Alex Aust

true... thanks

hey folks, i found this on pancro's "mythbusters" page: now i wonder what happens if i use the pancros on old lomo primes (spherical); will i get some pretty bad effect? maybe worse than the IR contamination i'd get without the pancros in the first place? or does it just limit the effectiveness of the IR filtering?

thanks. we don't have movement so we can in fact undercrank to get the exposure. i haven't shot the arri macros before, if t32 is not sharp enough i might stop it down less/undercrank more until DOF becomes the bottleneck. we also shoot at 4k.

T32? sounds not too bad! we're shooting on a RED, so 1-120 fpsis possible

thanks. i need a wide lens to get the perspectives right. and we can't simply upsize the scale to whatever we'd like, we're forced to use a specific scale that happens to be quite small... VERY roughly 1:500 or something like that. there is also a (rather old, i believe) line of cine macro lenses from arri that is available at rentals here. a nice one would be the 16mm which focuses to ~16 cm. do you (or anybody else) know what the smallest aperture is on that lens line?

hey guys. i have a project upcoming with some miniatures involved. for a lot of stuff i might be using the 14mm ultra prime since this one seems to have the best characteristics all the ultra primes for the job. dofmaster.com's calculater tells me that even fully stopped down it still has a near limit of 11.3 cm and this might not be close enough for the shots to work. so what are my options here? can i use a diopter? how would a diopter basically affect the DOF at the far end? so if anyone can share some experiences or has any useful info, even if that involves unusual ways of doing things, i'd be very glad to hear it! thanks!

thanks for all the feedback. however what i'm actually tryin to find out is wheather the camera head itself is somewhat flawed, be it prism design/built, LP-filter, whatever, or if its really just a lens issue... u know, think of an adapter/lens combo which is fine CA-wise on, say the sony Z1, but on the HD100, pictures still have that fringing all over the place. that would indicate something more deep inside the camera is flawed.

any experiences with adapters with regard to the CA issue? thanks!

i really like the HD100 for its ergonomics, the quality of the head and processing and for the option to record uncompressed from the analog output; but for most stuff we do, it is unuseable just because of those chromatic aberrations all over the place. so i am thinking about a way to bypass the problem. 1.: is this simply a lens issue or is it also related to the prism and LP-filter design of the sensor block? 2.: if it is only a lens issue, which are my lens options to remedy the thing? 3.: if it's not solveable with any other EB lens, what happens if one uses a directly attached mini35 adapter like the P+S? any info and shared experiences on this one are hugely appreciated ok guys i hope i'm not completely off the tracks with my thinking in this issue and hope for lots of feedback coming. and please don't beat me if you feel like there's already a ton of threads about this here because i did search on this forum and elsewhere but didn't get satisfying results.

ok guys i think i got it. with those numbers it all makes sense. so these attributes <2/3"> and the like, they are not real sizes but refer to a pimped scale. i understand that now. thanks guys.

so it looks like 2/3" in fact is less than real 2/3". does anybody know why??

i'm a bit confused. the ex1/3 cameras have a 1/2" chip, so the width of the chip should be 11mm. so the widest focal length of the lens, 5.8mm, should equal ~19mm on a 35mm still frame. however sony states that the widest focal length equals 31mm on 35 still and it actually looks much more like that and not 19mm. so where is the mistake in my logic guys?? :unsure:

i got a little problem with my current keying job here. i've experimented with different keyers and so far i got the best results from red giants primatte keyer (based on after effects). only problem right now is that as soon as i dial in some matte defocusing to make the edges smoother, it takes away from my object at the bottom of the frame! so i can never let my object touch the edge of the frame, or the last few lines of pixels are somewhat blurred and it seems as if the thing hovers inside the frame. i guess you guys know what i'm talking about. so my question is am i missing something here? some adjustment i have to make inside the plugin? i mean even that cheapo "color key" effect that comes with premiere doesn't produce this side effect, though it's bad in any other way of course. any help is greatly appreciated!

thanks for your input so far. i've been thinking about the whole issue and played with tons of photos in photoshop and i must say i think i will use some cooling filter. 82 or plum or something like that. cause i actually want the skin to appear pretty dark and the eyes and teeth to become white and shiny. i will let make up deal with skin issues, in case there are any. and yes, i will use some diffusion. can you recommend any? i just want skin and whatever other textures to get a bit softer, to counter the RED's incredible sharpness. but i still need fleshy contrast e.g. skin/hair etc. guess you always have to compromise contrast for smoothness, right?

hey folks. my first post here! :) i'm planning to shoot a b/w music video on the RED ONE, and i was wondering which filter to use to enhance the look of caucasian skin. to make it a bit more soft and even. a friend of mine has shot a short on b/w film once, and he told me that after testing, he liked a simple yellow filter best and he used it for the whole project. so what do you guys think about that? any comments or experiences in that direction?