I so often see worries from people regarding AF capabilities on the A7 range. Personally I think when you have a camera with the capability to punch in (auto punch in with sony FE native lenses) then AF is completely pointless. Ask anyone who uses the loxia zeiss lenses (35mm, 50mm and now a stellar 21mm), completely manual focus, and someone who has invested time into learning how to do things properly, they'll take the loxia over any oversized, flawed canon lens - flawed and bigger than it needs to be due to needing to be designed to avoid the mirror box. I do believe the sony 55mm fe lens outdoes the sigma art in every respect when we're getting to the nitty gritty and actually using it on the stunning 42mpx sensor. Conversely I often look at the price of the FE lenses and am amazed how well priced they are.. the 28/2 is a perfect example. The A7R2 and that 28mm will smoke anything on offer for canon use on a canon camera.
carefully upres the unsharpened images by 1.5x if they can take it and then overlay a very slight grain to mask the upres. then do your sharpening, and then print at 300dpi. this should get you up to the 8" width.
In a world where we have so much horrible light in our environment (low quality led lights, nasty discharge bulbs, energy saving, neon etc), monochrome is a escape from it all. I think with the way available light night time scenes look nowadays, I'd probably discard the colour vision from my eyes during night time all together. it looks better in b+w imo
You're preaching to the choir man. I'm very aware that certain brands have certain looks. But the subject relates to leica m lenses on the a7 range. I've not invested in Leica M lenses since the price is too high for the results able to be obtained. Hence why I suggested loxia lenses in my above post. Since they're based on similar design techniques as rangefinder glass, but with the advantage of being optimised to worth with the microlens/cover glass of the a7 range.
I've seen a steady interest in the 'soap bubble effect' growing on the vintage lens forums and on Flickr. The regular suggestions I see to get this effect is a triplet design, and meyer seems to be mentioned before any other. Leading to crazy prices being paid for rather poor lenses. it should be considered that the effect is usually a result of the shooting techinque rather than the lens itself. most of the subjects seem to be macro shots of bugs or toadstools with a dynamic background just after it has rained. for example, the picture above wouldn't exhibit the bubble effect if the bug wasn;t infront of water. I think even if someone were to buy the gold standard meyer bubble lens, they'd still only see this effect when shooting with lots of extension tubes at very high magnification.
just about any medium tele lens from the 1960's will give this effect. you want old lenses with coatings with little to no apparent colour to them. my personal favourite for this effect is a late 1950's zeiss jena biotar 58mm - coatings are almost non existent so light source bokeh has a glow.
IMO the cost of Leica M lenses is too high in the context of this discussion. The fact that none of the lenses need to be retrofocus designs means performance is better (when used on a Leica camera), but as stated above, the cover glass and micro lenses of Sony A7 camera sensors causes too much degradation to the image and the cost of such lenses is therefore an unnecessary financial outlay.
The Zeiss Loxia range are of very similar optical layout to the corresponding leica m focal lengths but have been optimised for the cover glass of the a7 range. that also have way better focus action for video use. I think the 35mm/2 is probably the single best lens (price/performance etc) for the a7 series at the moment.
The 50/0.95 is rubbish. shallow dof is pointless when the in-focus areas look like crap. if you wanna talk about leica branded lenses on a7 and performance/value for money, then leica r's are the only real option imo
I have a feeling that the 1.25x anamorph used on these lenses is infact a prism based optical squeeze.
Tarrantino couldn't be further from a hipster if he tried. Hipsters are trend followers who think they're setting trends. Tarrantino authentically goes againtst the trend doing exactly as he wishes.
personally being in the UK and not in a major city, I doubt I'll see the 70mm print:(. However I'd only bother seeing it in 70mm if I were seeing the first projection. I imagine after a few runs those poor reels will have been wrecked by unskilled hands operating the projectors. - unless a load of real projectionists are brought out of retirement for the duration of the films screening. I have never come away from a film projected in 4k digital at a high end theatre feeling cheated. it always feels like a proper theatre experience - particularly when the movie was shot on proper equipment. for example I know that my Interstellar viewing experience (4k digital) was a more accurate representation of what Nolan envisaged than what people who saw the 70mm projections on their 5th, 6th, 7th pressings saw! i bet the 20th screening wouldnt be worth a 720p scan! . My viewing of Interstellar felt more epic than when I saw Jurassic Park projected on film for my 10th birthday in 1993! - a movie made by the best film makers, during a time when production and projection using celluloid was at its peak.
