Daniel Klockenkemper
-
Posts
141 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Daniel Klockenkemper
-
-
I sent you a message.
-
"Crisp" is a subjective term, but I have a feeling you will get what you want from Double-X - it's a very high contrast film, and the prominent grain gives a noticeable 'bite' that makes the footage stand out on the screen.
I would second the recommendation to stick to the box rating. The flip side of Double-X's high contrast is that it has a much more limited dynamic range compared to 7219, and the highlights will "block up" (i.e. clip) fairly quickly when overexposed.
-
Almost 10 years ago, I tested Ilford Delta 400 for motion picture, and talked to their rep about whether they could manufacture 35mm film with BH perforations.
The short version of the story is that Ilford's motion picture products weren't profitable, so they ceased manufacture when they went through receivership in 2004.
There's nothing about the emulsion itself that would preclude using it for motion picture. One would simply need to order a large enough quantity of unperforated stock, and pay another company to perforate or cut down to the desired gauge (Orwo being the top candidate).
The project I was testing for changed direction after that, so that's as far as I went, which is a shame since the Delta 400 performed quite well.
-
Panasonic uses the same activation codes for the GH5 as for the GH4. The review you've quoted is true for the GH4, which could only record 8-bit internally, as well as for the 8-bit recording modes of the GH5.If you choose a 10-bit recording format on the GH5, V-Log-L will use the range from 128-768 out of a possible 1024. So while it's still not the full 10-bit range, there are 640 possible code values in 10-bit V-Log-L compared to the 160 code values in 8-bit V-Log-L (or compared to the 256 total possible values in any 8-bit recording format). This is a significant improvement for color grading, and will reduce the types of artifacts that the review you quoted describes.
-
I own a Super16-converted ACL II and am in the Los Angeles area. Not looking to part with anything, but send me a private message if you need to borrow some magazines.
-
1
-
-
Several of the major camera companies make "tough" or weather-resistant cameras. I think the Olympus TG-5 is one of the best-selling cameras in Japan right now, and looks reasonably pocketable. Nikon has similar cameras that would probably also be worth a look.
-
What is the drive type of the screws on the adapter? Flat, Phillips, hex?
I like Wiha screwdrivers for small/precise sizes.
-
Why even do filters-- what if you played with multiple layers of reflection of the character? There are SOOO many way to do it; pick what YOU think works, and go with it.
Of course there are a lot of ways to do it. Filtration is an option that is inexpensive, widely available, and can work in almost any setting. How would you use reflections if the script has the scene outdoors in an open field? Without any details about the story, our suggestions are necessarily broad.Variation in camera movement is yet another option - if the present is handheld, the flashback could be on dolly or steadicam. I worked on (but did not shoot myself) a film earlier this year that used slow, deliberate pans and zooms to transition from reality to fantasy; Cría Cuervos, directed by Carlos Saura, was a reference for the technique.The story should be the ultimate guide for the look. Perhaps ask the director what kind of feeling they want for the flashbacks, and use that as a starting point for making the look tangible. -
Hello Raphaelle,There's no right or wrong way to film a flashback or a dream; the way that is most appropriate depends entirely on the story. From whose point of view is the flashback seen? How would that memory look to that person? How does that compare or contrast to the present?I think you are on a good track to explore filtration. Adding diffusion with a pro-mist or net filter could suggest a memory; I've used a very heavy black mist filter to that effect in the past. (Black filtration tends to retain more contrast than white or lighter versions of mist or net filters.) Or one could go in a very different direction, with something like the Bethke Effect filters or Spot Diopters from Vantage to really strongly alter the image.Using a different lighting style could be another approach - stronger backlight with less fill, for instance. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind used colored lighting, and at other times a narrow spotlight on the characters (allowing the sides of the frame to fall off into darkness) for flashbacks and memories.Regarding vaseline on a clear filter, I would highly suggest testing in advance with a stills camera to get an idea of how much is required (or how little - it is easy to overdo in my experience). You may also consider bringing several clear filters so that the effect can be re-done quickly for a different camera angle, rather than waiting for a filter to be cleaned. Having a plastic shop cut optical-grade acrylic sheets to fit your matte box would be an inexpensive way to do this.Congratulations and best of luck filming your feature!Daniel
