Jump to content

Mark Kenfield

Sustaining Member
  • Posts

    1505
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mark Kenfield

  1. Who wants to deal with a single micro-HDMI output in this day and age? Such a significant headache for almost everything. So it strikes me that there are far more appealing options in the mirrorless space at present.
  2. And be absolutely sure that you want to shoot 500 ISO stock outdoors in the daytime. Unless you want to stop down the lens a lot and work with a very deep depth of field, the amount of ND you're going to have to put in front of the lens, is going to make looking through the viewfinder really hard. It's difficult even with 250D at times.
  3. Perhaps try reaching out to the Mexican Society of Cinematographers (AMC)? They might have a Facebook group, or some other forums for local chat about the craft.
  4. It's not the perforations of the film that you're seeing flicker, it's the mirror reflex of the shutter passing across the gate. As for seeing the flicker, contrast is the main thing that makes it apparent. So outdoor, with bright skies in the frame, it will be much more apparent than it is on a dimly-lit (or even just normally lit) interior. I've never known anyone to use a video tap just to avoid the flicker. Personally I think the flicker is a very reasonable trade off for the HUGE BOON to the camera operator, of looking directly through the lens (with no miliseconds of electronic delay, like we face with digital). It may be a subtle difference for many (or even most things), but anytime to need to follow and actor's motions precisely (standing up quickly, jumping, things like that) realtime viewing makes a huge difference to how effectively an operator can operate.
  5. 100% go with a PL-mount for manual glass. A simple adapter and you can use them with your Sony camera, but they'll also adapt to any other camera you might encounter these days - if you go e-mount you'll be stuck. So definitely stick with a PL-mount, it's the only sensible option. As for the Xenons, they certainly wouldn't be high up in my personal choices, but they're perfectly decent lenses (they have a fair bit of CA, but some CP.2 focal lengths have that too, and the DZO appear to as well). Xenon's will be much easier/safer to service from France than the DZOs I'd imagine, so that should certainly be a consideration. At the same time, the Xenons are so rare, it might be worth calling Schneider directly to enquire about the availability of spare parts for the lenses (to check that you'll be covered for years to come). That's one area where the CP.2s would hold a lot of appeal to me over the other options. 2500 euro per lens does sound like a very reasonable price for Xenons, though if you are willing to buy used, you can absolutely find CP.2s for that sort of money (or less) particularly if you buy them in a set.
  6. A fan with straight stripes on it is another common test to measure the comparative skew from different cameras.
  7. I own Dehancer's halation plugin and have trialed their full software, and I compared it side-by-side with Filmbox, and (frankly) it wasn't even close. And that's comparing the various effects (colour, grain, weave, dust) both individually and combined. While Dehancer is certainly a step up from what we had earlier in Filmconvert, Filmbox stomps all over it. You play the clips back to back and one looks like film, and the other looks like film emulation (and that's even if you neutralise the colour differences entirely, by excluding them from the comparison). Borrow a Mac and try out the free Lite version. I think you'll see what I mean.
  8. Well, yes. That's kinda the whole reason for giving my word. 🤷‍♂️ But here are a couple of samples (Video Village do a "lite" version of the plugin which is free, and can be used on footage up to 1080p in resolution, it just gives you a single, full S16mm and S35mm preset, with no adjustability of the various parameters). These are the same shots with just an Arri Rec709 LUT applied, and then Filmbox's S16mm emulation from the Lite plugin applied (no other adjustments): In motion, with the halation, grain, gate weave and occasional dust-spec applied. It's remarkably convincing.
  9. You got a terrific look from that combo Miguel! Well done.
  10. It's like $129 or something for a three month licence. Which is plenty of time to finish the grade on a project. Compared to the cost of doing a film-out or shooting on negative, that's beyond neglible. And the results far outstrip any other digital film emulation I've encountered to-date (and I've tried most of them). For anyone wanting a "film look" for digital material, I don't think there's any better (and certainly any cheaper) options. 🤷‍♂️
  11. I think the S16mm on Alexa is the best digital option you have. I'd do that, and then get a licence for "Filmbox" (which is an EXCEPTIONAL film emulation plugin for Davinci resolve), it can even export monitoring LUTs that you can use in camera while you're shooting. That combination will give you a shockingly close digital emulation of actual S16mm. I've never seen anything come as close.
  12. Do let me know if you can get it up and running Daniel! Would be a brilliant facility to have access to here in Melbourne. Are you thinking to offer both film outs and scanning to "film in"? (aka the Dune Recipe)
  13. I'm also in the reformed 2.39er camp these days. So many cinemas screens now vertically shrink down (rather than expand outwards into) a 2.39:1 ratio, that the "widescreen" effect nowadays, is frequently a smaller, less immersive experience than conventional 1.85:1. It's even got to the point that I've started to become frequently irked by series shot exclusively for TV screens (on streaming platforms), that have elected to shoot wider aspect ratios. You're only ever seeing these things on your TV at home, and they're giving you a smaller, less immersive image (with black bars at the top and bottom). I've always loved the immersion of a big IMAX screen, and I think it's hard to deny, that a larger overall image, seems to have a more engaging effect for most things.
  14. Teradek recievers can take 3D LUTs (if your client monitors don't have them). A bunch of onboard monitors will also passthrough LUTted images as well these days.
  15. I've been meaning to check this one out for a while. I've heard only good things.
  16. I think it's highly possible (and reasonable) that they'd separate the grades for the trailers (which will mostly be seen online) from the filmout used for the DCP - which actually has enough bitrate to show the grain structure, without it being compressed into mush. I've started doing the same on my own meagre projects, for exactly that reason.
