Jump to content

Neirin Jones

Basic Member
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Neirin Jones

  1. Hey guys, thanks for all the feedback. So - maybe I should resign myself to the fact that there is not a lens that can achieve the results of my first reference without stacking. In my research I have found this ref, Depth of field is shallow but workable, light source isn't killing any bugs either. The very first frame at 00:01(also frames 01:04 + 01:31) is more or less what I'm after, although ideally closer than this even and with more depth of field. https://vimeo.com/23262142 This has been done with a Canon 7D and 65mm MP-E and Canon 100mm f/2.8. If this is the best tools out there I will go and source a 65mm MP-E, I had expected there to be other options from the film industry that would have provided an even more sophisticated lens systems, but perhaps that just doesn't exist?? Thanks for all the comments. Please let me know if there are any other solutions.
  2. Hi Dan, I am aware of the features of swing / tilt, no expert but I understand how they work to achieve an angled plane of focus. I can see how this could be useful but my question was more about the section of your first reply where you mentioned ........ So I am assuming because of the bellows you have ability to distance your lens from your sensor - creating the opportunity for high levels of magnification? If i use a shift / tilt PL mount system, like the Arri, will I be able to achieve a magnification of 10:1 or close? If so is it possible to maintain a workable depth of field - lets say 1-2 mm - working on a shot like my example of the 1mm ants head? Assuming the quantity of light needed for this was made available. Thanks.
  3. Hi Dom, Thanks for this. This is exactly the problem I'm having. There is simply no lens I can find, that will give the combination of depth of field you need for film work with the magnification ratio 10:1 Would the PL mount shift / tilt lens extended with bellows afford me some more depth of field and achieve a 10:1 magnification ratio, Or close? I think Arri have a shift / tilt bellows system.
  4. Hello, I have attached some photos of the kind of images I would like to shoot. I have researched about the kind of stages, lights etc, I might need. But it is hard to wade through advice on this subject online as it is overwhelmingly stacked towards stills work and image stacking - to achieve a decent depth of field (also how these images were achieved). But I want to shoot this kind of detail and depth with a video camera - alexa / epic etc... So - what PL kind of lenses / diaopters / tubes do I need to get this kind of magnification? Is working with normal diopters even possible to get this extreme detail? Are there any PL mount lenses out there that can achieve this level of detail? Anyone who knows a bit about this kind of extreme Macro would appreciate any advice.
  5. Hi Satsuki, Very helpful advice as always. Thanks man, great to see the frames from the Arris, I haven't managed to find anything online to reference them. I got some advice form some friends who suggested I go with the Cookes and diopters for the best results. I will try and post some of the results for people when I get the frames back next week sometime. Any other examples of either Cooks with diopters or Arri Macros out there would be appreciated.
  6. I have a set of Cookes (S4s) with a 135 macro T2 in the set. Nice lens, but the range of Macro shots I need to do I think is beyond this lens. However - they can only afford one full set. There are some options - use Arri Macros (not Masters, ultras, or super speeds - I know them only as Arri Macros), there are a full set of the macros available. - But director wants to know if we use these what are they like compared to the cookes (which he likes) I can't tell him because I have never used the Arri Macro set. What to do, stick with the Cookes and the 135, plus get in some diopters to get the shot. Or go with the Arri set of Macros. The question really is what is more beautiful? I have never seen the Arri's - also there will be no time / option on a test. Any advice? Would love to see examples of Arri Macro set if there are any out there. Thanks all.
