TheRenaissanceMan

On 10/3/2019 at 6:51 AM, kye said:

We all talk about lenses on an individual basis, but what is your strategy for putting multiple lenses together into a kit?  

How many lens kits do you have?  How close are the focal lengths?  What aspects do you think matter when matching lenses?  I've heard on reduser that people often want a modern kit for some projects and a more vintage looking kit for other projects.  

My personal strategy is:

• I have about a 2.3x ratio - so FF equivalents of 16mm, (16mm x 2.2) = 35mm, and (35mm x 2.3) = 80mm.  I used to have a 116mm instead of the 80, and it was too far apart at 3.3x the 35mm
• They are 8mm F4, 17.5mm F0.95, and 40mm F1.8 and I'll be upgrading the 8mm to a 7.5mm F2 lens this year, so they'll all be under F2 for use in low-light if required
• They're all full-manual lenses, so I can have full control and also nice MF with decent focus-throw.  This combined with IBIS gives me the perfect combination of stabilised manual lenses
• I chose a 35mm equivalent as I like how the 35 is wider than a 50mm and longer than a 28mm, both focal lengths I don't think I like that much

What is your style?  Why have you chosen the lenses you use?

3 rules:

1. Must be adaptable to EF mount and shorter. Gotta be able to use it on at least a C200/F3/UMP.

2. Must focus the "correct" (non-Nikon) direction with hard stops. Anything else messes with my muscle memory (or my AC's) and creates problems with remote follow focuses.

3. Must have appeal beyond just my taste: ie, should be desirable to clients who hire me, directors I work with, and other shooters who might rent them. Otherwise I'm just spinning my wheels.

Personally I prefer a ~1.4x ratio between focal lengths, but I can make do with 2x in a pinch. In tight spaces it matters a great deal.

Consumer

This wasn't the last BMD camera to use a Fairchild sensor...the 4.6K is made by them too

2 hours ago, DBounce said:

Valid points,  but on the other hand there's nothing mini about the mini.

Not in a way that holds me back. I don't do a lot of gimbal work, and if I really needed it I'd get my buddy to come out with his Movi and BMPCC4k. 

Looks like a damn fine camera. Nice image, nice body, flexible mount, plenty of features. Shame about the blue clipping and rolling shutter. 

Problem for me is that this is knocking on used Ursa Mini prices, and that camera is objectively a better money maker for low end production work. ProRes workflow, real cinema body, and a name producers know and feel comfortable with. 

If this weren't my livelihood, or I had more money to toss around, I'd probably give it a go...but $4K is gonna relegate it to a "wait and see" for me personally.

@mercer I really loved my SLR Magic 12mm. Much nicer render than the Olympus or Rokinon, and truly lovely bokeh. Awesome close focus, too.

42 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

This is the same GH5 Lumix argument about AF tracking since the camera was released. 

Have the choice of AF tracking or using manual is just that. Use what works for you. But on the S1, GH5, GH5s and S1R the AF tracking is not very good. 

It's the NOT VERY GOOD part is the issues here. It should be as good as Canon, Sony or Nikon.  

Another Lumix AF excuse "many people will still enjoy using manual focus for the spontaneous creative control it provides."  How is using AF tracking with the touch screen any less spontaneous then using manual focus?  

Next you will say "manual focus is more organic then AF".

The Red Gemini, Alexa Mini, Varicam LT, and Ursa Mini Pro have pretty bad tracking AF, too. Maybe I should disqualify them from my future projects in favor of an A7III.

@mercer very, very nice work. Your compositions and awareness of natural light are really improving!

Any LOG comparisons to the A7III yet?

I think people are confusing f-stops and t-stops.

The f-stops--the physical size of the lens opening--are the same. They have not changed them.

The t-stops--the objective amount of light being transmitted through that opening--are less, due to the lack of coatings.

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Hands up... Who exposes the main subject like this?

Answer: NOBODY!

Who puts test charts in their movie?

It's designed to show the malleability of information at low IRE values, which is useful data.

9 hours ago, kye said:

Nice looking images, but wow are those lenses expensive!!

I understand the advantages of cinema primes and how they can pay for themselves on a big shoot, but yeah, you'd really want the images to be super nice!

They were rentals, and very reasonable ones considering our producer worked at the rental house. Besides, the Canons are actually very affordable in comparison to other cinema glass.

Also, it was anything but a big shoot. 2 days in a friend's cabin with 9 crew and 4 actors. $2500 budget that largely paid for food, actors, and rentals. Our goal on the technical side was to get maximum production value for minimum money and give ourselves as much post-production flexibility as possible, because at the end of the day, no one watching the film cares what the gear costs; they just want to like what they see.

Very much enjoyed the look of the Canon CN-Es (same glass as the Ls with better QC, coatings, and housings) on Helium for a recent short I gaffed. Attempted a more raw, naturalistic feeling look than I generally do, and I'm pretty happy with the results. Grabs are from ungraded Rec.709 proxies.

C5D also doesn't understand how to use a Xyla chart properly. You expose so the brightest chip is just BARELY clipping, then count down from there. Every C5D test I've ever seen clips more than one chip, and I can never figure out why.

