Mihai Bodea

hello. I am trying to find something on Canon 200mm/2.8 pl mount lens. I know I will have it in a kit with Zeiss HS MK2 and I wonder how does it compare to the lenses in the kit, if I can match them or not, how soft are they and all the rest. evidently there is no time for testing. I particularly want to know how it behaves on Red camera, considering that Zeiss HS are unusable with Red when they are wide open (in the test I've done the image is acceptable only from 2.8 up) but still good enough on film, even at 1.3. This, as I understand is an issue of the sensor physics. this is not really clarified, only based on discussions and speculations. I can't find anything about it and it seems like a rare lens. this might be due to poor quality. I am also concerned by focus misadjusments due to built quality. thank you.

hello. I am trying to find something on Canon 200mm/2.8 pl mount lens. I know I will have it in a kit with Zeiss HS MK2 and I wonder how does it compare to the lenses in the kit, if I can match them or not, how soft are they and all the rest. evidently there is no time for testing. I particularly want to know how it behaves on Red camera, considering that Zeiss HS are unusable with Red when they are wide open (in the test I've done the image is acceptable only from 2.8 up) but still good enough on film, even at 1.3. This, as I understand is an issue of the sensor physics. this is not really clarified, only based on discussions and speculations. I can't find anything about it and it seems like a rare lens. this might be due to poor quality. I am also concerned by focus misadjusments due to built quality. thank you.

hello. I have a BA in graphic art and another in Cinematography. studying film as an "artist" brought me in troubles because everybody expected some kind of an arty approach to what I was doing; nobody accepted the simple fact that I wanted to study first. I don't think that fine arts and film really have common ground: the means of expression are very different and the public has very different expectations. it is very useful to study both as your eye will "see" better but for the rest you should not expect more. the content, materials and the process of making are different worlds; film has no materiality and implies the time dimension, as fine arts are all matter and can be watched as long as you can stand. I gave up graphic art as I would not do it as a hobby.

I think you should wait for ex1r. using the camera a long time in various conditions brought up some issues that were improved in R model. 3" start-up time, 15" cache recording and better viewfinder are things that I wish I had in ex1 the past year. the other improvements are things you didn't know you needed but can't live without them once you have them. if you don't need your camera tomorrow you should wait for the improvements.

I am supposed to do a timelapse of a construction site for about three years. I will do something like once or twice a week, for a couple of minutes on video. my solution is to use a tripod from the same spot set at the same height, with the camera pointing at the same direction. my advantage is that I have a tall building near by that I can use. still it will be difficult to frame exactly the same because the scenery will be changing drastically. in your case using a tree for a base might be wrong as the tree is not stable ; shooting a frame each minute or 30 seconds will produce lots of material in a few weeks or months, so you should first do your math.

I found some problems my self with flicker on EX1 and 3. first I noticed some flicker in 60p under tungsten domestic lights (50hz). you do get a flicker in any fps but 25 and 50 fps in 50hz tungsten, even 24fps. it is possible to eliminate the flicker by using an exposure time related to the AC frequency (1/50, 1/100,....). but using a setting of 24fps, 180' shutter will produce a "light" flicker. I did try the same settings on different EX cameras using different sources, in different AC powered buildings. now what I don't understand is why the camera reads a flicker in tungsten lights (that you would see eventualy in very high fps like 1000) and why you have more than one band of flicker ( I counted four). my guess is that the scanning times on the sensor are not what they say and they read multiple times for a frame, obtaining something like multiple exposure, maybe used as hdr sources. why else?

z7 has several 1080 recording options: interlace recorded as 1080i, progressive recorded as 1080i (psf) and progressive recorded as 1080p. only 1080p will not play in the z1.

the price of the express card reader is as high as that of a cheap laptop with a express slot, hard drive, os and solitaire. you can use SD card adapter as an alternative for a fraction of the price. considering the 1/2" sensor I can't find any use for Nikkor or 16mm lenses mounted directly on camera. anyway, working this small need proper alignment and very fine lenses. for high quality broadcast you can record via hd-sdi onto digital recorder 10bit 422 signal.

in my opinion there is a source just over the flare that is in line with the camera gate to produce a reflection. it happened to me once that I had lots of obvious flares exactly under the light sources, staying with them as I was panning, with a clip-on mattebox on; they only appeared on weird angles above the frame, not when the lamp was in shot, and I could not see them in the viewfinder. I found out later that in camera the black matte paint around the film gate was a bit scrachted. I had to shoot again about one third of a short, one month later, when everibody was available.

all Sony Hdv cameras have servo focus so you cannot track focus consistently (only by mistake). you should hire a focus puller.

you could try to use a half mirror in front of the lens, 45' (even a clear, thin, glass will do fine). through the mirror the camera sees the real space and reflected the ghost image. you will have a fixed camera and will have very strict marks for the actors. the ghost image will have to be surrounded by black background and carefully composed so that it does not overlap a shiny area in the real space. you will have to be very careful about the lighting levels of the real space and the reflected one as the mirror will play tricks; I suggest using a dslr for tests. this will have to be done in studio. using 16mm allowes you to very easily multiple expose, as you can not offset the exposures (as opposed to 35mm), but you will only see the effect on screen. if you are in school better try both techniques for the same effect. it will be a joy.

actually the movie does not reveal a day for night technique, but it shows the life behind the camera in very subtle manner. it shows the way mechanics and human relations behind the camera affect what you see on the screen. there are many techniques and situations in filmmaking available for the general public to see, yet, as a filmmaker, you still get your share of fun. and they explain why they call it "la nuit américaine". it is available on dvd or torrent.

there is no recipe for this one. all the day for night effects in the black and white era seem weird today, so using any technique those guys employed would render an unrealistic effect. in France (and whole Europe) this kind of effects were know as "la nuit américaine"(there is a wonderful movie called this way that you'll have to see), as it was specific to the american style of cinematography; this was a "look". you will have to test again and again with filters and exposure in different location and lighting conditions, and when you get what you like try to exactly replicate everything, and still expect surprises as the light changes fast. you can try everything on a dslr first, that was not available for me, but you still need to go in the projection booth and see what it looks like edited on film.

I could not say if that father and son scene was day or night, but hoped it was stylized night. As for Daniel vs. DI, I am sure he wouldn't mind and we wouldn't have noticed. But I did notice, from the first time, the CG explosion at the oil rig.

with the backdrop so close to the windows your problem is to evenly light it. I suggest to overexpose heavily. this way you might cover unevenness and other problems. when I did a backdrop I overexposed it about 5-7 stops (on film), so that the blacks in the backdrop would render mid gray. it was ok, except for some props somebody left between the backdrop and the window; but that was only one take. when I'm inside looking out, in day shots, I expect everything to burn out.