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 :)

KETCH ROSSi

Had a chance to sit through Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life" shot on Master Primes and Ultra Primes.

I was not impressed by the cinematography. The lenses weren't impressive. They didn't even seem that sharp. The close ups on the young boy had a charactery quality I didn't like.

They did capture some magic moments, more of a home video character but on expensive camera's but I'd be unsatisfied if that's the way my film came out.

Ketch, I know you love the MPs, maybe you can direct me to a few films that used them more appropriately. Or is that the look you get when you use MPs?
 
Will Keir said:
Had a chance to sit through Terrence Malick's "Tree of Life" shot on Master Primes and Ultra Primes.

I was not impressed by the cinematography. The lenses weren't impressive. They didn't even seem that sharp. The close ups on the young boy had a charactery quality I didn't like.

They did capture some magic moments, more of a home video character but on expensive camera's but I'd be unsatisfied if that's the way my film came out.

Ketch, I know you love the MPs, maybe you can direct me to a few films that used them more appropriately. Or is that the look you get when you use MPs?
Click to expand...


Hey Will,

Malick has a particular taste when it comes to Cinematography, and I'm not a fan of it either, in fact while some loved Tree of Life, I didn't like it at all, just way too out there and not entertaining at all, I never fall at sleep at the movies but here I almost did, vented I was really tired... ;)


MP's however are extremely sharp, in fact are amongst the absolute sharpest glass to date, now only having a new contender the LEICA S. Cine Primes, and on the 50mm, the RPP is actually sharper then the MP, I have tested 2 of them randomly and got the same results, of course this tests were performed not WO, because when WO on the RPP and matched with the MP the MP was sharper, but at T4 the RPP was sharper.

The MP's however are currently the absolute World Bests and sharpest line up of Lenses form the widest to the longest, all WO perform absolutely beautifully, and if LEICA does not get their act together and get this lenses out and make more Focal fast, then I'll return to the MP's, this should tell you how good this lenses are.

Fact is that most old school Cinematographers and Directors still have the silly Film nostalgia and their Artifacts which to me have always been an annoying factor, as I since childhood always liked CLEAN and SHARP imagery, so very happy that at last FILM IS DEAD and can now enjoy better clean images, apart form the casual return to the sold days with post production softening of the imagery or added artifacts to give it more of a Film look.

Bottom line, you can't go wrong with MP's if you want the Sharpest and most clean artifact free images, when I get my set of LEICA S. Cine Primes I'll do an exhausting test with all available Focal and then make final decision, but again, the fact that Leica is taking forever to release Pre-orders, never mind announcing new focal, makes it a bit worrying.
 
Any films you can think of shot well on MPs?
 
Will, Personally I agree with you and don't much like the MPs. I find them too sharp and quite boring as lenses as they have very little in the way of what I would describe as character having been designed to remove all artifacts that lenses typically produce - but in my opinion give them a quality. They are very clinical looking I think. I have a set of RPP's which I find similarly too sharp so tend to stick with super speeds - especially on digital as it dampens the electronic quality of the image. I prefer organic photography.

I'm not sure I would describe liking these aspects as silly or annoying though. It's a matter of taste.
 
Will,

you can also check the over compressed shots here, and remember that on top of it this have no Sharpening added nor any Post work properly done, just quickly exported and compressed for upload, some of this are also in the 700 Reel, which also was made last minute, but seen in 4K will give you a clear idea of how sharp MP's are.


And this some of the Extraction Stills, no work done on them strait from camera, if you see the worked on still grabs would blow you away, also all shots of the girls had absolutely on the go lighting and not even half of what was needed!!

Will Keir said:
oh nice, part 3!

This is the last one?
Click to expand...

NO will, there is 2 more, which are less talk and more action, more a Making Of with Music.


Francesco Bonomo said:
"No country for old men" comes to mind.
Also, since we're on a Red forum, "The girl with the dragon tattoo" (according to the AC article, Fincher's movie was shot mostly wide open).
Click to expand...

Since you mentioned Roger's work, He also used MP's to shoot "In the Valley of Elah".

