M Joel W

This is so cool, thanks. I had no idea this existed. What's the widest lens available for S35? Is this it? I believe Century rehoused the Tegea with no other changes and by the look of things the adapter (0.7x presumably) this is bespoke for their rehousing? Or would it work with a regular Tegea? In my experience the Tegea is a dreadful performer wide open, almost like it has a Classic Soft filter on it, and with blue/yellow axial chromatic aberration similar to a Super Baltar. However it keeps lines remarkably straight for an ultra wide angle lens. This looks like a really fun lens. And of course it's not just the depth of field of an 6.8mm lens but the field of view too.

Zeiss S16 lenses are sold.

35mm FL and 35mm Cine-Xenon are sold. Zeiss super speed S16 lenses are on hold. Scoop up the FD 135mm f2.0 and Rolleis before I change my mind.

Sorry to revive a dead thread but have you compared 2.8K ARRIRAW with 2K ProRes4444? I've been working a lot recently with 2k, 3.2k, and 4k (UHD) and 4K+ LF open gate footage. And the difference in sharpness is less than I'd expect although LF footage is clearly sharper. But I haven't had the chance to compare side-by-side (of the same scene, that is) directly. Asking myself if the huge amount of effort that would go into shooting ARRIRAW is worth it. My preference is for a "softer" image but I also tend to use soft lenses (would shoot with standard speeds, cine-xenons, K35s, Lomo standard speed or LOMO anamorphic even though Rokinons look nice on Alexa to me too).

You can stack the cameras on top of each other somehow with a crazy rig. Or find a light that flickers at a certain hz and count the bands from it is what I think some places do.

+1 on post grain overlays being less colorful and that being the apparent subjective preference....

That's a good question. I don't have that background at all. I assume the grain (both size and amount) is governed by individual channel brightness, RGB to correlate with each layer. I think this isn't available for purchase anymore, but I would LOVE to get my hands on it and the author could probably answer any questions better than us here: https://www.matthiasstoopman.com/color-science From what I recall, both Nuke and After Effects have rather primitive grain emulations that work well for composited elements and I think Cinegrain or similar has been used on major features. Or maybe they're more complex than I realize. But they look good. Stock grain elements I do find very monochromatic. Years back I experimented with applying stock grain per-channel vs as a standard overlay. Mixed results.... That any sane person (average audience member) would probably not scrutinize as much as I did! What David says about film being composed of grain is a good point too. Less of an issue on color film scanned at 2K. But I shot some 3200 ISO black and white film and it has the feel of a dithered monochrome image. So might high speed S16 4K scans I imagine. I imagine that would be a difficult emulation to pull off.

It's measurably different using an algorithm that emulates grain vs using cinegrain – but this is a subjective medium. So to an extent it's futile getting mired in technical debates. If it feels right to you, that is what you are trying to convey to the audience. I am fairly confident there are bigger shows using both approaches to grain emulation. (I'd go algorithmic.)

