Jump to content

BrooklynDan

Members
  • Content Count

    151
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

BrooklynDan last won the day on May 28 2016

BrooklynDan had the most liked content!

About BrooklynDan

  • Rank
    Active member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think that people get too wrapped up in the fact that the equipment is cheap and they forget that everything else is still the same price. I went to film school and while the career opportunities afterwards left something to be desired, it allowed me to produce work of a far higher production value than I could on my own. I had access to a soundstage, a wide variety of lighting equipment, screening facilities, mixing facilities, production insurance and because my school also had music, art, theater, and acting programs, a steady supply of people who could act in my films, help me build sets and compose my soundtracks. Interacting with other artists from a bunch of different disciplines is crucial to one's artistic growth. It is also important to recognize that breadth of knowledge does not equal depth. Yeah, YouTube might have a million tutorials on everything, but it doesn't compare to a seasoned professional talking to you in person and showing you what's what. Teachers don't just relay information, they organize it and put it in context so that it makes sense. I took four years of cinema studies classes with some of the best instructors on the planet, and no amount of individual study could've rivaled the quality of education. The only big issue with film school is the debt. And yes, it's a pain in the ass. Choose wisely and don't go to USC if you can't afford it.
  2. Bingo. With modern computerized design and high quality materials, building a sharp, functional lens is easy. Building one that has charm, character and panache is a whole different story. BTW, if you are looking for a successor to the Iscorama, the new Aivascope 1.5x seems like it fits the bill. Single focus mechanism and 50mm coverage on full frame.
  3. It looks like an SLR Magic 1.33x adaptor welded to the front. Needless to say, it will probably suck. No one will ever make a decent anamorphic prime lens for under a few thousand dollars, let alone one that competes with professional PL mount glass. The laws of physics are immutable.
  4. I'm specifically talking about anamorphic lenses. They are a special category and are exceedingly difficult to make with any quality under a certain price point. For $3k and change you can have a feature quality piece of glass, like a Compact prime, or a badly distorted SLR magic prime or some frankenlens that only works with one focal length. P+s Technik changes you $15k for replica Kowas that breath and distort almost as much as the real thing. The laws of physics are a bitch. Regardless, where there is a will, there is a way. So you might as provide an Academy-spec sensor area at the minimum (full frame obviously encompasses this), and desqueeze options for common ratios, as well as frame lines. Vazen is dropping a 40mm 1.8x prime for MFT mount for $3K. If it was Super 35, PL mount and 2x squeeze, it might be three times as expensive.
  5. You can rent glass, you know? I know places where you can get a set of Lomos for $500 for the weekend. For a specific project, it can be doable. Also adaptors. The new Aivascope is looking scrumptous. Anamorphic and auto focus in the same sentence is decades away. It's hard to put into words how hard it is to grind bent glass, but that's the reason it's so expensive. Also, auto focus and cinema do not belong in the same sentence. No serious film crew uses auto focus. It's an amateur tool that works ok for documentaries. But if you're shooting actors and needs graceful, predictable transitions, turn the damn focus ring. Makes no sense to demand manual control of every other parameter, but then leave your sharpness to a dumb computer.
  6. I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc. I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera. In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:
  7. Looks pretty sharp. Apparently, it was optimized for full frame sensors, so it can handle M4/3 no sweat. The built-in focus gear, close focus and non-rotating front makes it more practical than the Iscorama ever was. Looks like a win!
  8. I kind of wish that Panasonic would've let go of the mirrorless form factor for this camera. Strictly speaking, there is no good reason to give a purpose-built video camera a mirrorless-style body. It does not really fit with the way people operate cinema cameras. As a hybrid between still and video, OK. But for a dedicated cinema camera, I would've much preferred a LS300/VG900 camcorder-style body. It would make it much easier to accommodate the inevitable PL mount adaptors and pro battery plates. Also, XLR inputs and audio controls.
  9. I hope they enable 4:3 format video from the entire sensor. That would really fulfill the promise of having medium format for video. MF was always square (6x6) or squarish (645, 6x7). IMAX is 1.43:1. Not saying that wide format 65mm isn't amazing, but I want that vertical height as well.
  10. It's the very first anamorphic lens attachment ever built for cinematography. Before this, there was Henri Chretien's original optic. It is obviously double-focus only, as a variable diopter on top would need to be massive. Maybe one of these new wireless units from PD Movie could be calibrated to synchronize the focus movement with a prime lens. I do believe that this worked down to 40mm on standard 35mm. It was used with original Baltars from B&L.
  11. Another 2.5mm in vertical sensor height. 18mm = full anamorphic aperture. Also SDI output for monitoring. HDMI is not a pro connection. NOT. A. PRO. CONNECTION.
  12. The blue part looks like a simple Double Gauss prime lens. Maybe Zeiss or Kinoptik. The grey tabs on top and bottom are probably the focusing levers. I can't guess from this schematic how the taking lens and anamorphic lens was synchronized, but if the helicals are cut right, a bridge between the focusing tabs might be able to pull off dual focus in one movement. This is a Totalvision adapter (circa France 1960) that's similar in design and construction: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Totalvision-Anamorphic-Cine-Lens-made-in-france-/113426233375 It was used with a set of four Speed Panchro primes from 40mm to 100mm mechanically linked to the adapter via the focusing lever. I'm guessing that your Moller works similarly. Either way, let's see a lens test!
  13. It was almost certainly used with either Cooke Speed Panchro or Kinoptik taking lenses. Probably 40,50,75 and 100mm. All the early European 'Scope (Dyaliscope, Totalvision, CinePanoramic) systems used either one or the other. It's most likely pretty sharp since the glass is so big. Would love to see a test, both at infinity and close focus.
  14. It must be said that video amplifies the difference between formats far more than in stills. Once you add camera movement and focus pulling, the advantages of a larger sensor become crystal clear. Watch any film shot on Alexa 65. There's more gentle falloff, less distortion in wide shots, crisper more intimate close-ups, more apparent depth and more detail but without clinical sharpness.
  15. I simply do not understand the nostalgia here. I shot my senior thesis project on an FS100 and while I got some decent images out of it thanks to the skill of my DP, it always looked very videoish to me. The highlights burned horribly, the colors were oversaturated, and even if you shot it flat, you could never quite bring it back to the way you want it in post. Also, the form factor and ergonomics were some of the worst I have ever seen, the placement of the LCD screen on top was ludicrous, and the lack of NDs (thankfully rectified in the FS700) made screw-ons or matteboxes a necessity, which is difficult on a zero-budget. It was Sony's first go at making a prosumer large-sensor camera (after the F3 which came out at the same time), and their lack of common sense and feel for camera design just wasn't there, despite their long history in making video equipment. My C100 mk. I(same era, same price-range) eats it for lunch in every possible way. Image quality, roll-off, NDs, hand-holdable ergonomics, etc.
×
×
  • Create New...