Jump to content

M Joel W

Basic Member
  • Posts

    729
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by M Joel W

  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?
  15. I don't remember that but burying a focus pull in a camera move often works well. I usually try to not ascribe too much intent to what might be happy accidents, but I think the breathing in these shots was likely intentional given the availability of Signature Primes, Yedlin's technical acumen and how easy it would be to remove in post. I feel like there are certain directors who have a more "extroverted" approach and want their presence to be seen. Others would rather control the audience behind the scenes (Fincher) or guide them without getting in the way (Spielberg). Zooms are a more authorial move that someone who tries to guide the story more subconsciously like Spielberg or Fincher would be likelier to bury in a pan or tilt or dolly move like you mention. (I think it was Kaminski who had to push Spielberg to use zooms in Munich and I think Spielberg doesn't even like anamorphic before Bridge of Spies because the distortions in the glass create more of a presidio arch or distracting style; I think he wants immediacy and transparency despite Kaminski's heavy use of lens filtration.) Kubrick and Tarantino will use zooms unapologetically on the other hand. I'm definitely over-thinking this but I bet Yedlin and Johnson were aware of this kind of thing. I think they like the little "zoom" (which is all lens breathing is) or they would have staged these shots differently or painted it out in post. I like it, but it's just me. If it's not for you, go with Signature Primes.
  16. I like the lens breathing in those clips. The slight zoom with the focus pull draws attention to what you're meant to be looking at.
  17. This is really cool, really well done. I think I agree with Phil that the Helios lenses have the look of the positive diopters. And I suppose the trioplan lenses have the bubble look of the negative diopters. But where would we say vintage "speed" lenses like Speed Panchros, Baltars, Cine-Xenons, Zeiss standard speeds, Lomo standard speeds, etc. etc. all fit into the equation? I wonder if third parties are going to start making similar products for consumers, for instance for Nikon to E mount....
  18. There's a lot of information here: https://www.pacificrimcamera.com If I remember correctly, that lens was designed to cover Academy but not S35. Its image circle is smaller than the 28mm standard speed or 25mm S2/S3, which are retro focus while the Schneider is a planar design? Anyway I think it will cover the film but might not cover look around room in the viewfinder. (I have not used a 35IIC.) The 25mm f1.4 is for 16mm however.
  19. It's looking like more of a rental item for me for now but I didn't realize a solution like that existed with the focus control on the handgrip, that is really cool. But if I had more money I'd be tempted to buy it now. Is just not using a follow focus and pulling off the barrel an option for working as a one man band? Or I imagine if I was pulling focus myself off the MFF-1 and bought hand grips I'd want to position them closer to where the follow focus already is for balance? So essentially a hand grip right below the lens on the left side so it's near to the follow focus on the right and my hands are positioned more symmetrically than if I had a hand grip way out front? My camera is very light on the front and more rear-heavy than most as I have a small matte box and very lightweight lenses. Thanks again – I work in another department, as I mentioned, so the actual logistics are lost on me. Edit: this is a little crazy, but would something like this work if I have my other hand on the follow focus? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369375-REG/camvate_c1615_15mm_rod_clamp_handle.html (I doubt I'd get that, but the principle of having something roughy symmetrical.) I'd rent more support gear for a larger shoot. I remember the old conventional wisdom with handholding a still camera is to keep your arms near your body so I don't understand why in the photo I posted the hand grips are so far out except that they're using a front-heavy rig? I know this is a bit ridiculous for me to discuss. Probably going to end up with something similar to the Tilta rig eventually, whether renting or buying.
  20. Thanks, that's really helpful. Is using a follow focus like an MFF-1 without an AC (and just using one handlebar) a really terrible idea? Is there any way to make that ergonomic in the interim while I save up for something better?
  21. What would cause you to adjust your handle bars and how? Lens changes, changes to what angle you're pointing the camera at? Two of the Spider Grip set ups are around $600, which isn't much more than Tilta. Is there a particular model you'd recommend for an Alexa Plus (again, small lenses like standard speeds and just an MFF-1 and Gemini recorder). Right now I have an MFF-1 (that I like, but it gets really cramped) and I've been using my right hand to focus with it and left hand to stabilize. Is this remotely tenable? Is there a way to make it tenable? Or is shooting with an Alexa without an AC completely crazy?
  22. Thanks! I don't have their wireless follow focus but I'm curious about it now. Does it record focus distance data? That's a workflow I've been interested in for vfx purposes. The Tilta rosette-only option is $280, it's about $100-$150 for SmallRig. If I'm using rosettes would the length that the arms extend be a factor because the rosettes are already backing the position of the grips up? They extend 8" on the Tilta, 10" on the SmallRig. When shooting handheld, I'm mostly using small lenses (standard speeds, etc.) with a small 4x4 matte box so it's not a front-heavy set up, if that matters. Thanks again.
  23. Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. Rosettes are easier for me for the time being. I have the chintziest most DIY Alexa set up there is. Would using the SmallRig equivalent (or Tilta, somewhere in-between?) for handgrips and rosettes be a huge mistake if longevity is not my primary concern and I don't plan to rent out my camera?
  24. Another photo: https://www.abelcine.com/uploaded/articlemodel/Da/Day-10-214-XL1-e1451415847119.jpg Looks like I want something much longer so I can attach to the rosettes on the body. Does anyone use the rosettes on the camera body or are most people using grips on the 15mm rods? Why or why not? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...