-
1
-
-
Even hinting about a temporary tie-in to power a movie light borders on irresponsible - people have died, and homes burned down because of this. It may also be illegal to do where Berry lives (it is not legal in California).I'm with Mark on this one. "I used an 18K" doesn't really tell you why they used it - what was the ISO of the camera / film stock, what was the lens aperture? Were they using any filtration that affected exposure? Was slow-motion a factor (it requires significant amounts of light to get really high frame rates)?The only benefit of an 18K in typical filming scenarios would be that the light can be moved very far away from the window, which negates the worst effects of the inverse square law, and makes beams of light that come through the window as parallel as possible. Both of these factors together mean that viewers won't notice the proximity of the light to the scene (it won't feel "source-y"), and therefore can appear more natural. However, both of the examples seem more stylized than naturalistic, and aren't really doing much to hide that there's a big freaking light outside.Berry, what ISO and lens stop do you intend to use (assuming 24fps)? An M18 is the brightest light that can work on a 20A household circuit in the US, and could be an option. The next step up would be an M40, which can be powered by a Honda 6500IS or 7000IS generator modified with a 60A bates receptacle - that combo should be close to 10 times cheaper to rent than the 18K + generator. Where are you located?
-
Catching up on this thread, I think that it only illustrates how ill-defined the term "cinematic" has become.Surely whether the images are cinematic or not is the work of the person(s) making it, and not the camera?If you attribute any "cinematic" quality to your images being a result of your chosen camera purchase, I think you do the greatest disservice to yourself.Camera manufacturers are guilty of encouraging this; just one example, Blackmagic puts this line at the top of the Ursa Mini Pro page:"The world’s first digital film camera with professional broadcast camera features and controls!"Which just seems like word salad thrown at a wall to see what sticks; an attempt to please everyone....As someone who shot film exclusively for several years, I feel I have a decent handle on what qualities of an image are "filmic" in some respects. I've also tested and used digital cameras from many different companies in more recent years, and my personal hierarchy - based on my own experience - is quite different from others in this thread.Given that so many people's opinions vary so greatly, making a flat-out proclamation that "Camera X is garbage" is quite obviously stating opinion as fact, and borders on provocation. It doesn't make this forum helpful, useful, or friendly."This video from camera X that was shot and graded in a particular way doesn't have the qualities that I define as cinematic" is a different statement, and it could even be a true one. :) But then you'd actually have to define what those qualities are, which might actually lead to an respectful and meaningful debate.
-
3
-
-
Why do camera,s.. mine included have a 2.40-1 marker and a 2.35-1 marker.. isnt the correct aspect ratio 2.40-1 (3.9?).. when is the 2.35-1 used then.. or its it a "TV 2.4-1..".. less black..?
Wikipedia has a decent summary of the history behind the slight changes to the anamorphic projection aspect ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#2.35,_2.39_or_2.40?
-
From the Camera and Image Capture section of Netflix's Production and Post-Production Requirements:
Aspect ratios greater than 2.00:1 must be evaluated and discussed with Netflix for approval.
As Stuart says, it's a compromise between Netflix not wanting overly-large black bars that annoy viewers, and the widespread belief that wide aspect ratios are a shortcut to giving television shows a cinematic look.
-
Whether a full rehousing is necessary depends on what you want from the lens. If only you will be using it, and you only intend to use it for grabbing wide shots, just switching the mount would be fine assuming it's otherwise in good shape mechanically.Rehousing could offer a lot of benefits - an expanded and smoother focus throw, and better compatibility/longevity when used with wireless follow-focus motors, would be two big improvements that a modern rehousing could offer over the 1980s housing your lens is in now.If you intend to rent the lens to anyone else, I think a full rehousing makes a great deal of sense.
