Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Posts

    639
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M Joel W

  1. Yes, with mixed results. If I remember correct I tried 49.5X0.5mm by accident and forced it in, then stripped the treads and switched to 49.5X0.75mm and it worked better but also wasn't quite perfect. It didn't screw in all the way. However (I just needed a hood I could use with a matte box) it worked for me.
  2. Crazy question maybe, but could I pay a lab to develop in caffenol? I want the home made look without all the effort. (Or actually I'm just afraid I'd screw it up.) Also – as well as the added grain, there's a feeling of more macro-contrast, almost like applying unsharp mask in photoshop? Or is that an illusion?
  3. Can you develop 7222 in caffenol? Based on your description 7222 sounds like the better stock for me to use regardless. Thanks.
  4. Thanks, Robert. I want a lot of texture/grain, to feel that the image is composed of grain without losing tonality and having it feel thin. 7266 I worry might have that look? I want something similar to Death to the Tin Man, Bait, Following, etc.
  5. Newbie question, but how do these stocks compare in terms of look?
  6. Those sure look like Mk2 to me. Check to make the mechanics are good, I hear they can wear down with such heavy use (because they have been such popular lenses!). Fwiw I own a set of Mk1 standard speeds and they look NOTHING like that.
  7. Mk1 are tiny and Arri standard mount with 49mm or 47mm fronts. Mk2 look like "normal" cinema lenses: https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.squarespace-cdn.com%2Fcontent%2Fv1%2F59cc443df43b551e79fcd3bb%2F1507153265250-87DUZTSSN8E140BUTIA3%2Farri_zeiss_standard_speed_six_lens_set_2.png%3Fformat%3D2500w&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heindlcinema.com%2Frental%2Fzeiss-standard-speeds&tbnid=yeVbcOiGZ8Qc1M&vet=12ahUKEwj49dDPz7X4AhXaO80KHXe2BZgQMygCegUIARChAw..i&docid=8y2ecgEpsLPdxM&w=600&h=600&q=standard speeds zeiss&client=safari&ved=2ahUKEwj49dDPz7X4AhXaO80KHXe2BZgQMygCegUIARChAw
  8. Thanks. Should I look into the Laowa probe? I wonder if you can combine that with a teleconverter. One nice thing about the hybrid cameras like the S1 is you have so much resolution you can really crop in. Not sure if the probe covers FF but if it does that gives you the equivalent of 16mm I believe in S35.
  9. Thanks so much! I might already own both texts and have them somewhere. And if I don't – I probably should.
  10. I'm curious about dabbling in miniature photography for personal work. I somehow have the impression you need to adjust your frame rate and either focal length or t stop to account for the scale models but really don't know the details.... Can someone provide me with a link to an industry standard text on this? Thanks everyone. Separately, would it be better to shoot on a cinema camera like an ARRI ALEXA for this kind of work or a hybrid camera like the S1H, which offers 6K resolution and better low light and lens selection.
  11. The Witch for instance used the look around room to frame for 1.66:1 and some other indie movies have alternate aspect ratios, too. However, the main intent of the 4:3 license is to shoot anamorphic (4 perf frame resulting in a 2.66:1 image you can then crop to 2.4:1). I believe the upgrade David is referring to also requires a hardware upgrade. I strongly suspect even the 16:9 Alexas would be 4:3 capable and are basically crippled.
  12. The Schneider 138mm achromatic diopter set is all I can think of that fits that bill but it's quite expensive. In my experience regular macro lenses of decent quality don't degrade the image that badly. They might just add a bit of CA. But this is all above my pay grade, like well above it. I just researched this a bit when I bought a set of Series 9 Schneider diopters I later sold.
