Jump to content

Stuart Brereton

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    3432
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    85

Stuart Brereton last won the day on April 27

Stuart Brereton had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

406 Excellent

About Stuart Brereton

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.stuartbrereton.com

Recent Profile Visitors

33185 profile views
  1. Geoff Boyle, who runs the Cinematography mailing list, has just finished a series of lens tests. You can find the results, along with a lot of other tests he has done over the years, at cinematography.net
  2. I think the Contax Zeiss C/Y lenses look great, and if you can deal with the issues of them being stills lenses, you won’t be disappointed. The Leica Rs are also really nice, but suffer the same problems. Canon FDs are good, but it’s virtually impossible to adapt them to EF without adding extra glass in the adapter. Another, slower option might be Mamiya 645 lenses. They’re from the mid 70s/80s and have a great look, but they’re f2.8, and as they’re designed for medium format, the range of focal lengths might not be what you need. I’ve just finished putting together a set of these, so if you want to know more, PM me.
  3. That didn’t work with the lenses we had. The CA was bad at every stop. We also had some Zeiss Otus lenses which flared like crazy. Very unimpressive considering the price tag. It was a very low budget show, and the lenses were forced on me as I was replacing someone else, but even for a low budget project, I would never use these lenses again.
  4. It was purple fringing on highlights. The worst I have ever seen on any lens. The 35mm was particularly bad. I asked around on the internet, and apparently it’s a well known issue. The Contax Zeiss lenses are from the same era as the Zeiss Super Speeds, and have the same T coatings. Lovely glass, but being stills lenses, some of them are slightly slow by movie standards, and they don’t have a consistent maximum aperture. They also have a shortish focus throw, although that might be less of an issue if you’re using a remote focus unit. I love the look of them.
  5. The frame ear is going to be the safer option. The pipe slider is probably only about 3 or 4 inches deep. That means only two inches of a 6ft pipe is actually supported.
  6. I’ve used the Rokinon Cine DS primes once or twice, and aside from being susceptible to veiling glare, they are not at all bad for the money. The set lacks a 100mm, which is a shame. The Xeens are basically the same glass, but with proper Cine housings. I haven’t really used CP2s, but we did have a lot of problems with Zeiss ZE lenses (which share the same glass) on a recent show. Awful chromatic aberration on highlights.
  7. Matching the FoV of 9.5mm on s16 would require a 20mm (actually 19.4) on s35mm, not a 24mm. Going the other way, and matching the 24mm s35, you would need to use a 12mm lens on s16, not a 9.5mm. That is why you are seeing a difference. If you don’t use the appropriate focal lengths, then FoV will never match, no matter how expensive the lens. When the correct focal lengths are used, FoV matches, the geometry is near identical.
  8. The grain size changes, yes, but its structure does not, unless you are using a very broad definition of structure. This has been discussed before, both here, and on other forums. There is no difference in the geometry of two frames with identical FoV, but different size formats. I’ve posted examples of this before, as has David Mullen, and Adam Wilt, both on CML and ProVideoCoalition. Individual lenses may represent space differently to each other, but that is down to their design, not the format you are using. Each of these three frames is a different format, shot from the same position, with focal lengths chosen to match FoV. As you can see, they are almost identical in their geometry.
  9. Technically, the grain structure is identical, as the emulsions are the same. What differs is the size of the grain due to increased magnification. While this might not be an issue when viewing at low resolutions, it would be very obvious in a projected print. Field of view can be matched simply by switching lenses. What may be impossible to replicate is the depth of field of 35mm.
  10. It looks interesting, but it seems like it might suffer from the same issues as an easy rig. That is, by transferring the weight to your hips, it makes it difficult to move smoothly.
  11. I usually have my Fuji XE2s with me on set. I mostly use it for candids and bts, but it’s also handy as a viewfinder if you put it in 16:9 mode.
  12. Unfortunately, Kodak’s b&w stocks haven’t been improved in the same way the Vision stocks have, and so they are essentially the same as they were 30 years ago. A lot of people today would find them excessively grainy and high contrast. If that’s what you’re after, fine, but if it’s not, then shooting color stock and creating the b&w look in post, where you have full control over the RGB channels is probably a better idea. If you want more grain than a Vision 3 stock has, you could underexpose and push a stop or so.
  13. It’s not enough to know the distance between the two objects, you need to know the distance from camera. Once you know that, a depth of field calculator will tell you what stop you need.
  14. So despite your “numerous tests” which prove these “astronomical” differences, you have no direct a/b comparisons, and therefore no empirical evidence to support your claim. No one is denying that, only your assertion that fogging becomes noticeable within days. If you rate 200T at 500 ISO, you are under exposing it by a stop and 1/3. They are not the same stock. Nor are 50D and 250D. I really have no idea what you are talking about here.
×
×
  • Create New...