9 hours ago, DBounce said:

So why would Fujifilm develop a sensor they do not plan use? That makes zero sense. I have no inside information. My conclusion is simply drawn from the logical assumption that Fujifilm were working on something they had a plan to use. Anything other than this assumes Fujifilm worked on this project simply to benefit another company. That reasoning does not seem logical.

You don't think Fuji will make royalties from this jointly developed technology? Sony makes more money selling their sensor tech than they do from their actual cameras. The same logic applies.

As some people here have already covered, any camera with a good enough codec and dynamic range can deliver good HDR results. Here's the best article on the internet detailing everything a shooter needs to know about HDR.

https://www.provideocoalition.com/a-guide-to-shooting-hdr-day-1-what-is-hdr/

But as a quick reality check, HDR delivery is still fairly rare. Especially if you work in TV, low budget narrative, web series, commercials, music videos, or anything but huge budget features, you are not likely to deliver in HDR for years yet. Hold on to your masters just in case, but let's not for a second pretend that lack of HLG or Rec 2020 support in-camera is really going to hold you back.

Is this a s35 sensor, or 2/3 broadcast sensor? 

Exciting to think what future cameras this could potentially wind up in, but I definitely want to see footage and explore the pros and cons of the tech before we go slapping it in everything.

13 hours ago, mercer said:

Has anyone ever bought an expensive lens and felt that it may be too good for them?

I found a Zeiss ZF 28mm f/2 “Hollywood” lens that was Duclos modified for a fair price. I’ve always been interested in the Zeiss Hollywood lens, so I ponied up the money to buy it. After receiving the lens, I can confirm it is exceptional. It is a work of mechanical and optical art but it seems like overkill for my humble hobby. 

Has anyone else been in a similar situation?

Eh, not anymore. Ain't nothing separating hobbyists with passion/money from professionals except career shit and the sheer gumption to say "I'm out here, I'm doing it, I'm worthy of using the best I can get."

I definitely know DPs who prefer to pull focus by hand (as opposed to a follow focus), so that may be closer to the real reason. Comfort matters too--just because something is "professional" doesn't mean it's the best fit for your particular style/workflow.

17 hours ago, IronFilm said:

As it was being said earlier that good lowlight capabilities are of no benefit for "big budget" shoots, and I was giving the Panasonic Varicam as an example against that. 

Wtf? Do people on this forum even work in production? EVERYTHING with a budget I work on is Alexa with fast lenses close to wide open, big soft LED sources, and practicals that play as real scene lighting. Low light levels are the current flavor, not only for speed (HUGE on paid work where producers are trying to save pennies anywhere they can), but because at those intensities, lighting looks about the same to the eye as it will to camera, as opposed to high levels where you'll often have no idea of your ratios until you pull out a meter or a monitor. This also means controlling your sources, blocking light, and choosing visually conducive locations becomes more important than ever, as your keys aren't nearly bright enough to knock errant light down. 

Maybe we need to make a topic detailing current industry visual and sound techniques, just so we're all on the same page with how things are done now and what matters.

Zoom F1? Just a nice self-contained lavalier mic/recorder?

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I think you are crazy LoL. Hell 99.6% of the people in the world have no clue what Cine, or Filmic even means camera wise. And probably 90% of them Never it take off of Auto or Program mode. There is really not that many crazy Bastards like us in the world.

People definitely look at a product and think "this looks like a movie" or "this looks like something cheap my nephew put together." Just because average viewers don't have the same visual acumen and vocabulary doesn't mean they don't recognize good aesthetics.

21 hours ago, IronFilm said:

After what happened with URSA I wouldn't hold your breath

They did offer the UMP discount pricing to Ursa owners, though.

12 hours ago, sandro said:

I saw a comparison between a73 and z6 and noticed the sony wins hands down in low light performance. I wonder what sony does differently considering they're both full frame and have the same MP.

Thinner dies in the OLPF I'm guessing. Better s/n, less precise color discrimination. The A7III also does a lot of NR, so look at detail rendering between the two as well.

You could split the difference and adapt Voigtlander EF/F primes. A nice modern cinema aesthetic, but much safer and more flexible as in investment.

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

If people wanted to rent them they would have them. Hard hard is that to envision. They are in the rental business. If they flew off the selves they would have 100's of them in stock. Times have changed. Better, probably mostly cheaper stuff, that is almost as good comes along to rent, and bam you can't give a certain camera away.

At least where I am, it's generally an owner-operator camera, or owned by agencies/production houses. Those entities sometimes rent it out, like for a couple Garmin/Harley shoots I've done. Anything with product shots loves the Varicam for accurate color. 

Even in Milwaukee, a rather small market, we have as many Varicams as Alexas (though more REDs than either). Chicago, you'll definitely see more FS7s (they have a virtual monopoly on doco/reality), but Varicams are out there working all the time, like on the Lifetime movie I worked on a few weeks ago or the Kohler commercial the month before.

Here's what I'm saying, man. Your experience in the professional sphere is limited, and in a small market, and your observations are purely anecdotal. So unless you have an article with hard sales numbers that back up your claim, then with all due respect I'm going to disregard your (in my eyes) baseless assertion. 

Let's try not to derail this thread any further. If we want to talk Varicam popularly, let's make a separate topic.