But there is a tone of MOvies shot on MP's, one of the ones being the first advertised was Perfume, however, I still need to say that you can't really judge a lens by a Movie, as they all have Post work done and each is done to create the fill and look chosen by the Director, and don't necesserely reflect the Lens it self, also not knowing the aperture at which they were used they can't really give you specific looks only achieved when shot WO, also shooting WO on a wide will give a much different look and perspective from a 135mm shot WO at T1.3.

For this Will, you need to simply make a test for your self.



James T Mather said:
Will, Personally I agree with you and don't much like the MPs. I find them too sharp and quite boring as lenses as they have very little in the way of what I would describe as character having been designed to remove all artifacts that lenses typically produce - but in my opinion give them a quality. They are very clinical looking I think. I have a set of RPP's which I find similarly too sharp so tend to stick with super speeds - especially on digital as it dampens the electronic quality of the image. I prefer organic photography.

I'm not sure I would describe liking these aspects as silly or annoying though. It's a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

This is totally a matter of personal taste, however as I said many times, shooting RAW, with a HIGH end camera, requires the BEST glass you can use, and this glass is currently the MP's, no other comes even close in overall quality, especially the Super Speeds, which are full of artifacts and luck of Sharpness, if I want an image to be soft I use a filter or soften it in post, but you can not get sharp images or info there if the info is not there to begin, however if that is what you like great, but the Era of Digital is made for this, to get the absolute best at RAW and then work in post, but if you find a lens camera combination that gives exactly what you want and are happy with it, then perfect, why look further, but again, nothing comes close to the MP's as far as over all quality of the entire set form WO on.

Me, I prefer to get the CLEANEST and SHARPEST most NATURAL image possible, then in post do what I like, for this I had chosen the MP's since they first came out, to be the BEST ever Cine Glass, because they have all this characteristics, while offering Super fast Aperture at T1.3, fantastic even when shot WO, now only rivaled by the new Leica S. Cine Primes, in some aspects, but since they are too slow to come out, and have way to few Focal, MP's will remain the Masters for some more time to come.
 
James T Mather said:
Sure. I'm just not crazy about the look. Too little character.
Click to expand...


That is what makes them special... As close to Perfection as possible is what some want in order to create form there what best suits there needs and taste, but if an image is already been baked form capture with Lens artifacts, Softness warmth, and other characteristics then it will make the work to come in post much harder and at times simply impossible to achieve properly, for this some choose one vs. the other, good to have options... ;)
 
That's not the kind of artifacts I'm talking about. You can argue from the point of view of optical mechanics but if purely numbers win, then why are so many people are demanding Alexa? A camera which doesn't score as highly as the Red in pure specs but seems to offer something else that people like. I'm just saying your posts reflect your opinion, they are not rules. They are opinions - so the red camera to my eye looks very electronic with super sharp glass - this is not something it's easy to dispel in post (see Drive Angry or the new Ghost Rider movies for examples - ). In my opinion, I prefer speeds or Cooke lenses. You prefer master primes. These are our respective opinions. But they are just that : opinions. I only say because your posts seem to suggest that people who like otherwise are "silly" Or "annoying".
 
Hi,
I have to say Ketch, you do make it sound like what you say is the only absolute truth, and those that don't agree are just plain mistaken and don't knw what they're talking about. Just like there is no one camera that does everything best, there is no one glass best for all situations and looks. I have the greatest respect for those cinematographers that know what look they want to achieve and use the appropriate combination of camera, lenses, filters and lighting to achieve it. Being also a colorist, it is a pleasure to work with these artists, as they have already taken the image in the direction they want to go. I therefor beg to disagree with you that one necessarily wants the cleanest most natural image to work with in post. Only if thats the type of image you want to end up with.
In my opinion too many so called cinematographers don't make real choices on set leaving those decisions for post, which means you need to do heavier work in post.
Cheers,
Damien
 
Okay, let me be more clear then James...

The artifacts of any lens, which are characteristics of the lens it self, being that it is designed to have them or that they can't design them any better, most of this Artifacts will be reflected in a very similar way on both Film Cameras and Electronic cameras, but it was not what Will was asking, as his question was specific to th eLens themselves and this is what I was answering.

