Jump to content

tupp

Members
  • Posts

    1,137
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tupp

  1. Finding a cheap, fun camera certainly can be part of the fun for those who can afford to buy one. Another part of the fun is using inexpensive gear to shoot something compelling, which can be done with a camera that one already owns. Why exclude those who can't buy a camera, merely because they can't afford to experience one part of the fun?
  2. I wasn't suggesting anything about your points regarding social mores. I was merely showing what is to my knowledge the only feature film prior to 1980 that primarily addresses issues of having a female US president. It is not just a film that happens to have a female US president as a secondary character. Of course, the mores have changed dramatically since 1964, so much so that the ending (and title) of "Kisses For My President would have to be different. On the other hand, I don't think that changing social mores nor politics is at the heart of the mediocrity of our age. Certainly, shoehorning diversity into content doesn't help, but there is a larger reason(s) for the shallow, uninspired material that we encounter today.
  3. The general idea for this contest is great, but forcing folks to buy a camera might be a deal-breaker for some. Perhaps it should be stipulated that the camera merely has to has to be "trending" on Ebay for no more than US$150.
  4. tupp

    Filters?

    Although the company is gone, Harrison & Harrison was a dominant filter maker for cinema "back in the day." They invented black dot diffusion, which is the basis of Black Pro Mist filters and of other derivative filter technology. Well, the set of 5 filters that I linked was listed at US$200, but, as mentioned, H&H filters can can sometimes be found individually. What is a P2K? Definitely interested in that. Keep in mind that although the black levels can be lifted with diffusion filters, that doesn't mean that one will see more detail in the shadows. To approximate black dot effect, the black spray paint specs should be "embedded" within a diffusion layer (hair spray or something similar). Not sure what you seek here nor if any existing lens filters can yield such results. On the contrary, if you DIY, you are in complete control of the distribution of the diffusion medium. In the videos that I watched, it didn't seem too difficult. I don't know, guess it's just me... If you have a good lens hood or matte box (or a solid French flag), the flare will be reduced when the Sun is out of frame. It shouldn't take 20 minutes to "set-up" a lens hood. I am not suggesting lifting the blacks. To add ambient fog in post, one basically slaps a smooth white, slightly diffusing layer/track over the image, and then adjusts the opacity of that white layer/track as desired. Doing so is very similar to an out-of-frame light source hitting a lens diffusion filter. If one wants the look of ambient flare on a len diffusion filter, one can similarly lower the camera exposure and then use the post method stated directly above. The results will closely simulate doing it all in-camera with the higher black levels and no extra noise, plus one will have more control over the level of "ambient flare."
  5. tupp

    Filters?

    What size do you need? Here is an 82mm Tiffen Low Contrast filter for sale. If your lens is smaller, you could just use a step-up ring. By the way, there are plenty of YouTube videos on making DIY black-promist filters. One can even make a smaller increment than 1/8. To approximate the the black dot process one needs to apply the black spray paint before the hair spray (or other diffusion spray). Also, the Harrison & Harrison black dot originals can still be found for sale in sets or individually. It's always puts a smile on one's face when a YouTuber conducts a test with just a frontal light source, and the subject turns their head from left to right. As he suggests, it's generally best to use a lenser (flag the light source outside of the frame from hitting the lens/filter) or a hood/matte box. One can always add ambient fog in post.
  6. Great! Hopefully, this model will not require a recorder for raw footage.
  7. Anyone can call almost anything "art." Art mostly defies definition. Art doesn't have to push boundaries -- art can be something that is merely pretty. It can also be something that is stimulating, funny or entertaining in some way. To me, the big problem with current movies and television today is that there aren't a lot of good, original stories being generated. Similarly, there just isn't a lot of inspired originality anymore in the other performing arts, such as music, dance and theatre. We find ourselves deep in the age of mediocrity. Some will put the blame on the conglomeration of entertainment companies along with the onset of digital technology. Huge corporations (and talentless board members) making most of the big decisions in the arts has got to water things down. Also, before digital, one had to be more deliberate and thoroughly flesh-out ideas and be extensively prepared, talented and/or experienced. With digital, one can shoot things more "on the fly," without prep nor originality and with minimal artistic ability and little know how.
  8. tupp

    Scanning film

    Good to know for anyone working in that area. They have three scanners. Thanks!
  9. tupp

    Filters?

