Nicolas POISSON

My understanding is that you neither not need nor can use Metabones adapters as your camera has a full frame sensor. You just need a $10 dumb adapter. This is the beauty of vintage still lenses : they do not have any electronics, they were made to comply with focal flange distance around 45mm. They can be adapted to any modern "mirrorless" mount (Canon RF, Sony E, Nikon Z...) with a cheap adapter. If you decide one day to switch from Canon RF to Sony E, you just have to buy a new $10 adapter. Old still lenses are a good option if you want to go really cheap ($30-50 per lens) on no-budget projects. But you have to cope with their limitations. For example, it is hardly possible to add a follow-focus system on still lenses. It is no just about adding a 0.8M rubber ring. There are tons of problems doing so, which youtubers do not talk about. They will also have limitations in terms of sharpness and flares (coatings). This can be a good thing if your project needs some "character", but that is far from universal. If you want to go primes, I would advise to go for the Rokinons in their cine version (built-in gears) in EF mount. Yes these are based on still lenses, but they are usable in a professional environment.

It depends a lot on the projects you intend to shoot. One work faster with zooms and that’s why they are so common in the corporate world. If you are operating the camera solo, auto-focus might also be necessary. Hence hybrid still/video zooms might be the best option. For narrative, there is more time on set and it is possible to anticipate the focal length. There is a guy dedicated to operating a remote follow-focus system. There is another guy dedicated to changing the lens. One may prefer primes for their wider aperture or simply for the state of mind. I do not think a single 50-125 zoom is a good first investment, even at a bargain price. You will miss the wider angles. Even if you add a wider prime, you will have to change the lens often and you loose the benefit of a zoom. I would rather search for something like 28-85mm.

It depends on the gamma curve. For example in Slog3, the default gray level is 41% and the linear part is 7.5% IRE per stop. One stop above middle gray would be like 48-49% IRE. In Slog2, middle gray is at 32% but the curve is much steeper at 11.5% per stop. One stop above muddle gray would be around 44%.

I am only an enthusiast. Years ago I bought a Ninja V, and it has been one of the best purchase ever made for improving my skills. Compared to the built-in display of my DSLR, an external monitor brings: bigger, more precise, brighter image measurement tools: waveform, false colours (including EL zone for the Ninja) LUTs. I made a series of exposure compensated LUTs so that I can play with ISO like EI. calibration (included in the LUT as well - the calibration from Atomos is crap). However image accuracy is secondary in an uncontrolled viewing environment, which is often the case on set. clean image: I can switch between measurement / clean image quickly. I really like having an image 100% clean when framing. So I'd say: yes, a monitor is a safe investment. Maybe not an Atomos. These are not that cheap, and the software leaves room for improvements. For example, the waveform on the Ninja V is measured post-LUT, which I find useless (it is pre-LUT on the Shinobi). They are a bit noisy too. These were a great option 8 years ago, but nowadays ? Maybe the competition is better in this price range... or not. You can reproduce EL zone with LUTs as well (I guess this is how Ed Lachman created this tool).

Jon, my post was not a critic and I sincerely did not expect you would take it so bad. However, about half of your initial post described a certain camera set-up. My goal was to explain that such a set-up is the result of logical decisions, including when you intend to mix both hand-held and tripod shots. It is no surprise that it pops up so often. Maybe you know much more about cinematography than I do, and all I said was obvious. But you pointed out aspects like camera cage, rear V-mount battery or top handle, that are common and basic across all levels of productions. It is hard to evaluate your experience. And I keep thinking the lack of viewfinder is more often than not a clue of budget constraints. At least, that is my experience. Are some folks so used to the lack of it that they do not get it even when they could ? Maybe.

