Jihed Ben Hammadi

Amazing cinematic look and feel !!!!!

Canon's line of FD lenses are good for that vintage look while retaining sharpness. They can also be modified with focus rings and cine rings. A good set would be a 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm. You can mount a Lens Turbo to the GH4 and then swap out the three lenses as if the camera is an FD mount camera.

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1218399-REG/mitakon_zhongyi_mtkltm2fdm43_canon_fd_lens_to.html

 

I'd recommend getting lenses from the same brand (all Canon or all Pentax, etc.) because the appearance of your shots will vary by lens brand. Canon has a different coating on their glass than Pentax.

 

I would like to add to this that while these will work they are optical adapters like teleconverters and could degrade image quality of the lenses.

 

I would recommend as others have stated as well to decide what lens mount you want to go with either by choosing lenses first, choosing a camera body first or both (Mirrorless Sony's for example can be full frame and adapated to a wide range of lens mounts). I wouldn't recommend having mixed lenses from lots of different mounts and trying to adapt them all individually.

Thanks guys, well, I'll be experimenting and trying all of them, they're cheap so no worries. The shop I bought from has also Canon FD 50mm 1.8, but I already have the Pentax and another Olympus Zuiko for the 50mm, maybe I'll buy it in future.

 

The D5600 has a Nikon F mount, which is one of the longest flange depth mounts out there. The flange depth is the distance from the mount to the sensor/film plane. Adapters are needed for cameras not only for allowing the lens to attach but also the put the lens the proper distance away from the sensor. If the lens is not the right distance then your focus marks will be way off and the lens may not focus to infinity or reach the min focus distance marked on the lens.

 

I am not sure what mount all of those lenses have but the Canon FD and maybe the others if they are not Nikon mount will most likely have a flange focal distance that is much less than the F mount on the D5600 and will not focus to infinity. Not all lenses can be adapted to any camera system.

 

The GH4 has a very short flange focal distance and can be adapted to many more lenses than a Nikon as a result but as noted above there is no speedbooster in existance that can give you full frame from a M43 camera.

Ahaaaah, fair enough. Thank you!

You don't need a speed booster, just an adapter to mount the lens on your camera if it's possible to do so. Fotodiox makes good adapters that are much less expensive than a speedbooster..

 

The GH4 has a crop factor of 2.3x, so your 35mm equivalent focal lengths are 50mm x 2.4 = 120mm, 28x2.4= 67mm, 35x2.4=84mm. A speed booster can reduce the focal length somewhat but nowhere near the full frame equivalent marked on the lens. If you want wide angle you will need to buy the wide angle lens for your GH4.

Thanks for your input, I have an other option that I might go for, I'll maybe buy Nikon D5300 instead of the GH4 due to unavailability where I live. What's the mount of the D5600, what are the adapters I should buy to use use these lenses with it?

Hello guys,

I bought three vintage lenses from an old photography shop.

The lenses are :

- Pentax 50mm 1.4

- Canon FD 28mm 2.8

- Olympus OM Zuiko 35mm 2.8

Each one for the equivalent of 25USD.

What are your thoughts and experiences with them?

Also, I'm planning on buying a Panasonic GH4, so, excuse me for being a newbie, should I buy some metabones only? I mean no need for adapters, I find the right speed booster for each type of lens? As I want to have the full frame.

And, about the mount, correct me if I'm wrong, Canon is FD, Olympus is OM and Pentax is PK, right?

I love vintage lenses for the image they give, I don't care about auto focus.

Impressive !!!
It's very beautiful looking.
What cam/lenses did you use?

Impressive image, that's the kind of image I like in cinema, the colors are so gorgeous also, long live anamorphic !!

Hi,

I'm a newbie who's going to buy a new camera for cinematic purposes (films, music video clips, etc ..) , 99% will be a Panasonic GH4, I'm leaning toward this choice taking in consideration budget, mirrorless, etc ...
What I'm asking is : what are the best affordable lenses for film-making that go well with GH4?

Additional info about what I want to achieve :

- I want a sharp image with a creamy bokeh, so, the larger aperture is the better, I'm a big fan of shallow depth of field.

- I prefer wider images, not super wide, but wide to capture more details in the image's space. But I also intend to film dialogue scenes with 35mm (or around that, more or less)

- In the future I will try to get anamorphic lenses when I can afford them, my favourite is ISCO Micro 2x.

- The offer I found with the GH4 includes a Lumix Vario 12-60mm f/3.5 (the camera + the lens for what's equivalent of 1000 USD). I'm not that enthusiastic for this lens, as it's a zoom lens and doesn't offer the quality and sharpness of prime lenses and also the aperture doesn't give the shallow depth of field that I want with wild images.

So, what are your recommendations?

Thanks guys for the input, I'm still thinking, and since I still don't don't have the money, I'll keep thinking and comparing what's best.

Hi,

I found this in a local store in Tunisia :

http://www.tunisianet.com.tn/appareils-photos-numerique/17442-reflex-numerique-nikon-d3300-objectif-nikkor-18-55mm-trepied.html

Nikon D3300 + Tripod + AF-S NIKKOR 18-55 mm

All for 1496 Tunisian Dinar which is equivalent to 596 US Dollars.

I'm a beginner and I want to start being a filmmaker instead of just dreaming and contemplating.

Is D3300 good?

I can afford that price.

Do you know if there are any defects?

And if you have other alternatives in the same price range, please feel free to suggest.

Thanks in Advance.

I just found a breakdown of the first chapter of the film. Damn, the amount of perfection and attention to the little of details amazes me.

http://mattscottvisuals.com/blog/2014/7/18/glouriousbasterds

I really want to achieve this look someday.

