Jump to content

Jonesy Jones

Members via Facebook
  • Content Count

    867
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Jonesy Jones

  1. Again, don't want to be argumentative, but this kinda flies in the face of what I have heard dp's (Roger Deakins for instance) say. That's not to say that lighting isn't extremely important, because it is. But composition is priority #1.
  2. This is an extremely good point. Then you kinda get the best of all the worlds. However, with Red, as I understand it, they use pixel binning. That's why they offer 5K and 6K, so that they can result in super crisp image once debayered to 4K (I may have that wrong but that's how I understand it). So shooting with a Red in cropped 4K mode won't actually give you a terrific 4K image, unless you're delivering in HD.
  3. Can you give me an example of this? I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, but I just don't see this, really ever. What's 1 example of super shallow dof or creamy bokeh from a classic film or a modern film shot is classic film style (not interested in TV or internet videos either). I'm sure they exist, I just can't think of any. Also, I have not suggested that a dp's only job is to place and frame cameras, but rather it's the most important part of their job.
  4. It seems like what I'm hearing is that it boils down to DOF and bokeh (yes I know those are different). Again, I'll go back to my point that if you are interested in making movies that look like movies (which I am and I realize not everyone is), then those two things aren't really that important. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that classic cinematographers were at all concerned about dof or bokeh. What I hear coming from their mouth is that it's about composition, which is directly related to fov and camera placement. Yes, dof and bokeh will often give you a nice instant gratification, at least that's been my experience, but I am learning that it's really all about composition (fov and camera placement). I guess the point that ef and nikon mount cameras can't take a speedbooster is valid. I hadn't thought of that. But E mount aren't the only cameras that can take a speedbooster, m43 can as well. And my point isn't completely about getting back to the full frame equivalent, but getting 2 lenses for the price of 1. As I understand it, a 35mm on a S35 camera with speedbooster gives you roughly a 35mm, and without the speedbooster is more like a 50mm. 2 lenses in 1. I realize there are some bokeh and dof differences between a 35 on a FF and a 35 on a S35 with speedbooster, but stop them down and I don't think the difference is much. I think everyone has different objectives and so this may not apply for everyone, but for my interest (making movies that look like movies) I believe I'm on to something. But there are a bunch of other things in that equation as well. jonesy
  5. So this is just a simple little post that has nothing to do with creating division between anyone regarding sensor size. I have no emotional attachment to any particular sensor size, so if I am wrong, I would love for you to tell me why. That's actually why I am creating this post. I would love to know if there is something I am not considering. This may be old news for some, but it is something that has just kinda occurred to me lately and I thought it was worth sharing. Maybe I'm right, and maybe we need to let camera makers know that crop sensors are better. My reasoning behind this has almost everything to do with FOV (field of view), and the combination of our lenses with the advent of speedboosters. Lets say I have 3 lenses, a 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm, AND a speedbooster. And let's say I have a camera with S35 sensor and the speedbooster gets me the equivalent of full frame (or close enough for discussion). By using this set up, I have now doubled the focal length possibilities of my lenses. In essence, I now have 6 lenses. Used WITH the speedbooster I have something close to a 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm, and WITHOUT the speedbooster I basically have a 30mm, 50mm, and 130mm (or thereabouts). What I'm saying is that a speedbooster and crop lens combo give us 2 focal lengths for each lens. Now, that may not seem like a big deal at first, but if you choose the right focal lengths, you may only need to get half the amount of lenses, which is kind of a big deal. This of course works with other crop sensors too, though I feel like the S35 size has the best of all worlds. I guess the first thing full frame lovers will point to is shallow depth of field, and the loss of some of that with crop sensors. However, I believe you get most of that back with a speedbooster, but more importantly, is that really a big deal? Now, just so you know, I've been shooting seriously since before DSLR's, back in the 1/3" (and smaller) days. I know all about the crappy DOF before DSLR's. When DSLR's came out I too got all hyped on the shallow DOF that could be achieved. I'm guilty of overusing it. Way guilty. I've heard people time after time after time talk about shallow DOF and wanting to have the option and how it helps achieve the "film" or "cinematic" look. But then I actually watched movies. Where is this shallow DOF? I don't really see it. I mean, pick a movie that really looks like a movie, Jaws, The Godfather, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Shawshank Redemption, or any other movie for that matter. There is very little shallow DOF, if any. I mean, I'm shooting at like F8 or F11 to get the cinema look. The other argument that I guess full frame folks would make is light, and the xtra stop you get on full frame. But again, don't you get most of that back with a speedbooster. Not too mention, doesn't it seem like these sensors will soon be ultra-sensitive anyway. I think the A7S (yes I know its full frame) is probably a harbinger of things to come with sensors at all sizes. Light will be easy in the very near future. So, am I missing anything? If not, maybe crop sensors are better and we need to vocalize that when possible. These are just some of my thoughts. Would love to hear yours.
  6. This was by far the camera that had me the most excited at NAB this year. I had not heard an actual dynamic range figure, but if 15 stops is true, daaang!!! Shoot, I'd be happy with 14. I realize this is not a straight up competitor to the GH4, which is fine with me. The A7S and a Shogun should be a pretty dope combo. The thing that has me most concerned is the 8 bit out. Looking forward to seeing some more tests. I'm guessing we'll be seeing quite a few in the next month. Btw, if anyone who has the opportunity to test this camera reads this, please shoot some blue skies and some difficult sunshine/shade shots.
  7. Excellent resource. Thank you.
  8. Thanks varicam. I've thought about that too. Might very well be something I get into at one point. It's a little more work for me right now since I don't have an audio interface to work with, but the vocoder is something I have been interested in for a while.