  7. N.B - check out the eye light she has in the last frame. Is that just the sun? Or will that be a film light?
  8. Hello all, David, Miguel, Albion and Guy I really appreciate your input. As it has been said, my references are - very natural. Which I feel is beautiful. I chose them all though because I felt they were all shaped in some way, with either a light and or a bounce. I would just like to reiterate one point I made - I feel like these have ALL been shot in the perfect daylight OR - been lit. I was hoping to figure out what to do to get this look if I don't get the perfect light on the day. I feel like they would not all be possible with just bounce - if say there was a very flat day???. So - should I have that 18K and a diff frame on the truck ready to pull out if the light isn't perfect? Or do I just try and go with what I get on the day – would I still be able to produce this quality of imagery – whilst saving the money, as has been pointed out. Albion, as you mentioned I am new to using big sources like this - but I have seen them used to good effect (by others DOPs) a great deal - I totally agree that it doesn't always equate to a higher production value. I am tempted a little by being able to use 'big sources', but that is why I started this post really to gauge if I actually needed big lights - or A big light, to get me out of jail in poor daylight. The consensus seems to be - use natural light and maybe get a nice big HMI 18K really soft at a distance. So - I think my budget will stretch to having that, without straining the resources anywhere else. Especially if I use Guys Arri M90 suggestion. I hope they have them in Sao Paulo Guy. Miguel - thanks for posting the references you did, it is really good to see some examples of big source lighting in daylight. I will be going for a subtler look – which maybe suggests I wont need any lights – as long as the daylight is strong enough. I wonder what people’s thoughts are on this last reference I found.... This is seemingly a very overcast day - but the light here is either real sunlight or mimicking it with film light? Maybe they just got lucky with the clouds + Sun? Thanks again for all the comments. Very much appreciated.
  9. Hmmm - had some more - but i think i am limited by the admin. Anyway, you get the idea from these hopefully.
  10. Ah ok! I found it - so, this is the sort of look that I like. Would like to replicate, I feel like most of these shots have used lighting to enhance what is a daylight look or feel. The last ad - for mercedes seems to be a very cloudy day judging by the sky in the background, but they still manage to get a nice light on the girl. Ah ok! I found it - so, this is the sort of look that I like. Would like to replicate, I feel like most of these shots have used lighting to enhance what is a daylight look or feel. Anyway, thanks for all the advice.
  11. Hi David & Albion, Thank you for your advice. So - I guess Albion what your essentially saying is - my 12K isn't really enough to work with against the sun, so go bigger or go completely natural and use neg fill and ultra bounce. I agree that the priority should be beauty David, and less importance on the consistency of light or realism. I would love to experiment with your suggestion of flying the solid and working with some nice big sources for some creative lighting, but I know my producer will hit the breaks on all those extras with the kit, cranes and crew required to do that. I just don’t think we have the money for all that. So I guess the question is - is it worth going with a 12 or 18K like you say Albion - in the situation that I have a flat dull day and I want to do something that has a bit of glamour about it I won't have much options with just a Solid and Bounce to work with? Should I add more lights? - Knowing that multiple cranes and flying silks and solids will be beyond the budget. Or stick with the bounce and hope / schedule for a sunny day. I'm going to look out for some references to post up here now, but I imagine that the references I find will demonstrate the light I am hoping to find / shape. So my examples will be of perfect case scenarios where the light is perfect, the problem really is what to do if I don't get that light on the day - and what to have on the truck to get me out of jail in that situation. I will go and find some examples and post them up. If you guys or anyone have any examples of this kind of lighting situation done well. Flat daylight made more interesting for beauty with film light, or strong daylight shaped well to improve on nature, I would love to see them as well. Thanks for all your advice guys.
