JazzBox

no 2 people have the same artistic vision
 
- so I have no problem sharing on this forum which I do regularly -
 
I'm sure if you gave 10 people the same camera and lens set up you would get 10 totally different results.... everytime.
 
its not the gear its the person behind the gear that makes the differance.

You can't buy experience you have to earn it...I've been doing this for 25 years now and seen all sorts of cameras and styles come and go .
All the stuff I learnt shooting Super 16 in the early days and 4 perf 35mm carries forward to all these digital cameras.
Lighting and lenses are the two most important factors - very often over looked by people on here .
 
Learn to light thats the key to it all.

once everyone who uses a Canon or Nikon DSLR for video gets round to using an EVF mirrorless camera
they will see that staring at the screen on the back of the camera is a thing of the past
 
once you get used to an OLED EVF you will never look back
 
- I could not work without an EVF ever again.
 
It is critical for focus and makes life so much easier - also I can rig the camera on a shoulder rig and use the evf like an ENG camera
this is my main way of working. My eye never comes off the camera now.

mirrorless with a great EVF is the way to go , Panasonic or Sony are the best right now
 
I dont ever use my Canon DSLRs for video any more just for stills
 
DSLRs are dead for video for me -
 
no peaking -
 
glass optical viewfinders not working because you have to put the mirror up for video is a no no !!
so you are just stuck with the rear screen that always has to be on ....so it eats battery
 
Mirrorless with and EVF lets you see exactly what you get and your focus is spot on with peaking too
I rarely use the rear screen ....so battery life is huge with just the EVF on

totally agree!
In my humble experience with GH4 it's better using an higher ISO then underexposing. Grain is really "organic", not harsh! I like it!

Of course - I've shot at T1.3. I personally think that it's less about the focus pulling (I've worked with some awesome focus pullers, though it is not easy to pull focus WFO even with the latest monitoring options) and more about the look in general. As always, the look needs to support the story. If that means shooting WFO, then that's totally justified.
 
Shooting WFO because you think 'that's what Hollywood films looks like' is a different story - of course, I'm not saying you, in particular, do this, just as a general statement.
 
And yes, if I was unhappy with the performance of a certain dolly, I would not use it on my films. 
 
 

Let's be clear - there were fast lenses for a long time. I think the current trend for shallower DOF comes down to being able to shoot on faster stocks/higher ISOs. In the past, you may have had a fast lens, but as a general rule you were shooting with large lights that gave a huge amount of illumination. You can ND and dim as much as you want, but you're still going to end up shooting around a 4.

There's nothing inherently wrong with shooting wide open - many films have done it and have done so for many, many years. A lot of the night scenes in Social Network were shot without lights at T1.3 (Master Primes).

I think it would be a silly assertion to say that Hollywood films are shot at 5.6 and home movies are shot wide open. Neither of those statements are all that factual. However, I think it's also interesting to assert that shooting wide open, without lights is a way to 'set a new standard' and create images that look better than Hollywood (to paraphrase). Of course, this is not an attack on you at all, or anyone, simply a discussion of the points being made.

Everything we're talking about here - anamorphic, shooting wide open, shooting stopped down... all has a different look, and each one is totally viable and entirely acceptable as long as it supports the story.
It's when I hear that someone's shooting wide open because 'that's what Hollywood does' or 'that's what Hollywood movies look like' is when I start to take issue.

You make big claims - I would posit that most audiences have no f*n clue that full frame looks different. Indeed, the difference in final look is negligible, apart from slightly more Depth of Field for the same field of view. Most audiences don't notice until something is totally out of focus. I would also suggest that Hollywood has had access to larger formats (65mm film, for example). There's a lot of limitations, however, when it comes to a larger sensor or film frame (lack of good cinema lenses being a major one), and at least in the comparison of APS-C to Full Frame, the difference in look is negligible.

Well realistically, that's all that should matter - if the client likes it better, who are you/we to tell them they're wrong!
 
 
 

I agree with this point. Too often it seems this razor-thin DOF has been employed to hide the DP's shortcomings in not being able to light a whole set, or the shortcomings of the Production Designer not being able to design the set properly, or in general a lack of budget so that they could not afford a Production Designer to design the set, or lights for the DP.
It can be a bit of a cop-out. I've shot at T1.3 on S35 and not had as shallow DOF as a lot of the 5D stuff I've seen.
You lose so much depth shooting like that, and it can feel unnatural. However, it depends on the story - if I was given a script that I felt needed to be shot that way, I would certainly do it.

