Spirit or Rank for SD?

John Pytlak RIP · June 22, 2005

My 16mm lens does not accept filters so an 85 is out of the question.

Thanks!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Surely there is some way to mount an 85 filter in front of the lens? Although Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has great latitude, it's always best to correct for the primary light source in the scene, or you'll be putting in alot of correction during printing or transfer. If you absolutely cannot use the correct filter, err on the side of slight overexposure to minimize risk of contrast mismatch (colored shadows).

June 22, 2005

Surely there is some way to mount an 85 filter in front of the lens? Although Kodak VISION2 200T Color Negative Film 7217 has great latitude, it's always best to correct for the primary light source in the scene, or you'll be putting in alot of correction during printing or transfer. If you absolutely cannot use the correct filter, err on the side of slight overexposure to minimize risk of contrast mismatch (colored shadows).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a 16mm 2.8 fisheye(zenitar) which actually doesnt look fisheye on the 16mm frame.You cant mount filters on the front.it has a mount for filters on the back but its an odd size and it comes with 3 filters...none of which are 85 or 80.

I think, that I'm going to stick with the tungsten stocks. What if it turns out to be an overcast day and the light coming through the windows isnt that strong?

I do have an 85 filter for my other lenses though.

Jon Rosenbloom · June 23, 2005

Aha! So you must have no matte-box or shade protecting the lens ... Just as I suspected! :angry:

Edited June 23, 2005 by J-Ro

June 23, 2005

Aha! So you must have no matte-box or shade protecting the lens ... Just as I suspected! :angry:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those shots, except for the beach, were done with a super takumar 28mm f3.5

which does have a shade that fits most takumars...but doesnt like to stay on with the 85 on.

The Beach scene is a Takumar 55mm f2 which is quite telephoto.Around f11 or f8 with the 85 and no hood.

My two favorite lenses are now my zenitar 16mm (becuase of the wider or..well normal angle)and the zeiss jena 2.4 35mm(razor sharp and super shallow DOF:rack focuses are beautiful on it)

The Zenitar lens has no filter thread although the zeiss does.I dont know of a way to mount a traditional mattebox for the k3.

The two shots on the bottom are from my second attempt at shooting film ,the EXR my third. So I know my shooting isn't perfect ,but i am learning as I go.

June 23, 2005

http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/

The lens that takes no front filter.

Of course back to the original topic....

Most think a Shadow is pretty comparable to Spirit?

Stephen Williams · June 23, 2005

http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/
The lens that takes no front filter.

Of course back to the original topic....

Most think a Shadow is pretty comparable to Spirit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi,

The Shaddow is nearly as good as a Spirit. I did a best light in New York on a Spirit. Then final grading on a Shaddow- the Spirit Won! Had I not seen the film on both TK's I would have been happy with the Shaddow. The colourist is the most important. If you need data then only a Spirit with DATACINE option will work.

Stephen Williams

Lighting Cameraman

www.stephenw.com

Jon Rosenbloom · June 23, 2005

http://photonotes.org/reviews/zenitar-fisheye/

Of course back to the original topic....

Most think a Shadow is pretty comparable to Spirit?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

They're both made by Thompson, w/ the same ideas in mind. Xenon lighting system, true RGB feed, and I think they share some proprietary algorithm's developed w/ Kodak so the machines can preset the color-correction according to key-codes. I don't know what the difference is between the two machines; maybe the Spirit has a few more bells and whistles, or works better in HD. Sorry if I'm a little fuzzy on the technical details.

I've done supervised and best-light on the Shadow to beta-SP, and I LOVE the results: very cinematic. I have an advantage because I had some excellent lenses, I stopped down, avoided stray light, etc... - all of which comes from experience. In any case, I wouldn't hesitate to use the Shadow again.

One last; if you're not going to supervise, you should prepare some notes for the colorist. You don't have to give T-stops and footcandles, but general directions about the mood of a scene, or scene to scene continuity.

Question for experts: How long has the Spirit been around?

Edited June 23, 2005 by J-Ro

June 23, 2005

"I have an advantage because I had some excellent lenses, I stopped down, avoided stray light, etc... "

Did you see anything that looked like stray light or flare in the pics?

For the indoor shots will be doing,I didnt think a matte box was an absolute necessity.

It would be nice to rent some nice lenses, but I have to go with the best lenses I can get for my m42 mount.I would say the zeiss is the best.

Sam Wells · June 23, 2005

The point I wanted to make is I'm not sure I'd judge the DNR you might want to use with a Spirit based on your experiences with a Mk III Cintel.

I'm not sure what's "missing" in a Shadow or if it even would effect what you're doing. Personally I think I'd choose based on colorist, can you supervise etc. But I have never done anything on a Shadow.

-Sam

ps I also don't know what the Colorlab / Movilab connection is if any; I did something with Colorlab a month ago, forgot to ask. (I'm a Colorlab customer, but haven't done telecine with them).