i expect for most, the digital screenings will show more of the quality of the 65mm acquisition of this movie too- since the iq wont have degraded each time the film is projected.
you can theoretically acquire 8k from 35mm negative photographic format (with modern film, low iso, perfect optics). so theoretical acquisition resolution of 65mm negative film would be around 12k. In practice, no lens exists that will have optical resolution capabilities to full take advantage of this. neither is there any way of transfering this onto projection film or into digital format without losing some of this resolution the projection (positive) film allows even greater resolution capabilities.
i agree, I'd love a speed booster with colour correction allowing the full res from high end mf lenses to be acquired with the a7rii.
unfortunately you're not going to find anything within budget that fulfils your requirements. The iscoramas are not very heavy at all. pretty much everything else of a single focus nature will be heavier. unfortunately an iscorama is around 3x your budget. maybe a slr magic 1.33x? it's not 100% single focus but preowned should come in on budget.
there are plenty of dual focus options that will fulfil the aesthetic and optical quality requirements. maybe look there (kowa, sankor, etc) then plan a purchase of one of the multiple focus units that are currently on offer. slr magic rangefinder, FM lens and Rectilux. get a good dual focus setup and then its just a case of saving for a focus unit.
overlaying real film scans onto footage immediately adds a physical addition to the picture. It makes a digital image feel more like the golden age of cinema - the golden age has been and gone and those who know and love the best films which were made at the technological peak of celluloid film production late 80's - early 00's have an empathy and love of the grain of film. Even those too young to have been around when film was the only option will likely have a place in their heart for the medium since their parents will have passed on their preferences. You can't delete JAWS from the history books and it'll still entertain for generations to come. fashion and tastes come and go. the fact that a century of film making was done using celluloid is impossible to rub out of people's memory. adding film grain immediately brings the clinical digital look closer to the time tested film making process look. in 100 years time, those still alive won;t have the same empathy as we do for the look of film. Remember that the only reason digital is selected is due to cost. there is still not one digital sensor that will rival the peak of celluloid technology for colour, resolution and dynamic range when both are given the financial requirements to get the best from them. if it was as cheap and easy to shoot film as it was to shoot digital, all the people in the know would be shooting film. the boring people would be taking the easy option. Since almost no one can now afford to shoot film and afford the additional lighting, logistics, etc, the closest thing is to overlay a film scan and give the image a look. Personally I love the look of a real grain overlay. and i love the look of a film shot on old glass. it's the physical addition to the picture that old technology adds.
I wouldn't take any artistic advice from anyone on this thread, or from any forum in general if i were you. I think you;re on the right track as you are. Clearly you've done your work creating a style, a look. The whole thing captures that b-movie vibe. It feels like you made an effort to make it look as if it's not meant to be funny, but is - the reason old b-movies are entertaining. watching films of this style you put yourself into a different mindset and absorb the film how it's meant to be absorbed. The critique I see above is kind of like a random guy with no film making experience going up to Tarrantino and Rodriquez and telling them that the cut is shabby and the image quality looks bad on Death Proof / Planet Terror. Missing the whole point. my take on the politics of the thread... It was nice to see a piece shot completely on an iscorama. It illustrates to those worrying about lack of wide angle anamorphic solutions that with a relatively low investment of lenses ( for the price you paid for your iscorama and the taking lenses you'd only be able to rent a single panavision c series lens for half a week) and a bit of hard work and creativity you can shoot something that looks like it was shot in the late 1970's and cost 500k. and the bonus for you is that it has driven traffic to your film. I'm looking forward to seeing the entire film
I'd pay to see this at the theatre. looks superb. well done man
It sounds like some here don;t quite 'get' the movie. It's not meant to be serious. I see a lot of great humor here - the characters are great - memorable looks to the main guy. The selection of an isocrama and the old russian lenses definitely adds to the authenticity of the piece. the fact that you worked around the limitations of anamorphic is probably why it looks so good. the cut and the offset audio sync is a great touch. Granted I wouldn't have watched if it had not stated that it was shot on a 'rama, but that's the whole point. People shoot anaorphic to separate themselves from the guys shooting on L series and grading to try and make it look like what you;ve achieved. Thanks for sharing this!