  13. I tried to buy a set of these: https://www.sharegrid.com/losangeles/l/200767-custom-schneider-138mm-achromatic-2pc-diopter-set But got them in series 9 instead of 138 by accident. But I actually had a set of four achromatic diopters and they were incredibly heavy and thick compared with my close up lenses of lower quality. Lindsey Optics has close up lenses too but I also doubt they're achromatic. I think Leica or Zeiss have expensive and heavy/thick models. What are you using these for? Which lens? There might be models with smaller diameters that serve you better. Or it might not be necessary. I have cheap 95mm (non-achromatic) diopters for my square front lomo, but that lens isn't exactly optically pristine to start with. Century has some with smaller front threads. What lens do you want to use these for?
  14. At that size (and price) I strongly doubt they're achromatic. They would be a lot thicker and more expensive if they were. I think.
  15. Apparently Chris Probst has been using the 35mm AF f1.4 Minolta lens as a substitute for the 35mm K35. But what substitute is there for the 18mm? I was looking at the Canon Scoopic attachment but it requires focusing into Macro mode I suspect past the 24mm FD L's close focus. I only need S35 coverage.
  16. I don't need aperture control. I plan to shoot all these lenses wide open and use NDs. (Until I can get them rehoused.) Edit: okay maybe when a question gets this esoteric it's time to pay someone to rehouse. But that would be many years down the road so I would like to find a solution in the interim. 3D printing would be fine.
  17. I'm probably the only person in the world looking for this. But until I can afford to have them rehoused, I want to put my 35mm f1.4 Minolta AF lens on my Alexa with an FD mount so I can use it with my FD L lenses.
  18. I would try more stuff before you buy it. Fwiw I think the FX6 looks great but have never worked with it. Varicam35 has a beautiful image but slight magenta cast to skin tones (slight might be generous) that isn't always flattering but otherwise I think it's amazing. I really like the F3's image but the internal codec is garbage, love the F35's image, personally have had really bad experiences with the F5 and F55 though they improved them after launch. Imo there is no easy way to know exactly what you need because if there were one right answer here everyone would own that. But imo – for the money a used EVA1 is the best thing going and the FX6 plus Sony GMs is the best thing going probably a step up (I haven't used them, just love how they look). And the Alexa Mini LF is the best camera on the market if money's no issue or you want to rent something.
  19. A lot of this is using huge soft sources, make up, post beauty work, etc. Beyond my pay grade but presumably book lights, breises, etc. For still photography this is easier since strobes are a lot cheaper than hot lights, and they melt hot boxes a lot slower too. Generally tungsten stocks are more flattering on skin tones, a bit more toward green (like the Alexa imo) whereas daylight stocks might go a bit more toward magenta on skin, which is less flattering particularly on caucasians imo. I think underexposing or overexposing depends on what look you want. For film I like how overexposed tungsten stocks look printed down but there is a lot of debate even here whether you want to use an 85 filter or not. I guess for me I'd shoot 200T with an 85B, overexpose just a bit, and blast the place full of soft light. I am probably the last person to ask lol but figured I would chime in anyway because I can't help myself.
  20. How much did it go for? I was in the market for a 416 for a while and almost bought one.
  21. Looking to adapt some cheap lenses (specifically a 90mm Macro probably) to PL mount. Is this possible? Maybe with an M42 adapter intermediary? Doesn't need to be great mechanically, it would be for macro photography specifically. Open to M42 too so long as it can convert to PL.
  22. The P6K Pro looks like a great option but I have yet to use one. With the highlight recovery (which is disabled on ArriRAW) the dynamic range is nearly Alexa-level. The original P6K has a great image but some weird quirks with infrared pollution (and relatively minor issues with aliasing) – the Pro should fix the IR pollution issues with the built-in NDs. That looks like a great choice to me. Absolutely not right for my workflows but it looks like a great choice and I often mistake P6K footage for Alexa footage (except P6K footage is sharper).
