Dan Finlayson

On 7/6/2022 at 10:02 PM, Tyler Purcell said:

IBIS is a big problem because it never works as intended and the imagers have to be sub-standard in some way

The IBIS in my FX3 performs fantastic.  And there's no reason to believe there *must* be a sacrifice in sensor quality to have good IBIS

What you lack in variety, you make up for in a cohesive vibe.  Excellent song choice for the nature of your work as well!  I'd try and cut the reel down a touch, it feels like it loses steam around where the tiger shot shows up.  Short and sweet and leave the viewer wondering what other things you've shot

I really like the quality of light in the interiors!  There are moments I would have played around with a little more fill - literally just a 2x4 bounce or some muslin.  But that's just personal taste.

I think some of the operating could use a little work, especially the tilt down at 1:02.  This is being quite picky!

As far as the film goes - I think you could probably shave 45 seconds off in the edit.  LOVE the sound design, especially the warping sound when he puts on the shirt and the camera surfacing in the pool.

Great work!

On 5/19/2022 at 8:04 AM, M Joel W said:

How much did it go for? I was in the market for a 416 for a while and almost bought one.

Not sure, I wasn't in a place to spend any money on cameras at all at that moment haha

On 5/14/2022 at 1:56 PM, Jake Scumaci said:

I was just at Rule on monday and unfortunately they sold off all their film cameras except a 3 perf ST.

Came here to say this - I got a call when they were shopping the 416 around.  Bought their Moviecam Compact 10 years ago.  Cool that they still have a ST though, never knew they owned one!

If I wanted some nice anti-static foam instead of a furniture pad for a camera coffin, does anyone have any reqs where to get source that?  I'm thinking similar to the stuff you find in pelican cases but bigger pieces I could cut down

I'd love to know the answer to this too!  Is this a photo of a compact mk2?

I might be wrong here but I don't think Dom was responding to the OP, but rather the outright misinformation posted in the thread.  I mean we got someone here questioning whether covid even exists...

Totally understand this perspective and I really wish delivery compression wasn't geared exclusively toward smallest file sizes across the board.  When I do really want grain though, I usually trial and error a higher grain level for streaming vs my prores output.  It's imperfect but I usually end up somewhere I'm happy enough with.

Spectra is decent for super 8.  I try to go to Fotokem for 16mm or 35mm.

13 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

So far so good, but the other effect will be a small focal length shift, which manifests as a change in magnification. So I would think the altered half won’t line up properly with the other half of the image. 

This happens to an extent with split diopters in front of the lens too, correct?

There's been a few comments addressing the length of your short - I really think this is a major factor here.

I shot a "short" that ran 18 minutes.  We got accepted to a pretty good shorts festival and I spoke to the programmer about it.  It's really important to remember the perspective of the people running the festival - they schedule blocks of shorts, usually tied together with some sort of common theme.  They really don't want one short to dominate a screening block unless it *really* matches the theme well.  We got super lucky.

So making a long short is really stacking the cards against yourself in the festival world.  Don't take it personally if it doesn't get accepted - you're absolutely at a disadvantage going up against 5-10 minute films that are easier to program.

3 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

Sound Devices had this essentially already covered with their PIX video recorders 8-9 years ago - which had a 12-step false-colour mode, which was brilliant, and all anyone would ever need for perfect exposure every time.

This serves a different purpose!  The Alexa is 10 years old and has had false color since the beginning.  The EL Zones are making the translation from IRE values to stops as your meter would see them.  It's a small difference but notable since no one's really taken that last step.

It is worth noting that the Alexa false color is kind of in-between.  The green and pink levels are telling you stop values while the rest are IRE information.  Which is probably why I like that implementation the best

14 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

What Lachman is doing isn't invalid but I don't think it changes very much; you still have to learn each camera as you'd learn each film stock. It's another way of expressing the same info.

We'll always have to learn each camera.  But Lachman is doing something different here.  He/Panasonic are calibrating the false color specifically to V-log on the varicam before any creative luts or compression is applied.  The point isn't to know much about the varicam's latitude - it's just to make the camera a really detailed spot meter.

19 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

Well, sure, but can't you get that with anything... bad...

How many "bad" lenses check all the boxes the K35s do?  Full frame, decent focus breathing control, limited LoCA for their age... 

The price is inflated but they're definitely unique.

7 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

I used the first three that came to the United States through Abel Cine in New York in 2009 on a feature film called “The Fighter”. They could possibly still have them but I would think most likely not.

I used one of those 3 bodies shortly after!  On my very low budget project with limited accessories - I enjoyed working with it.  I was in Abel's LA location in 2019 and asked about the Penelopes - they told me all the bodies had been sold.

