M Joel W

I'm surprised the GH5s is better in low light, the 2500 ISO on the EVA1 is not bad and the camera has a big sensor. (It's also not great.) I would try them out and compare, it might be closer than you think or even in the EVA1's favor. From what I understand V Log and V Log Lite look pretty similar in terms of color, but the EVA1 has two stops more highlight dynamic range in the highlights. So I'd look to use the EVA1 for the wides where you might have more contrast and then the GH5S for the close ups. Or just be cognizant of the two stops less dynamic range. I've been working with the S1 and EVA1 and with V Log the image is quite similar. Colors are a bit different and the look is a bit different but I think they'd intercut well enough with minimal adjustments in color... The S1 suffers from aliasing in full frame mode with some fabrics, though, but it looks better in S35 mode to me. Also at 4000 ISO it's super clean! Another good option for a B cam and a cheap rental.

Looks like it was shot on film. The first candle shot is composited digitally. The candle reflections don't fade out and the halation around the wicks doesn't change as the candles fade out. Some sequences are step printed. Probe lens in the second candle shot and the last shot looks like a composite of some sort also shot with a probe. Prisms/glass bowls in front of the lens but I can't figure out what he's using for the water/ripple effect.

David, how did you meter for the sunset?

I don't see a big difference but the 21mm cooke has more barrel distortion and pulls the center of the frame forward. A lot of this territory has been covered by Rudolph Arnheim and Andre Bazin. My take on it is do whatever works for you. It would be dishonest to do anything else.

This thread is in danger of becoming my personal journal now I fear, but the 49mm step up ring is a bit too small and 50mm is too big, won't fit. I asked Raf at RafCamera what the threads are and he did not know. However, he sells two 49.5mm step up rings, which I did not know existed until now: https://rafcamera.com/adapter-m49-5x0-5-to-m55x0-75 https://rafcamera.com/adapter-m49-5x0-75-to-m55x0-75 It looks like the 49.5mm x 0.75 is the winner. I believe the 10mm f1.8 Cinegon he mentions shares the same front filter size and threads.

I mean fall off rather than mechanical vignetting btw. Mechanical vignetting I think is ugly, I can understand why you wouldn't want that. Also I meant the effect focal length feels longer in the center with a fisheye lens or with barrel distortion. Anyway I think its all subjective… I still can’t imagine someone wanting pincushion distortion.

I think the maze sequence was shot with a 9.8mm Tegea, remarkably rectilinear but with a lot of corner softness and CA, but the hallway seems likelier to be the 14.5mm Angenieux to me. To me, chromatic aberration is the cardinal sin of lens design whereas vignetting, if anything, is desirable. But I think it's the Super Baltars that have some CA and while I've never used them I think they look good, so I suppose it has its place. To play devil's advocate, if you look through Renaissance paintings, including those likely using cameras obscura, not only is there no barrel distortion, there's no perspective distortion, either. Straight lines remain straight, as if photographed with a tilt/shift lens. (Well, to some extent they arguably were...) During my too-brief tenure with a large format camera, I corrected for perspective distortion in landscapes with shift rather than by panning up. So trees, etc. would have straight lines (assuming they were in the first place) and for this kind of photography I think distortion is generally not desirable. I also shot at deep focus, I suppose there were no painters who considered depth of field, either... (and used apochromatic lenses that I probably should have held onto given their recent increase in value). On the other hand, I generally prefer slight barrel distortion (and loathe pincushion distortion). I think there's a Shane Hurlbut video where he prefers the slight barrel distortion in S4s over the straight lines in Rokinons, and I agree. The eye is drawn to the center of the image if it's just a bit larger than the rest of the frame. And arguably the effective focal length in the center is less so faces are not only more prominent, but suffer less from wide angle perspective distortion, too... at least if they're toward the center of the frame... But I can't think of an instance where second order distortion or pincushion distortion is desirable, so as much as I want to dismiss blanket statements about distortion being undesirable, I have my own firm biases.

