Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
<p style=”text-align: right;”>I personally think it’s less of a marketing strategy more so it is a ‘trend’.</p>
Just as it is shooting wide-open for the sake of shallow depth of field or anamorphic because people think 2.40 is more “movie-like”.And I don’t say that in a negative way, I think everyone has their own tastes and what they believe looks best to them.
Take Roger, he’s not attempting to shoot on vintage optics because (and I think this is to quote him), “it’s how my eyes see — and I think I have pretty good vision”.
Cooke look (I believe) is an image sharp in the center and gradually falls off towards the corners There is a video floating around somewhere of a Cooke specialist describe the characteristic. I’ll attempt to find it.. but it was less so about the contrast of the lenses themselves.
Hey Tim!
The only issue typically with switching systems (especially stills cameras) is that you need to re-invest in a new set of lenses. Unless of course you plan to use an adapter?
I hear the new Nikon ZF cameras are stellar!
I myself shoot with a Leica M4 + 35mm but I also have a Canon 5diii for professional shoots.
You have to ask yourself what functions you need in a camera and what you’ll be primarily shooting to decide what’s best. A street photographer will need different gear than a sports photographer on a soccer field
It’s less about ‘benefit’ and more about working preference I think. If two cars can get you from A to B at the same amount of time as well as other factors (fuel, comfort, etc.) but you just enjoy driving one more than the other, you more than likely will choose that. Not the best analogy but I feel people work in this way. Similarly, you might decide to use both depending on a project. I won’t open a debate about film v. digital though as I’m just as tired of it as everyone else I assume ha!
David, I find that super fascinating and am not surprised at the outcome of such inventions. I think on paper it would seem like an idea would make sense but not every scenario is an all-use one. I think of it like the Sony Rialto to some extent. You can use it when you decide to (although it does take some time to build) and leave it in the case when you decide not.
I see a lot of productions where mixed media is used: VHS, Super8, 16mm, digital but perhaps it’s just the trends at the moment and we don’t know what the next decade will be.
I know for myself that I grew up in the digital age, even coming to own an Alexa system– but find myself gravitating towards wanting to shoot film more as it’s a medium that I wasn’t ever familiar with. I also think there is something quite mysterious and fun to it with all the chemical reactions and physicality and what-not.. sound silly, I know.
I don’t know about all camera technology but I remember Leica releasing a film SLR that had an attachable digital back that had a sensor so you could effectively shoot film or digital on the same camera…
Now imagine that with a cinema camera having the ability to shoot both mediums without needing to completely switch over to another system and being able to keep your build.
Ohh–and optical viewfinders as I prefer them to digital ones 🙂
Tons of stuff out there but not sure they fit your needs: Olympus, Super Speeds, Lomos, Fuji EBC’s, Kowas, Minoltas.
You mention ARRI SP’s but those are probably a perfect lens in every way, especially when handling OOF elements.
If you want a really clean lens on a budget i’d maybe look into Sigma FF Primes, if you want a zoom then maybe an Angeniuex EZ-1 or EZ-2 depending on your needs. Great lenses.
Ah that makes sense and thank you for answering that. So for the second shot as an example, are you intentionally letting the window ‘blow out’ for the scene—as in, was there an actual background to be seen, albeit many stops over your shooting stop, and you didn’t set up any sort of big bounce card to act as a bright outside exterior?
The reason for asking is that I had recently wrapped a feature on a stage and couldn’t really achieve this look due to not being heavily resourced enough. I figured the easiest way would be to take an ultrabounce card pulled away some feet from the window, punch a lamp into it from low angle, and above the card i’d have a bigger unit angled down punching sunlight down into the room.
I think there is a photo floating around somewhere where roger has a Asph. Summicron 35/2 on an M9 digi body. Not saying that’s his ‘favorite’ though…
Funnily enough, the day after listening to this episode, Bill came into my work! Such a nice and humble guy
I own one, mostly use as a backup to my Sekonic, but I think they are extremely easy to use, thanks to the fact that it uses a null (zeroing) system. You essentially get to see how far over/under exposure you want to be once your settings are set. It’s a bit chunky and if you’re used to using a Sekonic\Spectra where the dome is facing you, you have to hold the Gossen in a bit different of a way, then it’s pretty decent.
I would just make sure it’s calibrated to either a known calibrated meter or using Sunny 16 method.
Also make sure you’re getting the 9V battery one!
Would you shoot it as it were though or were you working under a targeted stop for the scene? IE, if you wanted to shoot at a T2.8 but metered at an 8.0 (depending on camera settings) would you ND down to get your T2.8? Conversely if you wanted a 5.6 but metered at 2.8 are you bring in your lights to get your desired working stop? I’d be very surprised if you were shooting as it were from the meter.
Not Roger,
For me I’d probably decide my stop, IE. shooting at a 2-2.8. If I metered at a 8.0 then I’d have to ND until I achieved my T2.0.
I think what is more important is maintaining consistency throughout the day or over the course of several days. It may be overcast one day and a bright sunny day the next. Or maybe you want the look of a sunny day so your lighting department might have to recreate a sunny day on an overcast day.
A follow up question for you roger is how you create lighting depth that you want while shooting on overcast days as to not have a flat look IF you are trying to achieve something with more contrast?
That’s a good ‘mistake’ to realize. If you shot a scene where you bounced around from a 14mm to a 24mm then a 75, how would that feel to watch and be cut together? Part of a DP’s job is to help visualize the scene with the Director. Some directors will tell you straight up, “I want this on a 50mm” or they may say something like ‘let move to a close up’ and you may think to either move in closer or flip to the 75mm.
It’s a balance in how it’s all being cut together but also how does it feel in your gut? Some DP’s shoot on only long lenses and then you have a Chivo who shoots on extreme wides but will move in close.
Study films and see what you like then bank a bunch of shots in a folder and refer to them when you want the same feeling.
Go to the rental house with a friend and test a set of lenses with all the focal lengths and see what each does to your talent as well as the environment.
Unfortunately you really get the best sense by just doing it yourself and by what’s available to you. If you have ‘X’ budget that allows you to get an Alexa Mini and 2 lenses then you’re forced to choose right? Maybe you want a 28mm and a 50mm, and that’s enough to cover your movie. Sometimes those limitations end up creating a style that’s unique to you and that’s what gets you hired?
Watch movies, do tests, shoot, read ASC magazine, study what your peers are doing, go to the rental house and play with lenses you’ve never used before. It all adds to your repertoire and you’ll be that much better for it!
Good luck!
Why don’t you test as opposed to taking someone’s word for it and hoping they’re right? Shooting film is very expensive and you don’t want to really take any chances unless you’re absolutely certain it would have the desired effect. You could do a test where you underexpose the film and have the lab push it for you and see what the results are. You may like what’s there, but you may not. 500t is going to have more grain than 250d but since 35mm is a bigger negative, the grain will appear smaller.
If you have a short end, you could use that for your test. Maybe shoot like 20-30′ and tear off the film, spool it onto a core and have lab develop it (if they do that sort of thing).
I would think they did this with lights that were already built into the room. Imagine walking into an office with overhead ceiling lights and just putting a camera up—Similar approach.
Bigger light + closer it is to object, the softer it will be. You could also pepper many lights into the space effectively making “one” larger source, but you’ll have to be careful of multiple shadows.
