Matt Kieley
-
Posts
390 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Matt Kieley
-
-
7 hours ago, PannySVHS said:
Hallo Matt!
Still love my FD 28mm 2.8. Great, light and nice to touch and to focus. It is awesome on boosted m43, very nice wide open.
Maybe one of the best lenses smallest money can buy. Please keep on showing your regained love for these nice FD lenses
and keep us posted with your footage using these. Really interested to see some footage of the 35-105 from you.
Still shooting that beautiful BMPCC of yours?
I still have the BMPCC, did some b-roll shooting with it and the FD 24mm today. I might post grabs tonight or tomorrow. I also have a Sony a6000 coming tomorrow, which is mainly why I got the FDs--to have some nice sharp vintage lenses for APS-C.
-
-
15 hours ago, andy lee said:
For me its all about the lenses and the lighting , lens focal length choose for the scene and also they type of lenses you use gives the cinematic look I run 24p and as flat a color profile as I can , but the camera is not making it cinematic it's the lenses - using selective focus and depth of field to draw your eyes to the subject in the fame is standard cinematic style film making , just get any 4 back issues of American Cinematographer from the past five years read them and you will see a pattern emerging of lens choice and lighting that define the cinematic look and you will see its the cinematographers craft that make it cinematic not the camera .
This is exactly what I've been feeling. Thank you, Andy. And welcome back? I feel like I haven't seen you post in a while.
-
So, two years ago I bought a Samsung NX1. Then I sold it, so I could have some money in the bank when I moved in with my girlfriend. I still owned the GH1 I bought four years earlier. I convinced myself that I could get equally cinematic imagery out of either camera with good lighting and cinematography. Then I bought a GX7 months later, since it as cheap, we were doing okay financially, and it had microscopically better image quality. Then I sold both cameras and got a BMPCC. Last year we needed some extra cash to get us through a financial rough spot. I convinced myself that I could get just good imagery out of the T2i I bought. Then I get a Nikon D5200 because it had better low light performance and didn't seem to have the moire problems. Then I got the BMPCC camera again because the DSLRs just weren't good enough. I needed the dynamic range, Prores, 4:2:2 color space, etc.
Then I watched a video by a filmmaker explaining why he hasn't, and still won't "upgrade" from his T3i. And his argument had little to do with his particular camera at all. It was the same old mantra of "story over equipment". Instead of spending $3K on an A7S, he could use that money into paying good actors, paying for a production designer, etc. And this is the first time, I think, that I've finally started to believe what I told myself repeatedly about gear not mattering. The idea that the color space and dynamic range of the BMPCC will give me a more cinematic image is the same foolish idea that "shallow depth of field = cinematic" when shallow DOF is just one effect you can use in a shot. But what about the framing, composition, lighting, movement (or lack of), color, focal lenght, production design, costume design? These are still the most superficial aspects of what makes something cinematic. The story, and more specific moments, the acting, direction, music, plus the cinematography, and actual EVOCATIVE IMAGERY itself, the kind that really sticks with you. Like this:
I started thinking "If I sell my BMPCC kit, and my Nebula 4000, and bought a used GH1 or GH2, I would have at least a little money leftover for a short film I've been trying to get done for a while now. It requires a special costume that needs to be fabricated. And that costume is practically the whole movie. I haven't had the extra money to pay someone for their time and materials. And I'd probably still have money leftover after that for the rest of the film. The idea that I can only shoot great images with the BMPCC or a Red is as ridiculous as thinking shooting on film will allow you to create great images. The format/capture medium is at the bottom of the list of what makes a great image. It's hardly even relevant. I've seen terrible indie movies shot on Super 16, and what made them even worse was knowing the director and/or DP who made that choice probably thought they were a fucking artist for shooting on film, even though they couldn't create a single memorable image in their film.
