Aapo Lettinen

I shoot a lot with tele lenses and the xcsource filters don't work for that at all, for example with 200mm they distort the image so much that it is unusable even for sd web use. maybe they could be used with lenses below 50mm or so with usable results. I don't know about the Fotga ones, never tested them. Most of the cheap filters have either green or magenta cast, the xcsources were heavily towards magenta I think. I have never had the distortion problems with glass filters and the Cokin ones were usually OK although they scratch very easily, cannot be cleaned with lens fluid and are oddball size and thus difficult to fit to a real matte box. I used self made cardboard 4x4 frames with the filter taped on top of them when I used the Cokins. they didn't work well with long tele lenses either but at least they mostly managed 100mm range :/

or do a composite using separate clips or still images. it would be pretty easy to find a silhouette image of barbed wire and a image of moon, then combine them in for example AE and do the focus rack

I bought one set very similar to this, I use it with tungsten film stocks but can also be used on digital if the added channel noise is not an issue. I paid something like 60 or 70 USD plus shipping for the whole set if I remember correctly, including the (very very good!) case :) The seller was Visual Products, you can check ebay regularly if something similar pops up :) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tiffen-4x4-85-B-ND-4-Filter-Set-use-w-Arri-Arriflex-Zeiss-Leica-ProMist-85B-/252110238114?hash=item3ab2f0f1a2:g:SQ4AAOSwU~FWDqiS

I recommend used Tiffen or Schneider filters. you can maybe use screw filters also if you can get them affordably. 82mm with step down rings is usually a good choice, the step down are very cheap if you order them directly from China. You really don't want to cheap on filters, the plastic ones or the cheap glass ones are usually not quite usable even for amateur use... a used quality stuff is your best choice I think. The cheapest 4x4 ND:s are those which have 85 filter combined in them, you can get very good quality used set very affordably. Of course you can't stack them because of the 85 and you will get more blue channel noise when colour balancing the 85 out. but you will save maybe at least 300% compared to used good quality normal nd because no one (except film guys) want to use those 85 nd:s so they are hard to sell :)

this gives me some ideas :) http://woodencamera.com/BMPC-4K-Camera-Modification.html the 4 screw Epic mount would be quite usable for other cameras also, especially now when the Chinese and other cheap manufacturers are making affordable mounts for it :) something like IMS would be very good for today's cameras, the Canon EF mount has tolerances and restricts your lens and adapter choices quite a lot. I think that in today's production environment the ability to change between Canon and PL lenses would be very good feature

the problem with the MFT is that it is not sturdy enough for any kind of cine use. Something like Sony's FZ mount would be nice: short ffd but large enough mount so that it can withstand FF use, matte boxes etc :)

the problem with the Epic body is that the v-lock battery restricts the access to the connectors from the back quite effectively unless you have very tiny fingers. Most of the time you have baseplate and rods on the camera so the connectors are squeezed between them and the v-lock. Of course you can use them without taking anything off but it is not a practical place for regularly used connectors unless you use the camera without any accessories at all or use their dsmc batteries (complete garbage btw) inside the handle.... this is what I shoot my own stuff mostly on, for that use it is more practical than for example Epic or FS7 and much cheaper to use also B)

at least here in Finland the really rusty tracks which are still taken care of are those where the trains are not driving at full speed, mostly used as a parking track or for trains passing each other. I just wanted to note that if you see plain metal on a train track you will know that there is high speed trains using it very regularly and you DEFINITELY should not be near THAT track in any circumstances. If there is trees growing on a track which are on train's way and the track seems completely abandoned in all the other ways also (broken and rotten ties, warped tracks, etc. which can't hold train's weight) then you can usually assume that the track is maybe not in active use. But you still must to know where the track is located, where it goes to and from. I would look for a abandoned terminal line located inside an abandoned industrial complex with closed gates if I would need a track for a movie scene, that way you can secure the track completely and be sure that no one is using it. completely abandoned tracks are often scrapped here in Finland for the metal... in US there is surely lots of abandoned tracks in mining areas which you can have permission to shoot on