I’m downsizing and selling some gear I have realized I likely won’t have the chance to use. I’m trying to make back what I paid, not make any more money. Reasonable offers will be considered. Schneider Cine-Xenon 35mm f2.0 in Arri Standard mount (pending sale): In very good condition. Recently serviced. The tab to slide between hard stops and smooth aperture ring is missing. Otherwise works great. Lovely vintage look with good center sharpness. But with swirly bokeh and curvature of field. I also have the 28mm and 40mm focal lengths and find this redundant. $375 plus shipping. https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ssyu1hp1z7njcn/IMG_1489.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/8i0f5gkhz70tuos/IMG_1491.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/dbr7my5nawr1pdq/IMG_1492.jpg?dl=0 35mm Canon f3.5 FL Converted to PL Mount: I bought this from a forum member. Beautiful tiny lens in great shape with a nice conversion. Mounts on Alexa despite wide mount. The FL lenses have golden coatings similar to Kowa Cine-Prominars. Very compact. Nice lens. https://www.dropbox.com/s/7cg5psxxgq3yf13/IMG_1499.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/acuytg4lz6rayyd/IMG_1500.jpg?dl=0 $350 plus shipping. 25mm t1.3 Mk1 Zeiss Super Speed for S16 w/ PL Mount Conversion: In very good shape. Semi-permanent PL mount conversion. (I can’t figure out how to remove it by hand but a lens tech should be able to.) Mechanics are good, optics are good. 80mm front. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ud706ii9bh47276/IMG_1501.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/9v124v88k08bzza/IMG_1502.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/5b5qhzwx5b86377/IMG_1504.jpg?dl=0 $1400 plus shipping. 12mm t1.3 Mk1 Zeiss Super Speed for S16 in AB Mount: I bought this from a forum member. In good shape optically and mechanically. I have two and don’t need this one. This is by far the nicer copy of the two I own. Easy to adapt to PL mount. 80mm front. https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7ddkpdk25fgjnx/IMG_1505.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/o6rf16bicaajf3n/IMG_1509.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tqe3b48ai6t5hel/IMG_1510.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/0u8ouad25pwp4oj/IMG_1511.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ny77ufe6ulgc1my/IMG_1512.jpg?dl=0 $1200 plus shipping. 135mm f2.0 FD in “user” condition: Sold this on eBay and had it returned. Mechanically it is good. But there are scratches on the paint and some deep scratches on the front element. However I did not find they had an effect on the image. YMMV. I thought there was no haze but I might see a hint of mild haze under the front element when it is hit at a certain angle, but I see something similar in virtually every FD lens I’ve used. If there’s internal dust it doesn’t show up in the bokeh. I found the optical performance good and very pretty. YMMV. https://www.dropbox.com/s/dd61b9i8iocrkf0/IMG_1513.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/wdhr7zg9z6zf5zd/IMG_1516.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/7gq2bwilpbu629i/IMG_1517.jpg?dl=0 $350 plus shipping. 25mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 85mm f2.8, 135mm f4 Rollei Zeiss Lenses QBM Mount Real German Zeiss with great mix of performance and character. Similar to Contax and standard speeds optically (I’ve owned all three and compared them side-by-side), but with matching single coatings similar to Mk1 standard speeds and more of a consistent look imo than Contax. I love this set of lenses but own too many. Converts to EF mount nicely (I can include adapters). Nice condition. Focus is a bit stiff with all of these. Not too bad but not as smooth as my old Nikons or FD lenses. https://www.dropbox.com/s/6qfwxaj3z1ozo1g/IMG_1522.jpg?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/ghxf6rhpmikd1cm/IMG_1523.jpg?dl=0 $900 plus shipping. (I’ll throw in some EF mount adapters.) I also have (but have yet to photograph): Glidecam Tru Horizon $180 plus shipping excellent used condition Miller Compass 20 $700 plus shipping (recently serviced) Panasonic EVA1 kit $2700 plus shipping excellent used condition with two batteries missing monitor hood. Can add two V90 cards for another $100

In Arri standard mount, 10mm f1.8 does not, but in C mount it might? In Arri standard mount, 16mm f2.0 Cine-Xenon does not? But gets close? 16mm f2.0 cinegon I think does? Not sure about f1.4 cinegon (I'd guess it does) or C mount lenses. 25mm cine-xenon does. The 35mm format lenses (18mm f1.8 Cinegon, 28mm Cine-Xenon and up) do but 28mm 2.8 Cine-Xenon I think vignettes a bit on S35, but I still love it. (I think all the recent Cooke S3/S2s cover not just S35 but 3.2k Alexa!) If you want to buy a 35mm f2.0 Cine-Xenon pm me!

As others mentioned, the feel will be smoother and the resolution drop and grain grow more with post zooms. I also notice the depth of field getting shallower or feeling shallower with optical zooms vs post zooms. I think it's a pretty subjective choice what you can get away with if that's what you're wondering. If you're looking for tell-tell signs, smoothness, increasing grain size, and for me the depth of field not feeling shallower (or bokeh not being bigger perhaps is a more accurate way of putting this technically) is another sign on a long enough zoom. Sometimes you'll also get shifting distortion characteristics over the zoom range in an optical zoom.

Moving a camera closer changes the perspective of the image. In effect, it magnifies the foreground and background different amounts. Changing the focal length (zooming) has a different effect, it magnifies both equally. Zoom ins and push ins are not interchangeable. And this imo at least is a key part of a filmmaker's vocabulary. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think this is primary among the reasons David disagrees with you. Regardless, if you like the look of wide angle large format photography and can use it effectively, that matters more than any disagreements we have about field of view vs perspective. If it works for you, go for it. I really really liked the wide angle large format photography on the Revenant, for instance.

I think you're still mixing up field of view and camera position. If the camera is closer to the wall, the wall will appear sharper or easier to see detail in, but that's regardless of sensor/film back size. The wall is sharper to your eye when you walk up to it, that doesn't mean your eye magically grew in size or resolution. When you push in (change perspective), it effectively magnifies closer objects like that hypothetical wall in frame, while distant objects such as the sun will remain effectively the same size. If you zoom in (change focal lengths) that's another story and the size of everything changes equally. Zooming in and pushing in are not the same and I think this is why David disagrees with you. And so do I. If you want to see this difference between a zoom and dolly illustrated, look at the Vertigo zoom effect used in Vertigo and in Jaws. The "zolly" effect. Or just experiment with push ins vs zooms. Even if zooming in and pushing in were the same, and they're not, "sharper" is an aesthetic choice more often than not. Do you think Aronofsky shoots S16 because he can't afford S35 or doesn't know any better? Or because it's appropriate for the look of his films? So I think you're confusing perspective with field of view (confusing push ins with zoom ins) and also assuming we all prefer technical perfection over subjective aesthetic choices. So I disagree with you on two counts. But all the same, yes, I agree that the larger format, field of view equal, the sharper the image. If sharpness is your goal, and it's fine if it is, go for it.