    Agreed. A good lens choice should reduce the video look more readily than diffusion filters. Vintage lenses are ideal. If you can't get Xtal Express, use a vintage spherical lens.
  10. tupp

    Filters?

    Yes, of course, but if one exposes properly and/or uses HDR features, then it might be possible to match "blown-out" areas in the frame. Additionally, lens diffusion scattering from "out-of-frame" sources is also influenced by lens hoods and matte boxes. In the 1970's, David Hamilton was the king of using lens diffusion while blowing-out highlights and light sources. As I recall, black-dot lens diffusion didn't appear until the early 1980's, and Hamilton would push Ektachrome which increased contrast, countering the softness/flatness produced by the lens diffusion. In addition, pushing gave coarser grain, which worked well for Hamilton's soft aesthetic.
  11. tupp

    Filters?

    Certainly there are many diffusion effects that can be emulated accurately in post. Furthermore, there are also diffusion effects that are exclusive to post which can't be done with optical filters. However, there are some optical filters which can't be duplicated digitally, such as IR cut/pass filters, UV/ haze filters, split-diopters, pre-flashing filters, etc.
  12. Well, the 16S, the Bolex, the Krasnogorsk, etc. all had their eyepieces at the rear of the camera, so they weren't shoulder mounted. There were a few tricks that one could practice to keep them stable. There were also other brackets (such as belt pole rigs) that could help. Of course, weight could always be added for more stability. I am with you on shoulder rigs. A balanced shoulder rig is always fairly stable regardless of weight.
  13. Your P4K should closely match your P6K if you use a speedbooster with your EF lenses on your P4K. As you are likely aware, a speedbooster (or focal reducer) is just an adapter with optics that condense the image circle and character of a lens to a smaller size. Most M4/3 speedboosters will yield a Super35/APS-C frame and look, plus give an extra stop of exposure to boot. Here is a video comparing a Metabones speedbooster with a recent Viltrox focal reducer on the P4K, cued to the section comparing autofocus speed in lower light. To me, the Viltrox is good and the Metabones is better. Neither seems to have any prohibitive problem with their electronics. Was the AF performance of your adapters as good as these speedboosters?
  14. I didn't see any FPN with the BM cameras using Fairchild sensors. The BM cameras with CMOSIS sensors (BMPC, OG Ursa, Ursa Min 4k) can exhibit FPN if one is not careful, but having a global shutter is a worthwhile trade-off.
  15. The most important thing is that one can control the aperture (and view a scope). The aperture readout is not crucial. Most cinema lenses are completely manual for good reasons. There is too much riding on the line in larger budget projects to rely on decisions made by the camera or lens. Furthermore, any IS glitch could bust a take and/or force a cut in post, which could prove to be expensive and detrimental to the piece's impact. Additionally, it is likely that most cinematographers want lens manufacturers put their efforts into optical performance rather than into automatic electronic features. Nobody buys a Master Prime to shoot handheld at Bar Mitzvahs. It's not easy to handhold a narrow non-IS lens, but it can be done with success. Back in the film days, there were no IS lenses, so one had to learn how to be smooth when handheld. The non-IS results generally do not posses the same look/feel as handheld with a modern IS camera/lens, but I wouldn't say that handheld without IS is generally worse the with IS. Of course, a tripod eliminates a lot of stability problems, and one really should disable IS when using a tripod. Certainly. If there is a nearby rental house, it might be wise to go there and test your EF-S lenses on a P6K or s P6K Pro prior to making a purchase. Not sure how "consuming Humble Pie" is relevant, but getting a camera that works for you is more important. By the way, I prefer the Small Faces. Again, it would be useful to actually see how your lenses work with any camera in consideration (if possible), prior to a purchase. In the case of the C70, try it with an official Canon adapter. Full frame lenses are a wise investment if they have a deep mount, and especially if they are completely manual. One of the great benefits of having FF deep-mount lenses is the ability to use them with speed boosters on shallow-mount Super35/APS-C cameras. Such a combination gives an extra stop of exposure along with almost the complete full frame view and character, plus the image is usually sharper than using a full frame lens with a dummy adapter.
  16. Please point out where there are assumptions or false conclusions. Okay. I asked if your lenses were EF-S -- there was no assumption (although I suspected as much, which is why I asked). Okay. Never experienced that. Are you shooting manual exposure or is the aperture automatically controlled? Never experienced that either, but I would tend not to use IS on a cinematography camera such as the P6K. On the other hand, do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the P6K just as well as they perform on Canon EF-S cameras? Do you think that your EF-S lenses would perform on the C70 with a Canon EF-to-RF adapter just as well as they perform on a Canon EF-S camera? No doubt. Do you realize that most M4/3 lenses can be used on Cameras such as the C70 and the P6K with no vignetting? It doesn't offend, but I truly hope that your preference is informed.
