Jump to content

Ben J. Abbey

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ben J. Abbey

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  1. Sooo ... I bought a bunch of vintage Contax Zeiss glass and I take back what I said. I think it's an amazingly close approximation of the five thousand dollar lenses! The microcontrast and bokeh are just GREAT!
  2. Folks, I recently shot a short using a three-lens Zeiss CP.2 Super Speed set: 35, 50, 85. Mind = blown. Lens/picture quality aside, I found the standardized gear positioning and long throw to be wonderfully efficient and useful. Once I returned the set to Vistek I couldn't get the Zeiss look out of my head however CP.2s are cost prohibitive presently. I rented a Zeiss ZE 35mm f/1.4 and shot some video over the course of a day, with a variety of lighting and with a number of different subjects. IMHO the DSLR lens didn't deliver the same picture quality as the CP.2. My question is this:
  3. Compression... what codec, what camera, etc?
  4. Yep send it over. Yes, larger pieces of noise might be easier to find but IMHO the recovery wouldn't be as crisp because the blowup was done on random noise, as opposed to a sanitized clip. If that makes any sense. Hard to explain :)
  5. Hey Freya, put it on Dropbox or Google Drive and send me the link via PM? How much upsampling are you doing? If you upsample footage before applying NR, you get larger pieces of noise, so I'd NR, upsample, sharpen.
  6. I swear by Neat Video. It turned ISO 12800 footage from the 5D Mark III into usable footage. Granted it looked a bit plasticy but it's an incredible plugin. As I understand it, video noise is a type of fixed pattern noise whereas film grain is random and therefore more pleasing to the eye. Do you feel like / are you allowed to be posting a short clip of the footage online? I'd be happy to run it through Neat Video as a proof point.
  7. Agreed with everything you said, Paul! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbiNdfHTtfU This is a quick shot with my "Poor Man's Anamorphic". I think the effect is convincing. Out to shoot some snowy Toronto sights tomorrow to play with it some more.
  8. I agree with everything everyone is saying. Again I'm intimately familiar with the desirable effects of anamorphic lenses. My whole point is that tutorials and posts always talk about how simply cropping is bad. Based on our discussion here I'd think the zeitgeist is changing and with the current large sensor cameras, it's time to correct that misinformation. I made a "poor man's anamorphic" with the Cinemorph filter and a 0.7x enormous wide-angle adapter in front of it. It looks SPECTACULAR, flares horizontally, stretches bokeh vertically, the lens introduces the compression both ho
  9. To David's point, the larger sensor also allows a larger circle of confusion meaning the bokeh is more out of focus.
  10. I'm intimately familiar with the optical effects of the anamorphic lens. Remember I said that I'm looking at resolution "in a vacuum" i.e. on its own. My point is that going from 1920x1080 full HD frame to 1920x1080 scope with bars is a resolution reduction, and my thesis is that there's inherent dithering when downsampling and why not just capture at the final resolution (or slightly over for safe area). I'd be interested in anyone's opinion/thoughts on cropping to anamorphic vs shooting, just on a resolution basis.
  11. So here's a thought... and sorry for the long post but this has been on my mind for a while. We keep talking about how an anamorphic lens uses the entire imaging sensor and is then compressed in post. We always follow up by saying that just cropping isn't the same. But isn't it? Warning that this is looking at cropping vs. squeezing in a vacuum - I'm not talking about the other archetypical considerations of an anamorphic lens. Bokeh, flare, compression can all be achieved to a degree with the right type of filter (see: Cinemorph by Vid Atlantic), and the compression can be achieved
×
×
  • Create New...