Adam Paul

Some time ago I started a thread about keeping contrast ratio while shooting HD and the use of light meters for that. I got some interesting replies, but mostly the ? use your eye and the monitor? kind, which wasn?t what I was looking for. I have tried using the monitor only and had problems when editing. So since then I have decided going with a light meter for that. Not sure I will use it for exposure, because I think for that the cameras zebras are better and more accurate since it?s hard to effectively rate a video camera. So I have basically narrowed it down to 2 meter models. The Spectra IV-A(P-2000EL-A) or the Sekonic L-358. Since I can?t find much reviews and information about them, I was wondering if anybody here could tell me how they compare for cinematography use. I did found info on the L-358, but more directed at still photography. Although it seems to be an incident meter, there is something in the manual to measure spot. Not sure what is, I took a look real quick at a store. Information on the L558C is all over the place in these forums, but not the IV-A or L-358. I would like to get something that had some sort of automatic contrast ratio calculator and other thing to save time on set. It will be my first meter by the way. Thanks in advance for any inputs.

Hi guys, I have a double question for Lomo experts out there. First, do Lomos cover Super35? Second is, is there a T-stop table for using with Lomo primes? I always hated the fact Lomos are rated in F-stops. How can I work with them in T-stops? Since we are talking about T-stops, how do you guys keep the same exposure and light stop when changing primes if the lenses are rated in F-stop? You can't do that with f-stop as lenses have different transmission losses. Somebody told me LOMOs have been rated in T-stops since the 60?s, but every Lomo prime I?ve seen seems to be rated if F-stops. Thanks in advance.

What do you mean here?

82 views and only three replies? C?mon guys, let?s hear some opinions. I'm sure you have your favorite movie looks. :-) Thanks for all the replies so far by the way.

With the advent of DI where you can pick very specific looks, I was wondering what are everybody?s top 10 favorite movie looks, including new and older films? I will start with my list, in no particular order (I know I said top 10, but oh well): Once upon a time in America Amelie Munich Dark City Moulin Rouge Underworld Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow Superman Returns House of the flying daggers Matrix Minority Report Collateral Although they are mostly 35mm films, I thought I would post it here in the HD forum since most sophisticated looks are accomplished using DI. Along with that goes a question. Do you think those looks could have been done if shot in HD without noticeable degradation (in the case of heavily color corrected 35mm films like Underworld, Minority Report etc)? Thanks for participating.

Something else came to mind after reading this reply from David Mullen on a different thread: "The short imprecise answer is that the smaller the target area, the shorter the focal lengths get on average, and shorter focal lengths generally create more depth of field than longer ones. You'll note that the typical zoom range for Super-16 and 2/3" CCD cameas is something like 10mm-100mm, etc. whereas for 35mm it would be 25mm-to-250mm, etc. With Super-8 and 1/3" CCD cameras, it's more like 4mm-to-40mm, etc. With 35mm anamorphic and 5-perf 65mm, the range would be more like 50mm-to-500mm rather than 25mm-to-250mm to achieve the same fields of view." So I was thinking if we decide to go with 2.40, will our lenses be a problem when composing to 2.40? We will use digiprimes (7,10,14,20,28,40). Do I need the longer ones? Fredrik Backar , about the option of using anamorphic lenses on a Pro35, I think the Pro35 might soften the image a bit much. Remember it?s 720p we are shooting, not 1080p. Also, 35mm anamorphic lenses have a 2x squeeze, which would make the 16:9 image way too wide I guess. On the top of that, we have the digiprimes available for free with the Varicam package. Anamorphic lenses are also big and slower. Given the Pro35 loses a lot of light, slower lenses are not really that great of an option for it.

Well, if I consider all that, the answer screams 2.40. But if it will look too soft, I have to compromise and leave it at 1.66 or cut it to 1.85 or the odd 2.0 David mentioned. Though call really. I just wish we could shoot 1080p, so I think it would be no problem cropping to 2.40 since Star Wars looked ok that way. But 720p is already not that sharp for starters. But hey, the Varicam is free at least.

So it seems it's not really worth to crop to 1.85. How much per cent do you lose with the 2.40? The 2.0 sounds a little odd. Also, it doesn't seem like it would be that much wider than 1.85

So it would basically lose 30% resolution, if not how much? How about a 1.85 crop then? Just would like something wider than the normal HDTV 16:9, but don't want to lose sharpness because 1280x720 is already not that sharp.