Move in closer or zoom in closer? Field of view is a function of film back size and focal length – camera position is an independent variable from both and will alter perspective, not field of view. Ask yourself, what if the sun is in the background of your frame? Will moving the camera forward alter the size of the sun? Probably not much: only zooming in (changing the focal length) or altering the film back size will change the sun's size appreciably, unless you move in millions of miles.... That said, a large format camera at an equivalent field of view (longer focal length) will generally have a sharper image, but whether sharper is "better" is a question of aesthetic preference imo more than objective superiority. Technically, it's a simpler question – sharper (large format) is technically "better." Aesthetically, imo it's more complicated. My favorite DPs (Kaminski in particular) favor a softer look, my favorite digital cameras (Alexa) have a softer look than Red or Venice, my favorite lenses (Cooke, C Series, etc.) are softer than Master Primes or T Series. So for me sharper is not "better." But that's just me. I think you're conflating field of view with perspective and assuming everyone's preference is for technical perfection. Which might be rubbing people the wrong way. I don't even totally disagree – I like the large format cinematography in the Master and Lawrence of Arabia a lot. But that's also because I like the cinematography in both films in general. Format is the last piece of that equation. And I also like the cinematography in Black Swan and the Celebration for that matter and don't think a larger format would serve either film well....

I like to think of it like if you cut out a hole in a piece of paper the size of the film back and move it X mm from your eye, that will be your field of view for that size film back and focal length (X mm focal length).

That makes sense. I kind of assumed it had mostly to do with sensor color filters, whether there's a preference for color or sensitivity etc. I worked on one show that I think was F55 raw and was not wild about its image either, but did prefer it to the F5 if I recall correctly. I liked the F3 okay and read there were more development issues with the F5. Also preferred the original C300’s image to the C300 MK II in many respects. On the other hand, I was not a Red fan but the latest stuff from Red looks better to me. So I don't know if it's high end vs low end so much as I like what I like. Or it could have been how things were lit too. For sure I have considered that – an XC10 or hvx200 or something even. But I am basically purchasing a b camera for S16 and Alexa projects. For $1300 I don't think there's a lot of other options out there than the P4K anyway I guess. But I'm veering off topic. ?

Out of curiosity, what differentiates a high end sensor from a low end sensor? I've worked with Varicam, EVA1, and S1H footage and there is a difference with the Varicam having the best image/color imo, EVA1 being close, then S1H lacking something, but they're all good imo at their price points. Recently worked on my first Venice job and was surprised how much I liked the image given I didn't love the F5. It's surprising to me cameras from the same family have different color. So it must be the sensor? I'm looking for a small camera for personal use but it needs to be something I can intercut with or use to composite into S16 film projects and Alexa projects, log scans and Log C. Looking at the P4K right now but curious if you have any insight I lack for a very affordable camera but also one that needn't have the amenities of a Komodo or FX9. I'd be carrying around IRND filters, probably Tokina Solas.

I might be in the minority here, but I don't consider the Alexa to be a great owner/op camera. I might also eat my words and use one on my next project but people I know who own Alexas use a P6K or something instead when there's no crew to support it. Mind you, that's due to weight and battery life. The interface and post workflows are just about the easiest thing short of an iPhone. I've found them to be very reliable but repairs are very expensive unfortunately. ? Edit: I don't entirely agree with the above though but also don't entirely disagree. I have found the 4.6K to have a lot of issues with moire, IR pollution, etc. and it doesn't look as good or have the highlight dynamic range. The only thing with similar highlight detail to Alexa (other than film) I've seen is the P6K with braw highlight recovery enabled and the texture of it still feels more digital and color is very very good but not as good imo. To me the Alexa still has the best overall color, best "texture" to the image, least skew, best UI, etc. etc. and I think that's why it's still used on major productions. But without the crew to support it, is it worth it? It might or might not be. Actually curious what others have found shooting Alexa with no crew as I'm deciding between that and a P4K for an upcoming project. Amira is a little easier from what I have seen.