-
Hi Will,I've seen this style of rehousing come up online a few times in the past, usually with a Canon, Zeiss (Contax), or Olympus lens inside. I've seen them described as rehousings by Cineovision, a Japanese company, but I don't know if that's accurate information.The lens you have was probably a good rehousing for its time, but it doesn't go as far as rehousings of today - it still has the compressed focus scale of the original stills lens, and you can even see the original barrel at the front of the lens.I wouldn't say for sure that it's impossible to convert this to PL, though it will likely require custom work and complete removal of the current mount. The BNCR flange depth is longer than PL. (I've even seen (only online) a handful of BNCR lenses that are dual BNCR/PL, which would imply that the PL flange can fit inside the BNCR mount.) You'll need to put the lens in front of a professional to get a definite answer.In addition to Duclos, I can recommend Jorge of cinematechnic.com who has done excellent work for me a few times.
-
1
-
-
Well, the whole idea is that it's less wide on a RED than it is on 4-perf film. ;)If you want the numbers, out of PocketAC:
- For 35mm scope, projected, the "normal" value of 45.5mm gives a 49.5 degree field of view.
- You'd usually round up to a 50mm, for a 45.5 degree field of view - slightly tighter.
- A 40mm would give you an FoV of 55.3 degrees.
- For RED Helium 8K 6:5 2x, a 40mm lens gives you a 50.6 degree FoV - about 1 degree wider than the theoretical "normal" of 35 scope.
- To match a 50mm lens on 35 scope, you'd need a 45mm lens on the RED (which doesn't exist in many lens sets).
- That 50mm lens on the RED gives a 41.5 degree FoV - tighter.
- To match the 40mm on 35 scope, the RED would need a 36.1mm lens. Rounding down to a 35mm lens, you'd get a 56.8 degree FoV.
This is in a perfect world of theory, where anamorphic lenses wider than 50mm don't start to get noticeable distortion in some cases.In any case, shooting with a typical set of 2x anamorphic lenses on a RED means getting an FoV that's either slightly tighter or more wide than what you'd get with 4-perf 35mm film.And I did say not to get hung up on the numbers. :) -
RED has a fairly useful tool on their website that will provide the dimensions of any of their sensors, at any resolution window: http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor For what it's worth, the 8K Helium and 6K Dragon sensors have almost the same dimensions, so if you've shot 2x anamorphic 6:5 with a Dragon then 2x anamorphic 6:5 on Helium should give you almost exactly the same perspective.That said, crop factor confuses so many people, and it gets misused in all kinds of ways. I find it much more straightforward to determine the normal focal length for the format you're shooting.Based on the dimensions David's provided, by doubling the horizontal dimensions we get virtual capture areas of 42mm x 17.5mm for 35mm 4-perf scope, which has a diagonal measurement of 45.5mm; and 37.84mm x 15.77mm for RED Helium 8K 6:5, with a diagonal of 41mm. The crop factor between the two works out exactly the same as David's calculation, 1.11x, but I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers - I'd think of a 40mm as a typical normal perspective, and from there decide if my normal lens for that movie would be wider or longer than that based on my approach to the story.
-
Well, it comes across less like a detective game and more like a wine tasting where no one can tell the difference between the $15 bottle and the $150 bottle.So far there have been guesses for Zeiss Superspeeds, Zeiss Ultra 16, Optar Illuminas, and Hawk V-Lite 16 1.3x. I suppose there's no possibility it could be Cooke SK4s? Or that a Canon or Angenieux HR super 16mm zoom were used? Since I've added those possibilities, now someone in this discussion must be right, since every possible option has been mentioned.I have no interest in contacting Mr. Annis personally, as the answer is unimportant to me. But in the face of an easy way to determine the answer to a straightforward question, does this community prefer to know the answer, or to sniff aromas and muse over the je ne sais quoi?
