Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Posts

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

4 Followers

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Student
  • Location
    Online

Recent Profile Visitors

11,652 profile views
  1. That makes sense, thanks! I'm still not clear on if there is vertical breathing in the out of focus areas or just exaggerated vertical anamorphic stretch, but it would explain a lot as the C Series do not behave like the Kowas I've seen or Lomo (square front) I own. Years ago I almost bid on that set of Auto-Panatars on eBay btw....
  2. I can't believe I'm arguing with someone at Panavision about this, but if you refer to David's answer here it correlates with my personal experience: https://www.cinematography.net/edited-pages/AnamorphicEntry.htm "Panavision solved this by making the compression error occur in what's OUT of focus as you focus closer and closer, so the out of focus background gets compressed MORE than 2X, making it look skinny even after it's expanded by twice during projection. But I digress..." I probably have the terminology wrong, but the image does breathe differently in X and Y axes in my experience. Also, not sure what accounts for this:
  3. I did vfx on a show that was shot with C Series and remember there that the breathing wasn't consistent between horizontal and vertical axes. We weren't provided with STMaps so I don't know for sure, but the image stretched more in one axis than in the other. (Which I took to be mumps.) You would know better than I would, and it's probably that I was tracking the aspect ratio of the bokeh appearing to stretch the image vertically. But that alone didn't account for it, I had to use anamorphic bokeh and scale the image differently horizontally and vertically as well. It behaved a lot like mumps, but it sounds like it was vertical smearing. Regardless, you can see the effect on the grid in the background here (during the C series test).
  4. I might have a mount like this somewhere (and I'm trying to get rid of it) but won't be able to look for it for a month. PM me if you're still looking then, though. Not sure what pattern of holes it has but I was looking to replace the mount on a 50mm PL lens with Bayonet to covert it to Aaton before giving up on all that.
  5. I feel like the average projection of a print when most theaters showed prints was around HD resolution, but a good print could exceed that (by a bit). 1080p video generally feels sharper (not in a good way, necessarily) than film prints, imo, perhaps because of digital sharpening. I think large parts of Transformers etc. had vfx done at sub-2K resolution. The idea that HD is sharp enough to be comparable to S35 projection is not a lie, it's just not that simple. The most confusing issue, I think, is that the MTF curve of digital and film behaves differently. And sharpness is more determined by the area under the MTF curve than where it becomes extinct at 0% or <20%. We're looking at entire systems and the combined MTF curves of the entire system (including, potentially, digital sharpening), so there are a million answers and none are right. In my experience scans are usually sharper than prints for stills (digital prints sharper than cibachrome), I assume film prints are similarly softer than the best scans of negatives. In my experience, a very good S35 4K scan if you zoom way in has more resolution than 2.8K ArriRAW or 3.2K Arri ProRes, but not by much. Yet a good 2K DCP projection is probably significantly sharper than your average theatrical print from the 90s (hard to say for sure) because of all the other variables involved. An 8K S35 scan should yield significantly more texture in the grain than 4K, but imo no more meaningful resolution in the image.
  6. Looks like the sale fell through (my bad for not following up faster), so this is for sale again. The viewfinder is quite hazy and I think needs a CLA overall. But cosmetically this camera is showroom clean, it looks brand new. Would rather sell it to someone here than put it on eBay.
  7. I have an MFF1 from Arri. I think it has a reversible direction? I like to pull off the barrel sometimes so it's not 100% a fix, but if I can adapt to it by switching the direction on the follow focus when I use it and just learning to pull in both directions, that's fine.
  8. Thanks, Eric. I see that those can be converted to PL mount as well. Not sure if there is a 50mm f1.4, however. I'm looking into Leitax conversions of C/Y lenses. Expensive, but maybe the best option for me for now given I want to match Zeiss and it provides some flexibility.
  9. I am looking for a 50mm f1.4 in F mount that focuses the same as Zeiss cinema lenses. Does such a thing exist? Even third-party lenses seem to focus in the "Nikon direction" when in F mount. Thanks.
  10. How is this camera different from the LTR-X? I have an S16 LTR-X with the magnetic motor but the XC seems to have a newer body and better eyepiece? Is it possible to adapt V Mount (or in my case gold mount) batteries to the LTR-X? Did anyone hunt down that guy who made a Contax to Aaton mount adapter successfully? Would be cool to get Contax primes to complement the MK1 super speed set (which tops out at 25mm, unlike the Mk2 and could benefit from a 35mm and 50mm f1.4)?
  11. Ungraded. Let them know the color space though if it's not embedded or obvious. I suspect there are places (commercials) where they send graded footage but it's not normal.
  12. That sure sounds like 49.5mm and .75mm with a margin of error to me. My filters from RAFcamera only screw on a thread or two, too. Fwiw the 75mm is 40.5mm front and the 28mm f2.0 (not that you're using it on S35) vignettes on S35 I believe if you use a screw-on filter adapter.
  13. Is this true? I'm behind unfair here by choosing a film that is known in particular for its color rendition and the first Sony sensor I found on google. But if I'm reading this correctly (I'm probably not) there's (much) more separation on film: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61982384?image=0 https://www.ishootfujifilm.com/uploads/VELVIA 50 Data Guide.pdf Edit: Much more overlap here: https://www.kodak.com/content/products-brochures/Film/VISION3_5219_7219_Technical-data.pdf But looks similar to digital?
  14. In the consumer market there's a discussion about how older sensors (the original Black Magic Pocket, the 5D3, etc.) had nicer color rendering than today's cameras. I've anecdotally noticed that the F3 had nicer color than the F5/5 and C300 than the C300 Mk2 but I figured it was just growing pains going from 2K to 4K and in increasing dynamic range, etc. as I think they advertised wider color gamuts from the sensors. Was there a change in design philosophy re: CFAs? I still prefer the look of some of those older cameras. But I also REALLY like the image from the Venice, and even the Varicam35, for instance. Are different cameras quite different today? I have noticed the A7S3 has redder skin tones than the Venice, so I imagine different dyes? Black Magic seems to use Sony sensors with some built-to-order tweaks in their new Pocket Cameras, and even those have very nice looking color to me. Do they just profile the sensors better or is there a difference in CFA between the P6K and XT3?
×
×
  • Create New...