Jump to content

Adam Paul

Basic Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Here and now
  1. Just curious. What did you end up doing?
  2. OK, I took some photos. I sent them directly to you, so they can be large enough to see the details. I hope it's ok to reach out directly. I sent to your gmail account. Thanks.
  3. Yes, it has the LDS contacts. But I don't care if they get damaged to be honest. Don't use it. I took all rings which had screws off. But they were just covers of sort it seems. The iris ring itself still won't come off and I see no more screws on it. Good news is I can see what the problem is inside through the gap. If I can take the iris ring off I may be able to repair it. I will try to take pictures but it's hard to show it.
  4. Thanks for the reply. So you have specifically worked on a few Sony F3 PL lenses? You think they are difficult to service and work on as compared to other PL lenses? In my case I don't have much to lose. The lens was damaged during transport. The iris ring is cracked on the external. It was working when it arrived but not smoothly. Then it just kind of clicked in place and got stuck in the fully closed position. That happened as I was testing it once I saw the ring was cracked after I took it out of the box. Since the seller ended up refunding me the money and telling me I could keep the broken lens, I don't have much to lose in trying to open it myself and see if I can repair it. As it is now it's just a big paper weight. If you have experience with these lenses and could guide me to at least get to the iris I would appreciated it. I took the surface crews off but couldn't get in the lens and decided to screw it back and ask for hep instead. Like I said I don't have much to lose and could even learn something in the process. Thanks.
  5. I have a Sony PL lens which has a stuck iris ring. I tried opening it but it's a strange thing. I didn't get far. I know this is a long shot. But has anybody tried servicing them? I'm talking the ones which came with the F3.
  6. Yes, sure. I know Allen's dialog is different. But it was a period piece. It took me out of it sometimes. But like I said, my main problem was the image. I'm not saying it looked bad. I agree with you that it looked good. The problem I found was that it was not fitting to the story or time period. It is not the lighting though. It is the image as a whole. Many classic films have stylized lighting and they still fit the time period. It was not the lighting. This is why I think digital is to blame. And when it comes to digital looking, the F65 is on the top of the scale. Only Red comes close to it as looking very digital. Alexa, F35, Genesis etc don't look as digital. So if the lighting wasn't the problem, the only thing left to "blame" is digital. Maybe it would have looked more fitting if it was shot on film. I just never bought it that it was set in the 30's/40's because of how it looked and felt.
  7. No idea why the title says only Caf. It was meant to say Café Society. But it seems I can no longer edit the post. Could a moderator correct it please?
  8. I finally caught Café Society on blu-ray. I must say I didn't care for the cinematography. The lighting was obviously inspired by classic Hollywood. But I think the digital look didn't really fit that style. At least not the F65 look. I just couldn't get into the mood I was watching a story set at that time period. I kept having to remind myself it was set in the past. When I car showed up or something I was reminded of it. But in general it all felt too modern. It felt like people wearing costumes and playing theater. The dialog also made me ask myself sometimes, "Did people really talk like that back then?". But all together I think it might have been the choice of the F65. It just looked all so digital and the cinematography itself felt forced in my opinion. I had to keep telling myself, "But it's Storaro!" What did you think of it? On a side note, on the same day I also saw Billy Lynn and didn't care for the image either. I saw it on blu-ray so no 120fps. I avoided seeing it in 120fps on theaters on purpose. I knew how it would look and that it would take me out of the story. I had enough of that in The Hobbit with 48fps. But even conformed to 24fps the image looked very meh.
  9. So in other words, like other IMAX films before it, such as films about nature or whatever, it is not really a movie but rather a "presentation"? It just happens to have name actors in it and a big budget. This is how it is sounding to me. I should see it soon enough though.
  10. But surely properly conveying the terror they went through would be part of this education? I haven't seen the film yet, so I will reserve full judgement for when I have. But the article seems to be complaining of lack of realism too, which to me means holding back on that education you speak of. But I will still see it on theaters anyway. After watching The Hateful 8 on a theater screen and being amazed and then watching The Revenant and a year later Rogue One on a theater screen, shot on the Alexa 65 and being totally disappointed with the image in comparison to The Hateful 8, it is clear the only way to get the experience I got from The Hateful 8 is watching 65/70mm film on theaters. Digital 65mm didn't look any better than digital 35mm to me based on Rogue One and The Revenant. The Hateful 8 was astonishingly great. I kept asking myself why we are moving to digital. So I will watch any movies shot and released on 65/70mm film . Never know for how much longer we will be able to do that.
  11. Sure it is not a documentary. But a PG13 war movie is a bit like a PG13 horror movie. It will be watered down any way you look at it.
  12. I haven't seen it yet. But I have read a few reviews, which as you say have been all positive. But then I found this: "My Father, Who Survived Dunkirk, Would Not Have Recognized Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk" http://www.thestranger.com/film/2017/07/19/25297266/my-father-who-survived-dunkirk-would-not-have-recognized-christopher-nolans-dunkirk Interesting point of view. I will still see it though.
  13. I can't say for sure. But I would think they are new. The image and effects don't really look to be from 2009. Have you seen the movies?
  14. I'm sure most of you are aware of Blomkamp's short films he has been posting on youtube. They are professionally produced high concept works. He has posted 2 so far. Now youtube is full with interesting stuff. But what made me start thinking is that Blomkamp is an established filmmaker with several studio features under his belt. Yet here he is, posting shorts on youtbe that to me look like job applications of sorts. He doesn't seem to be working on any studio projects at the moment and these shorts look like he is trying to show what he can do, or that he has ideas. In other words they look like a pitch. Again nothing new. Youtube is full of that. But not from an established professional such as Blomkamp. Even though the fact he has no projects announced is not a guarantee he is not working on some studio project, it seems he is not working on anything now or he would neither have the time and maybe also not the motivation. I understand his last few movies didn't do well. But is that enough to push him out? That got me thinking. If a established filmmaker such as Blomkamp has to start putting his own money and time to try to get studio work, what hope is there for all the other people trying to have their first crack? Is that the current state of the industry? With the firing of Lord and Miller from Star Wars and now a established director making youtube movies which look like job applications, the tide seems to be shifting somehow. I may be reading too much into this. I know directors do passion projects all the time and also work on shorts. But the way these Blomkamp movies are being presented to the public, it makes me feel like he is only doing them because he is somehow out of work. Either trying to get a studio interested in him or his ideas or trying to sell himself or his movies in an alternative way outside of the studio system. Which again could only mean he is not getting any studio work. What do you think? Like I said, if a guy like Blomkamp can't get work, what about new directors? Or it's just a case of the supply gotten so much higher above the demand that studios are not giving much chance to filmmakers that strike out only a couple of times? With digital it's much easier for people to show what they can do and get the attention of the studios. So many newcomers are being given big movies these days after just one semi successful indie project. But are studio then less forgiving? Are directors becoming expandable? All interesting topics to discuss.
  15. I was just pointing out the Genesis/F35 sensor is not designed for composite. It is indeed intended to be a general purpose sensor. You seemed to be implying it was designed for composite work or saying that Panavision had implied that. I just wanted to clear it up it was not. Lighting for reversal was needed for the DV days where we had 6 or 7 stops max. of DR. Today with cameras doing over 10 stops I don't find it necessary. With the F35 because of the great way it deals with highlights I basically approach it as I would film. Just slight adjustment. There are many F35 users online who point that the camera is capable of even more than 12-stops. I never tested it but in using it I never really felt much limited by the DR. Because you can be pretty relaxed with the highlights and they will look nice, you don't have to be worried about it like with other digital cameras.
  • Create New...