Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Notes from "American Cinematographer"

Shane Kelly said:
I'm not sure that's true. AFAIK the larger format lenses do not need the resolving power of the smaller format as the negative is larger. I know that my zeiss zf's or compact primes out resolve my mamiya medium format lenses on my epic.
Click to expand...

Side question, is this a lens for something like the Mamiya 645 type of camera's ... and if so ... how are you mounting it to your epic? I have been thinking of looking at medium format lenses for my monochrome, since I really like the look ... but have been debating mounting approaches.
 
That's my understanding too. I seriously considered putting together a set of Medium Format Contax lenses. But after doing some research it didn't seem worth the expense and the set would be relatively slow with some F stops of 4, although some where 2.0. Don't know if the Dragon sensor will change the equation or not.

Shane Kelly said:
I'm not sure that's true. AFAIK the larger format lenses do not need the resolving power of the smaller format as the negative is larger. I know that my zeiss zf's or compact primes out resolve my mamiya medium format lenses on my epic.
Click to expand...
 
Brian Pascale said:
That's my understanding too. I seriously considered putting together a set of Medium Format Contax lenses. But after doing some research it didn't seem worth the expense and the set would be relatively slow with some F stops of 4, although some where 2.0. Don't know if the Dragon sensor will change the equation or not.
Click to expand...

I also don't know how you'd get the Contax 645's on your Epic. They have a very unusual mount. I don't know of any adapters of mounting options right now for Epic/Scarlet. That's why I went Hasselblad, as the optics are also made by Zeiss, and very comparable.

FYI. The "look" of Medium Format lenses doesn't really translate to Epic/Scarlet because the sensor is no where near the size of Medium Format. In my experience, the only advantage of such a large image circle is the ability todo some wicked tilt shifting.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
I find 3:1 being where I choose ro shoot more often than not, after starting off at 8:1 initially...
Click to expand...

I am curious why, I know you see things in a different way than me, and I love your perspectives...

Mine is:
1:8 works very well for me, in certain situations when I even go 10:1 / 12:1 (not often)
Doing commercials I often choose 1:5
 
I found this Kipon adapter on ebay, I have no idea if they work or not since I did not buy it:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-Kipon-a...ens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item1c2893da38

Nick Morrison said:
I also don't know how you'd get the Contax 645's on your Epic. They have a very unusual mount. I don't know of any adapters of mounting options right now for Epic/Scarlet. That's why I went Hasselblad, as the optics are also made by Zeiss, and very comparable.

FYI. The "look" of Medium Format lenses doesn't really translate to Epic/Scarlet because the sensor is no where near the size of Medium Format. In my experience, the only advantage of such a large image circle is the ability todo some wicked tilt shifting.
Click to expand...
 
PatrickFaith said:
Side question, is this a lens for something like the Mamiya 645 type of camera's ... and if so ... how are you mounting it to your epic? I have been thinking of looking at medium format lenses for my monochrome, since I really like the look ... but have been debating mounting approaches.
Click to expand...
I use this
http://www.cambo.com/Html/products_photo/set01/english/internet/Item752.html with a Nikon mount. The mamiyas need a bellows or something similar to focus.
It's a pretty specialized look but allows for tilt/shift if you want it.
 
Nick Morrison said:
I've been meaning to post some compelling "notes" I've been jotting down from recent issues of American Cinematographer. Here goes:
Click to expand...
Hey Nick, I'm really finding this thread useful ... hope to see your notes and continue this discussion as hopefully a long term thread. The most recent ASC magazine has a ton of interesting 4k and epic related content.
 
Nick Morrison said:
This may be true, but the highest end pro stills lines...especially Leica, Contax, Hasselblad, etc....were well known for maintaining consistent looks. As long as you purchase lenses from a matching "era", the differences are usually negligible. Especially when shooting in RAW when you can grade the small inconsistencies out. Hey, you yourself used to own and rent a Contax set for use on Aaton mount...you should know!

That being said, you are of course MORE LIKELY to get even closer matching looks from a Cine set of lenses, where all the lenses were usually made at the exact same time, have very similar serial numbers, and were designed to resolve on film in a twinning way.

But a matching set of pro stills lenses can get you far enough...especially in a RAW world.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, yes, yes. You can always grade most inconsistencies out... but if I shot a feature film on Cooke S4's, I go into the color session with footage that matches almost perfectly. I can start finessing my look immediately and apply said look to the other coverage of the scene with no issue. If you don't have matched glass, you spend a very long time not only grading footage as mentioned, but you are spending lots of time catering to the inconsistencies of multiple lenses mixed together. The 35mm has less contrast, the 50 is a bit warm, that 85 has a purple flare, while the 100 has a green! Etc. Sure things may not be that bad, but you get the point. Even if the 35mm has less contrast, you spend time hunting down every 35mm shot and taking the time to correct it. Wasted time is wasted money in narrative work.

If you work in cinema world, especially features, you don't want to know what the added cost is to pay a colorist to match mix-matched lenses versus having everything perfectly match going into the session! It's not cheap!

Again, if you shoot corporate interviews, you probably can correct the footage in post yourself, and get satisfactory results. You don't need to jump out and buy a set of supermatched master primes. Just saying, in the cinema world, we need cinema lenses... because everything is so darn expensive and demanding. It's not only professional, but it's economical to have consistency in the image... as 99% of narrative work usually demands... unless you are the dp of Mamma Mia, which was an example of what happens when you just throw the shit into the fan and see how it goes. :)
Consistency nightmare as a style... i think...


Anyway, I guess I should stress that should you go photography lenses, make sure you pick lenses or a lens line with very similar looks and try not to make a collection of lenses from many different lines, years or makes. Consistency is important. I know my Nikors are hardly matched. In fact I intimately know how each one is different and that's great for me, but bad for consistency should I use them to shoot with.
 
PatrickFaith said:
Hey Nick, I'm really finding this thread useful ... hope to see your notes and continue this discussion as hopefully a long term thread. The most recent ASC magazine has a ton of interesting 4k and epic related content.
Click to expand...

Thanks Patrick, will do. Yeah this month's info on Rust and Bone was great. Can't wait till next month!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top