Jump to content

Alex Stone

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Alex Stone

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • Location
    Manchester, UK
  • My Gear
    Sony FS7
  1. It's an interesting technical exercise (for my brain), though we've now decided to shoot Alexa XT anyway!
  2. Thanks David. Interestingly, after creating this graphic someone else linked me to this thread in which you also come to the answer of x1.13! My exact calculations came closer to x1.125... but x1.11 to x1.13 is just splitting hairs and equates to less than a millimetres difference in focal length anyway. The Hawk C-Series only consists of 40, 50, 60, 75 and 100mm; perhaps you were thinking of the V-Series?
  3. I've made a graphic to illustrate my question - and in doing so, answered it myself. Posting here for others to see and perhaps learn from in the future if they were searching for the same thing. A x1.13 crop isn't nearly as severe as I anticipated.
  4. Ignore the comment about diopters; brain fart. Close focus is 1 metre on the C-Series and is another consideration I'm thinking about.
  5. I'll be shooting a short soon and we're planning on using a Red Dragon at 6K with a set of Hawk C-Series anamorphics. I'm aware that, due to the aspect of the Dragon sensor, the resulting field of view using any given lens will be narrower than if it were shot with a 4:3 sensor such as on the Alexa. The widest focal length in the C-Series is 40mm, which on the Alexa would produce an image with a roughly equivalent FOV that a 20mm spherical might on Super 35. My question is, roughly how wide would the 40mm anamorphic appear when using the Dragon? I'm trying to work out if the 40mm will be wide enough for my needs. The reasons for choosing Dragon is for maximum resolution, given that it's a vfx heavy sci-fi. Would it be better to shoot on Alexa for maximum FOV? Or try using a set of diopters?!
  6. Whilst this thread has taken an amusing tangent, Robbie you seem to be in luck. Canon have announced a mid-range priced zoom that fills exactly this gap in the market. 18-80 T4.4 for £4700. And as for Contax zooms, they're absolutely excellent. My 80-200 f/4 outclasses my whole set of Contax primes. Sharpest tool in the box, the only one with completely accurate witness marks and is even parfocal! All that for £150 plus a Letiax adapter (~£70). I've heard the 35-70 f/3.4 is also superb, though I haven't used one myself. And I agree with your sentiments Phil; we're expected to work for pittance here in the UK!
  7. Ah of course. Reboot required to change from PAL to NTSC for 180fps too. I'd presume 200fps would not require a reboot then?
  8. Without the V-lock extension unit I can't comment on 240fps - does it require a full reboot? Without the extension and to switch between regular and high speed it only takes a few seconds...
  9. This Mini seems to be the camera the Ursa should have been. Whilst I'm excited for it's release and to see how it actually performs, I'm still a little skeptical. Having just bought an FS7, I sweated a bit when I heard about it but on reflection, I'm still happy I got the Sony. As others have pointed out, you'd need the 4.6K sensor to actually compete (the 4K is not great, 12 stops DR, poor ISO performance), plus the cost of the handle & shoulder pad, viewfinder, CFast cards and V-locks you're paying the same, if not more than the FS7 - which is usable out of the box (minus XQD cards). No doubt for the price point the Mini will produce a stunning image - Blackmagic have always been able to do that - the original BMCC for instance, at it's price, there was nothing that could compete. However it's the usability and flexibility that BM have always fallen short. It's cinema on a budget - it's for the indie market. With only four menus and limited options, BMs feel like more of a toy than something like the Sony - which feels more like a 'real' camera. Not only do you have vastly more options with the FS7 (enabling you to optimise the camera for cinema/film use, broadcast use or corporate use - the BM is really only for cinema/film), but it has more buttons and switches - as silly as that sounds - you can adjust the white balance or ISO on the fly whilst shooting, whereas the BM requires you to change it from within the menus. The BMs can shoot raw or ProRes out the box which is an advantage over the FS7, granted, however XAVC is arguably as efficient if not more so than ProRes, plus it has a plethora of other shooting formats. Long GOP or even MPEG HD 422; whilst they're not 'as good' as ProRes, XAVC or raw, they're useful to have should the need for them arise (for several hours of shooting on limited cards or if the client requires it). Other advantages the FS7 has over the BM include superior low light performance, built in NDs and an E mount - readily adaptable to almost any mount. The short of it is I have no doubt the Ursa Mini will be a great camera - and I look forward to trying it - however I do not regret buying the FS7; I still think it was the right choice for me and ultimately that's all that matters - I'm sure for some people the BM will be the better choice. The viewfinder on the other hand, that seems to excite a lot of people in this thread... myself included. Just need to work out a way to rig it!
  10. It's certainly a unique aesthetic; whether one likes the look of it or not I think is down to preference - with the exception of the last image, I can't say I'm a fan of the look. I don't think the out of focus areas look very appealing and the bokeh looks like a mirror lens!
  11. Their website reads "Compatible to both Nikkor G lens & F lens (include non-AI & AI lens mounts)" which suggest yes, a Zeiss ZF.2 would work, given that is has an F bayonet.
  12. Whilst I have not used the Metabones Arriflex adapter, if it's anything like their other adapters I would think it works well. It shouldn't affect focal length or infinity focus or anything like that, Metabones adapters are made to pretty accurate tolerances. As an aside, I'm looking at getting the Metabones PL-E mount in the near future and am wondering about that - I'm not sure whether it's shimmable or not, or whether buying other brand shims would work... I think it is/would!
  13. I'm personally a fan of Metabones adapters. Machined well, hold their infinity focus and the insides are coated to prevent any internal reflections. If you're using a Samyang Cine lens then autofocus and electronic iris aren't an issue, however Metabones mounts have contacts in them, enabling electronic control over the iris and (very slow) autofocus should you use a regular DSLR lens via the camera. Many other electronic mounts have a separate control unit to adjust the aperture which in my experience never work as well as they should; I'm not a fan.
  14. I've just bought one and am enjoying it so far. I agree with many comments that point out comparing it to an Alexa is simply not a fair fight - of course the Alexa will be nicer. Compare it to a C300 or similar and it's incredible. One thing I notice people are complaining about however is having to go into the menus to change the shutter angle. There's a 'shutter' button on the side of the camera - one press and you can scroll up or down to select your angle. Just as easy as an F55 or Alexa.
  15. Thanks for your input guys. Considering getting it; would be Letiaxing it anyway, from what I can tell this would still be possible.
×
×
  • Create New...