-
The Arrilite 2000 is a bit smaller than a 2k fresnel, but is still a fairly bulky light - the light fills up a whole milk crate on its own (though it does fit entirely within, so you can still stack another milk crate on top).One thing you'll find about open-face lights is that they do have higher light output compared to fresnels. About 50% of the light from the globe inside a fresnel fixture hits the side walls and is wasted, while open-face lights throw almost all the light forward. The trade off is that fresnels are easy to shape and control, while an open face light is simply throwing light in all directions in front of it. If you're planning to throw all that light into a sheet of diffusion, then an open-face light sounds ideal for you.If you're happy with the amount of light you're getting from a 2k fresnel, then perhaps you only need a 1k open face, which would be much more compact.There are 2 general types open-face lights. One type has a round reflector and offers some rough focusing ability. The Arrilite, Mickey/Mighty Mole, Photon Beam, or Lowel DP (which uses interchangeable reflectors instead of moving the globe within the fixture) fall into this category. The Arrilite+ 750 might be of interest if it's within your budget, since its special reflector provides a much wider range of focusing and reflects more efficiently than the dull/dimpled reflectors of other fixtures, with an output equal to other 1k open-face lights at a lower wattage.Then there are "broad" lights, which are even more compact but offer no built-in control: Arri mini flood, Mole nook light, Photon Beard Minibroad, or the Lowel Tota, which is about as small as this type of light can get. These are also usually the most affordable, since they are very simple to build.
-
Why doesn't someone just ask Steve Annis, instead of offering baseless speculation?
His e-mail address is at the bottom-right corner of every page on his website. http://steveannisdop.com/contact/
-
There isn't a uniform standard as far as I can tell. If you look at filmtools' stingers, they do white for 25', red for 50', and yellow for 100ft, with no color for 10ft (which makes sense, it's easy to ID the length when it's that short). A rental house I've worked with a lot does orange for 25ft, yellow for 50ft, and no markings for 100ft.
I've also seen the PRG color code system on the internet, which goes like this:
5′ Red10′ Green15′ Blue20′ Brown25′ Purple50′ Orange75′ White100′ YellowThere are also color codes for DMX cable, if you or others on your crew use DMX frequently you might copy that so as not to have two separate systems to memorize:5ft - red10ft - yellow15ft - green25ft - orange50ft - white100ft - purpleIf there's a rental house that you use to supplement your own equipment for bigger jobs, it makes the most sense to copy whatever system they use.
-
Hi Austin,There are a lot of ways to define "cinematic", and in my opinion the character of a lens is only a very small part of it. To me, if the choices that were made in creating the image support the narrative of a film defines whether the image is cinematic or not. Do you have an overarching narrative or theme beyond a "cinematic look"?For a photo stills project, lighting (hard/soft shadows, contrast ratio, etc.) and compositional choices (deep or shallow focus, depth in staging, proximity of the camera to the subject, etc.) will be the elements that you can apply from cinema, while things like camera movement and editing which derive from the temporal dimension of motion pictures - in my opinion these are much more defining of "cinema" as a medium - are less applicable. Do consider the "editing" of your project, though, as the order of your images can create an impression on your viewers as much as narrative cinema can.With all that said, I've certainly tested lenses to find the set that has a rendition that feels right for the project I'm shooting. I don't know if anyone can tell you what lens will feel right to you; the best way is to handle the lenses in person, put them on a camera, and look through the viewfinder yourself. Seattle certainly has its share of camera stores that you could visit; and while it's a bit far away, Blue Moon Camera in Portland, Oregon might be worth looking into as well.There's sometimes a snobbery about prime lenses, in both cinema and still photography, but you could find countless examples of cinematic imagery created with zoom lenses as well, so don't rule them out - the Pentax K 35-105/3.5 is a zoom with wonderful rendering that comes to mind.Don't get caught up in numbers or technical specifications. When you put your eye behind a lens and it feels right, you'll know it.Good luck,Daniel
-
Glad it was helpful. For me, using a variety of different formats has helped me understand better - 8mm, 16mm, Super 35, full frame, medium format, large format (4x5). It's just so much easier to think about the format than to try to convert everything back to full frame.As far as picturing what's happening with a lens, it might be helpful to start with the most simple optical device - a pinhole, a hole in a wall that was used before photography to create images in a camera obscura (literally means "dark room"):
