Jump to content

Petter Englund

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Sweden & USA

Recent Profile Visitors

2254 profile views
  1. Hello everyone! I'm currently in pre-production for a short set for principal photography by the end of the summer. We've decided to shoot anamorphic and had a chance to try the Hawk C-series today at our local rental house. Unfortunately, we won't be able to try the V-lites right now as they are away until just a couple of days before we start. I found the C-series to have a classic anamorphic look --- pretty low contrast, flary but not extremely, a bit soft until around T5,6. To those of you who have shot on both of these sets -- how would you describe the look/characteristics of the V-lites compared to the C-series? Sharper? More contrast? Bokeh? The C-series rent for about half the amount of the V-lites, but I guess that mostly has to do with the fact that the C's are older. Right? Any shared thoughts and/or experiences etc would be very much appreciated! Godspeed,
  2. Thank you for the reply! I appreciate it very much! When I say we're looking to add some texture and distortion I am mainly referring to enhancing the anamorphic bokeh and the typical anamorphic optical imperfections, and not necessarily adding geometrical distortion. Since we are only going to be using a single focal length, there's not much we can do about the geometrical distortion once we have settled for 45 or 55 mm. I should've been clearer in that regard! Okay -- so your guess comparing the images above is basically that the main difference from a lens perspective is the selected aperture?
  3. Good evening, Looking to recreate this greenish fluorescent light look as seen on the photos below. Does anyone know what that kind of tube/light is called? It's probably a less modern type of fluorescent light. I have seen these greenish looking tubes in real life in less lavish gas stations and supermarkets etc. The light has a bit of an "UV-light look". The greenish effect can for sure be done in post using regular kinos with no filters on set, but I'd really like to know what these tubes are called and if there are any specific Lee / Rosco lighting filters that would mimic this look so it can be done on set?
  4. Hello, I'm currently in pre-production for a very low-budget feature for which we are playing with the idea of shooting with a single 45 or 55mm anamorphic lens. I know the Hawk V-lites are pretty neat and out-of-the-box a very crisp anamorphic lens, with for example AC Zoran Veselic jokingly calling them "anamorphic Master Primes" because of their sharpness and crispness. However, we like to get a bit weird with them for this project -- add some distortion and texture to really get that anamorphic look to stand out a bit more. And I know the Hawks are being played around with a lot, comparing the lens distortion from example "Hands of Stone" with a frame from "Moonlight" (which were both shot with V-Lites) is like night and day (see attachments below). For you who have some experience shooting with these -- is the added lens distortion mainly done by shooting wide open (or close to) and really shallowing the DOF, or is it lens filters/shooting in the longer end that play the bigger part here? Since we're on a very tight budget we won't have an excessive amount of time to test the V-Lites, so if you have any tips / tricks / ideas / previous experiences I would really appreciate it! Thank you, Hands of Stone Hands of Stone Moonlight Moonlight
  5. Hello, Looking to buy the right gel for balancing my tungsten Blondies to match the color temperature of my daylight balanced fluorescent panels. At first I thought I'd just gel the Blondies with a full CTB, but then I saw the 241 "Fluorescent 5700K" gel. It looks more teal than blue, I'm guessing they added a little bit of green to compensate for the green in the fluorescents. I'm a beginner with using flo-lights, so my questions is - would I be better of with the 241 on the Blondies OR doing the full CTB on the Blondies in addition to adding a minus green to my flo-lights? I mean, I wouldn't want that extra green in the flo-lights anyway, right? For the second option, any experience on how strong a minus green I'd need? And also, for those of you regularly using fluorescent panels without any other type of lights involved, do you always add a minus green (and in what strength) as a rule of thumb? For the record: I'm not on an original Kinoflo kit, but the cheaper competitor "Flo-lights". Thank you and have a good weekend!
  6. Thank you for the replies! I figured I want something in-between a super-modern look and vintage. Any comments on the Zeiss Compact Primes compared to the Leica R's? From what I have understood, they both are at the modern end of the spectrum.