I have heard that but quite frankly it confuses me since I don?t really see how. If you were blowing the footage up, I could see it getting softer, but the width stays the same. Only the height gets shortened. So if you would project the16:9 footage on a 30feet wide screen, the 2.40 version would have the very same 30feet width, just wouldn?t be as tall. So how is ti losing resolution or looking softer? I could see it if the footage would be transferred to 35mm and blown by an anamorphic projector lens, but projecting digitally?

Are there any disadvantages in cropping Varicam 16:9 footage to 2.40 if it will be projected digitally?

Yes, makes sense. But what are the markings? mm, cm, meters? Somebody told me meters, like in 0,5 meters, 0,1 meters etc. I find it weird if it's that way. Maybe cm or mm, but meters sounds funny. Anybody who has shot with one know?

Is the focus barrel marked in inches, mm or cm? Thanks.

Ok Bob, I?m trying to follow but I?m not sure I do, so please bare with me : ) A Mark V type or PL type? What do you mean and how did you do that? Interesting. Does the difference poses a real problem in your opinion? Is it big enough to get things off?

No you can't. Not that I know. The finders that work with video do so the same way a film camera works with a video tap. You also have the digital ones like P+S digital director's finder with a PL mount but it's also expensive. Arri has the same thing for even more money. You could tape the Mark V to a small camcorder's lens somehow, I'm just not sure how this would work. But the Mark V is not made to work with video. Hope it helps.

Sorry, but what's a blank focus ring? Do you have a link to this Pentafinder? Or maybe just pictures on some site? Don't know that one and a google search didn't turn up anything. The only PL finders I know are the Kish and the Cavision.

What do you mean? The corresponding field of view for a given focal length on a Mark V as compared to what it really is on the prime?

Thanks Audiris. And for set use, if the DP/Director are the same person and would be the one changing the lenses? That was more the aim of my question. What's your opinion?

If it looks like 16mm, then it may be worth to do the cheap transfer with the plasma TV. I heard of people doing it with great results. Never seen any footage though. But I've done some quick tests once, by shooting some 35mm stills from a plasma screen. I played a DVD (no HD material or anything) and hit pause and took some photos with different brightness and contrast settings. Some of it looked pretty good for not being anything precisely done.

No, no, that's not my point or my intention. I'm just pointing out when a PL finder can actually slow things down or be "too much". I don?t mean to fight your opinion. Not at all. I appreciate your (and everybody?s) contribution to the thread. When I asked what were the advantages of a PL finder over a Mark V type, I was truly curious. My idea of a Lens finder was always that as it?s bigger, heavier and needs to change lenses, it would be harder to work with, and I didn?t know why many preferred this type of finder. I truly didn?t know, reason I asked. Many situations that I haven?t imaged were suggested and it?s all very interesting. I can see that if you were working on a decent sized production with a decent sized crew, a Lens finder would actually be better. But as an independent filmmaker/student, I think in a small production, IF this person could afford a Lens finder (rent or otherwise), it would most likely get on the way. Specially if the DP/Director would be the one changing the lenses and specially for location scout. Do you think a lens finder would be advisable in this context? Of course, I know, different budgets different tools. But what?s your (and everybody?s) opinion? The idea was just to discuss it. I?m not really trying to prove anything, just discussing the different possibilities and situations. Sorry if I came across otherwise and thanks for participating.

I guess it will probably come down to the production budget. For an independent shot, where the Director, DP, camera operator and AC is the same person, I'm sure a Lens finder will get in the way and the whole thing will go much faster with a Mark V type of finder. For location scout I think the Mark V would be better too. It's seems just in rare occasions you would REALLY need a Lens finder. For this situation for example, a Mark V would have sufficed.

I do relialize all those advantages. It just seems more trouble than it's worth. A Mark V gives you enough to plan the shot and it's easier and faster to use. Yeah, this isn't the Indy 500, but time is money and that's true on the set too. On a side note, what's everybody's favourite PL finder?

But what else do you get looking through the actual lense besides being able to see the DOF? It seems it would just slow you down, besides giving you more chances to scratch and damage your lenses.

What are the advantages of using a director?s viewfinder with a PL mount as opposed to a Mark V? I know the PL one will let you see DOF too, but is that really necessary? It seems to me a Mark V or even something smaller is much faster and practical as you don?t need to change lenses, you can change focal length in a fly and even aspect ratios. It?s also more portable when scouting locations. No need to bring the lenses case. What are the opinions on the matter? What am I missing? Why is a PL mount ?better?

So Kinor used video gear on their lenses? Interesting. I wonder why, rather than sticking with the industry standard.