Thread: BM Camera and Resolve announcement on Thursday at 12 PM

Page 35 of 35 FirstFirst ... 25333435
Results 341 to 345 of 345
  1. #341  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    908
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    This is exactly how misinformation gets spread and does damage to those that come here to learn.

    Real DPs, award winning artists, have been using Super 35mm lenses on 16mm film for decades (the equivalent of using an aps-c lens on the BMPCC). Edward Lachman was nominated for an Oscar for Carol, and he shot it on Super 16mm using 35mm lenses. In fact he praises the "cropped in" look as giving a robust image.

    Plenty of beautiful award winning & successful films have been shot using frames(sensors) that crop into the lens. Kubrick famously used lenses with an image circle far larger than Super 35 to film Barry Lyndon, which did win best cinematography.

    Cinematography is an art, and a lot of tech-heads lose sight of that.
    +2
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #342  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    147
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Simon View Post
    That would be a ridiculous thing to think.

    But I have been in situations where I wished the crop on my camera was less, so that the lens I had with me at that time could cover more of the scene.

    if want wider, then do the math. what I'm saying is the difference between using a lens designed for full-frame or super-35 on a super-16 sensor and a lens designed for the actual format is negligible. Perspectively speaking, if do the math the end FOV will be pretty damn close. Close enough that isn't even worth discussing. Not to mention the center of the glass is often the sharpest. If you want soft-corners then yea, shoot with old super-16 glass otherwise you're pulling at straws.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #343  
    Senior Member daydreamersproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw View Post
    This is exactly how misinformation gets spread and does damage to those that come here to learn.

    Real DPs, award winning artists, have been using Super 35mm lenses on 16mm film for decades (the equivalent of using an aps-c lens on the BMPCC). Edward Lachman was nominated for an Oscar for Carol, and he shot it on Super 16mm using 35mm lenses. In fact he praises the "cropped in" look as giving a robust image.

    Plenty of beautiful award winning & successful films have been shot using frames(sensors) that crop into the lens. Kubrick famously used lenses with an image circle far larger than Super 35 to film Barry Lyndon, which did win best cinematography.

    Cinematography is an art, and a lot of tech-heads lose sight of that.
    Carol. was that a mainstream movie? No. It was a small film put out by a studio. In fact maybe one of the concessions to get funding for the film was they had to shoot in that as the studio may have felt they could not pre-sell it that much and that was one of the cost cutting measures that you do not hear about. There are a lot of films that are made like that. Please tell me of any film with a real budget that was shot on Super16 mill with 35 lenses. Oh and I know the whole story on Barry Lyndon. Kubrick wanted to use natural light but none the lenses at the time were fast enough. So he used a satellite lens.

    "One of the lovely ironies of Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon" is that to accurately capture the look and feel of 18th-century Europe, the director turned to futuristic technology created for NASA. To film scenes illuminated only by candlelight, Kubrick relied on the German company Zeiss, which had recently built a special ultra-fast 50mm lens for NASA's use in satellite photography. Upon discovering the firm still had six of the 25 lenses made, Kubrick purchased one and, with creative engineering help from Ed Di Guilio of Cinema Products Inc., attached it to his faithful 35mm Mitchell Blimped Noiseless Camera. Since the f/0.7 Zeiss lens was twice as fast as any other lens, Kubrick could now film by candlelight alone. Since the lens had almost zero depth of field, the beautifully atmospheric candlelit scenes required precise staging to maintain focus."

    Also he Haskel Wexler's son confirmed that he did tests with this one lens his dad had that there were only two in the world at the time. "I will add to this story that before Kubrick sought out the lens from NASA he borrowed a very rare Angenieux lens from my father, Haskell Wexler. The lens was specially made, there were only two of them, and it had an f-stop of .095 (obviously almost no depth of field). Angenieux referred to as a prototype for an "instrumentation lens" and it may well have been the same type of lens that Kubrick ultimately obtained from NASA. Many tests were shot with my father's lens and a few scenes in "Barry Lyndon" as well. Another interesting thing about the lens: the only camera it would work with was one of my father's Eclair CM-3 cameras which had a highly modified custom lens mount to accommodate the unique construction of this ultra fast lens. So, Haskell had to lend Kubrick not only the lens but the camera as well."

    Also your talking about Kubrick, who was allowed to go over budget and schedule on his films. He had in his contract that no one fromMGM, the studio funding his movie, could even come onto the lot. The studio was bitching because he was going over budget but he was Stanley Kubrick. he got to do what he wanted as it was in his contract.

    Please name a semi large or large budget studio film shot with super 16 using 35 mill lenses. I will wait. Here is another thing about Kubrick, confirmed by Doug Trumble. it says filmed with Panavision lenses as the studio had a contract with Panavision to film all movies with Panavision cameras and lenses. Actually Kubrick hated Panavision lenses and had sets of Nikon still lenses converted to film lenses. it only says Panavision lenses as they were contractually obligated to put that there. You know how Dances with Wolves says filmed with Panavison cameras and Primo lenses. Nope. The film went over schedule and they had to return the cameras back to Panavision and the DP put out the call to all DP's who had camera packages and my ex Boss, a Commercial DP loaned them his Ari BL4 to shoot with as well as a few other DP's who owned Zeiss camera packages to finish the film. So the film is 1/4th shot with Arri BL4's and Zeiss lenses.