  12. Hello all, I have a shoot coming up and I would like to take some advice on Lighting during daylight. It's a music promo - so there isn't a strict requirement for continuity of the light, actors positions, scene etc... and I have licence to light for beauty over natural light, that being said, a natural look is probably the most beautiful. I would like to have a consistency of light all day that will look natural, soft and beautiful. Currently the location is still to be chosen, but it will be an open park where I will be able to define the perfect spot - according to the sun. Understanding the movement of the sun is of course key, and setting up my shoots accordingly. I am hoping to use the sun as a back light and fill from the front with a large fill, I am asking to have a light at a considerable cost (Light hire, gene, gaffer, etc) - mostly because I want to be able to create a beauty look - the talent will be good looking people, so even if there is a flat day with no sun, or a very harsh direct sunlight, I will have some options in creating soft, beautiful, daylight lighting. Maybe I should just go with daylight! - work with what is available? But I am thinking a light will afford me more options and consistent source to work with, even if the sun is inconsistent. Inconsistency of light doesn’t matter too much as it is a promo not a film, but having the right kind of light to create a beautiful image with does. (Obviously this is subjective, but.. hopefully you know what I mean) I’m asking for a 12K but, maybe I can get away with a 6K? Bearing in mind I need to do full body shots of 1 or 2 people. I will be diffusing the fill. With what - I'm not sure yet. Probably a 12'x12' frame and a diffusion on the barndoors as well so it is doubled. I am thinking that I will only need this light, all the closer work I can use some bounce to shape the light. All advice, examples, tips, and things to look out for are welcome. Thanks.
  13. **(obscenity removed)** hell, i think i'll just stick a bit of foam under the camera. Enjoy your pissing contest.
  14. @Gregg So, here is the test footage we shot on the recce. Shot with a Nikon D800 DSLR with 24-70mm Zoom @ 24 mm. absolutely no stabilisation was used for this shot, the camera was placed on an empty cardboard box (so adding very little weight) and send down the conveyor. I think the video gives you most of your answers, this stretch of conveyor is typical to the whole machine, with the different surfaces from rollers to belt. Except this section is much more easily accessible, as you turn the corner it will enter a more confined and enclosed space, as originally mentioned 2'x 2'. Hope this makes everything more clear, thanks to everyone who continues to contribute on this. Neirin.
  15. Ok from the 'whiteboard' the plywood and foam bobsled bit is clear, but from the diagram (and I may be getting this all wrong) I have understood M1, M2, M3 and M4 (m4 latter removed) to all be physical points of contact, so supporting arms to the camera base. I was wondering if they should have a foam contact to the the conveyor belt? Perhaps I misunderstood. But I am following that the general rule seems to be that multiple layers of foam will deal with varying frequencies of vibration. Thanks to all for helping out, especially the nerds. :)
  16. Wow, great response guys. Thank you. I have to say some of the theory is a bit beyond me! :blink: Plus I don't think I really have the language skills to discuss the finer points of these issues with my Brazilian Grip! ha. Pictures on imaginary white boards for fathomed Bob Sled teams are much more accessible :lol: Thanks Gregg and Chris. One question though Gregg, at the (I believe we have concluded in this particular scenario) 3 contact points, what material would make the contact there, would I use foam again as used under the plywood? Also thanks Brian, we are stockpiling foam as we speak.
  17. Thanks Satsuki, We will use a large base and a wider than desired frame for stabilisation in post. Guess all that remains is to find the right material to stick in between. Anyone tried memory foam before?
  18. Thanks Chris, The vibration - hard to describe, but there is a 2 - 3mm spacer between every roller on the conveyor belt. Every time the camera hits a new roller, it bumps. This is displayed in camera as a small but visible and consistent vibration of the lens. We are just sitting the camera and a plate at a lock off position and letting it run through. We are looking into sponge and some other shock absorbent materials. Thanks.
  19. Hello all. Ok so, doing a shot and we have epic and prime lens (ultra prime - small as possible) but we want to mount on a conveyor belt and let it go through a machine unmanned, maximum space is 2' x 2', which is fine for camera on plate locked off at a set angle. Problem is we are getting a vibration of the conveyor belt and we don't have the space to put in a fully stabilised head! Plus it would have to be stand alone as we can't connect any cables at all. Obviously we can take some vibration out in post! But, we would like to dampen the vibration as much as possible in camera. Anyone got any ideas for this sort of problem? Is there a small shock absorbing rig or something that does a job, if not properly stabilising at least reducing the issue? Thanks.
×
×
  • Create New...