richg101

It would appear we have a new member who has shares in Nikon..  
 

A thoroughly enjoyable watch.  The pace of the subtitles feels great.  Imagery is beautiful.  Feels very much like the way they shot Lost in Translation.  The big camera hand held in public makes for a wonderful aesthetic. 

I use it and to reduce damage to the grain by youtube/vimeo I find it best to oversharpen the main output before export.  So I don;t apply any sharpening to the footage, then I overlay some fine grain like 4k gorrilla grain, then apply sharpening onto the nested grain and footage.  get the sharpening to the point where it's perfect when viewed at 100%, then boost it a tiny bit more so it starts to look a bit graggy.  then go back to half way between 'perfect and 'graggy'   the grain and footage behind it glue together nicely and the grain has enough edge to be seen as detail to be preserved by the youtube/vimeo compressor.  I also feed them a 2560x1440 file rather than a 1920x1010 file - even if the original footage was only 1080p.  seems to maintain more of the grain.

I use it and to reduce damage to the grain by youtube/vimeo I find it best to oversharpen the main output before export.  So I don;t apply any sharpening to the footage, then I overlay some fine grain like 4k gorrilla grain, then apply sharpening onto the nested grain and footage.  get the sharpening to the point where it's perfect when viewed at 100%, then boost it a tiny bit more so it starts to look a bit graggy.  then go back to half way between 'perfect and 'graggy'   the grain and footage behind it glue together nicely and the grain has enough edge to be seen as detail to be preserved by the youtube/vimeo compressor.  I also feed them a 2560x1440 file rather than a 1920x1010 file - even if the original footage was only 1080p.  seems to maintain more of the grain.

I use it and to reduce damage to the grain by youtube/vimeo I find it best to oversharpen the main output before export.  So I don;t apply any sharpening to the footage, then I overlay some fine grain like 4k gorrilla grain, then apply sharpening onto the nested grain and footage.  get the sharpening to the point where it's perfect when viewed at 100%, then boost it a tiny bit more so it starts to look a bit graggy.  then go back to half way between 'perfect and 'graggy'   the grain and footage behind it glue together nicely and the grain has enough edge to be seen as detail to be preserved by the youtube/vimeo compressor.  I also feed them a 2560x1440 file rather than a 1920x1010 file - even if the original footage was only 1080p.  seems to maintain more of the grain.

I use it and to reduce damage to the grain by youtube/vimeo I find it best to oversharpen the main output before export.  So I don;t apply any sharpening to the footage, then I overlay some fine grain like 4k gorrilla grain, then apply sharpening onto the nested grain and footage.  get the sharpening to the point where it's perfect when viewed at 100%, then boost it a tiny bit more so it starts to look a bit graggy.  then go back to half way between 'perfect and 'graggy'   the grain and footage behind it glue together nicely and the grain has enough edge to be seen as detail to be preserved by the youtube/vimeo compressor.  I also feed them a 2560x1440 file rather than a 1920x1010 file - even if the original footage was only 1080p.  seems to maintain more of the grain.

Personally I'd always go for the contax versions.  Made in DE or Japan.  The ZE/ZF lenses suffer from modernisation of manufacturing processes - open one up and there aint brass mechanical parts in a ZE.  I expect the glass will also not be German / Japanese.
 
IMO the 28mm/2 is one of the most over rated lenses ever.  way too expensive for what it actually does.  28mm lenses I find boring in general, and paying premium for an f2 where dof is so deep anyway it'd a waste of big bucks - particularly since at f2 it looks like crap.  I'd sooner get a contax 25mm/2.8 and a 35mm/2.8 for the same price as the single 28mm.  Or plump for the 35/1.4 for the extra £100.  Now THAT IS A LENS 
 
On the flip side I think all of the faster zeiss dslr lenses should be avoided.  You pay a premium for the bigger apertures but when used wide open or even 2 stops closed they really fringe in a nasty way.    
 
 

looks like a7s and a canon 24-70 L series to me.

My short film - Chatterhead! Please share!! Thank you guys so much for your feedback - let me know what you think.
 
 
Shot on the F65.
Super easy to bring into resolve.

elaborate please.  I thought it had a nice visual.
tbh I felt the trailer didn't do a very good job of informing me what subject the piece is really tackling.  Informing a widespread audience needs a more cohesive and direct trailer IMO. - particularly when asking for funding from said audience.   

elaborate please.  I thought it had a nice visual.
tbh I felt the trailer didn't do a very good job of informing me what subject the piece is really tackling.  Informing a widespread audience needs a more cohesive and direct trailer IMO. - particularly when asking for funding from said audience.   

lush.  It's the grain I love from the bmpcc. - as shown in this gif.  running base iso in night time where a lot of the areas of a frame are underexposed, then applying a careful colour noise reduction in raw - leaving the luma grain sharp and intact renders a superbly filmic look.  I've had lots comments of how nice the 88mm, 0.58x sb and bmpcc work together and have not tried the combo myself.  the defocus rolloff on this shot looks great - as I;ve said, that sb 0.58x is creating a very good mimmic of a bigger 35mm format.
I also like the lower frame rate that gif is exhibiting.  is that 15fps?