  17. I think it is a combination of a biased interpretation of one's own link, plus poor comprehension of another somewhat misleading source. I already addressed the Gerald Undone video that you linked. I disagree with the conclusions to which he jumps in regards to dynamic range. He sets up arbitrary conditions (the size of the C70's sensor and the lack of NR options on the A7S III) for which the C70's dynamic range is "better" in his mind than the A7S III. However, at 09:52 in the video, he additionally states that the low light performance of the A7S III is far superior to that of the C70: While he makes this statement, we see a side-by-side comparison of the performance of the C70 and the A7S III starting at iso 12800 and 25600, which reveals that the A7S III is exceptionally cleaner than the noisy C70. So much for the CVP and "GU" links. The C70 is not "clean" at 12,800 iso, unlike the A7S III. I see. Well, once again, I would have to take your word on that, but after seeing the discrepancy between your statements and your links, I don't think that I will.
  18. Ha, ha! I actually did click on the link to the long CVP video, but on my YouTube viewer the link didn't parse correctly to the point that I now see that you cued. Although that video is not actually a comparison between the C70 and the A7S III, I noticed that a few seconds after your cued point, your CVP boy states: "Usable" is not the same thing as "clean." The A7S III is "clean" at 12800, while the C70 is "usable" at that same iso. Again, please link examples of heavy artifacts that appear above 12800 iso in the A7S III, as you maintain, and please link the CineD comparison that you mentioned.
  19. Why? Do you actually have EF-S lenses? Your EF lenses should basically work on all of those shallow mounts with adapters. If your lenses are electronically controlled, the most important thing is that the electronic aperture can be set. Why? Have you actually had a problem with an adapter? If not, please get over the notion that adapters are "bad." That is why it is important that cameras such as the BMP6K have a shallow mount -- it makes it possible to use your M4/3 lenses on the BMP6K (especially in the crop modes). Yes. I mentioned the shallow EF-M mount in my posts above. I believe that Canon is currently on the eleventh version of the M camera. By the way, the EF-M mount is large enough to handle a full frame sensor. The main problem with many EF lenses is that they rely on electronics. Such lenses are useless on many cameras and special effect adapters. Furthermore, because the electronics have to be incorporated, it takes longer for EF adapters and EF speedboosters to appear for new shallow lens mounts. Nikkor F to EF-M focal reducers and tilt-shift adapters appeared a couple of years prior to the EF versions. Of course, Nikkor F lenses can be adapted to EF cameras and adapters, but not vice versa. So, lenses with the Nikkor F mount are more versatile than the those with an EF mount. Additionally, one must occasionally contend with the problem of Canon's wonky "stopping flange" that prevents EF-S lenses from being mounted on EF cameras and EF adapters. One generally has to modify the rear of an EF-S lens to get around the problem. It appears that you have already gotten over your aversion to adapters in the span of a single paragraph. That was quick! I mostly agree, although adapters on cameras with shallow mounts mostly accomplish this same goal.
  20. They likely retool for each new camera body, but no doubt there are shared components. The BM CEO once commented that people want the EF mount, but I don't think that is the real reason why BM hasn't used a shallow mount nor a shallow interchangeable mount. BM already has already had interchangeable mounts, but they just weren't shallow enough. If they would just offer such an interchangeable mount system that would allow E, EF-M, M4/3, L, Z, and RF mounts, then whole worlds of lenses and special adapters would be available for their Super35 cameras. As I have repeatedly stated, shallower mounts and/or interchangeable lens mounts do not preclude a camera with a default EF mount, nor would shallower mounts inhibit EF lens performance. By the way, if I had to buy a camera with a permanent EF mount, the first one that I would consider would be a 5D III with ML.
  21. Okay. The A7S III has more dynamic range than the C70. That video is over 40 minutes long (and it was produced by an equipment dealer). Please give a link cued to the specific section regarding iso, or please give an appropriate time code. Please link examples of heavy artifacts in the A7S III that appear above 12,800 iso. In that Gerald Undone video, I didn't see a comparison of the DR of the A7S III along with the C70. Also, I don't agree with with his reasoning on why the C70 supposedly has better capture dynamic range. Please link the CineD comparison. Well, yes, that is an advantage of a Super35/APS-C camera with a shallow mount, but doesn't the A7S III have a crop mode?
