Jump to content

Jonesy Jones

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Jonesy Jones

  1. ​This is the camera I'm most excited about so far, but my impression is that it's not really much smaller than the URSA. I believe this model has the rod receivers built in and the lens on the front still looks pretty small on this body. It appears 'smaller', but I don't think it will be 'mini'. Which means the 'lightweight' feature is probably via light plastic body. Also, it says 4.6K sensor. Does that mean it shoots 4.6K, or just that it's a 4.6K sensor that shoots ultra HD as it also says on the sign? Guess we'll know soon enough. I'm on Vegas time over here in socal so it's still early for me.
  2. I don't ever shoot full frame, or at least I never have. Mostly BMPC or Sony S35. I could live without the long lens. I shoot almost solely wide and normal, but still, I could pick up a decent long lens for those rare moments. I think renting the Sigma is a great idea, but in the end, that may only make the decision harder.
  3. Hey guys, I'm not at Blackmagic's website that much, so I am not sure if this is normal. But if you go to their website and view their 'professional cameras' you will see a little blue 'New' label on the upper left corner of each camera model (as well as Resolve 11) except the Pocket, even though those camera models are definitely not new. What I am reading into this is that there will be an upgrade with each of these models, and Resolve, but not the Pocket. Thoughts? https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products EDIT: The blue label is not on the URSA. Maybe the URSA is not getting a new sensor? I dunno.
  4. How can anyone not like Blackmagic. Of course, we really don't know what these cameras are capable of. But man, do you know of any other company that brings it year after year like these guys?
  5. Ok. So I wanted to get this in before all the NAB craziness begins. Currently I own 3 Leica R lenses. 19mm ver ii, 60mm, and 100mm APO. I love them. They are not everyone's cup of tea but there is just something about them. I don't know, maybe it's skin tones, and just color in general. What they lack in modern coatings and micro contrast they make up for with beautiful flatness and natural color rendition. They're also expensive. I feel like I need to get a couple more primes on the lower end to have my bases covered, and that's money I don't necessarily have. However, it has occurred to me the Sigma 18-35 and Metabones gives me all the focal lengths I basically ever use in one sharp fast lens. I guess having both the Leica's and the Sigma would be cool, but I'm not really well off enough for that. At least it wouldn't make sense to me. I'm kind of a 1 or the other kind of guy. My thought is that I could sell the Leica's and have enough to buy the Sigma and several other cool toys, like a gimbal for instance. The zoom also reduces production time a little imo. But is it worth the trade off? I love the look of the Leica's. Though maybe once you factor in color correction is there a significant difference? And once I sell the Leica's that's it. I know I would never buy them again. Maybe NAB is going to introduce some new wrinkles to this dilemma. Regardless, if you have some sage wisdom for me, or maybe you have experience with one or both of these lenses, I would love to hear from you. I guess it's probably also worth mentioning that my filmmaking interests begin with narratives, some documentary, and commercial last and rarely. Thanks in advance.
  6. They said disruptive, and I think Panasonic is crazy and desperate enough to try it. I wonder if their Varicam is not doing well. Because in order to be truly disruptive they will have to have to sabotage it. To be truly disruptive, they are going to have to put all their goodies into a camera that is truly affordable.
  7. ​Personally, I couldn't care less about a stills/video camera. Two different cameras for two different jobs.
  8. I would trade 4K and high frame rates for an additional stop of DR any day. An improved 2.5K sensor with 1 more stop of DR is what I have been secretly hoping for. But for some reason I don't think there is a chance in hell this will happen. 4K and 150+ fps sound way sexier than 1 additional stop of DR. Oh well, I'm still pretty happy with the current pocket and cinema camera and will take advantage of their falling prices on eBay.
  9. Is there a reason this conversation turned private? Seems like good info for all. Why not share?
  10. Great question. I will enjoy seeing other responses too, but here is my experience. First, I don't know that there is a standard, it seems. Watch Netflix, audio levels are all over the place from one show to the other. Same with DVD's. Same with TV. And movies/shows can even be extremely different from one minute to the next in the same scene. I worked on a TV show for a short period of time and we had to mix levels at around -6 to -12 db. So that's about where I start. However, I also throw on a movie into the same audio system and environment and somewhat match. That is, I know, extremely subjective. So I kind of split the difference between -6db and my ears. Hopefully someone else chimes in with better info. But if not maybe my response will help.
  11. Thank you canstin for what appears to be a very imformative reply. Thank you Ed for the original post. I comment on here, not because I really have anything to add to the discussion, but because this discussion matters so much to me. The thing is, I HATE youtube. It's great for research, but each time I post something there that I have created I absolutely cringe and die inside. The viewing experience, for reasons that I cannot explain, is atrocious. And for whatever reason, my experience with Vimeo is at least better than youtube. Is it worth the $60/year I pay? To me it is, barely, and I regularly consider ending that. I think Vimeo is slowly improving. For instance a year ago their player was so frickin slow, but these days it is waaaay faster. According to either Bloom or his buddy Miller, Vimeo was testing 4K on some videos, so I think there will be progress in that respect eventually. But I guess it would be nice for us to hear from them about what is coming. Again, I do not have much to add, other than that this is important to me. Vimeo, are you listening? We like you. Please reciprocate that with some communication and transparency. Reach out to us now and then, even in this thread for instance. Ed has some good ideas. Talk to us about them. We are why you exist. Please don't forget about us.
