Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. 4k is 4 times the "resolution" (that is, pixel count) of 2k. Assuming you're comparing apples to apples in terms of aspect ratio, a 2048x1556 file is 4x fewer pixels than a 4096x3112 file. But as mentioned in my last comment, you're not going to squeeze picture information out of the film if it's not there. But if you scan at 4k you are going to get a better scan, because you're starting with more digital samples of the analog image.
  3. One should never upscale the film, as you have to create picture data where there wasn't any before, and that will always degrade the image. See the example about halfway down the page here: https://www.gammaraydigital.com/blog/busting-resolution-myth If the goal is to squeeze more picture information out of the film by increasing the resolution, that will depend on a bunch of factors: the film stock, the camera's focus, the lens quality, the steadiness of the film in the gate, the steadiness of the camera, the exposure, the lighting, and I'm sure more. The fact is, you can see more defined grain in a natively scanned 4k image than in a 2k image that was scaled up. You're using more pixels to make the initial image, thus you're taking more samples (think audio sampling - same idea). And the end result is that you get a better representation of the physical film, which is what holds the image. And that's the whole point.
  4. I've had some test stuff scanned at 4k before just to see. When using Ultra16 lenses it looks theres definitely a benefit over 2k, but I really dont think you'll get to actual 4k between the lenses and the film stock. If you were finishing a film its probably worth a 4k scan if budget permits, otherwise ya may as well just scan at 2k and upscale.
  5. I think here it's more about the contrast than the type of lamp. For an interview, a small fresnel lamp will give you sharp shadows, or even a dedo light would work well for a backlight. Even a smallish soft LED lamp can work... if it is set bright enough to create the contrast that you desire. Also note that in the two examples you've posted, the background is quite dark. Creating a dark background for this effect will help the most to get the effect you like.
  6. Offered for sale: Good used Zeiss/Arri 9.5mm T1.3 super speed lens in Arri B mount. Adapters available for Aaton or PL (at additional cost). Supplied with RARE Arri Aspheron (actually made by Kern, Switzerland) which converts this already wide S16 lens to 5.6mm with adequate coverage for Super 16 format ! It is amazing. The Aspheron is flawless, the 9.5mm has some light cleaning marks on front coatings (not scratches to glass). These have no effect on photographic results. Lens & converter are a spectacular combo with incredibly low geometric distortion. Priced at US $ 1995.00 for the package. Adapters additional. Screen shot thru S16 viewfinder showing format coverage on request : <cp@seriousgear.com>
  7. For so many years, I have dreamed of having the privilege of obtaining media passes for rock concerts of big name bands and solo artists like The Rolling Stones, U2, Sting etc. It still hasn't happened but I'm going to keep trying. With regards to equipment, I would be shooting with Panasonic mirrorless Micro 4/3 cameras. I don't have the luxury of owning a fast constant aperture zoom but Ive got some fast primes I could use. If I am successful at obtaining a media pass to a gig one day, I think I might take along three camera bodies - one fitted with a wide angle, one fitted with a standard lens and the third fitted with a short telephoto. One of the kinds of images that I'm really looking forward to producing is a wide angle shot of a singer or guitarist up close from a low angle. Just looks so dramatic with loads of impact. My wide angle for M4/3 is a Samyang 12mm f2. That seems like a logical choice for concert photography but it has one major drawback – it flares really easily and horribly. Major flare problem. Once I even had pretty bad flares from it on an overcast day with a lens hood in place. Of course with a concert venue (up close to the stage) there are going to be heaps of lights shining into my lens and for the Samyang, that could end in disaster. Now, I have seen some concert photos that feature flare and it can look kind of cool and atmospheric. But my Samyang produces ugly flares – the kind I don't want. And I simply cannot afford another fast wide angle lens – they are crazy expensive. So I'm considering something quite drastic. Instead of bringing along the Samyang on an M4/3 body, I'm actually thinking of bringing my Canon FD 24mm