Matthias Claflin

I believe the HBO series "Room 104" takes place entirely in a hotel/motel room. That may be a good place to start. I'm not certain, (I've only seen one episode) but I think it's a twilight zone type show, but the constant is the hotel/motel room they are in.

I've only used the non DS versions, but the 360 view on the DS version on the B&H site doesn't have "DS" on it either. It just has a "II" since the DS was the second generation of the rokinon cine lenses, it may just say "II" instead of "DS"

AS and DS are not mutually exclusive. The AS in the Rokinon lenses means Aspherical. Even the DS versions have "AS" written on the lens. It may actually be a DS lens.

I have used both DS and non DS lenses. I noticed that my 85mm T1.5 non DS has a green cast that my 35mm T1.5 non DS doesn't have. It is very easy to remove. I have a preset in my NLE that I apply to everything I shoot on the 85 before grading it (to match my 35.) That said, I can't say I've noticed any sharpness difference between any of the Rokinon or Samyang cine lenses. They are the same glass as the Xeen series so they should be the same sharpness as the Xeen lenses.

I'm not sure where he is seeing it, but Canon has been using the 800% number for a while when advertising cameras with WideDR. Specifically their ENG Cameras (XA and XF series).

So as far as the photographer who shoots Leica- and I don't want to speak for him but, I believe it is an aesthetic choice. He shot Canon 5D mkii and mkiii with the 24-70 f/2.8 II and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS for a while and got bored creatively with it. He is far more interested in the art of photography than the commercial of it so he wanted a system that got him excited about the art he was creating. One of his Leica cameras is a black and white CCD sensor camera, so he definitely isn't trying to make his job easier. He shoots only primes as well. I shoot primes only because wedding video is not my primary line of work. I make more money shooting music videos than I do weddings, and far more from the corporate jobs than wedding and music videos combined. I won't buy a zoom for weddings because I won't use it outside of weddings and a zoom that is "good enough" is too expensive to justify for the 2-4 weddings I shoot per year. The only time I use a photo lens is when I absolutely have to because I absolutely hate the focus ring on most photo lenses. I manually focus everything myself, or when budget makes it available, I have a 1st AC to pull for me. Either way though, I find the short distance of the focus rings on photo lenses to be irritating. I like the distance on the Rokinon cine lenses which is primarily why I use them (and because I can't afford Canon or Zeiss cinema lenses.) They are also much flatter than the Canon L series lenses or the Sigma Art lenses (specifically the 24-105 that I have most of my Sigma experience with). So basically I just prefer cinema housing and I find that I rarely justify needing a zoom, but I have often chosen to shoot at T1.4/T1.8/T2.0/etc often enough to justify buying fast prime lenses over a 2.8 zoom (which I admit is fast, just not as fast as I sometimes like.) As for sharpness, I don't really pay much attention to sharpness (unless it is unbearably soft). Most lenses meet my sharpness requirements these days. The only lens I ever got rid of for sharpness reasons was the 24mm Rokinon I previously owned which must have been a from a bad batch because it was atrocious. I prefer to buy a certain focal length for aesthetic reasons, with the exception of my 16mm lens, I've always done that. The 16mm is only in my kit because sometimes you just can't back up anymore. I don't really care for having a 135mm if it isn't aesthetically useful. It seems most people don't use them and so I think I'll just avoid buying one and maybe fill in my current kit with a 50mm or 24mm (though I'm still undecided on that) or put the money to use elsewhere. So to sum up, I'm only interested in the 135mm focal length if it has some aesthetic that it both unique and useful. It seems most people don't shoot 135mm unless reach is the issue, which isn't a good enough reason for me at the moment. I love the 85mm aesthetic so I originally thought I may also love a 135mm aesthetic. I may still rent a 135 to see for myself, but I trust that it isn't popular for a reason. It's quite hard to find opinions on it online that aren't photography focused (which is why I originally started this thread).

I may be mistaken, but the Sony A- series of cameras records to XAVC-S which is essentially a 4:2:0 50mbps 8 bit codec (in HD).