  7. Jaron, Thanks for the input! Makes a lot of sense, I'll definitely take a look at that book, too. Do you have a showreel with footage taken with the Leica R-series and/or do you know a film shot entirely on the Leicas? I've been searching online for an attempt to get an idea of what a set would cost... Despite the obvious way of buying old Leica R's and sending in for re-housing (as I would guess you did) - there seems to be a couple of EF-sets out there referred to as "cine-modded". Obviously, those sets aren't re-housed... so what are they really? Hmm... Here is a link to a "cine-modded" set: on eBay. Also - will there be anything done to the coating when re-housing? I guess not, right? Fortunately, a set of re-housed Leica R's seem to end up a little more affordable than a set of Panchros.
  8. Thanks for the reply! That sounds interesting! I haven't even heard of re-housed Leica Rs. I can see they range from f/2-f/4, averaging around f/2.8 which is not that bad. Do you know how they perform wide-open? I can see the bokeh has a swirly look, cool! You know how sensitive they are to flares?
  9. Thank you for the replies! I'm not a super fan of the typical sharp/cripsy modern look seen in most blockbusters, but I also don't want the look to bring too much attention to itself that vintage glass sometimes does. For example, I really love the look of "The Place Beyond The Pines". It's very naturalistic and clean, but at the same time not plastic or super-crisp. What's in focus really pops out from the background in a nice way. Kind of creates this natural 3D illusion without being on the nose. Most of this probably comes down to lighting etc., but I know this film is mostly shot with Cooke S4's. When it comes to bokeh, a preference is not for it to be perfectly round without corners. For the latest 12 months I've been on my way to settling for a homemade anamorphic set up with a kit of vintage taking lenses in front of an ISCORAMA 54 1.5x (talk about bokeh). The look I got from that was amazing in my opinion, but after test filming we just couldn't accept the lack of sharpness. It was so hard to set focus. We just couldn't get it to an acceptable level of sharpness... and perfecting the back-focus ended up taking too much time. Dom, From what I've heard online the Cooke Panchros and the S4 mini's have a similar look - Panchros a little less contrasty and vintage - but both still at the yellowish "Cooke" end of the color spectrum... but perhaps I'm totally wrong? I have never tried any of them myself and there's not much material to find on the Panchros online (mostly reading). Do you know a movie / reel shot entirely with the Panchros? I'm taking a trip to the closest (and only) renting firm within my area next week to try the Compact Primes. Unfortunately, they only have the CP's and the Cooke S4's. If the Panchros look are not even close to the S4's, then it will be useless form me to try the S4's out.. Mark, The oldest Superspeeds for S35, would that be the mk1? I know there's a S16 version, too, but I can't get a hold of what that model is called! It's usually easy to find an info-site on different versions of a lens series, but not for the Superspeeds..! My URSA is EF, correct, but shouldn't be a problem to mount a PL lens with an EF-PL adapter. It's the other way around that's a problem? Thanks a lot for the detailed info! I'll take a look at your showreel right away! Is the 85 you're referring to T1.5 or T2.1? -- Thank you all once again for the quick replies!
  10. Hello filmmakers! :) Currently inclining towards buying a set of used Zeiss Compact Primes T2.1 (15mm = T2.9) to use with our BM URSA mini 4.6k EF for indie short film production and perhaps a feature in the not too far future! My production crew and I have a budget around 17-19k USD for a kit of 5-6 lenses. From what we have researched, the only competitors in the same price class as the Compact Primes would be the vintage SuperSpeeds from the same brand. A lot of forums refers to the vintage SuperSpeeds as being unusably soft at wide apertures and not having the same quality of the coating compared to the Compact Primes (but I guess the latter is part of the vintage look). Not necessarily looking for anything super-sharp, like the new Zeiss OTUS-series, but also don't wanna paint ourselves into a corner with something extremely stylish. If we would've had the cash, we would have aimed for a kit of rehoused Cooke Panchros or S4 mini's - for reference. Any experiences with the Zeiss Compact Primes? Any arguments for going for the vintage Zeiss SuperSpeeds over the Compact Primes? Any alternative lenses we ought to look into (fast zooms included)? Thanks in advance!
