Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tupp

  1. tupp


    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.
  2. tupp


    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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. 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?:
  15. 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.
  16. Not sure how that makes sense nor how that would even work, as it appears that they would have to retool the camera body to do so. Furthermore, there is no technical reason to have a permanent EF mount to incorporate "internal" filters. The camera could have an established shallow mount or a shallow interchangeable lens mount flange. One could then use one of the existing third-party EF adapters with internal NDs and/or use a more integrally designed adapter offered by Blackmagic. None of these options could make the camera any uglier.
  17. Yet another Super35 camera from Blackmagic with an EF mount. Wonderful!
  18. It might help to insert a "footnote" within the frame identifying the source of the footage. For instance, while the third-party footage runs, "Source: PewDiePie/YouTube.com" appears in the lower right corner of the frame. That way, the viewer realizes that the quality of the footage comes from the original source -- not you.
  19. I mostly tend to agree. I had to scroll up to see who it was who dragged comments/jokes from another thread into this one.
  20. Well, the English word for the overwhelming emotion on set when some is seriously injured or killed is "Shattered." The entire location goes silent and all the work stops. While the paramedics are busy, most stand around looking distraught, while those who might be involved in the cause of the accident wear expressions of anguish. After experiencing such a mishap, one usually becomes serious about avoiding accidents, and one tries to instill the same sense of safety in others. By all means, don't let those trolls succeed in preventing dangerous set practices. 👍
  21. That's a funny joke, but it's good that the point has sunk in.
  22. Like this: This is the way a movie grip hostess tray mounts (with safety straps, of course) -- one would never hang an Alexa off of car window glass.
  23. If you are giving up on reckless, dangerous rigging, that's wonderful! No, years of experience is not required. One can learn from others who have experience -- that is a smart way to begin. I don't think you are an idiot, but some of your notions hint at minimal rigging experience. Additionally, not knowing the names of common grip items also indicates limited familiarity with such gear. Of course, your OP asked which clamp should be used for your purpose, so, by default, you seem to lack the knowledge/experience on the proper grip items to use. I have some grip experience and a fairly solid sense of safety. I along with another poster have suggested a safe, easy and lightweight way to get your balcony time-lapse shot, plus you could utilize the same gear to stabilize shots in other parts of your travels, to boot! If you really think that one uses math and "physics" to rig a camera on a balcony, implore you not to clamp anything to the rail. I do not know of any instances in which a camera rig clamped to a glass balustrade has failed, but I know that clamping to tempered glass can shatter it, and that would be especially dangerous on a balcony. Furthermore, I have seen plate glass installed at a location accidentally shattered, with a crew member going consequently going to an emergency room. In addition, an acquaintance was involved in a balcony rig that fell an killed someone at an event. Trust me -- accidents like those can ruin your day. In regards to the number of folks mounting a camera to glass balustrades with a clamp, I will have to take your word that there is "no shortage of images of people using them that way. However, if there is no shortage of such pictures, it begs the question: "why would post a query here if you were aware of all of those solutions?" You asked for a solution. I and another poster have pointed out safety issues and given you an easy, versatile, inexpensive and safe solution. The rest is up to you. Well, hopefully the hollow plastic ice cream cone won't land on one of the ants. My recollection of actual car hop trays hooked over the door (they didn't hang off of the window glass):
  24. A Super/Mafer clamp is like a mini hydraulic press. As I mentioned above, it can crunch through many items/materials that other clamps cannot. Due the heightened leverage involved, clueless folks tightening that type of cam-action clamp have damaged and ruined location pieces and caused material failure resulting in accidents. If one has no experience with such clamps, one should avoid them. Clamps should almost always be tightened to be firm -- not just "sufficient to make sure they won't fall." That might seem like a good idea, but the torsion stress makes such an offset rig precarious and sets it up for failure, which is undesirable and unsafe -- even if the CG is inside the balcony. In addition, with such positioning, the grip items might creep into the bottom of the frame. Do not use fishing line. Use something with a high enough test strength that holds knots well. If you can tie a bowline and a clove hitch, you are good. Extra points if you can tie a trucker's hitch, which is very useful for tag lines. In regards to pick points, the more solid they are, the better. A chair is probably not good for the balcony scenario, unless it is very heavy... likewise with a water bottle. I would first look for pick points that are part of the building structure. They need to be significantly inside from the edge of the balcony, and the higher up, the better. Sometimes two pick points are necessary if there is not one far enough inside. On a balcony the primary safety should be a tag/guy line that prevents a rig from going over the rail -- not a safety cable that "catches" the rig if it falls (as you suggested). Of course, using a safety cable in addition to a tag line is good practice. Actually, the clueless and uninitiated need to "be careful," especially when they contemplate rigging anything at altitude (which they should generally avoid). It is misguided and dangerous to think that rigging a camera on a balcony rail is a "physics problem" or that doing so somehow involves "math." If one has to calculate the stress tolerances of location items, such an endeavor should be abandoned. As Murphy's Law suggests, failure is often more probable than one anticipates -- especially for a cocksure newbie. Additionally, the odds of failure are compounded by all of the unknown variables one encounters at a location. What one really needs when rigging at altitude on location is a strong sense of safety, along with a good deal of experience in anticipating and preventing/avoiding the various failures possible. Such qualities are often found in grips and set electricians who have been around the block a few times. If one doesn't have the proper sense of safety nor rigging experience, it is best to avoid rigging a camera to a balcony rail. However, speaking of physics, I would like to reiterate that the physical properties of tempered glass are complex and that clamping to glass should never be attempted. Here is a lecture on breaking glass cued to the start of the section on tempered glass. Note that the lecturer states that if one tries to modify tempered glass in the slightest, "fun things will happen!" Tempered glass is primed to explode into little pieces. As shown in my above links above, strong flex stress or a tiny tap in the right spot can shatter tempered glass. Here is another video showing that tempered glass can take strong, broad impacts, but a local tap can cause it to shatter. In addition, the risk of shattering is exacerbated by any tiny damage or imperfection in the glass or by any stress added by a rig/clamp. Here is a closeup of the stress on a block of glass generated by a C-clamp, in a photo taken with a polarimeter setup: As more force is applied, the stresses increase. Here is a similar image showing stress lines on a clear block of plastic that deforms more easily than glass: These stresses are not visible when one tightens a Super/Mafer clamp onto a glass balustrade. So, although a drunk person falling on a glass balustrade might not be a problem, a tiny impact and/or clamping force on a local spot of the glass might cause that balustrade to shatter. That could ruin one's day. I have the benefit of years of experience as a member of an IA studio mechanics local working a set electrician and as a grip. If a new guy joined the crew and announced that they had postgraduate level physics and math, they would start out huffing cable, sandbags and carts just like every other newbie. The sense of safety, rigging techniques and set protocols has to be developed. In the meantime, don't put towels or t-shirts inside overhead clamps, always use a substantial tag line (with solid pick points) on a balcony rig, and avoid attaching anything to location structures... oh, and never clamp to glass!
  25. Here is a short video on how to "normalize" audio in Resolve. In regards to the breathing and noise, I would guess that there are filters that can reduce that in Resolve, plus you can use eq and compression functions. Here is a short primer. Perhaps someone here who is more knowledgeable in audio could chime in with other tips.
  • Create New...