Maybe I phrased that poorly. The lens sets I have are S35, full frame, and S16. The 6K sensor lacks an S16 mode and has a narrower field of view with the others than the P4K with an appropriate speed booster. I meant 6K render times are slow. I might be totally off base on the red channel/film thing. I just toggled between a 4K S16 scan (presumably 7219) and some log Alexa footage and of course the Alexa footage is cleaner but the noise texture of the film is similar for each channel with the red channel being cleanest whereas the Alexa footage has a cleaner green channel and finer noise texture in green, too. What issues are there with P4K color specifically? I'm still leaning toward that. In theory to be used on its own and occasionally to mix with S16 and Alexa footage, so I want something where there are transforms to get into Log C. I find Alexa footage very green overall but also prefer Alexa skin tones to other digital cameras. But the Venice and P6K impress me too. I liked the OG C300's skin tones a lot for caucasian skin, less so for darker skin tones. Red Dragon I think has a fine look too.

Does the P4K really have worse color than the P6K? I'm very, very impressed by the P6K's image both technically and aesthetically but the sensor is a bit too small for my S35 and FF lenses and too big for my S16 lenses. To me a P4K (and a speed booster XL or regular depending on the lens set) seems more viable. Also 6K is too heavy for the post work I do, though of course I could downscale. What, if any, other cameras in this price bracket have excellent color? Is the P6K just the thing to get? I have a DP2 Merrill from Sigma, which has a Foveon (stacked) sensor. The tonality of the images is gorgeous and incredibly sharp and crisp. It's night and day compared with Bayer and there is no aliasing despite the lack of a low pass filter. But there are quirks with color and sensitivity, to be polite about it. But for certain landscapes the images are beautiful with the Foveon rather than Bayer sensor. However film is not really that sharp. Isn't the red layer softest? I always liked how skin looks with the Alexa (when it comes to digital cameras) despite the Alexa having relatively few red photo sites and I don't like the look of over-sharpened skin.

Not a colorist, but used to dabble. I think with rec709 grading there's a guideline that you don't want to go over 40% saturation – this might have been a holdover from analogue days but I've seen issues with colors looking funny with HDTV feeds via HDMI too. So if you're targeting a blu ray or Amazon release I think this is still a guideline. I forget – someone else might want to chime in. My suspicion is that this has more to do with how video and film handle saturation and grading to emulate a "film look" – video is more saturated in the highlights, film in the shadows. Some cameras (the Alexa in particular) emulate this aspect of film but the grade lets you do whatever. But if your final grade is desaturated it will never have "garish video hues."

Some have wet lubricants and other have dry lubricants and mixing two brands can result in the heads being gummed up when they get mixed together. Or maybe this is just marketing talk to keep you stuck with one brand, I don't know. I always tried to stick with one brand and if I did switch brands I'd run a headcleaning tape for a bit first. But those are abrasive so just use them very briefly.

I'm not in the position to work with that kind of grip package or anything even close to it, but that makes sense. Still quite a bit less ND than I'd expected. Sunny 16 would imply 9-10 stops of ND I think but using direct sun as key. Back in the film days, was a f4/f5.6 split more common for exteriors or were you shooting exteriors wide open then too? Maybe I am just wrong here – figuring lenses are sharpest around that stop and so assuming that's what you'd use for exteriors when shooting film, back when sharpness was a virtue. I'm from a very DIY background so it's interesting to me hearing how larger sets are run. And sorry for going off topic... excited to see the movie.

This is sort of surprising to me. Is this a change since the days of shooting primarily film or is shooting wide open more common than I realized? I'd heard a t4/t5.6 split for exteriors was most common, but that was years ago and I don't even remember from whom. I thought the extreme "shallow focus" aesthetic was mostly a YouTube/5D Mark II thing. If I'm not mistaken shooting t2 day exteriors would require about ten stops of ND (for a base 800 ISO camera)?

Yeah I can see this. Part of the reason I asked about G&E is that was the advice I was given when I was younger. But I don't think it was intended as good faith advice... At the time (given the specific context of the comment) it was more of a put down, I think (the entire comment was much less polite than just that)... That said some of the DPs I've worked with who've done quite well have gone out of their way to work in G&E or camera dept. on sets with top DPs so they can observe and learn. Or take classes with top shelf still photographers. But from what I've seen, it's supplemental to their main approach to career, which is shooting smaller projects and moving up to bigger and bigger ones. Back in the day all the AFI grads seemed to have an A7S (with vintage lenses) so I'm not sure you even need much gear-wise to get started. Not knocking other departments – I received similar good faith advice from others (work in G&E or camera when you're in a new market to help network and learn to light and how a set is run), but I think they also recommended doing my own thing on the side if my goal was to shoot rather than work as an AC or grip, particularly if I had my eye on indie-oriented projects.