I have recently been hired to direct and DP an episode (and possibly more) or a web series. This is not the first time I have been asked to be a director and direct someone else's script, it's not the first time I've DP'd for someone else, but this is the first time I'm about to be paid actual money to do what I love. Previous episodes were directed and shot by another filmmaker with the BMCC and BMPC4K, so I was considering keeping my BMPCC to at least somewhat match. But...it doesn't really matter. The producer/writer doesn't give a shit what I shoot with, as long as it records moving images. He wouldn't even know the difference between the cameras--he's not technical, which is why he hires other people to direct and shoot. Now I'm kind of getting excited by the challenge of matching a GH2 to BM cameras. I want to put the specs and camera aside and focus on the direction, lighting, and imagery. I've always believed what I'm saying, but now I'm finally taking the truly important filmmaking shit to heart. And I'm not trying to convince everyone here to sell their stuff in favor of older, cheaper stuff. I'm just trying to explore what makes an image unforgettable, or "cinematic".
Here's the video that actually explained this philosophy in both artistic and practical ways and inspired this wall of text:
I've really come to love this youtube channel. His older videos are more about tips and gear, but his more recent stuff is all much more about creativity. It's inspiring me. Maye I just needed to hear all this in a British accent for me to take it seriously.
TLDR: I'm selling my bmpcc and getting a GH2.
-
I got a Kern-Paillard Pizar 26mm f/1.9 c-mount lens today (and a Kern-Paillard Yvar 16mm f/2.8 on the way):
Closest focus. f/1.9
f/1.9
f/2.8
f/1.9
f/1.9
f/1.9
It's nice and sharp (at least to my personal taste of sharpness). I love it. I probably won't use this focal length that much (I prefer wide angle lenses) but it was only $40.
And here's some bonus Cosmicar 12.5mm. I think this thing really is my new favorite lens:
Closest focus. I think this was f/2.8
Some split diopter fun.
I believe this was f/2.8 as well.
-
1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:
@Matt Kieley I love the feel of your grading man
FilmConvert did most of the work, so I can't really take much credit. Bu thanks.
-
-
I got my Nebula 4000 Lite delivered today, so I tested it out on my bmpcc. It also doubled as a test for my Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.9 c-mount lens. I was walking to meet my family at a birthday party. Next I'll try attaching the gimbal to my handheld rig to get rid of micro-jitters and possibly the footstep bounce, though I kind of like it in the context of a POV shot. I'm really impressed with this lens too.
ProresHQ
Daytime: 800 ASA, f/2.8
Nighttime: 1600 ASA, f/1.9
FilmConvert (Fuji VD profile) -
Did some more testing of the Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.9 on the bmpcc. Daytime is f/2.8, Nighttime is f/1.9. I'm really impressed with this lens. You can see the video in the shooting section.
I love this lens. I don't even really see a point in keeping my Rokinon 12mm, though it's still a fantastic lens, probably slightly sharper, but this has more character. Not bad for an old lens bought for $55. I got excited about c-mount lenses again so I ordered a couple of Kern-Paillard Bolex lenses. I can't wait to do more testing and see how the Cosmicar performs from f/4-8.
-
I ended up getting more money for some gear I was selling than I expected, so I bought a used Nebula 4000 Lite for about $300. It's a bit of a splurge (for me), but I'm excited.
-
So I've had a Glidecam for years, and I never use it because I loathe setting it up--it's very tedious. I want to get a non-motorized gimbal (really can't afford a motorized gimbal). I was thinking of getting a Merlin, since they can be had used for under $150, but then I stumbled on this:
Looks exactly like this:
I really like the two-handle design (my Glideam is a bit of strain) and it seems really quick and simple to set up. Has anyone used a "Steadicam" like this? Is it junk? Is there something else better for under $150?
-
-
You could also do what the filmmakers of Operation Avalanche did; shoot digital, do film transfer by filming a computer screen and shooting one frame of 16mm at a time, then scanning the film.
-
On 2/2/2017 at 0:05 AM, jonpais said:
I like your taste in music.
Thanks!
So I bought a Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.9 c-mount lens. I previously owned the f/1.8 version of the lens. It was a pain in the ass to modify, filing down the the back edges to sit closer to the sensor. It looked nice at around f/4, it was tiny and kind of impractical. I had no idea this f/1.9 version worked without modification. and is actually pretty sharp (obviously not as sharp as more expensive modern lenses) wide open. It's also made of metal, it's larger, it doesn't look as goofy with a follow focus on it, and it feel more practical just using it today. I really love the look of it. I'm actually thinking of selling of all of my lenses except this one, my Rokinon 12mm, and my Fujinon zoom. All of these grabs are at f/1.9. I'll probably do a better lit/staged test this weekend. I also don't have the IR cut to fit my c-mount lenses yet, so excuse any muddiness.