f2.8 mounted to a 35mm SLR. So two M4/3 bodies and one film SLR. And by coincidence, the 24mm on film will have roughly the same field of view as the Samyang 12mm on M4/3. I would be shooting on colour negative film and I admit one big benefit of that is that I can be pretty loose with exposures as compared to having to be precisely spot on as with slide film or digital. Though obviously, I will try my best to avoid underexposure as that is the worst thing you can do to neg film – those weak blacks look really yuck. I'll try and overexpose by about a stop or two. I actually used to shoot in similar conditions back in the 90s on film. Not concerts as such but circuses. Though I did photograph a musician (Monique Brumby) in a small venue as well. And also a play once. During that period, I would shoot on 1000asa and 1600asa film for these kinds of events. Though I have a feeling that big rock concerts may be a little bit better illuminated than those other places I shot but I can't be sure. Though here is the dilemma. If I'm shooting for a publication, they may want the images uploaded to social media. If that's the case, I'm not sure of when the deadline would be - whether that would be the same night as the concert or the day after. That would be fine for my digital images but obviously, it's going to take time to get the film developed and scanned. I don't suppose a rock music publication or media agency etc would be accommodating in having the digital images uploaded soonish but the film images uploaded at a later time? This is a potential issue that I'm struggling with.
  8. Here are examples from the Sigma T mount 100mm f2 single element diffusion lens from the 1980's. These were shot wide open. I didn't put my name on the files as I don't want to be associated with flower photography. I was experimenting with it and needed something to shoot.
  9. Forget the notes, what have your experiments yielded? My advice is if you want to smear stuff, smear it on a UV filter, not the lens. And if you smear the lens, make it dedicated and put a clean UV filter on it to preserve the look until you are finished with the project if you want things to match.
  10. They made adjustable diffusion lenses for the Pentax67 if you can adapt it. Also T mount diffusion lenses but aperture is kinda fixed. The later was a magnifying glass mounted in a sliding tube to adjust focus. The T mount lenses was heavily diffused.
  11. Selling my Alexa mini package. Less than 50 operating hours. LIKE NEW!Asking price is 43.000 euro's OBOlocated in Belgium. Buyer pays for shipping. You are welcome to come and inspect.Purchased last december with extended warranty, so there is still a long warranty on the camera.included:Alexa mini bodyAlexa mini viewfinder MVF-1Alexa mini viewfinder cableTitanium PL LDS mount with LBUS3x 256GB Arri certified SanDisk extreme pro Cfast 2.0 cardsSandisk reader cfast for 2.0 seriesTilta camera cage for alexa mini with v-lockNo VAT if I sell to a EU company. (Except sales in Belgium of course)No licencesemail me for more info or questions: ben@bensteensels.be (or ben@squarenine.be)Photo'shttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1Q2EcIPhwfFm-cK2EwdXj7T8gHu7q2C7i
  12. Looking for a Sigma cine lens set PL-mount. 24, 35, 50 and 85 or more. Maybe interested in Zeiss CP.2s or CP.3s as well. martin@synkmedia.no
  13. There is a list of approved CFast cards on the BlackMagic support site. I have been using SanDisk Extreme Pro 256Gb and Komputer Bay Professional 3700 and have been very happy with the results. I can shoot at 4.6K @ 24fps in BRAW Q0 and at 4K DCI @ 120fps in BRAW 3:1 on my URSA Mini Pro 4.6K G2 without any drop frames or issues.
  14. the magazines are the mildly challenging part of these cameras but they are relatively easy to load with little practicing. if you would live here I would lend you some mags for free for practicing but not practical to ship them to Canada... you can ask the locals if you can borrow a mag for loading practicing :) one easy way to load Konvas mags, this is for the older 1KCP model but works for newer mags and cameras as well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8-wCGC3eg
  15. The early pictures of Hamilton where shot on a MC Rokkor 58mm 1:1.4 I believe. The MD 50mm 1:1.7 came with the X-700 in later years. Some of the early lenses where also treated with Thorium, making a slight yellow taint over the time. I think the coating of modern lenses is not helping with this style of photography. To sharp, too clear. You'll need a soft lens, with less groups of glass. Sometimes the imperfect is the better option.