Jon, I do not think the shoulder rig you described is meant to be "hip". Quite the opposite indeed : it is what you get when you want to do things the right way with no money. By right, I mean : stay away from fancy tricks that draw attention to themselves, and use tools that support the story without the audience noticing it. A good example is that scene from The Dark Knight (2008) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jane6C4rIwc The scene starts with a slow pace, the camera is on a tripod. Enters Batman, the energy rises, and the camera moves to the shoulder. It is stable enough so that that it remains unnoticed, shaky enough to support the mood. Here was my journey in the world of DIY shoulder rig. Bad designs : Say you are a broke film-maker with a DSLR. Most YouTube videos show sexy, compact, pro-looking shoulder rigs… but really poor designs. The camera is a DSLR far away on the front, so that the operator can look at the rear screen. After watching tons of YouTube videos, you end up with this ARRI workshop at Camerimage : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHcYjKpJb-I Now, you are convinced that you rig should be : - balanced - heavy (the guy says 20kg / 40lbs) - with 3 points anchor to the body : shoulder, hands (1 anchor point), eye to the viewfinder ; - with the image plane close to the shoulder, so that any tilt does not add too much vertical translation Most designs miss all these 4 key points of a proper shoulder rig. Although this is not part of the rig itself, you should also start with rather wide angle lenses, since you are inexperienced. Good design : First : image plane over the shoulder. OK. Easy to do. Now you cannot look at the rear screen. The best would be to add a viewfinder, but you’re broke. A monitor is much cheaper and you’ve got one anyway. You place it far away in front of you. Keeping it out of the frame is a bit tricky with wide angles and compact lenses. Now you rig is completely unbalanced. Use the battery as a counterweight placing it behind the shoulder. Often it will not be enough. Either use a bigger battery, or place it farther away behind you (not very convenient in small spaces), or add other counterweights using cast iron disks bought at the body-building section of your local sport store (very easy to drill). This is what I did, and got a 6kg/13Lbs rig, balanced, with only two anchor points (no viewfinder) and not as heavy as a real rig. It is still much better than the 1.5kgs of the DSLR on a Neewer rig. The design evolved a lot, the latest version allows for a quick separation of the camera + battery + monitor + follow focus from the shoulder rig, so that I can put it on a tripod in seconds. The secret is to use two sets of rods. Now I agree that at this level of film-making, the mate box is a fancy accessory either meant for the film-maker's confidence or pure marketing.

Beware of comparing dynamic range. DR is the ratio of clipping to a certain acceptable level of dark signal. Engineers define that level as being the noise floor. You will find this described as "SNR = 1", which means the minimum acceptable signal is equal to the noise floor. For most cinematographers though, objects in the image should be at least twice the amplitude of the noise floor to be of acceptable quality, described as "SNR = 2". Since users pay attention to DR, manufacturers try to get the highest figure possible. Most publish DR at SNR = 1 (I think Arri uses SNR = 2). Some publish the number of grey pattern visible on a Xyla 21 chart. Due to the capacity of our visual system to recognize patterns, one can detect grey rectangles below the noise floor. This means some DR figures may correspond to SNR = 0.5 or even 0.25. The problem is this only applies to the wide and uniform rectangles of a chart. For real world images, the smaller the details, the higher above noise floor it should be. Take a look at that paper from Arri: https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/295460/e10ff8a5b3abf26c33f8754379b57442/2022-09-28-arri-dynamic-range-whitepaper-data.pdf Moreover, many cameras apply internal de-noising which improves DR but may remove details or create artefacts. This is more pronounced on consumer cameras / DSLR, and at higher ISOs. Taking the definition of DR as "SNR = 2", and looking at cinema cameras that have little to no de-noising, DR figures are often much lower than 16 stops. The Sony Burano exhibits around 11-12 stops of DR: https://www.cined.com/sony-burano-8k-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-exposure-latitude/ Note that Imatest seems to report the DR with noise as a fraction of the signal. Thus their "slope based DR" at 0.5 is equivalent to "SNR = 2". Another interesting source is to look at RAW files, which bypass the de-noising. Again, figures are not that impressive: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm DR in photo mode is usually lower than in video, because the reduction in definition averages several pixels and lowers the noise floor. 12 stops is similar to a modern DSLR, which usually applies some de-noising to get this kind of figure. My Canon HF-M46, a cheap camcorder from 13 years ago, has 8-9 stops of DR. I was blown away with such a good performance when I bought it in replacement of my DV Camcorder peaking at 5-6 stops of DR.

For HMI bulbs, there is a ballast that sets the voltage and frequency to specific values anyway. The input voltage should not change anything to the output.