I can totally see how big feature production could test the limits of that camera.  On the other hand I'd shoot a music video on one in a heartbeat...  if I could ever find one to rent!

6 hours ago, Phil Rhodes said:

My observation is that most lenses look extremely similar beyond about f/4 and that even when they aren't identical, no lens is... that amazing...

True but I don't think anyone's picking K35s to shoot at f/4...  they want that sweet, low con, WFO look

On 4/4/2021 at 11:45 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Oh no, they aren't distorted. Maybe modern/inexpensive ones, but the classic Zeiss lenses like the standard speeds and super speeds are very good. 

I've shot with standard speeds extensively - they are absolutely distorted!  There is a decent amount of field curvature that gives a three-dimensional quality to center-framed subjects.  There is also a moderate amount of barrel distortion on all the lenses wider than 40mm. I think they are beautiful lenses and part of why I like them is their distortion compared to anything newer.

From a safety perspective, as a cinematographer, I would veto any shot like this as soon as it involves crossing a street.  I've worked a lot on low and no budget projects (more than I wish lol) and that's one point where I draw the line.  I do think, under certain circumstances, you could steal something like this if you're entirely on a sidewalk and never cross any car paths.  Even a busy driveway or parking lot entrance is too sketchy for me to sign off on.

I were your collaborator, my first question would probably be "why does it *need* to be a single take?"  Maybe you've had this conversation already and have an excellent answer for that of course!

Regarding lighting:  One counterpoint for 35mm is that if you're pushing the limits on exposure, grain will be less overbearing.  If you can shoot at a 2/2.8 split or deeper, consider 35, especially if you're shooting 3-perf or 2-perf (and have a great 1st AC)

@Daniel Klockenkemper Just gotta shout it out - that was a really excellent explanation!

I take it you're interested in a monitor that does these functions?  As opposed to a stand-alone box?

I'm interested in any solutions people recommend for this too

I know this is an old thread but I just picked up the Benro S6 Pro and it's pretty decent for what it is.

Also I HATE bowl mounts.  Give me a 2575 on real sticks any day of the week.  Even with tiny heads I prefer the flat base and to level with the sticks.

3 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

I took some pics of a test projection of one I have here to show the defocus characteristics.

Ahh thank you!  That dramatic defocus in the center is definitely reading here.

I captured my test images with a Sony A7s.  I then cropped the image to 2814px across which, according to my math, should closely match the horizontal FOV of an Alexa Classic.  Here's one more image, this time focused at about infinity:

https://imgur.com/a/BPu8Xuu

3 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

In case anyone thinks this is caused by field curvature, there is actually little field curvature to this lens, as seen when the lens is focussed on the screen:

I'm really glad you included this in focus image as well because it raises some questions about the particular lens I shot through.  In the infinity focus image there's quite a bit of softening at the edges.  Is this a characteristic of infinity focus on these old Distagon lenses or should I be seeing flatter focus across the image circle than this like on your lens projector shot?  I shot this image wide open.

3 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

Have a look at the lens projections in this blog post I made about different lens characteristics (note that these are quarter field photos, so the top right is centre and bottom left is the corner):

http://cinetinker.blogspot.com/2013/10/comparing-lenses-blur-characteristics.html

Thank you so much Dom!  I'm so glad I posted here - your lens test is an amazing resource!

I've definitely seen this sort of phenomenon as you describe and demonstrate on your website.  New lenses like the Leica cine lenses have so little of this that I don't enjoy their images.  What I'm seeing on your test charts lines up with my anecdotal experiences.  Something about this wide shot I took (shot open at T2.1) just feels more pronounced than anything I've seen before.

I know this is hard to evaluate from my shots but does this strike you as normal performance out of a 28mm Standard Speed?

Also - based on my very limited understanding of the history of these lenses I'm under the impression the 28mm was one of the later designs they manufactured.  Is this true?  Did they make multiple iterations of this lens?

Yesterday I needed to evaluate the basic condition of a lens quick and dirty - no fancy equipment at my disposal.  I decided to shoot some stills through it at a grassy field to get an idea of what field curvature the lens has and if there's any weird tilt.  I was expecting a gentle curvature with the plane of focus curving toward camera at the edges.  What I got was pretty surprising:

https://imgur.com/a/GZDs7Wy

In this shot the lens is set to focus just a few feet in front of me.  The plane of focus sweeps away from me dramatically toward the edges.

This is a Zeiss standard speed.  I've shot on standards probably more than any other lens and I've NEVER noticed one do this.  At the same time, I've never really gone looking for the focus plane like this before.  Is this anywhere close to normal?  If not, what would cause it?