I would get a set of Canon FD primes 20 24 28 35 50 85 100 and an RJ speedbooster for Canon FD - micro 4/3
 
you can shoot a whole movie on them and they are superb lenses , great warm colour tinge superb blacks and very sharp

Yes, of course it is me! I love that movie, exactly because for me it is a great example of cinematography.  Joshua Caldwell made a great movie because he wrote a great story, he choose good actors, he made great compositions, great editing, great colors... and the DOF in his movie is always appropriate, it is never too shallow.

I'm sorry If I gave an answer a little bit too strong to hmcindie, but  I did not like the way he wrote me: I wrote something about the way MOST of the people (not all, obviously) use the full frame and I think that this way it is not very cinematic, it is simple too shallow for my taste and I can easily spot a 5D video when I see an extreme DOF, just that! 

It is the same when I see an exaggerate fisheye and I think: "it has to be a GoPro", because it is something very stylized.

Maybe it is good for something, but when I watch an Hollywood movie I can see the eyes of an actor, and probably also the ears. In a lot of music video made with the 5D I can just see one eye and not the second, because it's out of focus, like the ears.
But it has not that much to do with Canon 5D, it has to do with the shooter: with full frame you have to stop down the lens a little more then with APS-C. 
Of course great filmmaker do that and Joshua Caldwell did that, so his movie has a great photography. 

But a lot of people just don't do that: they know that 5D is a great low light camera, it has the possibility to give a shallow DOF and I think they became lazy about putting a light on the set and stopping down a little... maybe with A7s someone will start to make movies in absolute night without a single light, but it does not depend from the camera, it depends from a lazy choice of the shooter.

Of course there is not a perfect camera that fit all situations and 5D is nonetheless a great camera: 5D with Magic Lantern is probably one of the best image quality for a budget filmmaker, but a good movie come from a lot of things, not just from a low light monster or from an exaggerate DOF. 

Ciao :)
 

100% agree with you! 

5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

Drew Gupta (DrewNet) describes the 7-14 as having "distortion from hell itself!" And that's on the BMPCC :unsure:  Also, I don't think you can screw an ND on it. Not a video lens really, if you want honesty.
 
Anyone here watch DrewNetwork's videos on YT? I think he's awesome...

its a very wide lens - you might want to get something like the Panasonic 14-42mm to go with it so you have asome longer focal lengths covered.

100% agree with you! 

5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

if you want to shoot some thing that looks like it has Hollywood movie 'field of views' just remember these 3 focal lengths
 
27mm for your wides
75mm for the close ups
40mm for the rest of the coverage
 
all referanced to a 35mm motion picture camera or APSC or Micro 4/3 with a speedbooster
you can shoot most of your movie on these 3 lenses - or use a 28-70mm zoom that covers almost them all (NIKON!!!)
 
shoot at f2.8 - and off you go .......all else is irrelevant cross referancing to full frame and will just slow you down
 
I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

The Nikon and Zeiss are very similar lenses optically both are warm and have strong blacks but the Zeiss 35-70mm is a push pull lens not as wide and slower too so you don't need it if you have a Nikon also I Prefer the Zeiss 28-70mm in c/y mount as its smaller wider and a two touch zoom but again the Nikon is better as its faster .at f5.6 both lenses have the same pop but at f2.8 the Nikon is king its great wide open and that's where I use it - on micro 4/3 on a lens turbo speed booster - that makes a big difference making it an f2 lens giving you a great look on micro 4/3 cameras that's very hard to beat in my book

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? 
So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one.
 
 
 
Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. 
   
I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing.   
  No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad.   What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look.   I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking.    Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense. 

I normally use canon FD glass on my gh4. I find them to be a very good combo with the gh4, I never have trouble with an "overly digital" look to my footage. there is a shop in my town with a ton of old lenses and they let me trade back and forth so I get to try and bunch of random ones out.
I have a bunch of them but one that seems to have the most character to me is a Vivitar 28mm f2.5 FD mount. it has really cool lens flares and is very sharp wide open
Ive also got a Sigma 35-70 f2.8 FD mount that I use with my anamorphic lens that is awesome
I bought a Contax Zeiss 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 the other week from keh.com. I really like it and its pretty damn sharp for a zoom lens. It was only $313 in Excellent condition so it was a hard deal not to pass up.
 