  17. Interesting. Knowing Greig, it'll look spectacular regardless, but when we now have flim emulation software as exceptional as "Filmbox" - which can make properly exposed digital, almost indistinguishable from real, scanned celuloid. It seems unnecessary to go to the extra expenses/trouble.
  18. Hopefully that’s just a temp grade for the trailer, and not the grade they’ve built for the theatrical release. Bill Pope’s work on the original was so absolutely exquisite, that it’s a brutal act (for anyone) to follow. The current trailer grade makes things look kinda cheap though. 😕
  19. Well this is interesting. I think I've finally pieced together how the "Production Shell" accessories (that were shown in the live stream) will sit on the Raptor. I've thrown together a quick little mashup in Photoshop (for those, like me, who have similarly been struggling to piece things together in their heads): I was a bit annoyed at first (that the camera didn't simply have these basic functionalities built in), but the more I ponder it, the more I think it's actually a really interesting take on the modularity that has defined DSMC2. Instead of DSMC2's build-a-cam approach (and all the complexity that it creates), this keeps all of the essentials self-contained (and familiar to everyone who encounters the camera). And then adds a (hopefully) really tidy "Production Shell" to provide the accessory power outputs, and control I/O that conventional productions will need. And although I'd still prefer a tidier (and lighter) version of the camera, that simply had these three components built-in from the start. If this is essentially what the "production" version of the camera can be - then it suddenly grew much more appealing to me. From the look of the render of the gold-mount plate, it would appear we'll end up with 2x DTAP outputs, and the 2x Lemo outputs on the top plate. And four outputs is going to be enough to cover the majority of rigging situations without having to add further accessory gack. This is really pretty significant. It also looks like the "shell" battery plates, will bring the battery-mounting out far enough from the back of the camera, that we can (hopefully) use any existing V-mount or Gold-mount batteries (which will be a relief). The camera's starting to make considerably more sense to me now (the lens mount/ND situation is the main remaining issue). I just don't understand why they didn't present these aspects of it clearly at the release.
  20. Hop on local Facebook crewing pages, see who's out there, and connect with people. That networking is everything. If you have a reel together, start showing it around to people.
  21. Am I the only one really confused by this camera? I was really interested to see what Red would come up with (and the mid-range of the camera market has been painfully sparse for last few years). But a stills lens mount only (even with a locking mechanism)? No accessory power outputs? A v-mount plate that will only fit a few mini v-mount batteries that are out there? No internal ND solution (beyond the hodge podge "slot-in" style lens adapters that are just a dust super highway to the sensor)? And a $2750 USD, 7" monitor (for a small camera body) that appears to require mounting directly on top of the camera (where the top handle needs to be)? As much horsepower as they've squeezed under the bonnet, it's those operational aspects that make a camera appealing these days (they all make good-enough pictures). It's why I think the Mavo Edge is such an appealing camera - they've squeezed all of the OPERATIONAL bells and whistles on to that thing. That's what's exciting. Why would you not address those KEY elements on a $24,500 camera? How many of the solo-shooter "put a stills lens and monitor on and go" types are going to spend that much on a camera (especially one with the controls on the assistant's side? It's a camera priced, and (at least partially) designed for a camera crew to work with it, and yet it's going to require a tonne of rigging gack to make it operational for that. I guess the question now is, is the Raptor worth all of those operational compromises for the relatively reasonable price of $24,500 USD? You'll have to add some irritating v-mount-to-v-mount power distro box out the back of it. And you'll need to add RF adapters up front, possibly with additional bracketry to brace them to that slew of 1/4"-20s on the front of the body (so that they don't flex due to the structural costs of the filter slots, and the undersized flange of the RF mount). Personally, I'm finding it pretty hard to see the appeal. It just doesn't bring much to the table except higher resolutions and framerates that I very rarely need. The simplified control panel on the assistant's side is nice though. Needing breakout cables just to jam timecode etc? Not so much.
  22. I would be very wary of the reliability (based on the reports I've seen). The compact size is really appealing, but I fear you'd want to carry a backup camera with you at all times.
  23. I think the question you need to ask yourself, is how profound you want the jump between the Super-8 material and the body of the film to be? As much as it pains me to not simply shout "Shoot 16mm stupid!". The jump between Super-8 and S16mm is going to be a lot subtler than jumping between 35mm digital and Super-8. So if you want the two different realities to be distinct from each other, I think that's an important consideration to ponder. At the same time, I think you should also ponder whether shooting anamorphic is a great idea (if you're going to be jumping to 4:3 Super-8 frames with any regularity. That's a nasty jump in aspect ratio, and cropping the Super-8 to 2.39:1 would look weird. So 1.85:1 may be a safer ratio if you're going to be jumping back and forth.
  24. I'm wondering if anyone's had any experience with mounting split-field diopters to the rear of a lens before? Will partially throwing out the backfocus (by having additional glass between half of the projected image) muck up the diopter's focussing? Thanks to Alexander Sutton Hough's recent discovery of an easy modification to allow 49mm filters on the rear of Sigma's Cine primes, I'm amassing a small collection of fun little filters. Would love to be able to add some split-diopters (as I use them too infrequently to justify a normal 4x5.65" purchase) but at 49mm it becomes possible to carry a set at all times. I just need to figure out whether they'd actually be usable. Would love to hear any thoughts! Cheers, Mark
  25. Sounds like a wonderfully rewarding little getaway. Thanks for the write up, I enjoyed it.
×
×
  • Create New...