-
-
On 1/14/2017 at 9:34 AM, mercer said:
Looks cool. Those Holga lenses always intrigued me. How does it look in 16:9 or 2:35?
On 1/14/2017 at 1:37 PM, kidzrevil said:@Matt Kieley that looks hella cool man, love this look
Thanks guys. I haven't tried scope, but it basically covers the sensor of the pocket. The corners are maybe dark, I'd have to check the footage again, but that's supposed to be part of the charm of the lens.
This week I received a Fujinon TV Z C6X18 18-108mm f/2.5 c-mount zoom lens, and I love it. It covers the bmpcc sensor, looks good at /4 (it's soft, with purple fringing wide open), it's super smooth, parfocal, and a lot of fun. I've always loved the zoom-in/out as a stylistic/emotional effect (think The Graduate and The Shining) so I'm excited to put it to use. Last year I had a Canon V6X17, but I prefer the Fujinon aesthetically (particularly the bokeh). It feels well-built too. It's made of metal yet still light (lighter than the Canon). It's about the length of my Rokinon 24mm, but smaller around than my Panasonic 14-42mm 3.5-5.6. I got a pristine copy from ebay for $50. I'll post footage soon.
-
I lied. I decided to upload a sharpness comparison of the Rokinon 24mm and 12mm from wide open to T4. Only the 24mm at T1.5 has sharpening (I kinda take back what I said about the 24mm, it's usable wide open with sharpening.I probably wouldn't do this much, but if I had to, I could live with it):
-
One more lens test for this week - BMPCC with Holga lens (Super 8 emulation):
- Gregormannschaft and mercer
-
2
-
21 hours ago, cantsin said:
Get one to avoid the brownish color cast on your footage.
Oh, I've been made well aware of this. In fact, I think you were the one who told me the first time I bought the pocket a year ago. I have one on the way in the mail right now. I regraded my recent video to fix it. It seemed to work, unless my monitors are way off.
16 hours ago, Geoff CB said:Used my Rokinon 24mm a bit more, found out that I do like it from 2.8 where the microcontrast and detail comes back, just won't use it at 1.4-2. I guess I became spoiled by my Voigts and their high-contrast from wide open.
I got my Rokinon 24mm cine lens the day after the 12mm. I definitely won't use it wide open either, but T2-4 looks good to me. I don't know about micro contrast, I'll be looking into that, but it's acceptable to me at T2. I did a quick and dirty test of the lens on my dumb face last night. Nothing exact or well-matched, I was mostly just testing sharpness.
T/1.5
T/2
T/2.8
T/4
I'm enjoying these lenses.
-
-
-
I got the Rokinon 12mm cine lens for my bmpcc, and I love it so far. These were all shot wide open, and I was surprised by how sharp it is. Nice bokeh. And I love the perspective of this focal length on this sensor size. I usually prefer a wider lens, previously owned the Rokinon 10mm, but much prefer this lens now. Maybe my focal length tastes are changing. This might be my new favorite lens.
- Adept, Gregormannschaft, Cinegain and 3 others
-
6
-
I love the image out of the pocket as-is, even if it "only" shoots 1080p. If they re-used the sensor in other camera, all I'd wish for is a camcorder form factor (with an interchangable MFT mount not a built-in zoom) with a fold-out articulating monitor, full-size HDMI and/or SDI, false color, and takes larger Sony, Canon or Panasonic camcorder batteries, instead of DSLR batteries, for improved battery life. It wouldn't be a pocket camera, but they already have the Pocket camera for that. I like the BM doesn't create "MKII" versions of their cameras, they hold more of their value in the used marketplace, as opposed to a DSLR that gets replaced every year or two with a new model.
-
I have the juicebox battery this time around and it's fantastic. I shot a music video on Tuesday, it all day (8 hours, with a couple of brief travel breaks), never had to charge it during the shoot. I have it on the back of a rig with 10" rails and acts as a good counter balance.
Lenses
In: Cameras
Posted
Shot this with the Sony a6000 and Canon FD 24mm 2.8 (at f/4). I don't even have my FD-E mount adapter, so I just attached it to my MFT adapter and held it against the camera body. I love this combination so far.