  23. Yeah, I agree with Tyler. Friends of mine and friends of friends have been signed to big ad companies based on spec work. Vimeo has been a good platform even when festivals aren't. You have to get started somewhere. If you want to break out from the path that you're on (even for an AC looking to be a DP for instance), the easiest way to do something new is often to do that for yourself. That aside, the image quality from a $1000 kit now is remarkably close to the image quality from a higher end one. The $4000 Alexa's image isn't THAT MUCH different from a $1400 P4K, but kitting out the P4K is gonna cost 10X less. On top of that, the really expensive short films I've seen produced rarely do better than the somewhat more affordable ones. I can see dropping money on spec work, but dropping $14k before you have any experience seems foolish to me. I'd go with a $3k or $4k kit to start with. And maybe to end on. I have a lot of high end gear, but kind of regret buying any of it sometimes.
  24. I don't really rig it up but if I were using it on a shoot I'd rent more AKS. Reflectors and some inexpensive Arri fresnels (and daylight balanced LEDs) is a nice kit. Lots of good lenses available. I like old Nikkors. You need an ND filter set (or variable ND) of course. All this gear talk is funny because there is so much of it online, but at the high end no one cares as much. The most successful directors and even DPs will say "I dunno, I think it was K35s?" "Panavision Super Speeds, but because the PVintage wasn't available" etc. I used to think that was kind of flippant of them but it really doesn't matter as much as we think it does. It's a bit like asking a chef what brand of food he uses – it doesn't matter much to the chef so long as it's good enough, but we sometimes feel like using it will turn us into a chef? On the other hand the stuff I work on professionally is 95% Alexa and I have found myself really fond of certain lenses, unsurprisingly including the Cooke S2/S3s and Canon K35s. I wish I had a set of S2/S3s. The Primos, C series, etc. are my favorites too. The F35 has a GREAT image fwiw. In some ways I prefer it to the Alexa. Kinetals only cover S16, and the 9mm only covers 16mm. So that would be okay for the crop mode in the P4K but not for an S1. And that might be a good option too? But probably not since those are old lenses and might need service or repair. The FD lenses are really not bad at all (I prefer them to Nikkors usually) but they are massively overpriced right now and they can have mechanical issues. I'm the DIY type but I think it's worth shadowing someone or getting on a bigger set before dropping $14k. Personally I wish I had an Amira and Cooke S2/S3s. I have an Alexa and Schneider vintage lenses instead. They're fine but the Cooke Speed Panchros are imo where it's at. I would also be too afraid to take them on a shoot due to their value so maybe the Schneiders are okay. 😕 Cooke doesn't automatically equate to magic btw, I don't like their anamorphic lenses personally and the s5i seems clinical to me. I like the S4i and S2/S3, 20-60mm t3.1 zoom, 10-30mm t1.5 zoom, and the new S8is I think look nice to me too. Vimeo is great because you can look up gear and see how it looks, but even then you need to train your eye a bit because you're STILL looking more at the cooking than the ingredients to extend the metaphor. You could see something with a color grade you like and think "oh I like that lens" and it's not that lens at all, or just a composition that's nice, etc. The video you posted looked great but there it's from a talented team who has a history of nice looking work. I'd start REALLY small with a little Arri kit and an S5 (they're like $1500 now) and some Nikkors and ND filters. Then try to get jobs on bigger and bigger sets. And eventually see where things meet the middle. Or hire a crew. I'm trying to do that more myself.
  25. In my day 800 ISO wasn't considered slow. 😞 Fwiw I own an old Alexa because I work in post and mostly shoot for a hobby. I'd rather be bogged down on set a bit for a few days than have to relearn all my workflows. I like the image from the newer Reds, but it's too much work to adapt to the workflow. I do disagree with Greg a bit in that an Alexa Classic (the Plus is heavier but not much) and a battery and lens isn't insanely heavy. It's only when you rig it out with a large zoom and AKS that it gets truly unwieldy. That said, I'd prefer an Amira or Mini ergonomically. And I kind of feel like no one (except a rental house or thriving business) needs to own an Alexa of any sort. For my paid work, even in post, I almost always shoot with an S1 6K HEVC and use a plug in to convert V Log to Log C. It's not as good, but it's awfully close. I used to own an EVA1. That was the happy medium. The image from that camera is beautiful and it's very small.
×
×
  • Create New...