That's not an appropriate way to give feedback to someone coming here posting their work. Have some manners.

the interesting thing that happens when an oval aperture disk is installed is that the overall image quality goes up drastically.  - since the width of the aperture reduces to around the same diameter as if the aperture were closed down to around f4-f5.6.  Since the height of the largest 2x oval (f3.2) remains the same as the diameter of a circular f2 aperture the actual depth of field remains almost as shallow as it would be with a typical f2 circular aperture.  The result is a magical balance of shallowness of dof and the refinement of horizontal image quality from the smaller aperture width.  also, the illumination of the sensor becomes more even since instead of projecting a circular image circle, the image circle becomes slightly brighter on the horizontal plane.  - this reduces vignette and tends to create the look of a higher end lens which has been closed down to reduce vignette.
The only real downside is the reduction in light transmission.  However since at f2 most lenses don;t really provide a refined enough image/deep enough dof for scripted images anyway the slower lens speed just means a shoot can usually be undertaken without the need for more lighting than you;d use for a typical shoot.  The 250% extra light exposure from the speed booster and the 800 base of the bmpcc somewhat makes up for the light losses anyway!
 
 
 
    

lush.  It's the grain I love from the bmpcc. - as shown in this gif.  running base iso in night time where a lot of the areas of a frame are underexposed, then applying a careful colour noise reduction in raw - leaving the luma grain sharp and intact renders a superbly filmic look.  I've had lots comments of how nice the 88mm, 0.58x sb and bmpcc work together and have not tried the combo myself.  the defocus rolloff on this shot looks great - as I;ve said, that sb 0.58x is creating a very good mimmic of a bigger 35mm format.
I also like the lower frame rate that gif is exhibiting.  is that 15fps?

the interesting thing that happens when an oval aperture disk is installed is that the overall image quality goes up drastically.  - since the width of the aperture reduces to around the same diameter as if the aperture were closed down to around f4-f5.6.  Since the height of the largest 2x oval (f3.2) remains the same as the diameter of a circular f2 aperture the actual depth of field remains almost as shallow as it would be with a typical f2 circular aperture.  The result is a magical balance of shallowness of dof and the refinement of horizontal image quality from the smaller aperture width.  also, the illumination of the sensor becomes more even since instead of projecting a circular image circle, the image circle becomes slightly brighter on the horizontal plane.  - this reduces vignette and tends to create the look of a higher end lens which has been closed down to reduce vignette.
The only real downside is the reduction in light transmission.  However since at f2 most lenses don;t really provide a refined enough image/deep enough dof for scripted images anyway the slower lens speed just means a shoot can usually be undertaken without the need for more lighting than you;d use for a typical shoot.  The 250% extra light exposure from the speed booster and the 800 base of the bmpcc somewhat makes up for the light losses anyway!
 
 
 
    

the interesting thing that happens when an oval aperture disk is installed is that the overall image quality goes up drastically.  - since the width of the aperture reduces to around the same diameter as if the aperture were closed down to around f4-f5.6.  Since the height of the largest 2x oval (f3.2) remains the same as the diameter of a circular f2 aperture the actual depth of field remains almost as shallow as it would be with a typical f2 circular aperture.  The result is a magical balance of shallowness of dof and the refinement of horizontal image quality from the smaller aperture width.  also, the illumination of the sensor becomes more even since instead of projecting a circular image circle, the image circle becomes slightly brighter on the horizontal plane.  - this reduces vignette and tends to create the look of a higher end lens which has been closed down to reduce vignette.
The only real downside is the reduction in light transmission.  However since at f2 most lenses don;t really provide a refined enough image/deep enough dof for scripted images anyway the slower lens speed just means a shoot can usually be undertaken without the need for more lighting than you;d use for a typical shoot.  The 250% extra light exposure from the speed booster and the 800 base of the bmpcc somewhat makes up for the light losses anyway!
 
 
 
    

the interesting thing that happens when an oval aperture disk is installed is that the overall image quality goes up drastically.  - since the width of the aperture reduces to around the same diameter as if the aperture were closed down to around f4-f5.6.  Since the height of the largest 2x oval (f3.2) remains the same as the diameter of a circular f2 aperture the actual depth of field remains almost as shallow as it would be with a typical f2 circular aperture.  The result is a magical balance of shallowness of dof and the refinement of horizontal image quality from the smaller aperture width.  also, the illumination of the sensor becomes more even since instead of projecting a circular image circle, the image circle becomes slightly brighter on the horizontal plane.  - this reduces vignette and tends to create the look of a higher end lens which has been closed down to reduce vignette.
The only real downside is the reduction in light transmission.  However since at f2 most lenses don;t really provide a refined enough image/deep enough dof for scripted images anyway the slower lens speed just means a shoot can usually be undertaken without the need for more lighting than you;d use for a typical shoot.  The 250% extra light exposure from the speed booster and the 800 base of the bmpcc somewhat makes up for the light losses anyway!
 