  9. Yah. I've been playing with that, but I have been looking for something that I wasn't able to produce. But I just discovered a nifty little trick. Keyframing the volume up and down rapidly creates a cool doppler, or growl effect. Very cool.
  10. Does anyone know of some good sound fx tutorials, or libraries for that matter? What I need is some creature/demon/alien sound fx, but not big monster roars. More subtle, like when the actor hears a creature that's behind them and then they turn around to see it. Or a subtle creature quickly moving by unseen. If you watch the recent Godzilla trailer for instance there are several low fluttery (I don't know what else to call them) sound fx that kinda sound like a growl. They're probably digital, but they're awesome. I could really use your help, but please no cheesy witch cackles or demon hisses. Thanks in advance.
  11. I'd be interested to see what other's have to say about this as well. But I've been told that the "poor man buys twice", so maybe we should just go get the right the first time. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/476493-REG/Sekonic_401_760_L_758C_Cine_Light_Meter.html
  12. Well, if the music is good then those prices are EXTREMELY reasonable. That would make me very happy. If it works out, here are some of my thoughts as to what would be useful for me. 1. Allow non watermarked lower quality download before purchase. I know this is kind of a tough pill to swallow for content creators, but I'm thinking that most will be glad to pay for high quality music at those prices. Then let us download a useful temp track without an annoying watermark. The higher quality file that will be obtained upon purchase needs to be the identical duration and volume so that an easy "replace file" command can be done. 2. Get cinematic stuff, and beddy stuff. The Music Bed has some great stuff, but much of it seems to end up crescendoing, which is great for films and a bunch of stuff, but not for simple videos where you just need a light filler in the background. 3. It'd be great if you could offer different versions of the same track that are included with the purchase. Like one with and without piano, or drums, or vocals or whatever. I find that when I have 2 or 3 different versions (all the same duration and volume) I can easily arrange them and end up creating something unique and useful for my project. I'll probably have some more thoughts, but those are first ones to come to mind. I think the idea is great, and there's a wide open market. jonesy
  13. "Something is going to change big-time soon but I can’t spill the beans until June 3rd, however you have to know now for the sake of the review being comprehensive that sensor size and inability to get the most out of your EF lenses will not always be an issue…" "Not signed an NDA but the company are friends and I'm going to shut up until they're ready. I have been testing the X today and all I can say is.... WOW!!" I too am assuming this is a speedbooster... maybe a Sigma one. I just hope they have all varieties, including one that takes Leica R.
  14. In my opinion, doing all the research that you are doing is great, and absolutely necessary, but there is nothing like experience. Here's the thing that I have learned, you're going to buy a camera, and it's not going to be perfect, regardless of the one you choose. You'll learn a ton from your experience with that camera, but then you'll want to upgrade and so you'll buy another one, and it won't be perfect either. So, you'll upgrade again eventually, and so on and so forth. Until eventually you realize that investing in cameras is like pouring money down the toilet. So you'll begin investing in lenses and tripods and mics and other things that don't lose value so quickly. But your tastes will change regarding those things, so then you'll eventually replace that gear with other gear, until one day you realize all that stuff doesn't really matter because it's all about story. Along the way you'll waste tons of money and time, but unfortunately there's no way to skip from A to Z. The journey is very important and unavoidable, and fun. Just be prepared for the world you're about to enter, and jump in with both feet. You're gonna make mistakes and there's no perfect anything. At least that's been my experience.
  15. So, thanks to everyone for your help. I just recently discovered this forum. Man, where have I been hiding? "sorry but correct me if im wrong. no country was not shot with anamorphic lenses." "By the way, neither "The Matrix" nor "No Country For Old Men" was shot with anamorphic lenses." This I guess is just my mistake. I thought for sure they were anamorphic. I guess they were just printed to anamorphic for distribution? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec "in my experience it's the opposite... with anamorphics you get wider shots so in essence you almost always are using a longer focal length so to simulate the look you have to compress the depth a little using longer lenses and moving back..." You might be right. Thinking about what anamorphic lenses do makes my brain hurt. I'm looking forward to testing this out. But for some reason I'm still leaning toward thinking it's wider that I'm going for. But we'll see. "Short answer - use a spherical lens and crop top and bottom" This is what I was thinking. "Yes. Impossible." Are you referring to the look of anamorphic lenses, or the field of view? I'm not too worried about the look so much, just the field of view. And I don't really understand why the field of view would be impossible to replicate. Your just squeezing an image and then stretching it out again. But again, thinking about this makes my head hurt. I need to try it out to grasp it. Thanks again everyone.
  16. So, for starters I have to admit right off the bat that I have not purchased and read the EOSHD Anamorphic guide. I have thought about getting it, but it kinda depends on the answer to my question. Recently I have been watching No Country For Old Men and The Matrix, two of my favorite films ever and I'm just so impressed by the look and feel of those films. They're both shot using the anamorphic process and it got me wondering if that look is ONLY achieved with anamorphism, or if it can also be achieved with a spherical system. Let me clarify what I am speaking of. I have NO interest in cool lens flares and almost no interest in oval bokehs. There does seem to be an interesting texture (if I may call it that) that comes with anamorphic lenses, but that still is not really what interests me. The thing I am interested in is the field of view. Is the field of view that is produced with anamorphic lenses IMPOSSIBLE to achieve with spherical lenses, or is it just EASIER to achieve with anamorphic? I can't help but think that I can just slap on a wider lens and move in closer (and of course chop off the top and bottom of the frame in post... gasp), but I've yet to really conduct a thorough test of this. I plan on doing a test in the next couple weeks when I have some time, but I thought maybe someone here already knew the answer. I'd really love your input, and if anyone has seen any tests on youtube or vimeo I'd love to check them out. Thanks in advance. jonesy
×
×
  • Create New...