Options are limited. You can increase the shutter speed (reduce exposure time), but there are many downsides to this : loss of light, jerky movement if you move the camera... You can also switch the camera to APS-C mode, which halves the rolling shutter according to this test: https://www.cined.com/panasonic-lumix-s5-lab-test-rolling-shutter-dynamic-range-and-latitude/ I am afraid whatever you try will not be enough for very fast moving objects like propellers. Almost no DSLR has a global shutter. Many have a mechanical shutter which can help to considerably reduce the effect. However this only applies to stills. Video always use electronic shutter.

Maybe you could have only the vanity light when shooting toward the mirror, and use the LED tube only for the reverse shot. Or reach a compromise where the vanity light is close to the top of the frame in the wide shot, leaving enough room to hide the LED tube and its grid. You may have to use lower wattage bulbs for the vanity, otherwise they will overcome the effect of the LED tube. These are really not powerful, and the honeycomb grid will reduce the light even further. Also check the vanity does not flicker.

In small spaces, LED tubes are very usefull (Astera or similar - I use Godox TL60). You need a honeycomb grid (well, a honeycomb "line" in this case) to prevent spill to the walls. Placing the tube above the mirror recreates the vanity light, but with more control over spill, colour temperature, intensity and with a better CRI. Or maybe you could just use the installed vanity light with some Cinefoil / Blackwarp.

I had this weird lens in a set of old stuff. It seems to consist in two massive plano-convex lenses back to back. One shows reddish reflections, but looking through it, it gives a rather cyan image. Objects appear slightly bigger than life, but not that much. There is no apparent way of attaching it to something else. Any clue of what it is ?

I would not expect decentring to alter light transmission. It makes areas of the image softer, not darker. Here is an example: The camera was first focused on the building centred in the frame, then pan/tilted so that it lands at each corner. The top and bottom left corners are slightly more blurry (all corners are blurry though: it is a lens from the early 80's). However, there is no change in brightness. As stated before, 1 stop is a huge difference, well beyond the consequences of usual optical issues.

A precision : 709 is not flat at all. Nowadays, we used to call "709" any grading/LUT that makes the image look good on a Rec709 display. Basically 709 means anything that is not Log. There are tons of 709 profiles and none of them follow strictly the Rec709 norm. They are all flatter because we want to fit the wide dynamic range and gamut of modern cameras on the limited performances of 709 displays. This is obvious when comparing two LUTs proposed by Sony for S-log3 : 1- Cine+709 2- LC709 The first one (left) is intended for monitoring use, and is very contrasty. Indeed, it is way too contrasty for my taste, and it clips the highlights. Some highlight details may appear as pure white on the monitor while they are not actually clipping. The later one (right) is lower contrast (I guess this is what LC means). It is intended as a base look for grading, leaving room for further corrections. Personally, I use the LC version for monitoring on set, but I admit it is a bit too flat. Hence the idea of using a customized version of this LUT, with slightly more contrast and saturation, but not up to the point of making it a strict Rec709 LUT. My understanding is that many DPs will do that as well. But once the customized LUT is created, they will use it as is for on-set monitors on every project, without further modification. They may create a specific LUT for each project (prior to shooting), but they will not necessarily use it on-set.

I do not have much experience, but I have been digging this subject as well. On set, it seems that most DPs use the manufacturers default LUTs, with sometime minimal correction (slightly more contrast or saturation). There was an interview of a DP and colorist (in French): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D4l6RK2z6I They are working this way : they apply a manufacturer LUT on a first test image and customize it so that it looks good they use this customized LUT on a second test image, and modify it so that it looks good and so on, using several test images, each time starting from the latest version of the LUT At the end, they apply the final LUT to the whole set of images and check it still looks good. Most of the time, it does. Modifications brought later on still fit the earlier test images. I guess this happens because test images are not contradictory : there is no case where some images should be corrected toward green while other ones require correction toward magenta. Using multiple images allow the final LUT to be more exhaustive. However, they do note use the final customized LUT on set. The use it only for dailies. On-set monitors still use default LUTs. It seems a common practice is to avoid strong looks on set. This makes sense: you may prefer to achieve the look modifying lighting or set decoration. So you need a rather "neutral" LUT. This way, you record shots as close as possible to the intended look, relying less on later grading. If you were to use strong looks, very contrasty for example, you would not be able to check for errors while shooting.