I don't know what I'm talking about but Gall's Law always seems to hold true. Keep it simple. I find this book to be really excellent: https://www.amazon.com/Bare-Bones-Camera-Course-Video/dp/1621535266/ref=pd_lpo_14_t_0/132-4337164-9781051?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1621535266&pd_rd_r=e2224cc1-5810-497e-9978-944fbd1304b0&pd_rd_w=jUief&pd_rd_wg=DYEMT&pf_rd_p=7b36d496-f366-4631-94d3-61b87b52511b&pf_rd_r=YDE4WW0P76DJMSZQXBQE&psc=1&refRID=YDE4WW0P76DJMSZQXBQE Limitations force choices. Choices define your voice. David Lynch used to talk about how it was easier to choose when you have no budget than when you have a big one. I look at the really early films from my friends who've had success and they're shot on a dvx100 or something and they always have more character to them than the later stuff does. (If they're talented, that is, if not, the early stuff is not as good imo.) Don't focus on what everyone else has, but what you have that no one else does. Generally David Lynch's advice seems to resonate most with me, but full disclosure–I own too much gear and am not very successful. One mistake I'll make is assuming there are restrictions where there aren't, though. I wanted to use dSLRs instead of shooting on film because it allowed me to use a Ronin or something and pretend I had a steadicam? But that's just another choice. So I guess be open to anything but keep it simple. It used to be so easy for me to choose but lately it's not been so easy.

I'm looking to shoot something on an Alexa XT with Arri standard mount and OCT18 mount lenses. C7 adapters and Raf camera both manufacture adapters for these mounts to convert them to PL: https://rafcamera.com/adapter-oct-18-to-arri-pl https://c7adapters.com/en/product/oct-18_-_pl_mount/84 Both mention they only work on older Alexas. The Mini, Amira, etc. don't work with them. Neither does the XT. But the XT mount looks to be the same mount as the EV and Plus, which is why I'm confused. I haven't used an XT before, but it seems you can swap mounts with it the same as EV or Plus mounts. But the diagram in the XT manual shows it's only 12mm deep and the PL mount needs to be 19mm deep to fit those OCT18 adapters. This likely was a redesign having something to do with the internal ND system, but I don't think that's the issue. I am looking at the aftermarket Leitax and C7 PL mounts for the XT, which should accommodate the adapters, but this feels really convoluted. I think I'm missing something. What's the easiest way to use these lenses on an Alexa XT?

Wow. What camera are you using? For some reason I've noticed certain cameras (Alexa in particular, but my old C100 was surprisingly good, too) are kinder about CA than others. Also it's a good point that if you're using macro filters those could be the problem and not the lens... I found the 18-35mm Sigma Art to be really clean, but of course that's a $500 still lens and an easier impulse buy than the PL equivalent, and also not imo a great focal length if you are shooting macros. Likewise the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 II IS seemed super clean to me, I don't know if it's technically apochromatic but it feels like it has next to no CA. I think Canon sells diopters specifically for it, not sure if they're good or not.

I was more curious about using it to get a "film look" than for keying, but Arri recommends it for vfx here: Beginning with ALEXA SUP 3.0 until SUP 7.0 ARRI offered a film style matrix that could be applied to the Log C output. The same transform was also available as a 3D-LUT for post-processing of Log C footage. The film style matrix makes the color characteristics of the Log C image similar to negative film scanned on an ARRISCAN. The matrix is most usefully applied when the data is previewed or converted with a print film emulation (PFE) . This is the common workflow in Digital Intermediate where the PFE is applied as a 3DLUT in the display path. The film-matrix can in some situations achieve a bigger color separation and therefore make the keying of some shots easier. Due to new developments in color grading and digital workflow our film style matrix has been discontinued. https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/frequently-asked-questions/visual-effects-faq#accordion-44000

Hi David, can you explain in more detail? Are the log c files themselves either film matrix or standard matrix? They are different variants of log c? This is what I read from the white paper, I’m not clear what it means: "Also a new feature in SUP 3 .0 is a film style matrix that can be applied to the Log C output . The same transform is also available as a 3DLUT for post-processing of Log C footage ." https://www.samys.com/images/pdf/ALEXA-Color-Processing-White-Paper.pdf In the white paper example, the colors look very close to the film scan they compare it with. I took this to mean there was an alternate rec709 transform LUT that more closely emulates color negative film scans.

Hi, I remember reading that Arri distributed a LUT designed to emulate color negative film, but later discontinued it. They advertised this LUT as advantageous for chroma keying. Does anyone have it? Can you send it to me? Is it something I can apply to log footage to get more of a "color negative" feel. Thanks in advance to anyone who has it.