  12. Yes IronFilm, Deakins is referring to that Arri Zeiss 32mm, but I think it's not so much the brand, but the focal length. I assume his reasoning is that 32mm gives him a FOV he likes, and it's a pretty normal lens, now that I know it is still subject to the 1.4 crop factor.
  13. Ok. Well, sounds like I understood this all wrong. Thanks guys.
  14. I could really use some help. In a recent thread on this forum, I brought up, what I thought was a fact, about cinema lenses (lenses designed specifically for use on cameras with s35 sensors or film) being designed and labeled specifically for s35, and which yields roughly the same FOV as a DSLR lens on a Full Frame camera. In other words, a 50mm cinema lens on s35 would yield basically the same FOV as a 50mm DSLR lens on a Full Frame camera. That is the way it has been explained to me, though I have never owned a cinema lens nor have I had the opportunity to test this. To a large degree this is very important to me because when I read about DP's who shot such and such movies and which focal lengths they used for such and such scenes, I'd like to be clear that I understand how that info relates to my own personal equipment. For instance, I've read Roger Deakins state that if he had to choose only one focal length to shoot a film it would be a 32mm. Obviously he is shooting on an s35 camera, so my question is, what FOV equivalent is that to the DSLR world? If we were to compare the FOV of his 32mm on s35, would it be roughly the same as a 32mm dslr lens on a Full Frame, or would it yield a FOV closer to 48mm (32 x 1.5 = 48)? I don't know if that's at all confusing, but this is really important to me, so let me just ask the question as simple as I can, what is the Full Frame DSLR FOV focal length equivalent to Roger Deakins' 32mm lens on s35? Even that sounds confusing. lol. But please I would really love your help. Also, please briefly state your experience with both cinema and dslr lenses on both cinema and dslr lenses. In other words, I would like to make sure you are speaking from experience, not second hand information like myself.
  15. ​I understand all that, perfectly. What I think you are missing is that cinema lenses do not have the same FOV as their DSLR equivalents. I learned this at Alex Buono's workshop. He was using a 25mm Canon cinema lens on a Canon with APS-C sensor, but it was yielding a FOV of (roughly) 25mm on a Full Frame. When I asked him about this he told me the cinema lens is designed and marked that way. In other words, our Full Frame focal lengths are equal to the same cinema lens focal lengths on s35. I cannot confirm this with absolute certainty because I don't own any cinema lenses, but this is how I have been lead to understand it.
  16. ​How sure are you about that? Here's how it's been explained to me... 25mm cinema lens on s35 camera is equal FOV to 25mm dslr lens on full frame camera.
  17. Actually no. Your'e right about the sensor's size being roughly the same as s35 film, however, cinema lenses are described in full frame equivalents. When Mr Deakins is describing a 32mm cinema lens on 35mm film, it is behaving like a 32mm lens on a full frame dslr. To achieve the same FOV on an aps-c sensor you'd need a 20mm lens (20x1.6=32). EDIT: I don't have this quote thing down but fuzzy said "​Isn't the 600D an ASP-C sensor, essentially the same size as s35 motion picture film?... A 32mm lens is a 32mm in this context." Also, my explanation is probably atrocious, but the math is good.
  18. This lens set is very interesting to me, but please Andrew, ask them to reconsider another wide in there like a couple others have suggested. I realize they are not selling to high end DP's but when you look at the upper level DP's there list's stay on the low end. Get a 32 and a 40 in there, or I guess the super 35 equivalent. I think a long lens is great to have but you only need one. 21, 25, 32, 50, and 100.
  19. Roger Deakins, a living legend cinematographer, says if he had to choose one lens, it'd be 32mm. I can't remember names but I know that I've read that other legendary cinematographers would go with about the same. So on your camera, that would be a lens in the low 20's. Also, don't worry about speed (aperture). 2.8 is good enough. In fact 4.0 is probably fine too. The vast majority of cinema is NOT shot with an extreme shallow DOF.
  20. Thank you and sorry about the late response. I was out of town. I'll check those programs out thank you very much.
  21. Hey guys, I recently finished my first feature film (https://vimeo.com/103010031), though we still have not released on DVD, we hope to do that very soon. One of the things that has come up recently though is that we will be marketing this to a Spanish speaking market as well and therefore we need subtitles. I've never done this though and was hoping someone knew of a good tutorial or could point me in the direction of the quickest method for creating optional subtitles (subtitles that can be turned on or off in the menu). I have someone who is willing and able to do the translation, but I have absolutely no idea how this all works from a technical standpoint. I'm sure I can go fish around on google or whatever and find what I need to know, but I'm hoping someone here has maybe done this recently and can save me some time and get me right where I need to go. I'm using Adobe's suite so something within that realm would be preferable, unless there's a much better alternative. Anyway, thanks in advance.
  22. Good stuff Fuzzy. I like your perspective and ability to communicate it.
  23. I was recently at the Shane Hurlbut tour thing and all day long he used Canon cameras, which, obviously have nice colors, but to me it looks like TV, high end TV. Then later in the day he switched to a BMCC without telling us and I was like damn, that looks awesome. It instantly looked more like a movie to me. Canon probably had better skin tones, but the BMCC looked more cinematic to me, which I realize is very subjective. What I'm trying to say is that I agree with Fuzzy. I think you choose the camera/lens combo that give you the look your after. If your shooting a glamour piece or beautiful people TV show, go with a Canon. If you're looking for an edgier look maybe a Sony or Blackmagic will get you there. EDIT: In the end, though, I think your audience wants to be engaged in the story or content, and I just don't feel like the skin tones are going to make or break that, unless they're way off. And all of the above cameras can get you there if used properly, and post can help too.
  24. Thanks Fuzzy. I kinda wonder the same thing. Good stuff.
  • Create New...