  11. Good evening everyone! Looking to get a hold of a set of old Cooke Panchros to send in for re-housing at P+S in Germany or somewhere else where they do it! In my attempt to get a hold of a set of old-housed Panchros in suitable condition -- how important is it that the lenses are in absolute perfect condition? Almost all older lenses show some sign of wear like fungus, oil on the aperture blades and/or dust inside. Is that extremely critical or is it standard praxis that the re-housing tech firms clean the interior of the optics at the same time they do the re-housing? If not, are fungus, oil on the aperture blades and dust on the inside something that can get fixed for a reasonable price? Any guidelines on price per lens? What about cleaning marks or small scratches? I see a lot of advertisements about scratch-fixes etc. Can it be done in the first place and secondly, can it be done for a reasonable price? I'm not looking to spend the same amount I buy the glass for in cleaning fees. If that's what I should expect, I will go for another set of lenses. Let me know if you have any experience on the matter! Thank you!
  12. Hello, Looking for a filter kit or a variable ND for my 35mm still film camera - not to worry about IR pollution. Don't want to put something really bad on there... like Hoya's or some other noname brand. Still on a budget, though. Any thoughts on this kit from Tiffen? http://www.ebay.com/itm/TIFFEN-52MM-Filter-Kit-ND-NEUTRAL-DENSITY-0-6-0-9-1-2-ND4-ND8-ND16-Made-in-USA-/131969381800?hash=item1eb9fcf5a8:g:RaQAAOSwpLNX~699 Am I throwing my money away or is it good value? If not, any recommendations (filter size 52mm)?
  13. Thanks for the responses! I'm just trying to understand the fundamentals of film vs digital when it comes to terms like density, push/pull processing etc. I'd like to know as much as I can about my variables before my first film rolls arrive in my post box. Of course, ND's etc are vital tools for fast film stock. From what I can understand, the same density of two negatives do not mean they necessarily have the same characteristics. For example in the example above (from David Mullen), the one-stop pushed negative but a normal rating on the meter would have more grain and contrast compared to the normally processed negative that was overexposed by one stop -- given its captured under the same circumstances -- despite they have the same density?
  14. Michael, Thanks for the detailed reply! I guess me coming from the digital work gives me a false idea of what real film looks under- and overexposed... But it's not the first time I've heard that overexposing film doesn't make it look "overexposed" as in the digital sense. Regarding you answer to the last question -- In other words, comparing the exposure average value after a digital scan of 1.) a correctly exposed and processed negative with 2.) a correctly exposed but pushed 1 stop negative -- would more or less have the same reading and only differ in graininess / contrast ? Practically, I want to rate my Kodak 5219 500T rolls at ASA 1000 and push it 1 stop in processing for images both during night and day (I want more grain and contrast). It won't be a problem to purposely underexpose 1 stop during the night when it's dark, but it will be much harder during the day because there is so much light and my K1000's fastest shutter setting is 1/1000 (and I don't like to shoot on f/11- f/16). But since a film negative is not very sensitive to overexposure - do you think I'll get away with purposely overexposing 2-3 stops for my day shots (allowing me to use a lower f-stop) and still pushing 1 stop in processing? The thing I want to achieve is to have the same roll in the camera and not have to change it every sunset and sunrise. Thank you once again for the reply!
  15. Okay, I see... So my personal rating of a film stock is just for the calibrations of my light meter / exposure tools? So in other words, me telling a lab to push 1 stop means they will simply aim for another density in my negative and nothing else? What if a roll has different densities across? Is that when best-light or scene-by-scene developing comes to play? Experimentally -- If I were to expose a negative correctly for its native ASA and tell the lab to push 1 stop - my final result would be a somewhat overexposed image? Thanks for the reply! Helps a lot!
  • Create New...