I also saw the Station Master film lately and thought exactly the same when I saw that bridge :wacko: If the train tracks are not completely rusted they are in regular and very active use, steel rusts pretty quickly (weeks, even days) when left outside unattended. If the inner edge of the track's top surface has plain metal visible you can assume that the track is used at least couple of times a day :mellow: If the tracks are completely rusted all over, in very bad condition and there is bushes and small trees growing all over and between them they are probably not in active use... building a railroad is very expensive so if someone takes even a little bit of care of it it is definitely in active use and one should stay away from there :ph34r:

I believe it depends a lot about how much photographers use the tri-x emulsion. it's the same thing with movie-only stocks like 03, the larger format uses dominate how the emulsion will survive in the market because those shooting it in 35mm or 65mm use it A LOT more than those shooting 16mm or super8. If all the cinematographers would stop shooting the 03 on 35mm and 65mm formats they would surely discontinue it right away because there is not enough sales if they slit their master rolls only to 16 and 8mm formats. if one would have a camera which would use 20 or 30cm wide film for extreme high resolution movie use they could maybe keep a stock alive with a single camera or two and maybe even get Fuji back to the market again B)

ozone is the last resort if the smell does not go away :) the local cleaning company may have the equipment for that

if compared to the lighting, it's like saying we are only allowed to use steel Combo 3's and 40" c-stands for all our lighting needs. And then some fanboy shouts that the 4k Arrimax is the only real movie light, everything else is total crap and all the people who are using any other light are stupid and unprofessional :P

if one is working on commercials, music videos and/or corporate stuff one does not necessarily have a single imdb credit even is one has been in the business for example 20 or 30 years. camera's usability & practical construction+form factor+easy setups = money light sensitivity=money reliability=money workflow compatibility and easy workflow = money easy backups = money easy monitoring = money camera's look =creative choice camera's frame rates etc. special features = creative choice (--->maybe money if wisely used) The only stupid statement here is that one could replace all the existing camera systems with a single system which fits all the possible shooting situations perfectly. That is simply not possible and I don't see any reason why it even should be. The only situation when this would be nice is if you are a owner operator and would like to shoot all your stuff with a single camera body because you only afford that single one <_< It is however not a reason to bash all the other systems just because they are not the one YOU own. One does not have to always justify their camera purchase to the rest of the world, I'm sure a professional can choose a camera system which suits best his/her needs and projects without needing to reason every day WHY they did their purchase and WHY everybody else are stupid because they chose some other system :ph34r: I am shooting material for my own crappy documentary with a Konvas 1KCP with kmz lenses, on Fuji Vivid, completely handheld, run-and-gun style, using single cheap-o 20€ led light for lighting if needed. (I am able to fit all the stuff in my small backpack including changing bag, backup battery, extra lens or two and two extra rolls of film, walking 10-15km to the locations if needed.) I think that is about as unconventional as it can be :blink: i could easily choose to shoot the same material with the FS7 (and also have shot some of it) but I think the Konvas is the best choice for the specific material I shoot at the moment and I really like to be able to switch styles by changing film stock and also to be able to get the same look with my Cameflex if needed :lol: If practicality demands it, I have also shot stuff for the same project with Bolex RX, Krasnogorsk2, Konvas 1M, Panasonic GH3 and GH4, 5Dmark2 raw, etc. Why the heck one would need to drag an Alexa or Epic with him with tons of batteries and big rental costs if some other camera suits the specific project much better and one can thus for example get shots which would otherwise be lost because of the unfitting gear which is clumsy choice in those specific situations? It's like owning a multitool, you can use it for almost any task but it does not fit almost any of them perfectly and for most uses it is really bad choice compared to, say, a proper screwdriver ;)

their customers of course prefer the possibility to pick up all the gear from the same place so it would be better for them if you can bring the gear to their place when it is needed. you can try to set for example a two or three day minimum for rentals if you have to drive there for returns and pickups. My lenses were at the rental house almost all the time when they rented them out (I had other lenses to use so that was not a problem) so there was zero work for me :)

