Jump to content

Dominik Bauch

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dominik Bauch

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Recent Profile Visitors

4731 profile views
  1. Thanks, this is what I was thinking. Are there any good independent companies in LA experienced in modifying anamorphic lenses?
  2. Disclaimer: I have no idea about lens mechanics... In theory if you have a set of lenses that have very smooth bokeh but you wanted a more painterly, 'harsh' bokeh, i.e. similar to a Panavision C series where the out of focus areas seem to have more texture than with other lenses. How would you go about achieving this, is this a simple tweak or an entire redesign? I'm not talking about introducing noise or chromatic aberration.
  3. Looking into renting a set of anamorphic primes for a job. 32, 40, 50, 75, 100 are included but I've been given a choice of 135mm or 180mm to round off the set. I love the hyper stylized extreme separation that long anamorphic lenses produce; that very distorted out of focus BG bokeh feels super cinematic to me. I'm leaning towards the 180mm as I feel the 135 will be not all that different from 100mm but the 180mm has a chance to look very interesting and different. I've never used either lens before so, min. focus issues aside, in real world shooting (scripted interior / exterior) does anyone have any thoughts as to which would be the most useful / interesting?
  4. Actually I just got a Panasonic Lumix S1, matching FOV to anamorphic primes gets very close. Closer than Artemis for example. Thanks for the tips David.
  5. I did some camera tests for a project and generally 48fps was liked but my co-director felt it might be a little too dreamy and suggested 36fps. I’ve never shot this frame rate. Any considerations or issues that might arise as it’s not a direct multiple of 24?
  6. Thanks all for the tips, so what's the best work flow for anamorphic? Set 5D to 16x9, match horizontal FOV for full frame lenses to the anamorphic focal lengths I'll be using and then apply a 2.39 mask in PS on the output jpegs? Rough for sure but at least the horizontal FOV should be close. Is there a more accurate way to approach this?
  7. Thanks David, so in my case I would multiply by 1.3 if I wanted to go the crop factor route? But with horizontal FOV comparison, I would just take my cine lenses and find canon equivalent's that match? No other calculations necessary?
  8. For scouting purposes, I'll be using a 5D mkIV. I'll be using an Alexa Mini on the shoot and I've used my high school math to arrive at a 1.3x crop factor vs the mk IV. I've built a template in PS to mask out the Canon photos to equate them to the Alexa aspect ratio and resolution I'll be using. Question is, using the crop factor, how do I figure out what a full frame 50mm lens on the 5D would be equate to on an Alexa Mini. (To complicate things I'm using anamorphic lenses but that's just halving those focal lengths to arrive at the spherical equivalent for horizontal field of view...) Is it as simple as 1.3 x the focal length? I thought it might be more complicated as it's not like the traditional thing of using a full frame lens on a smaller sensor... kind of but not quite. Yes I have Artemis but we wanted to storyboard with lens compression and nicer looking images than Artemis spits out.
  9. Just got my Athos insurance renewal quote and it’s pretty steep to say the least.... Are there any other solid insurance options around?
  10. But if we take Netflix acceptable resolution of 3148 x 2636 for 2x anamorphic, then the alexa mini open gate 4:3 mode spits out 3424 x 2202, so the width exceeds that specification but the height is 400+ pixels short. In that instance surely the appreciable DOF difference between an LF and a regular Alexa is going to be virtually zero as the photosites are the same size and distance apart. Also the Cooke Anamorphics have an image circle larger than the master anamorphics; 33.54mm vs 29.26mm. So will the Cooke Anamorphics cover the LF's 3148 x 2636? I'm guessing yes, do they also cover the full height of the LF sensor?
  11. Obviously as the Alexa LF is a larger sensor the depth of field will be shallower vs a S35 Alexa but.... if I'm shooting anamorphic 2:1 on the LF (2880 x 2880) using a S35 anamorphic lens and I compare the image to shooting 2:1 on the Alexa mini (2160 x 2160) with the exact same lens / T-stop, I would imagine that there would be negligible depth of field difference between the 2 images, the Alexa LF image would have a slightly wider FOV than the Alexa Mini image. Same for a 2.39:1 image, Alexa mini would have a slightly smaller FOV. Is this correct or am I missing something, I'm primarily interested in whether there would be an appreciably shallower DOF when shooting Anamorphic on an LF vs a regular S35 Alexa. The difference in pixels used seems so small that I can't imagine it would make a visible difference. I can totally appreciate that a Full frame spherical lens does have a shallower DOF than an equivalent S35 spherical lens given the greater difference in sensor size being used vs the example above. Thanks in advance for any insight.
  12. Does anyone know whether Lee or Rosco make the classic 'Steel Green' gel to infuse some steel green tone to the shadows? i.e. as used on Guardians of the Galaxy, Maze Runner etc. I've attached stills for reference (massive compression...) Check out the tint of her down side. For sure also DI but if I wanted to gel very mild fill to get a similar result. Lee's and Rosco's version don't look the same from color swatches. Which version is the go to for this kind of look?
  13. I'm involved with a low budget short film and will be providing high $X,000's of camera / lighting gear for free, plus no day rate and large amount of prep; test shoots, scouts, storyboarding in CG etc. I'm happy to do this for a cool project that has potential upside down the road but when I brought up the fact that as I'm investing significant resources and time in this, is it unreasonable to expect a commensurate return if the short film serves it's purpose and is sold to a studio or network to either turn into a full length feature or a limited run series, I got blank stares and awkward silences. I mean without physically filming a script on equipment, it's just a great idea on paper. I'm super passionate about creating cool stuff and I'm happy to be involved with interesting projects that push my boundaries creatively but working for free with no upside down the road is pretty embarrassing to admit to oneself, let alone anyone else. They are seeking funding and I was asked if I know any people who would be interesting in investing. So I said 'sure, what the upside that a potential investor can look forward to in the event of success down the road?'. To which they replied that investors would receive an EP credit and nothing else, apparently they look look for people that have a 'spare cash' lying around who want an EP credit for the fun of it. Needless to say there was no-one I could approach with this kind of one sided 'opportunity'. Is this the norm or is there a precedent or standard practice in the low budget short film arena that I can use to leverage a fair deal?
  14. I want to invest in a solid LED light. I’ll be using primarily as a key in various guises. One man operation at times is a definite plus. Im leaning towards the litegear lite tile 4x4 In their lite box soft box. Large, soft source with good punch and relatively lightweight and portable. Very slim profile etc. But at that price point. I can’t help but compare to a Skypanel S60. Cons of that unit are the weight and the necessity of a chimera to get that large source. Even then it’s not as large as the lite tile 4x4. Also not portable but it’s a skypanel and very powerful and proven with full rgb control. (I’m not interested in party colors) Any thoughts? I want to make a good choice here as I freely admit to having wasted far too much cash over the years....
  • Create New...