Jump to content

Satsuki Murashige

Sustaining Member
  • Content Count

    3557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Satsuki Murashige last won the day on September 16

Satsuki Murashige had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

366 Excellent

About Satsuki Murashige

  • Rank

  • Birthday 05/27/1980

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    San Francisco, CA

Recent Profile Visitors

37972 profile views
  1. Giray, I like the look! When you say low con print, are you saying you printed to interpositive stock and scanned that? Or is there some other print stock that you used?
  2. The images released so far look nice. Looks like it doesn’t record 6K, only downsamples to 4K. Sounds like it is limited to a 1.89:1 crop of the sensor in full frame mode, so full width but not full height 1.50:1 like the Venice. Significantly smaller sensor area than the C500Mk2 in full frame mode. Power is 19v, but the Sony camcorder-style batteries are 14.4v. I’m curious if this means the camera can run on existing V-lock plates with a d-tap to DC cable and existing 12-14.4v power supplies, or whether it needs new 19v accessories. I don’t see anyone trying to record 16-bit raw with the accessory back. TC input is already on the camera. Will it have XAVC 480? Don’t really want to go back to XAVC 300. 12g SDI is nice. 4K log Prores via SDI to a recorder. Autofocus good, E-Mount meh. Every lens adapter will need a lens support, sigh. What was wrong with FZ Mount again? I suspect most people will be using their EF lenses for full frame (at least for everyday use). Viewfinder, still awkward. Would love to hear if the F5/55 viewfinders are compatible. Curious to see whether this or the C500Mk2 wins this market segment. Probably Sony again, though Canon’s product looks superior this time around.
  3. Beautiful location and reference frames. I would be tempted to shoot in natural light, as it is. But if that can’t be scheduled, then I would try to replicate the light as it is here. Maybe you can black out the window and use a Litemat 8, Litetile, or some other flat large LED in its place to retain the soft sidey key light. If you put the curtain sheers in front of it, you may be ok with the reflection in the cabinet window. Or maybe pull the table downstage away from the window and lose the other furniture, so you will still have the wood cabinet in the background, but you can have more freedom to light the table how you want. I guess it will depend on the other coverage that you have planned.
  4. If you looking for this gear in the San Francisco Bay Area, I would contact Videofax: www.videofax.com. Last time I was there a few weeks ago, they were selling a whole bunch of their old video gear, some of it analog. It would not surprise me if they have a few decks for sale.
  5. This is the conundrum of owning gear versus renting per project. You end up losing some freedom to change your look if you're stuck always using the same equipment. I would suggest that if you are going to buy lenses, then they should suit your taste and be something you'll be happy using for most of your work. Flexibility is great, but don't sacrifice your taste and your eye. They might be the thing that attracts your next client.
  6. Here are some test frames from an ARRI Amira, shooting in 3840x2160, cropped to 2.39:1. Anamorphic adapter is an Iscorama 36 (36mm rear element). The taking lenses are as noted. You can already see how much portholing there is at these moderate focal lengths. 40mm Cooke Speed Panchro. (Eastern Enterprises rehousing) 50mm Cooke Speed Panchro. (Eastern Enterprises rehousing) 35mm Zeiss Super Speed Mk2. 50mm Zeiss Super Speed Mk2. Though the Cookes have small front elements, they are pretty deeply recessed in their housings which makes things worse. The Super Speeds have less vignetting at similar focal lengths, but are still not completely clear. Their front elements are quite a bit larger than the Iscorama. Getting the front element as close as possible to the rear element of the adapter will help some. But using an adapter with larger diameter glass is the only meaningful way to get a wider field-of-view. Alternately, here is the same adapter on a Sony F5 also shooting 3840x2160, cropped to 2.39:1. The taking lenses are my hand-picked primes, chosen for their small front elements and aesthetic qualities. The limitation here is the small size of the adapter. Zeiss Contax 28mm f/2.8 + 0.75x wide angle converter. Zeiss Contax 28mm f/2.8. Zeiss Contax 35mm f/2.8 + 0.75x wide angle converter. Zeiss Contax 35mm f/2.8. Voigtlander 40mm f/2 +0.75x wide angle converter. Voigtlander 40mm f/2. You can see that regardless of the taking lens used, the usable sensor area is about the same. However once you work within that usable area, the wide angle converter does help a bit to get 'between focal lengths' and make maximum use of what's already there.
  7. There are so many different anamorphic adapters out there that you will need to be more specific. In general, this approach will not work well as the limiting factor is generally the size of the rear element in the adapter, as well as how long the lens barrel is. While some anamorphic adapters can work surprisingly well with longer taking lenses, wide taking lenses will almost always end up seeing the inside of the adapter lens, unless the adapter is huge to begin with. You will end up with a huge amount of portholing, like looking through a peephole. Generally, if these large adapters are made for photography or cinematography, then they will be rare and expensive. Check out the vintage Iscorama 54 and Richard Gale’s 1.5x adapter project if you want to go that route. The more workable solution is to find the widest taking lens+adapter combo that works well, then add a wide angle converter lens in front of the anamorphic lens. This is how the wider focal lengths in the Kowa set were made, for example.