OK my friend, I'll subscribe to this channel. Thank you very much.

 

 

Thanks, I actually added a bit of contrast to these stills, the final DCP version that we screened last year had similar contrast to this version you saw on Vimeo (by the way, I'm visiting your country in a few days).

Ahaah, I thought the screened version was like that already.

And, welcome to Tunisia, man ! I hope you enjoy your stay.

If you don't mind me asking, is it cinema-related visit?

And another thing, also if you don't mind, I know I'm new to the forum and we don't know each other, but cinema is my weak spot and it makes me want to ask you if you'll be in the capital and if you have time, maybe we can meet and have a cinematic discussion. I know it may sound weird of me asking that.

Thank you Giacomo for all the effort and dedication in your valuable replies, much appreciated.
All these info increased my motivation level to buy a DSLR and start doing something, I really need to start with anything instead of just daydreaming.

Damn, what I learned today by just posting this thread is a treasure for me, thanks to all of you guys !!!

 

May I recommend John Alcott's three and a half films for Stanley Kubrick.

 

Which ones exactly? Because in imdb I saw only The Shining, Barry Lyndon, A Clockwork Orange, and he wasn't listed as DoP.

They used the quiet Panaflex Millennium for shots with sound being recorded (to a separate recorder) and the louder ARRI 435 for MOS shots (usually for higher frame rates for slow-motion) with Panavision anamorphic lenses (Primo and G-Series anamorphic) plus a few shots must have needed to use regular spherical lenses (like the movie within the movie).

 

Yes, you can manually focus a lens on a DSLR, just set the camera and lens to manual focus.

 

But the effect where the background going out of focus gets vertically stretched, skinnier, and out of focus round lights become vertical ovals, is an artifact of using anamorphic lenses.

Thank you, all is clear now.

I'm really in love of that style of cinematography.

I have the Bluray version of the film and I literally keep playing it from time to time just for the sake if the image. The opening scene alone in the farmer's house is a visual masterpiece in a small place.

I also have The Hateful Eight on bluray and the ultra wide screen is glorious. The film looks great, but not as much as Inglorious Basterds.

I guess I need to also have Django Unchained to keep enjoying the cinematography.

Sorry for the double post, in imdb's technical specs for the film, they have this for the camera :

Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo Anamorphic, G-Series, ATZ, AWZ2 and Cooke Lenses
Panavision Panaflex Millennium, Panavision Primo Anamorphic, G-Series, ATZ, AWZ2 and Cooke Lenses

The only difference between those two lines is Arriflex 435/Panavision Panaflex Millennium, the other stuff is identical.

I don't fully understand, is it two types of cameras and the other data is just lenses type?

Thank you guys, really thank you. It's exactly what I was looking for.

 

You're describing focus pulling, the changing of focus during a shot. It's done manually, or remotely by a real person, and it's a profession in itself, and a very demanding one. The lens barrel is turned, by gears or by hand, from one setting to another during the shot. You can do this on a DSLR yourself. Just get one that shoots video. It is most noticeable at a wide aperture (small f-number). it's not peculiar to film- it's an optical effect.

One example always comes to mind- Sean Young's first close-up in "Blade Runner". The focus puller misses by about half an inch- the cheek is sharp instead of the eye. That's how exacting focus pulling is.

Out-of-focus highlights (sometimes called bokeh) I will let others describe. It depends on lens design so, again, it applies to digital as well.

 

Thanks for the clarifications.

So, in DSLR for example, there's a button responsible for the pulling manually?

Hi,

I'm not really familiar with technical terms of cinematography, i'm just a film lover, who dreams of being a filmmaker, I pay a huge amount of attention to cinematography.

So, my post will be both an expression of my admiration of a specific style of cinematography, and questions to learn.

OK, so I'm madly in love with the cinematography of Inglorious Basterds. Robert Richardson did a phenomenal job. I consider the image of that film one of the absolute best ever.

I won't talk in my post about every aspect of it, but I'll just talk about focus.

I'm now at work, so forgive me if I can't provide images and videos due to the fact that almost all of the image/video hosting websites are restricted by our system. But I'll try to clarify as much as I can.

First, I'm gonna talk about the shape of the focus itself (I hope it's an appropriate term :D), what I mean by shape, is the shape of the blur of anything out of focus. I don't recall the exact shape, amount, or type. But it looks really great. The image looks legendary. That exact type of blur is perfect. My questions are : what's technically responsible of this kind of blur, is it the lenses? The camera type itself? Is it something that can only be done with celluloid cameras?

Now to the next point, the focus transition. I mean when you swap the focus objects, what was out of focus becomes in focus, and the other way around. In this film, it seemed like the transition was kind of horizontal (or vertical? I forgot), it was also done quickly, as if someone did it manually at that moment. For example in the first scene when one of the farmer's daughters heard the Nazi vehicles approaching, the focus was on her, and the background was out of focus, then, she stopped what she was doing and now the focus changed, and we see the Nazi vehicles from far. That focus transition moment is what I'm talking about. My questions are again : what's technically responsible of this kind of transition, is it the lenses? The camera type itself? Is it something that can only be done with celluloid cameras?

I personally can't afford or even find a 35mm camera, I want to try achieving this kind of focus and its transition. Can I do it with digital (if I afford one, even cheap like DSLR maybe?)?

I'm sorry again for the lack of technical terms, i'm still a dreamer and not familiar with them.

Wow man !! You achieved a very professional look. It really feels like a classic !
I think vimeo somehow decreases the contrast and the exposure, because it looks different to your screen capture stills in your first post.