I had a 70(me) / 30(rental house) contract with a local rental house for some lenses, I had my own insurance and they did all the work so a 60/40 split could be OK if they have their own insurance and will pay the expenses if the equipment is damaged. renting stuff out is good idea if you have two of them or are using them only on certain time periods. for example lenses and some pro cameras are quite difficult to replace/repair quickly if they are damaged so your own shoots are also screwed if someone accidentally messes up your gear

basic answer it that the digital cameras still have too much noise to be able to capture very low signal values at usable quality. Digital camera's usable dynamic range falls between the clipping point and the base noise ('noise floor') . The clipping point is absolute so if you want more dynamic range you have to get more stops from the lowest side of the range, you basically dig those extra stops from the darkest tones which can just barely be extracted from the base noise. Film's dynamic range is quite a lot based on two emulsion technique, you have one sensitive layer and one insensitive layer per primary color. It can be seen as a kind of HDR technique because it combines two different exposures together inside the film emulsion. I think the newer Varicam has a little bit of similar technique where two different sensitivity photo sites are combined to one pixel and thus you can also switch the camera to a higher "working ISO" by switching the signal processing to use more extensively the larger and more sensitive photo site. Film negative's dynamic range is opposite compared to video: it has quite absolute black point but it has no absolute white point, the film just gots denser and denser until your scanner can't see through it and the scanner outputs only its own signal noise.

the basic problem with video cameras is that the saturation rises very high just before clipping point and when you get clipping, it is very rough transition from very saturated colour to plain white. That's what is usually said to be "THE UGLY VIDEOISH CLIPPING" and can be at least somewhat corrected in colour science if the manufacturer decides to do so, like Arri did with the Alexa. on current Sonys you can have varying amount of that clipping, much more with the lower end models like FS7 because it has slightly different colour science than for example F5 even if the sensor is claimed to be about the same. you can somewhat try to correct the saturation issue in colour correction by lowering saturation curves over the middle gray , it is nowhere near perfect solution but at least helps a little #auto correcting is making lots of typos, sorry :lol:

Oblivion used Epics quite a lot for b-cam/plates work. For example the rear projection plates were shot with 3 epics. Choosing cameras for a shoot is like choosing lenses, you don't shoot anything including handheld and gimbal shots with the Ang 24-290 just because it is "a great and versatile lens" :blink: I really like the Dragon sensor image, a big step up from the MX family. -------------- With video cameras, you don't just choose the right sensor and format for you, you have to take the whole package which includes form factor, weight, how in can stand difficult shooting conditions like flying sand, salt spray, hot/cold environment/humidity; power options, ease of use, frame rates, compression (codecs, ratios), signal processing/color science, possible glitches like rolling shutter & moire, workflow compatibility, light sensitivity... (actually NOT the ASA/ISO the manufacturer claims the sensor to be rated on. With sensor data you have noise floor and clipping point, and thas it. Everything in between of them is colour science/lut/color correction issues and based quite much on personal opinions and testing the most acceptable balance between shadow and highlight latitude. You can't rate an absolute ISO of a video camera. All you can do is decide where you want the middle gray to be and adjust that with gamma/color science or correct in post. It's exactly like the Exposure Index rating or a film stock, the film manufacturer decides based on testing to recommend the film stock to be shot at certain EI to get results which they liked most. Usually their EI rating is roughly one stop under the absolute ISO of the film stock and rated so that you get about from 3 to 4.5 stops of shadow detail before absolute black when the film is normally processed. Video camera's light sensivity is mostly based on how low/high the noise floor is. That's why you can have five video cameras which are all rated 800 ISO and all of them have different light sensitivity because some of them have lower noise floor than others and have thus more stops of latitude below middle gray set by signal processing) ----------- You can't choose a camera based on only what the output image looks like and forget all the rest :blink:

people shoot with REDs and Sonys because they weight less and are smaller than Alexas. They are much more owner operator cameras because of the more complicated menus/user interface and less sturdy mechanics. You can't, for example, use an full sized Alexa with octacopter or gimbal (unless it's a really big one) and the camera mass and lenght may complicate operating in some situations. The Alexa Mini will be nice for these uses when it is common enough in the market. people may have missed the main point of the Raven camera: it is VERY lightweight for a cinema camera so it would be very nice in gimbal and copter use even though it surely has some glitches (I suspect cooling problems might be present but can't know before the actual camera is out. and nowadays when raw recording is not that special anymore it would be nice to have lower compression ratios available)

It's a bit different to watch a movie trailer than a simulated camera test. In a trailer there is much more different lighting conditions and shooting situations and you can better see the camera's performance in production environment. I usually watch the trailers from itunes using calibrated display and best playback quality. Comparing a single image or two might not be enough but in a trailer you can seen 30-50 shots and then you will usually see very clearly what is going on. I've been working a year and a half as a dit/assistant editor in a nature documentary which is shooting on lots of different cameras, the main camera being F5 in raw mode so I might be overly sensitive to Sony image, and also Bmpc, bmcc, c300, Epic mx, gh4, and so on... Try to watch this movie's trailer and spot the most obvious Red One shot (hint:two boys on schoolyard.look at the skintones) http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340107/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_5

actually one usually CAN tell quite reliably which camera is which, especially if DP's and colourists use the same kind of style for certain camera models but also when they are trying to hide the differences. It does not necessarily mean that the other camera's image is better or worse than the other but the differences are impossible to hide completely. I, for example, watch a lot of movie trailers and can usually tell which camera a movie is mostly shot on, especially when there is lots of skin tones which try to look natural. For example, Tomorrowland trailer looked like Alexa more than a RED but there was something on the colours and skin tones which was more screaming than usual Alexa image (like halfway between Fuji and Kodak in terms of colour response) so I was sure it was something different from those two and thus most likely a Sony camera. It is quite interesting that like in the film era, Japanese manufacturers are more interested in bright lively colours and western manufacturers are more interested in contrast/latitude and forget the colours completely (except Arri which is aiming for subtle natural colour response like Kodak film and is mostly interested in drama uses (skin tone response) ) I sometimes confuse low end Alexa stuff with the Red One MX, you can usually spot REDs by their lifeless skin tones and highlight handling but sometimes low budget Alexa stuff looks quite a lot like that with horrible colour correction and blown out highlights :P "low cost Sony camera" =at least FS7 and, if somebody still shoots on them, the F3

mostly the white balancing difficulties and not very good basic LUTs. most Sony cameras seem to have this ugly video-ish highlight/saturation handling which you have to try to tune out if wanting pretty pictures. I have seen lots of wonderful material shot with the F5 in both xavc and raw mode so you can definitely get great results out of them if you have the time for all the testing and adjustments. out of the box they are like "in your face RED, look how much saturation we can bake to the image before it breaks up" :lol:

2.8K sensor on Alexa was decided to be the sweet spot at the time, Arri specifically did not want to add more resolution at the cost of light sensitivity and dynamic range. I think RED's images, at least from the MX and Dragon sensors, look reasonably good. It's the backups, post workflow and reliability where these cameras fall short compared to higher end brands like Arri. RED ideology is more towards indie productions and special occasions like vfx work. For normal productions, for example drama/comedy films, it is usually more practical to take more reliable and sturdy camera which can stand the elements and has easier post workflow. Even Sony has done this a way better even though their Slog has some glitches and the cameras have sometimes reliability problems

of course does not work for arriglow markings but if the markings are directly on the ground glass it works fine :)

you can roughly test the gate/groundglass alignment in dark room by shining flashlight etc bright light to the viewfinder and projecting the image through the taking lens to a paper. Draw the markings you see, and then put some opaque material over the film gate without moving the camera and project similar image to the same paper (you can draw it with different color pencil so it clearly differs from the previous one) . This way you can instantly see alignment problems and which markings actually represent the gate corners. No need to wait for a film test to be developed :)