 
 
    

I think working 8;30-6.00 + travelling an hour each way to get to the same office job day in-day out, then drinking and snorting cocaine to forget their boring life (or worse, having to fulfil the needs of a partner who does the same, - on your two days off going to the super market, clothes shopping, does more damage to the body and soul than a lifetime of sporadic long days on set.  Not that I've had much experience on set but from my handful of situations where I've been involved in film making on a production basis I hated with a passion the art of collaborating with hopeless wannabe film makers.  I expect I;d have enjoyed working as a runner on a Kubrick movie since there was method to the madness, but when you see just how dumb, jumped up and backstabbing most of the people involved at the lower end of the spectrum are, it is draining.  Noisy and self important 'creative director' females unable and unwilling to carry gear are the biggest drain on the creative process when working on crap jobs.
 
The main problem with film makers is that they all seem to smoke and drink lots of coffee.  This ain't gonna help their already confused sleep patterns and stress.  I think if I ever direct my own film I'll ban coffee and cigarettes from set and instead make people drink lemon water.  Everyone would be a lot fresher and positive 5 days into a crap job.

Come on, obviously not.  I've just personally had more instances where clueless ladies have been the brunt of the problem - getting more stressed, uptight, flapping around etc.  it's the stress, not the hard work that tires me out.

Yes, but dependence on cigarettes to chill you out and coffee to wake you up is certainly changing the way your mind works.  the amount of time wasted on smoking breaks is out of this world.  the amount of damage to sleep patterns because of dependence on coffee is devastating to our ability to think and act cohesively.  I say this being a 100% caffine junkie.  when i'm on coffee I need it to function.  when off it i work 1000% more efficiently and feel less stressed

I think working 8;30-6.00 + travelling an hour each way to get to the same office job day in-day out, then drinking and snorting cocaine to forget their boring life (or worse, having to fulfil the needs of a partner who does the same, - on your two days off going to the super market, clothes shopping, does more damage to the body and soul than a lifetime of sporadic long days on set.  Not that I've had much experience on set but from my handful of situations where I've been involved in film making on a production basis I hated with a passion the art of collaborating with hopeless wannabe film makers.  I expect I;d have enjoyed working as a runner on a Kubrick movie since there was method to the madness, but when you see just how dumb, jumped up and backstabbing most of the people involved at the lower end of the spectrum are, it is draining.  Noisy and self important 'creative director' females unable and unwilling to carry gear are the biggest drain on the creative process when working on crap jobs.
 
The main problem with film makers is that they all seem to smoke and drink lots of coffee.  This ain't gonna help their already confused sleep patterns and stress.  I think if I ever direct my own film I'll ban coffee and cigarettes from set and instead make people drink lemon water.  Everyone would be a lot fresher and positive 5 days into a crap job.

I think working 8;30-6.00 + travelling an hour each way to get to the same office job day in-day out, then drinking and snorting cocaine to forget their boring life (or worse, having to fulfil the needs of a partner who does the same, - on your two days off going to the super market, clothes shopping, does more damage to the body and soul than a lifetime of sporadic long days on set.  Not that I've had much experience on set but from my handful of situations where I've been involved in film making on a production basis I hated with a passion the art of collaborating with hopeless wannabe film makers.  I expect I;d have enjoyed working as a runner on a Kubrick movie since there was method to the madness, but when you see just how dumb, jumped up and backstabbing most of the people involved at the lower end of the spectrum are, it is draining.  Noisy and self important 'creative director' females unable and unwilling to carry gear are the biggest drain on the creative process when working on crap jobs.
 
The main problem with film makers is that they all seem to smoke and drink lots of coffee.  This ain't gonna help their already confused sleep patterns and stress.  I think if I ever direct my own film I'll ban coffee and cigarettes from set and instead make people drink lemon water.  Everyone would be a lot fresher and positive 5 days into a crap job.

Come on, obviously not.  I've just personally had more instances where clueless ladies have been the brunt of the problem - getting more stressed, uptight, flapping around etc.  it's the stress, not the hard work that tires me out.

Hacks are so 2012.  In 2016 we have an onslaught of stills cameras capable of surpassing the needs of all but the highest end film makers.  Based on Andrews recent article I'd expect the 1080p iq from the new xpro2 to be no exception.