Leaderboard

[quote name='FilmMan' timestamp='1353514109' post='22070'] Right on. You're having a lot of fun with these different cameras. By the way, check if any moire on some bikinis. My wife will hate me for that one. Cheers. :) [/quote] Bikinis in November in Berlin? Erm I will try my best :) We're going to do more studio based tests with proper actors. I'm bored of scenery.

The painful thing is the 1D C is a great artistic tool. A dream camera for me. Canon seem to be able to charge what they like and pros will not see it as a problem. Most of them rent any way. Now let's talk about the non-pro market. This is the one I am most interested in because of the philosophy that being a cinematographer should be like being a musician. You pick up the instrument and if you are talented you go far. A shame none of this talent will be picking up a 1D C. A shame Canon continue to look at professional niche markets with huge margins rather than changing the world. Changing the world seemed to work well for Apple's bank balance. I guess Canon just lack the imagination. Their profits are down. All I can say is... Good luck from now on.

I'm testing the Ikonoskop tomorrow :)

Then again Emmanuel Lubetzki has achieved som mindblowing footage with wides and deep focus....

Some really great information here thanks! I also agree, whats the point of having a set built if your only going to blur that background, or going to far off foreign locales to capture that feel and look in the shot. Shallow DOF is great for indie "because" we dont have that kind of budget though, I wont argue that at all. But sometimes I see short films that use that technique in almost every single shot, even on some higher budget short films. Shallow DOF must be used sparingly for extreme purposes in my opinion (Yes just my opinion, dont get mad :P ). Same thing with shaky cam, I wont even get into that rant here hahaha! PS: Lawrence of Arabia is timeless, and is masterfully shot.

Intersting quote from Roger Deakins Cinematographer on James Bond 'Skyfall' from his website forum.( which is a goldmine of infomation have a look) http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/index.php?sid=62d881c4b1d9407ddc8709183d62bdd1 Re: Selecting DOF on Close-Up Shots by Roger » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:19 am I have only rarely shot a close up on a 135mm or longer and only then for a particular effect. There is no comparison between shooting one at a T2.0 on a 40mm and at 4.0 or 5.6 on a 135mm. The sense of space and relative distance of viewpoint will be different at any T stop. As for a standard stop I don't have one. I generally like to shoot a night time close up at a T2.0 and I will most often shoot a day exterior close up at around a 4.0 or a 5.6 but I could also shoot at a 11.0. Every situation and every film is different.

I agree Andrew ... Most Hollywood Motion Pictures don't shoot past T3.5 or T2.8 as the dof is so shallow the actors are in and out of focus too much and the Director has to do multiple takes to get a usable pass , this takes more time and costs more money. If you read up on all the great Cinematographers they all tend to offer this opinion . I just read Cinematographer Freddie Young's Biography (he shot Lawrence of Arabia , Ryan's Daughter, Passage To India, Dr Zhivargo etc etc for Director David Lean) He states he didn't like shooting past T3.5 for this reason. Citizen Kane was shot 'Deep Focus' all around T11 - T22 ....everything in focus!! this required a huge amount of light on set just to get this look!!

Hi JG, Isn't at all difficult to aligned. These time was my first shot with Moller, so I got my first experience and sometime I got hurry to shot and misaligned some shots. My adaptor is a crap...You need a good one to handle better. Here are 4 more videos with Moller... Best regards.