The focal length of a pinhole is the distance from the pinhole to the wall.While simple, a pinhole has a lot of disadvantages when it comes to photography, which is why lenses took their place. A simple lens is one piece of glass:
In the picture above, the light rays in red are entering the lens from infinitely far away, and the distance from the optical center of the lens to the point where light converges to form a sharp image (the focal point) is the focal length (lower case f).Simple lenses still have some drawbacks though, so more complicated lens designs were invented to improve the image:
The above lenses are symmetrical, and conveniently the focal length of these lenses is measured from the central point of the combined elements to where the light converges, which is where the camera's sensor or film would be placed.Once you get into more complicated lens designs, mentally conceiving exactly how the light rays are moving through the lens starts to get more difficult.If you want to read more Wikipedia provides a lot of information, but a lot of it gets technical very quickly:
I think it's important not to let yourself get too bogged down by technical information though - you only need to understand it as much as you need to in order to advance your craft. All of us go through repeated cycles of learning and application; you find the limits of your knowledge by putting it into practice.Best,Daniel
-
Kendrick,Lenses don't have a crop factor. A lens has a focal length (the amount of bending it does to light) and an image circle, the size of the circle of light projected behind the lens.Crop factor is really a way of comparing two different sensor sizes, not lenses. If lens X on one sensor gives you a certain angle of view, you can calculate what lens Y should be to get the same angle of view on a different sensor. That's all.Here's a better way to think about it: Start with the sensor size of the camera you use - I believe it's 12.7mm x 24mm for the FS5. The diagonal measurement is 27.15mm. I'm simplifying a bit, but this diagonal measurement basically tells you what focal length would have a "normal" perspective on this sensor. Every focal length shorter is a wide angle, and every focal length more than that is a long lens, or telephoto.If a lens is referred to as APS-C, Super 35, full frame, etc., those are just common ways to talk about the size of the image circle that a lens has.If a lens has an image circle large enough to cover the sensor you're using, you can use it. All you need to think about is how that focal length relates to "normal" for the sensor you're using.--Some examples:If you put a 28mm Zeiss Ultra Prime (a Super 35 cinema lens) on your FS5, it will have a basically normal perspective, not wide angle.If you put a 28mm Zeiss CP2 (a full-frame cinema lens) on an A7S, it will be wide angle, because the sensor is much larger - 23.8mm x 35.6mm (42.8mm diagonal).If you switch the lenses around, the CP2 will have the exact same angle of view as the Ultra Prime on the FS5. They are both 28mm, and they both have an image circle larger than the diagonal measurement of the FS5 sensor.When you put the Ultra Prime on the A7S, you would see a circular image in the middle of the frame, and the sides of the frame will be dark. However, if you compared this circle to the same area on the CP2/A7S combination, you would find that the images inside the circle are the same. The Ultra Prime has a smaller image circle than the CP2, but they both have the same "bending power" because their focal lengths are the same.You would need to put a 44mm lens on the A7S to get the same angle of view as a 28mm on your FS5. That's the only reason to think about crop factor.--I realize this got a bit long, but I hope it makes things more clear for you!Daniel
Why are cine' lenses so big compared to still lenses plus gears?
in General Discussion
Posted
There is another factor that has so far been overlooked.
Manual focus stills lenses are only designed for a person's hand to turn the focus ring slowly, by small amounts. (This also applies to older cine lenses like standard speeds, which were primarily focused by hand via a follow focus.)
Modern cinema lenses need to be robust enough to handle the very high torque of remote lens motors, turning the lens 300 degrees from infinity to minimum focus in a fraction of a second, possibly hundreds of times per day, day in and day out.
Repeated high torque focus racks like this would quickly destroy the mechanical parts most stills lenses (and it isn't good for cine lenses with older mechanical designs either). When you add in the increased complexity for other reasons, e.g. breathing correction, and the need for quick, easy maintenance, it's no surprise that the construction of the lens becomes larger.