Secondly is not an Opinion I'm giving, is a FACT which comes form many years of using and testing the various lenses and or gear for which I give my OPINION, some times it os happens as in this case that it is a FACT.

However I NEVER said nor intended to make it sound like that any one not agreeing with me or using other then the Epic are Silly or annoying, as many of my friends in the Industry some of which so happen to be Big names do use other cameras, and some now do use EPIC some of them as a mater of fact do so because of me.

As far as the Epic vs. the Alexa, I have clearly stated the FACTS so many times, and not my Opinions, but FACTS which were proven via many direct field and studios tests of one against the other with high budgets and the Epic won hands down every single time, even so some of this time the Alexa was still chosen at the end, do to more then one factor, none of them to do with image quality or capacity of the Epic, which was superior in every aspect even to their eyes, but decided for the Alexa saying they didn't need it the extra Resolution or that they needed a direct Baked image right out of camera, and this will be eliminated by the MEIZLER, plus a S^%$# load of more tools.

The Alexa is a great camera, but it is the BASTARD son of the now DEAD Film Camera and the Broadcast camera, which Arri despite being in business since the beginning of times never had a play in it, so the Alexa is neither a Film camera, neither has the capacity to produce images of the same resolution, and neither is a Broadcast camera and neither has the capacity to be used as such as successfully as Panasonic, Sony, and Samsung, or Canon.

Having said this, it is a great camera and has it uses, but NOW this is my OPINION, "NOT FOR CINEMA" and the times has been chosen against the Epic has always been for the wrong reason, even sin some cases which happened to be for the biggest movies, were the Director HAD NO SAIY SO in the camera used, but the PRODUCER and the STUDIOS did and this is also a FACT.

Now James, back to you and me... ;)

You can choose any lens camera you want as that is your choice, but if you want to be informed what does what and what it can achieve what you then first need to be well informed, and not misinformed or mislead before you decision is made, and now there is just this ins the industry at the highest levels, by internal politics older then you and I put together, and Arri we no is the King here, but guess what... NOT FOR LONG.


Damian,

I don't mean to make it sound like that, I give my opinion as it is that I see it, at times comes from direct experience and it is a fact, at others is my opinion, and always based on personal knowledge, so don't surprise yourself if most times then others I do know a bit more then the average poster here, which comes and posts without prior knowledge and or even having ever used any of the gear in question.

I respect every one's opinion, but if they are saying as if it is the fact, then if it is not I correct them, or just simply give my STRONG opinion about, which could sound like I'm always right and them always wrong, but it is so, only when is the truth... ;)
 
Okay Ketch. This is where I step out of the discussion as I don't enjoy futile conversation.

EDIT : For the record I spoke to a Producer (who was formerly a Telecine operator) yesterday about his thoughts on the merits between the cameras. He reckoned the Red was fine but in his opinion he said that the Alexa had the more pleasing image and he would advocate it for jobs that needed to be more "pictorial" (like a tourism commercial: his words). He found the Red a bit more video-ish (Again: his words). He also stated that amongst advertising agencies there was notable growing opinion that the Alexa looked better - this all gave me cause for concern. Advertising Agencies are not known for being technicians nor are they in service to Arri, nor do they have the annoying and silly habits of preferring more film-is-dead images - but they are responsible for the image that they deliver to clients. He had received a number of recent requests to shoot specifically on the Alexa. You can USE CAPITALS all you like and tell people that things ARE FACTS when they represent opinions but in the world outside this board things are looking worryingly different. Plus, I don't shoot pictures for the guys to fix and remove wrinkles and lip hair in post - I prefer to solve that problem through lighting and shooting. That's what I'm paid for - not to leave issues for the post boys. With the turnaround from shoot to on-air these days, there isn't time to fix work that should have been shot properly on the day. Obviously this system works for you and that's great - but again it is your opinion being presented as fact. No biggie but I realise you cannot accept that others think differently and are okay for doing that. Best of luck to you.
 
The speed of MPs you can't argue with, nor their healthy cost. is there a similarly fast less that is considered the next "step down," when purchasing lenses? is that the super speeds?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top