Leaderboard

So here are the lens test I did with my cheap C-Mount, m42 and C/Y today. The lenses are:Zeiss Tevidon 10mm f2.0 C-MountComputar 12.5mm f1.8 C-MountZeiss Tevidon 16mm f1.8 C-MountTokina 24mm f2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 35/2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 50/2.8 C/Y-MountYashinon 50/1.9 m42-MountThey are all shot with identical aperture, ISO, ND, and WB. They have all the exact same correction and grade. So the differences is purely down to the lens. BTW, The BTS was shot on one of them with another camera and is ungraded. Guess which lens?

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread. I like new cameras. I own way too many of them. But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much. We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft. And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression. It's engineering. Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect. (not succeeding yet, but trying) As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients. This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear. Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons. Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all. This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era. Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer. Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority. Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt? His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling. Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear. Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging. It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication. Quite the opposite. On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers” It’s a CGI masterpiece. By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons. His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration. Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA. With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film. These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there. When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites? It's such an exciting era of film making!

​Good time to ask then. If it is, how so? Because most stuff here is gear talk. I always thought EOSHD was mostly (not all) for people that were trying to do low-budget cinema with this new era of consumer cameras; so very tech-centric. I mean, I don't mind that, but threads about the artistic side of things don't seem to generate much discussion. Seems more about the technical craft. After all, talk about dynamic range and skin tones on some upcoming new camera and a 10 page thread is likely. Hey, if I'm wrong, no problem. Just curious to hear from the head honcho.

Fuzzynormal, you should have known better than to try to tell the alcoholics that they don't need alcohol anymore. Just look at the addict-levels of denial and rationalization above. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

​I agree with your first paragraph. Once a while my tv happens to end up with a talent show on there... and you hear the saddest sob stories. They don't have any outstanding talents. But hey, you're supposed to feel for them, so go on and like it anyways. And tons of people fall for it. They eat it like pancakes with strawberry and whipped cream. I can't stand that sorta thing. I mean, I'm sorry for so and so, but come on, you've got a mediocre amount of talent, if any, and I'm afraid a sad backstory isn't going to push that to the next level. I do have to say, on the other hand. Something can be completely random and technically imperfect as can be, and still work. It's just a matter of random puzzle pieces from different puzzles just so happen to come together and create an new image that actually kinda makes sense and/or is beautiful. But you're right, then it has to be work on it's own. It doesn't matter who puts the pieces together. If they don't manage to create something stunning, it's game over for me, no matter who you are. The same way I wouldn't just like Ed's stuff, for the sake of him being a fellow forum member and a pretty well established cinematographer. I'm not on the same page as Ed on a lot of things he says or does, but that's okay, we're all different. I wouldn't just go and roast someone's work if they didn't ask for an honest opinion, but if they are asking, I will tell them in all honestly that it just doesn't work for me, explain them why and what could've been done to make me feel otherwise about it. If I do like what you did, I will applaud you for it! So if it's about 'say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it', well... I would still have liked it as much as I did. I'm not sure how it would've worked with 'average looking guys', because it would require a completely different video altogether. You can't just change an element, a piece of the puzzle, and claim it's the same as before, therefor works as it did before. Btw, it's not only about forgiving/overlooking flaws that's inherent to the old days of film, it's actually embracing it or even going further and looking for it specifically! That is why I like vintage lenses so much. If you want the most clinical clean image, that's fine, but that might not work for all your projects since 'politically correct lenses' kind of lack a bit of 'soul'. Old lenses are often lacking multi coatings and hence flare quite a bit. Some really are able to render a background out of focus in a trully elegant way, as if it were painted. Contrast and sharpness are something else. So much character... so much 'soul'. Now, you might think: 'ah, you're going for vintage glass because it's cheap and just accept to live with the flaws'. Au contraire! People actually pay top dollah to get glass with these 'flaws'! It's a matter of stylic choice. The final work is a certain vision (which you might not get, but it nontheless is someone's!). Someone's vision might require vintage glass. Maybe someone else's vision (or your own vision on another project) requires a modern lens. Take the tools you have availlable to you and put it together as to make it work for your project. Put the right pieces of the puzzle together. Sometimes that includes not shooting stuff locked down on a tripod, but going handheld. That might include a certain audio track you envisioned for the piece; that might included adding grain, visual effects and jumpy cuts to your project. The one project is not the next. Sure you can have a certain recognizeable signature style throughout your work. But you will evolve, try different things and change things up... because everyday is a new one and every projects include other people and other situations. Go on the streets and shoot something today. Now go on the street next month and shoot the same thing. It will not be identical (two moments are never identical to begin with, so one piece is even timing if a thing works or not). And in the end, even if the puzzle pieces do make something great. Not everyone will see it. I guess it's kinda like the next video: You might see trash. I see art that I quite like. I don't know the guy who made that. I wouldn't have come up with that or done it myself. But I like what he did there. It works on it's own without knowing who made it and a lot of people agree. That doesn't mean that you have to agree though. There's no right or wrong when doing something creative/subjective. Although in some cases, some things are more wrong than right (but then the room probably isn't really devided on that and all draw that same conclusion).

I fully agree but at the same time, we are mostly cinematographers, not directors on this board. And DOP obsess over lenses, filtrations, film stocks, etc etc etc - I can't stop obsessing myself while I should be doing my comedy writing. ARGGG it's hard - this internet and these boards have so much information floating around that no one in my normal life ever wants to talk about .

nice and constructive

​I have a Minolta mounted Zeiss 28/2.8 that didn't cost me much (40 bucks) but that won't fit a speed booster. But one that would fit is my C/Y Tokina 24mm f2.8. Its fairly decent. Not Sigma ART sharp of course but gets the job done and it cost €30. Best way to find one is to look for an "old camera" in the classifieds or on ebay. ​I have made a super booring lens test today that includes it. I wasn't going to post it anywhere but a discussion on FB lead me to decide to edit it together. Feels like there is a lack of tests from certain types of lenses. Specially on the D16. I will post later if it gets done.

My solution was a Sony A6000 with an RJ Focal Reducer which is fine since I only use manual glass. So I have a near full frame camera, 1.08 crop, 24 Mega Pixel photos with good video and video features for just under $550. Thanks too all for the input.

​Fingers crossed, my friend. If it were to release before the Ursa Mini, they'd likely have a buying frenzy on their hands. Here's hoping.

Thanks for the input guys, the GH cameras sure sound like a good match for this!

I shoot weddings with the GH3 and most weddings I only have to swap out the battery once! I'm talking about 10-14 hour working days here with the camera being turned on most of the time. It's amazing.

Yeah, if you dont need them now you can always wait, while for those who do either one of them can do the job, and by the time 32bit comes out you already master the gimbal compare to those who still wait, and you gonna beat them since your brain and body knows how to "fly" those well, and you will know which pid works and what not. This one is done on Nebula 4000 with GH4 + Olympus 12 2.0, 25 1.8, 45 1.8, Sigma 60 2.8, 7-14 4.0, Nokton 25 0.95 and GH2 Samyang 7.5 3.5 on monopod

I love when companies make bare bones cameras. Most of us already own monitors, external batteries, etc. It's nice just to plug-n-play a new sensor in a box.