  8. Ahem. (steps on soapbox) In recent times, equipment manufacturers have adopted the dubious practice of describing aspect ratios as a ratio of whole integers. Camera, display, and delivery specs regularly state ratios like 4:3, 3:2, 16:9, 17:9, 6:5, even 21:9. More recently, quite a few filmmakers have also begun adopting this habit. At the same time, there is confusion from many corners about how various aspect ratios are related and when to use them, especially when shooting with anamorphic lenses. For example, I keep reading questions and comments in various forums about using the 4:3 aspect ratio with 2x anamorphic lenses, often resulting in some confusion about why cropping is necessary to achieve a final 2.39:1 aspect ratio. The confusion multiplies exponentially when dealing with anamorphic lenses of 'non-standard' squeeze ratios. I have also had several discussions in-person with experienced cinematographers on the same subject, which concerns me greatly. Then there are the producers who often don't understand the difference between UHD 16:9 and DCI 4K 17:9. I can’t help but think there is a correlation here. Traditionally, aspect ratios have been described by using a common integer and decimals: 1.33:1, 1.50:1, 1.78:1, 2:39:1. Yes, this system requires three more characters to program into camera menus. But what we lose in simplicity, we gain in clarity. When you describe aspect ratios in this way, it becomes immediately clear how they compare in width and in shape. You can use simple math to determine how an anamorphic lens with a 2x, 1.8x, 1.5x, or 1.3x squeeze ratio will affect the final aspect ratio. In short, while the 'common integer' format may be harder for manufacturers to market and program into their products, it ends up being vastly more useful for filmmakers and end users. I propose that we as filmmakers refrain from engaging in this 'whole integer' foppery. Not only does it run counter to our interest in helping our clients make informed decisions, but it continues to spread confusion amongst us where there needs be none (or at least, significantly less). Finally, I humbly leave you with these two aspect ratio charts: the first in 'common integer' format, and the second in 'whole integer' format. The latter is to roughly to scale, and I leave you to calculate the more unusual ratios as an exercise in absurdity. As for the question of which is more immediately intelligible, I would only ask this: would the 'whole integer' chart be as useful if it did not contain any images of the aspect ratio frames to compare directly but only had numbers, as we would typically encounter them in our camera equipment? Curious to hear everyone's thoughts.
  9. Isn’t it the FX9? I hope it gets XAVC 480, I don’t want to go back to 300 anymore. It will be interesting to see whether this or the C500Mk2 will end up being more popular in certain markets.
  10. Hi Marta, welcome to the forum! Three additional things to think about: 1. You need dark areas of the frame in order to see the veiling glare. The flare will be white, so you need to place it against something dark to get this effect. So with that in mind, I would consider lighting the scene differently. Start by studying your reference image and think of ways you can recreate that. 2. Since you will be shooting into a mirror, the best place to put your bright light source to flare the lens would actually be behind your subject, over their shoulder. This way you can get a better angle to aim the light into the lens. You might even be able to put it into the shot, out of focus. If there is a bright window behind the actor, even better. 3. Using a filter like a Tiffen Low Con will create additional veiling glare and blooming around bright sources. This can help you get the effect if your lenses aren’t creating enough on their own.
  11. Nice Mark! I like the play with color and the intimate lensing. The diffusion seems to add a feeling of gentleness that is really lovely. Beautiful work!
  12. Actually you can. Menu > VF > Marker > User Box. You will need some kind of framing chart to line up your user guides, since the numbers for setting the vertical and horizontal guides are just random. I’ve found the easiest way is to connect an external monitor that has the 3:2 (or 1.5:1) guides built-in. Output the camera’s frame guide overlays through the SDI port. Then just adjust the camera’s user guides until they line up with the monitor.
  13. Light on the baby pin and Cardellini+Gobo Head+20” c-stand arm on the stand mast? Seems like a chimera would be simpler and take up less space, but there you go. Alternately, what about building a custom diffusion box for the lights using frosted plastic? I think Litepanels made something like a plastic take out tray that velcroed to their 1x1 panels and stood out a few inches. Something like that?
  14. Don’t forget about the use of lighting instruments and gels. If I recall correctly, Storaro was fond of using tungsten lamps in daylight balanced situations for a warm look. And a lot of period movies like ‘The Proposition’ used warm lighting to emulate or enhance firelight and candlelight. Nowadays, you can also do a lot with custom LUTs in-camera as a kind of ‘printer lights’ timing for dailies, if you need something a bit more complex than just an overall white balance cast. No glass filters and everyone sees the effect on set live.
×
×
  • Create New...