    The guy who shot the series 24 and the producers wanted to shoot it with a canon 7D and mark 2 when they came out. They shot for one day and Keifer Sutherland nixed it because he would not shoot anymore without a bigger camera as he felt he could not act with a HDSLR. many times DP's are told what to shoot with now, and if production can save money they will force on what they can film with
    Last edited by daydreamersproductions; 03-05-2017 at 08:09 PM.
    Go to my site to see my current Production and Post Production Gear
    http://www.daydreamersproductions.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #344  
    Senior Member daydreamersproductions's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    785
    Quote Originally Posted by LochnessDigital View Post
    You actually want the characteristics of a lens in there at the time of capture? Don't things like distortion, edge softness, chromatic aberration, vignetting, etc. all make VFX compositing harder to deal with?

    What about lenses that were purpose built for S35 with a large image circle specifically to curb things like vignetting, like Master Primes? At what point does that become "lens cropping"? What about the longer focal lengths which typically are projecting a larger image circle anyway? Are those lenses "cropped"? Hell, the 75mm and 100mm Master Primes cover 135 stills format, while the wider lenses don't. Cooke S4i's cover FF35 on the long end as well. Does that mean only the wide lenses are valid because they're not being "cropped"?

    The BMPC only needs a 24mm image circle to cover, so is it a "cropped sensor" compared to true S35, which needs 28.5mm? And the BMPC has an EF mount. Should you limit yourself to APS-C format EF lenses, because anything that covers larger than that is "lens cropping?"

    What about shooting beyond S35? Like open gate mode on the Alexa or the larger-than-S35 sensor of Red Dragon or Helium cameras? Is there such thing as too much lens character? Do we need optics designed specifically for that format?

    What about the several productions using Panavision Primo 70s on Red cameras? The lenses cover much larger formats than that. Is that invalid because of cropping?
    Super35 sensor does not crop as much as Super16 sensor with 35 mill lenses. Again, when the BMCC first came out, if you read the posts many people were upset about, TAH-DAH - the crop factor because of the Super16 sensor. You want to know what the biggest complaint was about the BMCC when people got it? That it did not have Super35 sensor because everyone got used to shooting on a Super35 sensor DSLR. You want to know what the biggest thing on wish list was here and at the official forum for what everyone wanted on what we thought would be the BMCC 2 before the BMPC was announced. That the 2nd version of the camera had a Super35 sensor because of it's crop factor. You know what the biggest complaint was when the BMPC came out? That a lot of guys bought the BMCC wishing it had a Super 35 sensor and all these guys bough the camera and then the BMPC came out with a Super35 sensor. Go back and look. Like I said I got the camera and mounted it for shooting miniatures and hated what the crop did to the lens and putt back in the box and relegated it to a rental and bought a BMPC.

    And yes, if you read the old American Cinematorgrapher mags from 1988 on when Cameron first shot the Abyss with Super 35, there was a lot of conjecture about the lens being cropped. Some DP's did not like it. Karl Walter Lindenlaub who shot both Stargate and Independence Day for Emmeich was upset about having to shoot ID4 in Super35 and one of the main reasons was the cropping. He shot Stargate in Anamorphic and wanted to shoot ID4 with it as well but got voted down by the studio because of how much was being cropped out in the pan and scan transfers to VHS and having to to do 2 film transfers for the standard and windscreen releases on video. He was completely bitching about it and said he hated the format. So did the guy who shot Bird on a Wire. Dean Cundey was not happy about having to shoot with it on Apollo 13 and did a lot of tests to ease himself on it. Shooting in Super35 you had less cropped out in the transfer for VHS. But at the time DP's were fighting and losing studios mandating they had to shoot Super35 instead of anamorphic because of it. On Standard pan and scan releases you just had a little more in the head and a lot more on the bottom than the cropped out 2.40:1 and and scan versions because they cropped it out but both version had a close common top line. You had to makes sure when you shot that nothing was in the bottom portion of the frame under the 2.40:1 frame line etching in the ground glass on the cameras eyepiece. It was a big deal for the studios to shoot that way when laser discs came out because they had to do 2 transfers. Later on when the DVD market started with widescreen releases only, studios relented as they did not have to do 2 transfers and were just releasing windscreen versions on video. But DP's were constantly gripping about the cropping.

    And yes my ex boss in LA was a commercial DP and I would go down to his house in N. Hollywood where he would have parties with industry people including feature DP's cause he went to school with a lot of them at UCLA. I used to bug them about stuff like this. A lot of them wanted to shoot on Fuji film but cold not because the studios had contracts with Eastman and they were forced to shoot Eastman film even though they desperately wanted to shoot Fuji for it's pastels or AGFA for it's reds. They shoot with what the studio tells them most of the time now.

    This argument with you two guys is seriously getting pointless. You like shooting on Super16 sensor. Fine! Got it! Most people do not! I am so done with this pointless argument here. there is a thread for you guys who like to shoot in Super16. Go there.
    Last edited by daydreamersproductions; 03-06-2017 at 12:14 PM.
    Go to my site to see my current Production and Post Production Gear
    http://www.daydreamersproductions.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #345  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason Finnigan View Post
    I definitely don't consider it an upgrade it's a separate line. I think if they called it URSA Mini ENG or USRA Mini Broadcast rather than PRO people would feel better. It's not more "professional" it just has ENG features.
    I was kinda wishing they'd named it after you!
    Ursa Mini Pro, Tokina 11-20, Sigma 18-35, Rokinon 35, 50, 85, 135, GH4, Lumix 20, 12-35, 35-100, 100-300.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Craft Camera announcement
    By EYu in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-14-2016, 06:32 PM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-08-2014, 04:16 AM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-19-2013, 09:33 PM
  4. Announcement: DaVinci Resolve 9 Beta available now
    By drgeneric in forum BMCuser News & Info
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-31-2012, 11:55 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •