Aapo Lettinen

if you use the lenses for purposes where you don't need good focus mechanics, then the easiest and maybe most affordable way could be using old Russian OCT-18 primes with PL adapters. The price can be under 200 dollars per lens and the look is very "cinematic" in a good way :lol:

All 35mm format lenses cover S16 format. If you really need to adapt the modern stills zooms (remember to choose a model which has a possibility to mechanically change the iris) , then I'd consider you to talk to a very skilled lens technician about the possibilities and usable lens models. You really should choose the best model you can get for the job, the conversion will not be easy or inexpensive... If the price is a problem, then you could buy a camera which already has a stills lens mount (nikon F is the most used in these older camera modifications) , or choose a camera which has such a short ffd mount (other than PL, for example C-mount can be found in some Eclairs) that you can use interchangeable adapters for the mounting.

the main problem is that because most of the still lenses have shorter ffd, the whole back of the lens should fit INSIDE the PL adapter. Most of the still lenses have such a large outer diameter that this is not possible (the outer diameter of the rear part of the lens can be no more than 48 or 49 mm at the first 1.5 - 2 cm from the flange. Very few stills lenses are designed this way because the mount bayonet is usually quite large in size and the internal mechanics also need some space (plus there is usually no need in the stills world to make such a small lens because the stills cameras accept very wide range of lens sizes and shapes by their design) T-mount lenses and mid/large format lenses are possible to fit to the PL with interchangeable adapters. Some usable tele lenses can be found in T-mount which is very easily adaptable with a simple screw-on adapter. With most of the other still lenses, almost only possibility is to permanently change the mount and in most cases, also re-build some of the internal mechanics (for example iris ring mechanics and maybe part of the focusing system) . With some lenses, adapting is not even possible without completely re-building the whole lens using custom mechanical parts and taking only the optical elements from the original lens design.

Plus the most of the CP2:s are the same outer diameters (especially length and gear position) , so you don't have to move the matte box and FF when changing lenses, this is a huge advantage in most situations despite the lenses are larger in size and somewhat heavier than the ZF counterparts. And most of the CP2:s don't breath noticeably... CP2's also have the possibility of changing mounts quickly if needed, even on set. Just don't count on that the markings remain accurate if doing this on set, the ffd usually changes slightly and you would need to recalibrate which takes usually too much time.

If talking about SR3 Advanced, it has the advantage of more easily changeable frame rates (built-in capability vs. external speed box of the older SR models) and adjustable shutter angle. If I remember correctly, the SR3 also has steadier image than previous SR models (less tolerance added in manufacturing; because of the tighter 16mm film manufacturing tolerances applied in the end of the 80's ) Also the viewfinder optics and eyepieces are slightly better. Older SR:s have, in the other hand, the 12v capability which can be an advantage in some cases.

first C, then E, then Primo, and finally G

would it be easier to just output all the raw material later to the VHS before editing, so you can experiment more with the final results and don't have to deal with separate recorder on set? also could do this step to the final cut of the video (in post house before/after color correction, before mastering) . Was the purpose of the on-set VHS to be able to play back and simulate the results on set? If you output the Alexa sdi to the sdi-->hdmi converter and then the hdmi to the hdmi-->composite rca converter, then you could simulate at least the crosstalk and color artifacts of the vhs image in your monitors (maybe even the noise if you use long enough unshielded cable :D ) vhs recorders usually have at least an analog SCART connector, you can use SCART to HDMI converter and an hdmi recorder (PIX, Hyperdeck, etc.) to digitize the tapes for editing. For on-set recording, it could be easiest to use SDI--->HDMI together with HDMI--->SCART -adapters to get the Alexa image to the VHS recorder, if the VHS does not have hdmi input :)

practically you are compositing a photoshopped still frame (buildings, streets) and various moving elements together (clouds, palm trees, etc.) Maybe you can take some time lapse on a tripod and then composite the buildings from various frames (then you can restore the elements which are behind people when they are moving) , and shoot also some live motion and composite the desired moving elements to the final image. You could also shoot time lapse with very long shutter speed, so the motion blur would hide the moving parts of the image (people, cars, etc.) , and then composite the clouds and palm trees to the final image :lol:

Lomo Foton lens is 37-140mm F3.5 (T4.3 or 4.4 depending on the version of the lens) It has bad chromatic aberration in the long end (between 125 and 140mm) but is usable even for M4/3 sensor if closed to at least one stop and used between 37-125mm. For SD use and 2/3" sensor I believe it would be quite good with the same settings. I have two of these lenses but no anamorphic attachment, always used them in spherical setting...

Lomo Foton lens can be put very easily to EOS mount (the lens itself has an intermediate mount to where you can fit an custom adapter, for example this Rafcamera adapter: " http://www.ebay.com/itm/ADAPTER-interchangeable-mount-of-LOMO-Foton-zoom-lens-to-Arri-PL-camera-mount-/141049645581?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item20d736ca0d " and this: " http://www.ebay.com/itm/ADAPTER-interchangeable-mount-of-LOMO-Foton-zoom-lens-to-Canon-EOS-EF-mount-/141049643467?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item20d736c1cb " ) The seller, Rafael Pankratau, could possibly custom-made an intermediate mount directly to B4 mount for this type of lens if you email him. The front anamorphic attachment for Foton zoom is very rare item nowadays, I don't believe you can find one of them easily (at least find one which one want's to sell...) . Some Russian ebay sellers may still have them somewhere in their garages, I believe. You can always use anamorphic projector attachments with spherical zoom lenses if you don't focus too much (otherwise you would need some kind of driving mechanism to move the attachment's focus ring together with the zoom's focus ring <_<

setting the tc to rec run is the easiest way if you don't use jam sync with audio recorder

btw, if you "don't have producer in your project", then you are most likely producing by yourself or someone else takes care of the essentials of the production. It is not possible to do any kind of film without producer, because there are always certain tasks to be done (scheduling, budgeting, etc.)

Even in the socialist system you have to budget the time and resources and raise funding (at least the needed resources if not real money) fundraising is actually very hard work and also time consuming. you can try by yourself by, for example, choosing one particular project and trying to fill these forms (the standard production support form of the Finnish Film Foundation) and test how long it takes to calculate all the information needed: " http://ses.fi/fileadmin/dokumentit/english.xls "

I'd recommend old Nikkor lenses for an aspiring filmmaker over the low-end Canon models. Nikkors have far better mechanics and usually nicer bokeh compared to for example the Canon 50/1.8. Chromatic aberration can be an issue if used wide open, so it's usually good to close the aperture one stop. Therefore, the Nikon 50/1.4 or 35/2 in AI-S series are, in my opinion, almost the best you can get with a small budget for smaller sensor cameras :lol: For photography, tho, the 50/1.8 Canon can be better because it has autofocus...

you can control the green reflections with negative fill and/or bouncing white light to the shadows, if the object's surface is not too shiny. The shadow areas and hair are usually the biggest problem with green screen, along with the reflections. I usually try to reduce reflections from shiny surfaces (tables, etc) , when camera is not moving much, by placing flags behind the object in critical areas, leaving just a necessary area of green around the edges of the object in places where the reflections are otherwise worst. Then, the object reflects the black surface of the flags (or any other surface: bounceboard, etc.) and does not need extensive work in keying...

