42...

[Steve G]

"The Hobbit," "42." Both using Ultra Primes... Interesting. You'd think with their budget they could choose any lens, so why not Master Primes then?

Native asa on epic is high so 1.3 not essential. Smaller form factor. Bit softer than master primes, which some dop's prefer when working with high resolution digital formats.

 

[Will Keir]

Native asa on epic is high so 1.3 not essential. Smaller form factor. Bit softer than master primes, which some dop's prefer when working with high resolution digital formats.

Steve. On my RPZ 18-50mm T2.8 I find a lot of situations where the light is not enough, at dusk or in dark woods for example. I wish they made at set of primes at T0.7 personally. While I'm dreaming, I would wish for a zoom at T1.0.

Hopefully the Dragon sensor will give us a stop or two more. This is for natural/ambient lighting situations of course.

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

http://www.nbc11news.com/awareness/misc/38008449.html

Jersey #42 was retired for all Major League teams.

 

[Pierce Cook]

Looking good!

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Steve. On my RPZ 18-50mm T2.8 I find a lot of situations where the light is not enough, at dusk or in dark woods for example. I wish they made at set of primes at T0.7 personally. While I'm dreaming, I would wish for a zoom at T1.0.

Hopefully the Dragon sensor will give us a stop or two more. This is for natural/ambient lighting situations of course.

But Will, what if the depth of field needed is a F4 or 5.6? That's where lighting comes in and that's what separates the two approaches. A film I did this summer, the DP rarely ever opened up more than 2.8. And there were a decent amount of night scenes. But they had the lighting to accommodate it. So in the case of Ultra Primes vs Master Primes it comes down to what they actually need for the shots. If there's never a need to be wide open at 1.3, and they prefer the look of Ultras then that's the best choice.

 

[Will Keir]

If there's never a need to be wide open at 1.3, and they prefer the look of Ultras then that's the best choice.

That's what I am researching. Why are Ultra Primes used by large budget films when they could easily use Master Primes. Almost everyone I've encounter agrees MPs are the best of the best. What's the reasoning on using Ultra Prime > Master Primes?

 

[Steve Sherrick]

That's what I am researching. Why are Ultra Primes used by large budget films when they could easily use Master Primes. Almost everyone I've encounter agrees MPs are the best of the best. What's the reasoning on using Ultra Prime > Master Primes?

A few reasons:
1. Aesthetics. These lenses have different characteristics. Masters are tack sharp, very precise lenses. Ultras a bit softer, different. One might choose to not use Masters for the very reason another person might want to use them. Just depends what you are filming.
2. Budget. Masters are expensive to rent.
3. Size. Masters are big. Although in a lot of cases this is not really an issue. Despite many people wanting their cameras and lens packages to be the size of a pack of gum, in reality on a lot of higher budget work, i.e. larger crews the size of the gear is not as much of an issue. When a camera is on a dolly or sticks most of the day, that weight never really gets in the way. However, on other projects size could be a factor and a reason to not go with Masters or RPPs for that matter.

Best of the best really only means something if the goal is to use the fastest, most precise lenses. But that's not always the goal. Sometimes you want less than perfect glass in front of the camera. S4s are popular not because they are the "perfect" lens but because they have a character that a lot of DPs like.

 

[Filip Orlandic]

42 trailer 2 is now online.
It looks insanely good. Don and Light Iron Digital have used some special spells...

http://trailers.apple.com/movies/wb/42/42-tlr2_h1080p.mov

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Native asa on epic is high so 1.3 not essential. Smaller form factor. Bit softer than master primes, which some dop's prefer when working with high resolution digital formats.

T1.3 is not just a choice to allow for very low light shooting, but it is a choice made also for the possibility of a Super Shallow Depth of Field.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

I dont know whats more striking... the beautiful images for how old Harrison Ford looks!

 

[Nick Morrison]

"The Hobbit," "42." Both using Ultra Primes... Interesting. You'd think with their budget they could choose any lens, so why not Master Primes then?

I know this is an old post, but can't resist posting. It's often about size. The Hobbit is 3D, and Master Primes are way too heavy. Almost every 3D movie shot with Epics are using Ultra Primes (or small optimo zooms). Keeps the rigs nice and light.

42 looks like it has lots of steadycam. Again, keeping the camera small/light is probably a nice bonus...hence Ultra's again. In addition (as others have suggested)...the slightly softer rendering of Ultra's (vs Masters) may also look really good at 5K.

 

[Steve G]

T1.3 is not just a choice to allow for very low light shooting, but it is a choice made also for the possibility of a Super Shallow Depth of Field.

My answer was a response to a question about why people use ultra primes rather than master primes. Of course, if people want a more shallow depth of field, they would use Master primes at 1.3. Thats the great thing about choices, it gives people options.

 

[Tim Whitcomb]

lenses ... whatever... look at :53 to :54...http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/42/

Milk girls anyone?

remember the first images off the red one...er frankie...


right?