Interesting discussion. I have found standard speeds and S2/S3 Cookes pretty good in this regard, though maybe that's just me. And the 24mm standard speed wasn't great. There might be a broader discussion about lens design. Newer lenses for whatever reason appear to have more CA, excepting the Otus and Sigma maybe. I'm curious why this is. https://www.lenstip.com/117.5-article-50_years_of_Nikon_F-mount_–_Nikkor-S_5_cm_f_2_vs._Nikkor_AF_50_mm_f_1.8D_Chromatic_aberration.html Looks like the SLR Magic APOs are nice btw. https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?163366-SLR-Magic-APO-HyperPrime-mini-review They're not for PL mount, but I think Voigtlander makes apochromatic lenses for M mount and E mount.

I really like the Canon C100! Well, the EVF is bad but I like everything else about it. Small, nice color, sharp 1080p image, small file sizes, built in NDs. There is a lot to like about that camera. I use a slight diffusion filter on it like digital diffusion fx or a light classic soft.

Thanks, Philip. I'm deciding between a set of lenses to keep (these and old standard speeds–or both) and I might just go with the standard speeds. Both are really beautiful sets.

Thanks for the information. That makes a lot of sense. I saw a Zeiss that was 47mm and a Canon than was 48mm from around then so was hoping it was something standard. Maybe I will try a 50mm ring out of curiosity. It is odd since the 75mm and 18mm are standard sizes and contemporaneous. And visually every other Isco or Schneider lens I have tried from that era is a 49mm thread, as are most Zeiss lenses.

Hi everyone, another one of these weird questions from me. I'm looking for step up rings for vintage Schneider Cine-Xenon lenses. So far, the 75mm f2 seems to have 40.5mm front threads I think, and I have successfully gotten a step up ring for that. I'm looking to step up to 82mm, and the 18mm Cinegon seems to already be 82mm. But for the 28mm, 35mm, and 50mm I have tried I cannot figure out what filter threads to use. They look like 49mm and that's consistent with other lenses from that era, but the 49mm step up rings are a bit loose. Is it some other weird Series filter (series 6.5?) or is it 50mm? I have seen 50mm step up rings but they're rare. I want to use screw on NDs. I appreciate any help. Thanks.

Thanks, Bruce. I read a bit more and it sounds like optical design I believe is the same between Mk1 and Mk2, but the housings cause a bit more vignetting with Mk1, so perhaps they are not appropriate for 3.2k Alexa after all.

Looks like Mk2 covers 3.2k Alexa: Though corners are soft on the 16mm. Do the Mk1s cover? From what I have seen the 16mm does not quite and absolutely does not if you use a filter or step up ring.

Isn't the 2/16 Cine-Xenon newer than the 1.9/16mm? What about the 16mm f2 Cinegon? I like the rendering of the Cine-Xenons (more than the Cinegon) but is there a wide lens for S16 to complete the set? The Arriflex 10mm Cinegon doesn't cover S16, correct? Have you used the 16-44mm f0.95 Angenieux btw? Such an interesting looking lens but I can't imagine it's sharp wide open. Do you know if the 17.5-50mm Angenieux with the retro adapter covers S16. Bad lenses on digital was cool before S16 was cool maybe now bad lenses on S16 is extra cool.

When you write film theory what are you referring to? Bordwell and Thompson? Bazin? How familiar is a general audience with terms like shot/reverse shot?

Full frame is roughly the same size as 135 film, so virtually any still lenses will work if you have a camera with the appropriate mount. Unless you want cinema mechanics, in which case you might want something rehoused or bespoke. Here's a great recent comparison: https://www.sharegrid.com/learn/lens-sets Contax is also really popular. The 35mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.4 Contax might share similar designs with Super Speeds, and the earlier serial numbers almost certainly share the same coatings. I have a few older Contax lenses and they're nice. On the high end, there's Arri DNA, which is similar to Blackwing7. But to me it feels a bit like spending 100X on a posh version of something like this: https://ironglassadapters.com/lens/ What camera are you using? Are you looking to buy or to rent? EF mount okay or strictly PL? Do you need cinema mechanics? K35s seem to be the popular thing lately and are about as fast as and contemporaneous with Super Speeds but the cost is obscene. If you want to buy something, you could do worse than Contax. Same coatings as Super Speeds, I suspect, and there are most useful focal lengths available either in f1.4 or f2.

I have a 16mm f2 Cinegon and I believe it covers S16. It's in Arri standard mount, and has a focusing mount, and there are adapters to convert it to PL or Aaton mount. However, the rear element extends back further with this lens than I've ever seen with any other. Like, almost absurdly far. I assume it was designed for an Arri 16 S, but I can't imagine it wouldn't hit the mirror. How can I tell if this lens is safe to use on a given reflex camera?

I found it!