Ive got an RJ FD- m43 speedbooster as well. I have been very happy with it and that blue dot is not really much of an issue.

it looks like the same but its very expensive !! get the cheaper one
 
all these speedbosoters under extreme back light can flare and you get a blue spot - just move the camera 10 cm left or right until it goes!! .....easy....

I only use 2 wide lenses with the Nikons
the Panny 14mm and the Olympus 17mm ....both m4/3

firstly they dont shoot movies on full frame ..so you dont need to even think about the corners.....
 
they shoot Super 35mm and this lens delivers great images in APSC and Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster
 
Oliver Wood pioneered this lens on Bourne Ultimatum -
 
since then - DPs Phil Meheux, Roberto Schaefer, Trent Opaloch, Newton Thomas Sigel and Barry Ackroyd all use these Nikons too on big feature films.
 
the 28-70mm f2.8 Nikon breathes LESS than the 15k Carl Zeiss 28-80 CZ2 T 2.9
 
its light and has a 'pop' to it optically its has a very nice look to the glass in it - and it delivers nice blacks too
 
I use them alot
 
it is not  as aspherically sharp 'harsh' as a Canon L Series lens is

this is the RJ Canon FD to micro 4/3 focal reducer Im using
 
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-speed-booster-turbo-adapter-to-m4-3-mft-GH3-GF6-GX1-EM5-EM1-GH4-BMPCC-/360845797671?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item540415e927
 
 
 
its also looks exactly like this one which is most likely exactly the same just a different reseller and its cheaper
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Optical-Focal-Reducer-Speed-Booster-adapter-Canon-FD-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-/271381867830?pt=UK_Photography_CameraLenses_Lens_caps_hoods_adaptors_ET&hash=item3f2f9ead36

I got mine through Vitaliy: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9086/rj-lens-turbo-m43-adapters/p1?Sort=newest
 
 
Me three. That's a great idea. Would make for a good and valuable read I'm sure. I already have quite a bit of vintage/legacy glass and now got the RMC coming my way as well. What Andy said about the 28-70mm f/2.8 putting on a speedbooster basically covering three basic f/2 hollywood-look primes really got me intrigued too...

sounds like a good idea!
 
we are all in the middle of a massive Digital Film making revoltion right now
- film is dying - it's almost gone for good (Christoper Nolan will have to start hording film stock soon!!)
- the Alexa has now made such in an inroad in mainstream Hollywood films this past 3 years that its accepted as the main camera now.
 
The thing that has not changed is glass! and getting the right focal lengths for the right shot in your film is still exactly the same for Digital or Film.
What has changed is that Indie film making on Canon and Panasonic cameras it is now possible to make a finished product that is almost 95% as good as the big boys in Hollywood - the difference is not that great if you know what you are doing and if you learn to exploit the 'pros' of what ever camera you are using and mask the 'cons '.
 
The right lenses help you get the 'movie look' and it is all very acheivable very cheaply if you look around for lenses that have a certain 'look' similar to expensive movie lenses.

Ciao,there are even cheaper ones if you search on ebay, but my advice is to have a look on the  Mercatino dell'usato website  and search for lenses or cameras, you can find some really good bargains there.
You might be lucky and get a good deal, I once found a Pentax Spotmatic with an Asahi super takumar 50mm  F1.4 in good condition for 45 euros.
This lens is worth 200 euro.
Last time I was on the mercatino dell'usato website there were loads of helios. ;)
Buona fortuna!!!

Check out the Pretzval. Not the most practical lens for everyday shooting. Used it on a commercial for interviews and the client went nuts over it. Truly a different look. 
 
http://shop.lomography.com/us/lenses?gclid=CNPSkNqJ-MECFW8A7AodhCYAMQ
 
Another favorite of mine are Super Baltars. But they've become quite pricey.
 
The thumbnail is grab of an interview we shot on the Pretzval 

A little bit of light, placed in the right place, can make a really big difference!!! ;-D