  22. Okay, but why would the quality of the BM protocols for EF lenses differ if they merely used an extra set of wiping contacts in the circuit? Furthermore, if BM bypassed the wiping contacts on the shallow mount by using a ribbon cable connector directly to the EF-mount (as I suggested), how would it adversely affect BM's existing EF protocols? The shallow mount doesn't really matter in regards to maintaining the quality of BM's EF protocols, as the contacts on the shallow mount can be bypassed, if necessary. The camera would be an EF-centric camera with a default, bolted-on EF adapter. The shallow mount merely enables one to mechanically adapt a huge variety of lenses that would not be possible with a permanent EF mount. About that, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about "licensing" lens mounts, especially the Sony E-mount. Many insisted that Sony "would never allow" any camera manufacturer to use their mount. Lo and behold, other camera manufacturers are using the E-mount along with its electronic protocols. Here is the likely scenario that allows one manufacturer to use another manufacturer's lens mount -- you can't patent a bayonet mount. Such mounts have existed for over 100 years, and, unless you can modify it with something novel, you will probably not be able to get a utility patent. It is doubtful that one could even get a design patent on a bayonet mount, as changing the width of a tab or the throat diameter doesn't really amount to any design novelty. Furthermore, the claims would have to give very specific and precise dimensions, which would make it easy for another manufacturer to merely copy and change by a millimeter to get around such a patent. If there is anything that can be protected or licensed with a lens mount, it would be the electronic protocols, which might qualify as software or a "method." Software can be both copyrighted and patented, but I can't imagine that software IP would apply to a lens mount. If you do a search, I doubt that you will find a separate patent for the EF, RF, E, Z, M4/3 and L mounts. There might be some claims included a larger camera or lens patent that involve protocols/methods communicated through the contacts of a lens mount, but they would need to be novel in some way, which is unlikely. How does a camera manufacturer making a default adapter for EF differ from a camera manufacturer making interchangeable lens mounts for a camera? The camera would be an EF camera by default, with a hidden shallower mount. Or, the camera would merely have interchangeable lens mounts that defaulted to the EF mount/protocols. It's already been done by Red, Kinefinity, Sony and machine vision manufacturers, and enough units are being sold. I think that if they sold it with an L mount with a calibrated, solid EF adapter that is undetectable, they would have sold the same amount. Again, they could have also sold it with a shallow interchangeable lens mount system (just like Red and others) that defaulted to EF, and they would have sold the same number of cameras. BM has already release cameras with interchangeable mounts -- the system just needs to allow for shallower mounts. It's all very simple. Again, the shallow mount would not matter to the EF users, as the camera would be an EF default camera with a hidden shallow mount (or with a shallow interchangeable mount system). Sony likely can't prevent anyone from using the E bayonet mount, even if they wanted to do so.
  23. There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing. The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter. Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras. For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility). Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts. Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount. Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations? Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body -- looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance. Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench. If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside. Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount. If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount. However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary. Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users? Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts. Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:
  24. The ginormous photosites of the 12MP FF sensor might also contribute a smidge to the low noise of the A7S III. Will have to take your word for it that the C70 has greater dynamic range, but can the C70 shoot at 12,800 iso clean like the A7S III? Also, isn't the C70 a Super35 camera? By the way, there are HDR/dual-iso cameras that have a greater capture dynamic range than any Alexa. Of course, that doesn't mean that such cameras produce a better image than an Alexa. Oh, I am never sarcastic! Seriously, it's perplexing as to why BM continues to choose the EF mount on their Super35 cameras over an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.) or over simply incorporating a shallow flange for interchangeable mounts. Having a shallow mount (or a shallow interchangeable mount system) does not preclude easy use by EF users nor does it prohibit "built-in" NDs for such users. BM can merely make a "default" EF adapter (or interchangeable mount) with NDs that follows the design lines of the camera, and the clueless EF users will never know that they are actually shooting through an adapter (or through an interchangeable lens mount). "Intro" students should probably use a lower-end camera. Once those students graduate to using actual cinema cameras, then they definitely should learn about using front filters, batteries, follow focus, monitors, mics, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...