  16. Hey guys, So what motivated to start this topic was the fact that most interviews I see online (even tutorials) don't quite nail the backlight effect that they mention in those videos. Most of the tutorials I find, the backlight seems to fall short from effectively making the talent pop from the background. Most of the times, I feel the backlight wraps around the key/fill light too much. I'm looking for those razor sharp, beautiful cinematic Conrad Hall kind of backlight. So, I was wondering what is usually your approach to get this kind of backlight when shooting a cinematic interview? My feeling is that most people are using soft light as back light and then point it at the talent as if it was a hard light. And that makes it wrap too much for my taste. So, I would say hard directional light as backlight is the way to go. Also, maybe using a warmer color temperature might also help with color contrast against key. And definitely more intense than key. As for positioning the light, that's always where I struggle most. Where and how high do you usually place it, without making the light spill too much to the top/front of the talent while avoiding veiling flares and other stuff like that? Here are two examples of what I mean (second example is over the top, but it's great to really highlight what I mean): Thanks!
  17. If you want to shoot a "live" performance with a single camera. Do the wide shot with the musicians playing "live" and record that sound properly. That recoding now becomes your "master" audio recoding, so keep shooting till you have a take that looks and sounds good. Then for your subsequent shots get the musicians to "mime" along to your live "Master" recording. This gives a hybrid live/mined video thats again easy to sync up. The trick is to shoot a take near the start that establishes sound and then everything matches that. Otherwise you risk the musicians drifting off. This approach can look really good and fool most people into thinking its a fully live multi-camera performance. As Jon said it could be possible to put it together with the musicians playing live each time to a click track, they would have to be good, it would be more work to put the music together and combine the sound and not all musicians are great with click tracks - it would be possible to get lost. The other option is to use 2 cameras. Then you can get 2 live angles and 2 mimed angles - so it feels more live. My tutor at film school shot an Erasure video with 2 x16mm cameras at a concert. The did one pass in the sound check and another in the main concert. The footage sync up because Erasure were playing to a backing track and the speed was consistent between takes. You couldn't tell the shots were taken at different times, matched well.
  18. I have a Century Optics / Arri PL 35mm 1.4x extender for sale. Used, in excellent condition. The glass element is pretty much perfect, no visible marks or scratches. Item located in Hollywood area of Los Angeles. Asking 200. comes with cap and cover. image album: https://imgur.com/a/L2967oP
  19. I have found the opposite ... you actually want a dark surface under your water.. give both try .. you will get a lot more "effect" from a black bin liner in a water tray than mirrors and tin foil bright under neath.. or just have a look at a dark murky river in sun light.. the light is bouncing off the water not the mirror etc..
  20. Negatives aren’t optically enlarged several hundred times like positives in projection. The negative image is generally transferred at one-to-one ratio on printers.
  21. > http://www.brianpritchard.com/colour_films_with_unusual_sensit.htm Thank you Simon. Good information in the link. Magenta layer is sharpest and changed as top layer in positive films. But Kodak did not follow the same order in Negative films.
  22. Should be reasonably straight forward I would think, to do several takes from different angles as you describe. The musicians might resist, but it would ideally be necessary to take along a metronome, with silent function and a bright light (if outdoors) that blinks for the beat, and they will have to follow the same tempo for each take. Then in post, a bit of adjustment should sync-up well enough the various shots with whatever audio take you go with for the final soundtrack. That could take a bit of work. I've haven't yet done it myself. It might help a lot if you can read music or have a musician with you when you edit it/do the soundtrack. Might save a lot of time. And take a lot of notes, on the shoot. Eg. "Take 4, approx. 20 secs, bars 16 to 23" or whatever info you need to make the job in post much smoother. Edit: for the benefit of those in America, I believe you call them "measures," not "bars" 🙂
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...