Hey guys, I really appreciate the input here. From what I understand, there is little reason to get a 135 if you don't need the distance. I understand that a lot of wedding videographers use lenses like 70-200, but I avoid zooms like this if I can. The reason I do is because of the photographer I work with in weddings uses Leica rangefinder cameras with all prime lenses. If I'm not mistaken, his longest lens is a 90mm. I've been borrowing the 24-105 from the company I shoot corporate work for when I need it (since we rarely shoot anything on the weekends) so maybe I'll stick with that for now. If the only benefit of a 135mm is increased reach, it isn't worth it for me. I'm trying to pivot out of wedding videos anyway so whatever lens I get has to be worth more than a little reach. That said, I think everyone here has changed my mind about the 135mm and I think I'll take some time to rent and reconsider some shorter primes, maybe 20, 24, or 50. Or I'll put the money I had allocated for a lens towards some other part of my kit that could use attention. I really appreciate all the insight here. I think I need to think a LOT more about this.

So I'm looking to buy a new lens and am curious how often people use the 135mm focal length. Current Camera/Lenses - Canon C100 (mki) Rokinon 16mm T2.2 Rokinon 35mm T1.5 Rokinon 85mm T1.5 Canon 50mm f/1.8 (that I hate) The Problem - I do a mix of corporate, music videos, and weddings. I shoot most of my corporate stuff on a Sigma 24-105 f/4 (owned by the company I shoot corporate work for) or a 35mm prime (that I own). I'm more interested in expanding my lens set for my creative work in music videos and weddings. I need something with some reach (for my second camera when shooting weddings) as now I'm shooting with a 35mm on my B camera and 85mm on my A camera. I would like to either match or exceed 85mm. Also, when I did have a 24mm rokinon, I hated it and when I had a 50mm rokinon I just never really used it. I mention these because they would fill the more obvious gaps in the focal lengths I already have. Just for reach, I'm considering buying a 135mm. I had the Canon 135mm f/2.8 soft focus lens but the CA on that lens rendered it unusable so it never came out of my bag after I tested it around the house so I have no idea if I would actually use a 135mm on a music video shoot for aesthetic reasons. So, I need a longer lens than 35mm for my second camera at weddings. I have three options in this regard. I can buy another 85mm (Samyang is $250 new), try the 100mm t3.1 macro ($550 new/couldn't find one used on any of my usual sites) or get 135mm ($400 used/$440 new). I could roll the dice with the 100mm but I don't need a macro (I had one and never used it) and I'm not in love with a minimum of T3.1. I know I love the 85 and it would mostly solve my reach problem. It would be nice to have a little more reach, but I know I can live without it. If I get another 85 I know it'll sit in my bag until I'm shooting a wedding that needs it. I'm hoping that if I buy a 135mm I'll find it useful for aesthetic reasons and not just for it's reach. If I can justify it aesthetically, I think it's worth the extra $150-200, but if it just sits in my bag till I need a second cam with some reach, then I might as well just buy a cheaper lens I already know I love, right? I'm not trying to be stingy, but I'm sure I could use that money elsewhere if reach is the only benefit. TL;DR - If I'm boiling it down, I want to know how often people use a 135mm focal length that for aesthetic reasons. Or is this focal length more about reach?

Well the Sony RX0 II has S-log and image stabilization built in. The S-log, would definitely help with the latitude you'd need.

I have heard good things about the Sony RX0 II. The GoPro doesn't specify what size the sensor is, but the RX0 II has a 1" sensor. I think the RX0 gives a better image and codec. The Sony is also has S-log and can output 4:2:2 4k from the HDMI output. If you chose to record to an external recorder you could save battery life on the cameras themselves, get higher quality footage, and record directly to SSDs instead of handling a bunch of micro SD cards. If you recorded into something like the Atomos Ninja V, you could record straight to a 1tb or 2tb SSD. At the lowest bitrate for DNxHD (4.3MB/s) you could get a full 8 hour day on 125GB, or up to 7 days on a 1TB drive. This does not allow for redundancies necessarily, though I don't know if that is something you are considering. The biggest downside to this approach is battery life for all these items. I think you can run the Atomos recorders on V-mount or Gold Mount batteries with a D-tap adapter, which could probably get you a good amount of time (someone with more experience with this type of power could probably get you exact times). I'm not sure how you plan to charge the batteries on the road, so the large size of a V-mount or Gold plate battery may not work well. I'm only recommending this as a "best image to size" option. Of course I didn't account for the budget, as one of these cameras can cost 2-3x the cost of a GoPro and then an external recorder (if you wanted to go that route) would cost extra, and batteries of course would be extra. Just a thought on an alternative to the GoPro.

