Jump to content

$5,000 Cine Lenses vs. L-Lenses - WOW


jasonmillard81
 Share

Recommended Posts

Great work, thaigor. Which ISO(s) did you use on this shoot?

 

We tried to keep it at 400 as it gives the best dynamic range per noise (not grain) ratio. If it's too bright then we'll used the ND to cut down the light but if it's too dark then we'll bring it up to 500, 640 or 800. 

 

I wouldn't recommend anyone to go beyond 800 as the noise is pretty high above that point even if my lab test said that 1000 is still give a good quality image output though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great stuff, and are you recording sound in RAW too for auto-sync or doing the old fashioned clapper board sync?

 

I prefer doing the double system sound recording but I also attach the wireless audio into all the 3 camera as well in case that we might need them somehow.

In post, I normally prefer doing the old fashion clapper board sync. The reason behind this is that we also get the chance to check each and every footage and therefore not skipping any detail on every take. Just help keeping us all in a good habit of going through all the footage all the time rather than checking only the good take one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for such an informative post thaigor. Beautiful footage. Did you go to film school in Thailand?

 

Your welcome, I graduated from Gold Coast, Australia (The same place/year with Tommy Wirkola, the director of Hazel & Gretel : The Witch Hunter). I'm now teaching Film in Thai University apart from directing film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, they scrapped all the 2 weeks they shot at f2.8 at the start of the filming schedule as it was all too soft!)

 

 

No effing way they did that with a moderate/low budget. No way. 2 weeks of shooting = a shit ton of money, if a mistake like that would've been done, someone would've gotten fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its true they did scrap all the f2.8 stuff the filmed Shane Hurlbut the DOP on the film says so on his web page ,

it was just too narrow depth of field and they had massive issues pulling focus on the actors at f2.8 on the Canon 5D.

 

Shane says they had to reshoot it all at f5,6 so they had enough focus depth to work with....

 

dont forget this was 4 years ago the they pioneered the Canon 5D for use on a big movie they had to make all the rigs and kit themselves as it did not all exist like it does now , and they did have focus issues , there are soft scenes in the final film .

 

Shane now recomends you shoot narative stuff on the 5D at f5.6 or below to make sure you get actors faces all in focus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its true they did scrap all the f2.8 stuff the filmed Shane Hurlbut the DOP on the film says so on his web page ,

it was just too narrow depth of field and they had massive issues pulling focus on the actors at f2.8 on the Canon 5D.

 

Shane says they had to reshoot it all at f5,6 so they had enough focus depth to work with....

 

dont forget this was 4 years ago the they pioneered the Canon 5D for use on a big movie they had to make all the rigs and kit themselves as it did not all exist like it does now , and they did have focus issues , there are soft scenes in the final film .

 

Shane now recomends you shoot narative stuff on the 5D at f5.6 or below to make sure you get actors faces all in focus.

 

its true they did scrap all the f2.8 stuff the filmed Shane Hurlbut the DOP on the film says so on his web page ,

it was just too narrow depth of field and they had massive issues pulling focus on the actors at f2.8 on the Canon 5D.

 

Shane says they had to reshoot it all at f5,6 so they had enough focus depth to work with....

 

dont forget this was 4 years ago the they pioneered the Canon 5D for use on a big movie they had to make all the rigs and kit themselves as it did not all exist like it does now , and they did have focus issues , there are soft scenes in the final film .

 

Shane now recomends you shoot narative stuff on the 5D at f5.6 or below to make sure you get actors faces all in focus.

Makes sense.

With my A7 and 85mm lens I just used it on the weekend at 5.6 and even that is fairly thin depth of field, at least fairly close in.

I think people forget that with full frame cameras 5.6 is similar in terms of dof to 2.8 with m4/3 cameras like the GH4 and f4 for APSC..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just managed to do some little rough cut with some primary grading done (not yet applied the "look" into the film yet). This scene is interesting for me as it was lit with 2 4K HMI light and 3 200Watt LED fresnel lights (200 Watt LED fresnel is equivalent to 1K HMI light), 2 Arri 650 Tunsten lamps  and 1 little daylight LED lamp. The key light is from the torch the dude was holding.

The surrounding was just pure darkness.

This scene has a mixture of Samyang 35mm Cine lens, all 3 canon prime lenses I mentioned before and Canon 70-200 F.28 Lens mixed together.

We tried to keep every detail in the histogram as much as possible and we even have to lower the aperture down to F2.8 with 800 ISO in order to get the shot under this underexposed scene.

Hope it'll give some information on the lenses and how far the Magic Lantern camera can hold up against the underexposed set.

 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...