Subforums
-
The EOSHD YouTube Channel (23,426 visits to this link)
17,297 topics in this forum
-
- 1.2k replies
- 471.8k views
-
- 5.8k replies
- 1.9m views
-
- 9.1k replies
- 2.7m views
-
- 0 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 700 replies
- 311.2k views
-
- 1.8k replies
- 765.1k views
-
Internal 32-bit float stereo paired with lossless 120mm reach from a 20mm lens — all inside a genuinely pocket-sized 10-bit 1-inch sensor gimbal camera? 1 2 3
- 41 replies
- 2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 175 views
-
- 6 replies
- 3.1k views
-
- 19 replies
- 380 views
-
- 19 replies
- 12.7k views
-
- 563 replies
- 264.9k views
-
- 97 replies
- 77k views
-
- 24 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 11 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 1 reply
- 427 views
-
- 14 replies
- 8.7k views
-
- 58 replies
- 5.3k views
-
- 49 replies
- 3.5k views
-
- 14 replies
- 7.3k views
-
- 2 replies
- 342 views
-
- 0 replies
- 325 views
-
- 11 replies
- 2k views
-
- 20 replies
- 1.7k views
-
- 2 replies
- 2.6k views
-
- 82 replies
- 9.1k views
-
- 127 replies
- 62.3k views
-
- 121 replies
- 66.1k views
-
- 0 replies
- 480 views
-
- 0 replies
- 546 views
-
- 0 replies
- 544 views
-
- 5 replies
- 1k views
-
- 314 replies
- 151.6k views
-
- 12 replies
- 6k views
-
- 30 replies
- 34.2k views
-
- 1 reply
- 516 views
-
- 8 replies
- 13.9k views
-
- 45 replies
- 13.4k views
-
- 13 replies
- 990 views
-
Popular Contributors
-
Forum Statistics
-
Total Topics17.3k
-
Total Posts351.9k
-
-
Member Statistics
-
Posts
-
These two [1] [2] Korean hands-on videos are probably among the most useful references I have seen so far on the Luna Ultra / Pocket 4P discussion. Not because they end the debate, but because they also show the real operational trade-offs better than most spec-sheet comparisons, while still offering some fairly clear findings on outcome, colour and dynamic range, for instance. source -
By Aussie Ash · Posted
Here is the confrontation young upstart Kubrick had with an established cinematographer re different focal lengths ,that Mercer is referring to.Kubrick is known as a "single camera director" but used multiple cameras sometimes like in the war room sequences of "Dr Strangelove.".He often shot a scene more than 30 times to reduce the artificial acting and get the performers displaying raw emotion.Not much use have fabulous cinematography if the acting is not up to it,the audio is poor or the story dull and boring. -
By Aussie Ash · Posted
Feature films have the "luxury" of being able to shoot one scene with multiple cameras,focal lengths and perspectives-if it is beneficial to do so.Master & Commander has an extra on this ,five cameras A to E with a range of focal lengths used,including 17.5,27mm,35mm,40mm,50mm,75mm and 100mm including at least one zoom lens.Shot on Super 35 format.Whatever focal length and perspective to tell the story can be chosen in the edit. -
Yes, exactly. That was the part I was agreeing with and developing, not trying to claim as a new point. If two people are saying the same thing, there is usually a reason for it. Always better than one person going one way and the other going the other way, just to create confusion, isn’t it? ; ) What interests me is that once convenience starts affecting the rhythm of the set, it is no longer just convenience in a minor sense. It becomes part of how the scene can actually be made. Time, pressure, continuity, the actors’ energy, the crew’s patience... all of that can feed back into the creative result. And I take your point on the 2x/3x terminology when it comes to lens design, range, price and compromise. In that context, of course it tells you something useful. My issue is more with the way it is used as shooting language, especially with phones and small cameras, where “2x” or “3x” often replaces any real sense of focal length, distance or perspective. Your parlor trick is actually a perfect example of what I mean. If you can look at the lens and camera position and already have a good idea of what is probably in the frame, then focal length is not trivia. It is practical spatial knowledge. And yes, Kubrick was right there. The frame may look similar, but once the camera distance changes, the shot has changed.
-
By eatstoomuchjam · Posted
For me, it's not even an argument. Or if it is an argument, it's a silly one and I want to stay as far away from it as possible. There was a time when zooms were noticeably worse optically than primes - potentially made worse with the release of lenses like the Nikkor 43-86 (that said, I have and kind of love the 43-86, though I have yet to convince anybody to let me use it on set). But since sometime in the 80's, high quality zooms have existed. The 24-70/2.8's and 70-200/2.8's from Canon/Nikon have been fixtures in the bags of nearly every professional photographer since then. They're sharp, fast enough, and extremely convenient. I've used them on set dozens of times. When shooting by available light or when going for more extreme subject isolation, I might move to a faster prime... but when I do, I'm rarely like "wow, this is so much better." I'd even go so far as to challenge most of those people to tell the difference between the 24-70/2.8L II at 50mm stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6 and the EF or even RF 50/1.2L stopped down to f/4 or f/5.6. There might be a different character in the bokeh from the RF, but that's more of an ultra-modern design vs still-pretty-modern design concern vs a zooms vs primes one. I'm pretty sure that's what I just said. 😉 This goes with another of my parlor tricks when on someone else's set - pointing out things to them that will be a problem in their scene simply by looking at the lens on the camera and where it's pointed - I usually have a good idea of what their frame is without having to look at the screen. "You sure you don't have the sound engineer's pack in the frame on the right edge? With that 35mm lens, I'd think you'd see it." (pause) "Oh, yeah. Could you take a step back?" It can be useful for making a guess at the price/quality ratio of the lens (also based on the widest aperture). Finding a good quality f/2.8-f/4 lens that's a 2x or 3x is usually relatively affordable. 4x less so. At 5x, you're either going to be forking over a lot of money, getting a slower lens, or mounting a coke bottle to the camera. That said, I still check prices on the EF 35-350 sometimes in a fever dream since I'd like to see if it can be "good enough" in many cases - and the same with the more useful EF 28-300, but its used price is staying stubbornly high. Once it hits $700, I might buy one in a late-night drunken rampage or something (I barely drink these days so there are fewer opportunities than there once were). Kubrick was fully correct! As he often was!
-
