Jump to content

HockeyFan12

Members
  • Content Count

    667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

HockeyFan12 last won the day on December 12 2019

HockeyFan12 had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About HockeyFan12

  • Rank
    Frequent member

Profile Information

  • My cameras and kit
    Arriflex 765

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi Max, thanks for getting back to me. Without taking the lens apart, this is the clearest example I have of the problem. I am sliding my finger past the threads of the adapter (while touching the front of it) and as you can see the vignetting is caused by the front threads. This is with a 32mm Zeiss standard speed Mk1 with no step up or step down rings. If you want I can repeat this with the original housing, but as you know it took me quite some time to get the focus smooth by adjusting the three set screws (which worked great, no complaints there, you were right it was just trial and error). If this looks normal lmk and I will try again to A/B it tonight with the original housing. I remember a slight amount of vignetting when I used this lens before with the original housing so it's possible you're entirely right. But my adapter has had some dodgy repairs to it so it's possible it's been collimated in an odd way to increase vignetting, too. I have noticed less of a problem with retro focus lenses.
  2. Thanks. Where do you enter that the lens is anamorphic for IBIS to behave correctly with it? I feel like there are three different settings I need to independently change when I shoot anamorphic. I need to set desqueeze in the viewfinder to 2X to get a correct preview (which, to be fair, I really appreciate having, as most cameras lack this it seems), I need to set the record mode to 4k anamorphic 10 bit, and I need to set the IBIS to anamorphic separately? I shot something with a 50mm anamorphic lens with the IBIS set at 50mm (actually 55mm I think, oops) and it looks really bad (worse than a 5mm change would indicate). IBIS is amazing on this camera btw. Just... confusing. I actually think I like that all these options are there... for instance the anamorphic mode isn't as large as some lenses cover so it might be advantageous to shoot 6k and crop... but this camera is too much camera for me.
  3. I think in general... I don't want to slander a good design. This is a really brilliant rehousing option. It also depends on the lens, though. My experiences are follows: 32mm f2 standard speed on 16:9 S35 (23.04mm X 12.96mm sensor size stretched by a 1.4 factor)–a lot of vignetting, unusable. I vaguely remember that with the original housing this didn't vignette, or it was at least a LOT less vignetting. But I haven't A/B'd directly recently. 35mm f2 lomo standard speed on 16:9 S35–less vignetting, still unusable. 35mm f2 nFD well go figure, next to no vignetting. 50mm f2 standard speed on 3:2 full frame (36X24)–next to no vignetting, but a hint more than I remember there being (I remember none). Cropped to 2.4:1, I found it usable. So it's not that bad. Oddly, retro focus designs seem to have more coverage. I have no idea how the small 30mm rear element of the Iscorama works better with the larger retro focus front elements (which are like 40mm in diameter and yet it still seems to be f2) and yet even right up against the lomo's front element it's vignetting more... weird... Still, I'd love the option of a shorter focus ring that was milled down. I get that it's long to accommodate a follow focus gear as the front moves, though. This is a good product, just frustratingly not perfect for my needs. However I am going to try a series of 35mm f2 retro focus still lenses and live with it as my main camera is S35. Edit: where this is weird is 32mm and 50mm should be equivalent between S1H FF cropped on the top and bottom at 50mm and S35 cropped at the sides on 32mm (or even 31mm) but no... advantage FF. Unfortunately my main camera is crop.
  4. This is not so bad. I don't think you did anything wrong, it might be a half stop underexposed but not that bad. Those strings are a bit tricky though... If you were to reshoot, I would rate the camera at around 160 ISO, whatever the lowest ISO is before highlights clip. That will get the shadows super clean and a nice thick image to work with. Cinema cameras generally don't apply denoising to the image (or look like garbage if they do) so you can get a much noisier image from a C300 MK II than for instance an A7S. Buy Neat Video, watch a few tutorials, and apply it before the key. It will slow your render down and cost $100 or something but it will also solve these problems. You will probably want to regrain after keying even. The data you need is there, you can get a clean key. Or try setting Keylight to "intermediate result" and using the spill suppressor plug in set to advanced and colorpicker green. It can look a bit less noisy but won't solve a dancing key.
  5. Finally got this installed but I'm getting more vignetting than before. Did I do something wrong? Is it something with my lens (which has a bit of a weird old history it seems)... is there any way to address this? Otherwise it's really fantastic.
  6. That can be a pretty noisy camera, if you underexposed just a bit it might be just that. Try using neat video. Might help a lot.
  7. Forgive me if this is answered elsewhere. Planning to try out some zooms and anamorphic lenses with an S1H that I am renting this weekend and I want to use IBIS. Is it a no-go with zooms and anamorphic lenses? Thanks!
  8. Anyone else had this issue? So it looks like it's focused past infinity. I can remove the set screws up front and it just takes off the part of the lens where the adapter attaches. But doesn't do anything to the optical assembly. I think I see two areas where I could turn the optical assembly with a spanner wrench. Is it as simple as that? It's front focusing by quite a lot. Thanks!
  9. HockeyFan12

    Carl Zeiss ?

    T* means multicoated, Sonnar is an asymmetrical (telephoto?) design that also means fast (f2.0 or faster), Planar references a symmetrical six-element design, Distagon means wide angle retro focus design, Biogon means wide angle angle but more symmetrical? I don't really understand lens design. They're mostly branding terms. Check this thread on RedUser: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide The Contax still lenses will all cover full fame. The cinema lenses won't, not all of them at least.
  10. On RedUser there is a big thread on FDs. Not sure whether this topic has come up or not.
  11. I think for someone in our position who's only gotten to shoot with an Alexa a bit it might feel underwhelming when you're shooting boring controlled tests with it–but as regards high end narrative work, I still think it's still the only game in town other than film. The way Richardson, Deakins, Kaminski, Lubezki, and Pfister light pushes even the limits of the Alexa to (or past) the breaking point not on every set up, but on perhaps even a majority of them. Granted, that's because they grew up shooting color negative film, which has tons of highlight detail. So I think that's untrue as a blanket statement, but if you know your own needs, you know your own needs. I can't afford one either and wouldn't want to use one if I could (would much prefer the flexibility of a smaller camera) unless were working on something with a huge budget. I have a camera similar to the 4.6k and am really happy with it. But I think that's because I'm willing to accept some compromises. I can't light like Deakins anyway even if I tried.
  12. Yeah the irony of the Alexa is that its advantages would be most apparent on sets where they couldn't afford an Alexa. I was lucky enough to try one a year after they came out and I was absolutely blown away. Still nothing compares with the highlight dynamic range or exposure invariant color (also the minimal skew, noise texture, etc.), but I think the 4.6k could intercut almost seamlessly with good lighting and proper exposure. I've only used the 4.6k in post though but the image is good. I also found the Alexa pretty big and intimidating and very battery-hungry.
  13. I've never actually used the 50mm f2.8 Iscorama taking lens with the Iscorama adapter, but I assume it's meant to be focused at infinity–like other lenses. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) It's way off. The image is very out of focus. And adding a lens mount adapter, as I plan to, has the potential to throw it even further off. I assume there's a way to adjust it? Using a spanner wrench or something? I really have no idea. Help.
  14. In my experience, larger-scale and union shows use Avid while smaller production companies use Adobe. Resolve seems to be getting more and more traction, but primarily among individual users. Ditto FCP X seems popular among those who are one-man bands (both seem to be fast). What are your specific goals? From what you described I'd go with Adobe. And a 2017 iMac Pro is absolutely more than fast enough for virtually anything. I guess it's not ideal for raw online workflows, but those are pretty niche rn imo.
×
×
  • Create New...