Deji Joseph

Thanks for the heads up Dj

Thanks for replying Brian, I am comparing using an Fs100 versus an EX1 for low light interiors. The smaller zoom range of the Fs100 isnt an issue nor is the codec, however the form factor seems a bit silly. Dj

If two cameras are 1080p, one is 1/3 inch the other is super 35, the smaller sensor would be preferable. However if the larger sensor was stopped down till the same depth of field was achieved wouldnt it still have more photons per pixel therefore better color and less noise, assuming chip technology was similar? thanks Dj

Thanks stuart, I've done some research and the Pentax m42 lens are about the same price as the FDs, should i buy one M42 to EOS adapter? I am think of getting a pentax 35mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and Adaptall24mm 2.5

Im thinking of purchasing a manual focus lens set for use on various mounts in the future. I'm torn between Canon FD and Nikon manual focus lenses. I currently use a 7D so image quality wise Nikon primes would be a better option (no optical adapter), however they are a lot more expensive than FD and excluding the optical adapter FD are near Nikon quality. So it got me thinking, since the flange distances of most digital camera systems (excluding PL) will be less than Nikon F and Canon FD, shouldn't I think of the future and buy FD lenses? However since everyone goes on about Nikon lenses for RED etc am I missing something?

Does anyone know where I can find any images showing the effects of over or underexposing skin/grey card by various stops? Many Thanks Dj

Thanks

Know anywhere I can purchase them in the uk?

Thanks Adrian, by the way what do people mean by 1/2 stop diffusion?

I've been trying to purchase material to reduce the intensity of light from a 60x40cm softbox. I wanted to attach it directly to the box using masking tape (dont worry it wont burn, using low energy bulbs). I can't want to use frames because of Lack of space and transport. Does anyone know where I could get gels and diffusion online? I live in London so don't mind popping into a shop aswell. Also if anyone has any advice or tips for buying Diffusion and gels let me know. Thanks, Dj

Thanks zach, I already have a rail setup though. Dj

It gives the the eye specular reflection to prevent "dead eyes" and makes it easier for the audience to empathize with the character

I'm working on a project that has a fairly large shot list to get through in a day. My general plan for it in steps with descending priority is 1. Use the Natural Existing light as a start 2. Add key 3. Catch/eye light 4. Fill 5. Background light 6. Backlight 7. Hairlight Is this a good idea, and does anyone have any tips or advice? Many thanks, Dj

Not sure I have put this in the right part of the forum, please forgive if it isn't/direct me where to put it. I have just recently graduated from university where is studied Television and Film production. Since then i've done a mixture of Runner work and Filming (camera operation). I have realized my weakness in cinematography is shaping and controlling light. At university I didn't have access to boards cutters, flags, scrim etc. I only had redheads, dedos and gels. Fortunately I Work part time as a photographer so I understand lighting ratios, inverse square law and the principles of diffusing light, however only with strobes and not continuos lighting. I was wondering if could shadow someone more experienced. I live in central London and don't mind receiving little or no pay. If anyone is interested or know someone who might, please feel free to reply. Many thanks, Dj

How do I choose which factors to look for when buying a matte box and filters and any suggested buys? Thanks, Dj

Sorry forgot to mention faster than F2.8

Does anyone know any decently sharp primes around 17-22mm? Thanks, Dj

Your right, if its possible to do 1080p on 1/3inch the 3k on 2/3inch should be fine. Dj

But these are consumer products created via the "resolution wars". To the layman 12mp is better than 10mp, even though its more complex in reality. Ive met photographers who complain about the increase in noise due to less photons per pixel.

I think I should note I'm mainly talking about the Fixed scarlet, which was designed for the lower end film maker. In my opinion I imagined this group wouldn't need more than fully resolved 1080p. Many filmmakers in this group love the DSLR because of its low light abilities. With such a High pixel density the Scarlet may not be able to compete. I think 1080p when resolved to its full potential can be adequately sharp, like comparing a 5D image to an F3 image recorded via external rec, one can tell the glaring difference in sharpness. I find it hard to believe can make a T2.6 28-224mm lens that will do 3k justice, but I am not an expert in Lens design or Lens for 2/3inch or super 16. The Scarlet at 8k costs as much as a Sony Ex1 right now and with the amount of power they are stuffing in the body Im skeptical they will have enough left to beat the Ex1 or Ex3s Lenses which arent 3k ready. Dj

I agree, for the changeable Scarlet that is an option. The problem is at the price point of the Fixed scarlet, RED isn't going to be able to afford any decent glass. So wont the image be soft anyway? The question would be does a 3k output from a subpar lens offer any incentive over a 2k one?

Are "Digital zooms" softer because they are designed for 3 sensor cameras then?

First thing first, please this is NOT about RED bashing or film versus digital or which camera is better or the best, it is just about discussing the actual usability of the scarlet. The other day I came across so intriguing information as one does, in an internet article. It claimed in the days of 2/3inch betacam acquiring a lens which could resolve greater than a 1000 lines was apparently an expensive miracle. this still applies today with 1/2 inch cameras sharpening the hell out of the raw data from the sensor to make up numbers. this got me thinking, if optimo zooms for 35mm can resolve about 4k on a super 35 frame, what will the 'budget' scarlet fixed lens resolve? Arri says the theoretical effective resolution of S16 which is 30% larger should be 2058 × 1237 pixels, therefore isn't the scarlet massively oversampling? In my honest opinion I think it would have been smarter to give the scarlet 1080p, this means better noise to signal ratio and dynamic range. However since there is no physical camera to compare I might be wrong and will gladly accept the camera, what is your take on the scarlet? Dj

Thanks Martin, thats definitely put me off it. Dj

I need a Tripod that is pretty fluid and can support the average DSLR rig. My current budget is £150. I don't mind buying anything used one as long as its in decent condition. My best search so far is http://www.amazon.co.uk/Konig-Heavy-Professional-Camera-Tripod/dp/B000JU7N3I/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1312231555&sr=8-3 Im also thinking of getting a SUPER cheap mate box http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RJ-Matte-Box-15mm-rod-support-follow-focus-5DII-7D-/250859616324?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item3a6865f844#ht_3617wt_932 I know it doesn't have a filter tray, I use a vari-nd with my DSLR at the moment so I currently don't need the filters. You might be wondering why I am bothering with such a low quality box. My reason, aesthetics, actors i have worked wit seem to give better performances when a DSLR is "kitted" up, much to my dismay. I guess to people who dont know anything about cameras bigger seems better. Also it will reduce flaring Dj