Hi! I'm adapting some old lenses (mainly oct-18) to the PL mount, and some of them have quite long rear part... Is there somewhere exact dimensional drawings or information, how much the rear part of the lenses can protrude inside the PL mount in certain camera models before it touches the internal filters or other parts, eg. how much there is free space inside the mount? The manuals seem to have only the image plane marked, not where the filters actually are... Main cameras of interest are: Red Epic Red One Arri Alexa Arri Alexa Studio Sony F3 Sony F5 & 55 thank you very much for answering :lol:

if your main interest is Directing, just get a good producer to do the enermous paperwork, preparation and negotiations for you, it's better for both the film and yourself.... you can also learn very much from him/her and it would be easier for you to manage other projects later if you really want to produce them by yourself. Financing a film is very much of hard work, right contacts and skill. it would be so much easier if someone else could handle this for you so you can just focus on telling the story in best possible way :)

You misunderstood my post... I meant that the field of view of the lenses of particular focal lenght is the same when used in same image format (film/sensor size) ; no matter for which format the lens is originally made for.

Focal lenght & field of view IS the same, no matter what format the lens is originally made for. However, lenses can have different projections (image geometry) which can cause differences in field of view. This is not a format matter, however. AND, prime and zoom lenses, even the very good ones, can have different actual focal lenght than the markings indicate (!!) The difference is usually not more than couple of millimeters, but can easily cause the perceived difference in FOV between the "same focal lenght" lenses <_< Lens is usually considered a macro lens when the closest focus distance is under 10 times the focal lenght of the lens

Adobe Premiere Pro is usually the most used option for aspiring filmmakers, you could buy a Production Premium or Master Collection package with huge student discount (at least when they are still in sale. CS5.5 or 6 is best option for you, CC version costs a lot more in the long run if compared to student prices...) You get also Photoshop and other programs you'll really need soon. Final Cut X could also be an useful option. I'd not recommend to start with very basic programs made for home video use, it will be more difficult to transfer to the real editing programs later (than starting the learning right away with them) I believe your school has some editing programs and computers already, I'd suggest you find out what they already have and then decide if you can manage with them or do you really need to buy your own tools at the very beginning.

people use zooms when they don't want to change lenses all the time, for example with steadicam and crane shots; when doing dolly moves (you can fine-tune framing without moving the camera and/or track) , when shooting quick pick-up shots (B-camera, second unit, etc.) You can use zooms to fill in for a number of primes, but you can't substitute primes with zooms, you really want to carry both

I also think your colorist will be thankful when the DP does his own job well and he don't have to create all the image in post B) (otherwise than if the colorist is some kind of show-off and wants to steal the show by doing the DP:s work :ph34r: )

You don't light it flat, you STORE it flat in camera to have all the tones to work with in grading. You can light to any contrast you want, actually. The point is to not crush the digital negative (to not throw away tones in camera so you can restore them later if you want) You can create looks with redcine and apply them to the monitor output and metadata in camera. Epic stores RAW, however, so the applied look does not affect the actual recording (otherwise than it can be saved to metadata and can be restored from there if you want) Some looks can be hard to light without having proper monitoring lut to see what it should approximately look like after grading... I usually light by eye and check the scopes to make sure the whole scene contrast (or at least the important part of it) is stored to the recording. Lighting to very low contrast look and trying to later make it very high contrast is difficult and can end to weird results. You can light by looking through your lut, but don't crush anything permanently in digital negative (always look your raw scopes! ) , then you can later restore the look more easily and also tweak it without ruining the image by over-exposure etc.

Yes, mm for focal lenght (in lenses) or diameter of the mounting thread (in filters) . Variable ND is basically two polarizer filters stacked together, when rotating one of them the light transmission changes. They are not full substitute to real ND filters, but are very useful when filming small budget stuff outdoors (they are fast and easy to use) . You can buy variable ND and/or other filters with only one big enough thread size, and use step up / step down rings to fit them to different lenses. Then, you only need one set of filters for all your lenses, considerable cost savings B) I personally use an modified (self-adapted to 15mm rods) chrosziel 411-1 sunshade with few 4x4 glass filters and lots of Cokin P-series filters with self-made adapters. ---> same idea of using only one set of filters for all your lenses

I bet you want to reframe in post anyways, at least a bit, so the tape guides are not showing the final framing anyways, just a rough estimate ;)