On that budget, I'd probably suggest some second hand tungsten fresnels (which is what I currently have in my kit). I would recommend getting at least 3. I started with (2) 1000w fresnels and (1) 420w fresnel. The issue with fresnels (and why they seem to be selling cheap on eBay) is that they run hot and use lots of power. I got my two 1k lights for 75USD and 100USD and the 420W for 65USD. Of course I patiently watched eBay for deals and bought one of the 1k's with the wrong electrical plug and had to re-wire it. The 420W failed on me about two months in and it also needed to be re-wired as part of the wire had worn out. I also bought bulbs for all the lights because I wasn't sure the how long the bulbs that came with them would last. Your mileage with eBay lights may vary, but if you are patient and willing to make simple repairs, you can get them at a steal. I'm not sure what electrical circuits are like in Ireland (I live in the USA), but here most breakers are 15A or 20A (at 120v). So you have to be careful not to exceed the amperage of your breaker. However once you've gotten used to calculating this, it really doesn't slow you down too much. That said if you are going to buy tungsten lights I would recommend some CTB gels to match them to daylight if necessary. I'd also say get a roll of CTO in case the power of your lights with CTB just isn't cutting it (since CTB cuts almost 2 stops of light). The CTO can be placed on windows to convert daylight to tungsten white balance. I bought two rolls of CTO on eBay for 60USD so if you keep a patient eye on eBay, you can typically get most of this for cheap. I'd also recommend at least two reflector/diffuser discs. These things have saved me a few times when needing to bounce light in a tight spot or diffuse it. Very rarely do I use my lights without some kind of diffusion or bounce. Add a few light stands (get extra so you have something to clamp diffusers/bounces too) and you've got a decent little light kit. I'm not sure if you can get all of this for under 500€ but if you are patient you may just do it. ------------------ That aside, I use these lights for shooting music videos on a regular basis. I now have 7 lights in my kit and sometimes I use all of them, sometimes I use nothing but daylight. It totally depends on the location and feel that I want for the video. For the weddings I've shot, I don't use any extra lights. I have an LED in my bag, but I never bring it out because I cheaped out on it and the quality of light is terrible. It has a very strong green bias that is hard to get rid of and it's simply not worth the headache. So personally, for weddings, I recommend smaller tungsten or led fresnel fixtures. A number of friends of mine have used Dedo lights for weddings and some use the fiilex led fresnels. I've heard good things about both but never used them. I personally don't like adding lights to weddings because (to me) it feels inauthentic, however the best looking wedding videos I've seen use some amount of extra lighting. So it can go either way, depends on what you are going for.

Thanks Bruce, Thanks for the tip. I think i'll turn off one of the 1k fresnel lights so the soft zip acts more like a key. I have the green screen lit with two 500w lowel omni lights at the moment. I think I want to pull the output down on those lights a bit. Do you think that a diffusion gel would get the desired effect, or maybe just stick to buying some scrims? I'm just not sure what would be best (without buying new lights) to knock down the exposure of the screen. Just a bit.

I don't know how scientific this website is, but I've used this before to help with pre-planning. Worth a look. https://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Backstory: I work with a company doing corporate video work in my area. We recently moved into a new office where we were able to dedicate a 12x12 wall for green screen. We just finished painting it with Rosco DigiComp Green. I lit it for the first time yesterday and though I think the wall looks great, I'm not thrilled with the way it's lit. This is what it looks like: Lighting Diagram: Canon C100: ISO: 640, PP: WideDR, WB: 2900k, Lens: 35mm Rokinon T8.0 My Concern: I think the green screen itself is too bright. I find it easier to key (personally) if the screen is a little darker than the subject, I was going to just bring the lights closer to the subject, but I had a few people say they didn't like how bright it was already to look at. My next thought is that I could back the Lowel Omni lights off a bit, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to control them enough to keep them off the subject and I don't have a lot of space left. So I think I've settled on buying some 24x24 diffusion gels (so I can use them on any light later on, as opposed to buying some specific for the Omnis). I'm just not sure which ones to get. I'm not really familiar with using diffusion gels, so I'm not sure how much light I will lose or how much it will change the quality of light. Right now the Omnis are just bare bulbs. The only alternative that I've considered is buying lower wattage bulbs for the omni or perhaps investing in scrims for them. I'm just not sure what would be the best way to reduce the light, but also be versatile in other applications (scrims vs lower wattage bulbs vs diffusion gels). Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I'm not the most knowledgeable when it comes to lighting so I appreciate any advice at all.