto, the differences may have had more to do with the f-stop then the glass. I decided to re-visit the subject with a new post, and this time both lenses would be set to f/16 with the camera set at an ISO of 200. I set the my Canon T2i  to aperture priority so it would choose the best shutter speed. I set up my tripod, and shot both sets of pictures from the same position.The two lenses I used where the standard (comes with the camera) Canon EF-S 18-55mm  zoom, and an old FD L-series 24mm (f1.4). I adapted it to the camera with a Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter . This particular adapter has an element to adjust for the difference in flange depth between the FD and EF mounts (thus allowing a full range of focus). This element however, appears to magnify the image a bit, as well as cause some light loss. (As is evident by the different exposure times.)

Beverly Hills City Hall

It also deserves to be noted that the L-series lens is a prime lens, and the standard lens is a zoom. The additional elements in the zoom are most likely the culprit for the additional refraction evident in the photos shot with it. This is most visible around light sources such as the street light in the above photo of the El Ray Theater in Los Angeles. However, in the photo on the right (of the Beverly Hills City Hall) Their is an odd refraction in the center of the image of the photo taken with the 24mm. I suspect that is caused by the additional element in the Fotodiox adapter. The star pattern that you see around light sources is coming from the blades of the iris. (I am stopped down to f/16) If I had shot these same images wide open, all of the light sources would appear round. The images from the 24mm lens are sharper then the ones shot with the 18-55mm. The color also looks better to me. A big advantage to the L-series lens that these photos do not demonstrate is the speed. the 18-55mm zoom is f3.5-5.6 (changing a bit through the length of the zoom). The L-series lens is an f1.4. That is 4 full stops faster. Considering each stop is "a halving of the light intensity from the previous stop", you can shoot in lower light conditions without the long exposures I've used in these photos. (maybe a comparison for pt 3).

Paramount Pictures Front Gate

What is clear in these photos is the usefulness of a prime lens. Just because you can get a 24mm shot with your zoom, doesn't mean it will be the best choice of lenses. Every piece of glass between your subject and your image collector (be it film or a digital sensor) degrades your image. Prime lenses have less glass in them, and therefore give you a better image with less refraction, and less light loss.
The refraction is particularly evident in the photo on the left of the front gates to Paramount studios in Hollywood California, and the picture below of Wilshire Blvd.

*You may notice light streaks in most of the photos on this page. Those light streaks are the lights on the cars that drove by while the shutter was open (in some cases over 30 seconds). with a long exposure, anything moving quickly through the frame (like a car) will not be seen. However if that quickly moving object has a light source (like headlights or tail lights), they will register in ever position they were in while the shutter was open. This produces the glowing streaks in these shots.

Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles

view my website daviddefino.com
buy my prints at Deviant Art
buy accessories with my photos
follow me on twitter