Bioskop.Inc
-
Posts
1,303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Everything posted by Bioskop.Inc
-
And the money you save buying Nikon/Yashica or whatever other legacy lenses you choose, you can put towards those lights or anything else that you might need. Most people go down the "Buying Brand New" lenses route & then realise that there are so many other options out there (I did). The lens I use the most cost me a huge £10 (Helios 44-2), I've since had to upgrade to a Nikon 24mm f2.8 (set me back £70) because of the BM Pocket. The most expensive lens i own (the first one I bought) has been sitting in its nice brand new little box for over a year now!
-
Personally, i'd go with Andy's or QHR advice - Yashica ML or Nikon ai-s or ai + speedbooster (bigger FOV & extra f stop). You'll save yourself a lot of money, get well made legacy lenses & future proof yourself in a way that buying MFT lenses won't. You're already using a shoulder rig, so no problems concerning stabilization. The only thing you might have to re-think/adapt is your street style shooting when making short films.
-
Follow Focus for older anamorphics that move in and out
Bioskop.Inc replied to Rob Bannister's topic in Cameras
Yes they should all be the same - its only a lens coating. The thing that might change the diameter would be that some 54s have a smooth (leather/plastic?) focus grip & others have the metal ridges. Here's some info i copied down from the original label on the box: Iscorama 54 Max length = 85.3mm Outside Diameter = 102.5mm (this includes the metal ridges on the focus ring) Filter = 95mm Rear Element = 54mm Rear Thread = 77mm The label also stated that the 54 was designed so that it could perform to its optimum with zoom lenses as well as prime lenses. Good info in this thread, any recommendations for a FF unit that works well with the 54? -
You've given me bad flash backs & seeing the workflow written down doesn't make it look any easier. I used RAWMagic, but i think there is something new/better/quicker on the ML forum now.
-
In the Canon menu, change from S2 (RAW) to JPEG & you should get longer record times - not much but every second counts. The higher bit rate hack for H264 basically helps reduce banding, but the higher you go you might need to turn off the sound for it to work. I ended up just doing minor things, then exporting as TIFF files & creating a ProRes HQ .mov file in QT7 - i don't have photoshop, so used RRP instead. Didn't like the workflow or the hit to my HDs - but does produce really nice images. '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>
-
You don't seem to have aligned your anamorphic lens properly, so you need to rotate it so everything looks straight. If your lens flares then this is the best way to make sure its aligned properly - horizontal flares should be in line with the top/bottom of the screen.
-
I really think that the stretch figures x1.5 or x2 on these adaptors isn't an exact science & maybe best seen as a guideline. But yes, focal range can affect the image in some cases & a good compromise is to conform it to 2.66:1 (no need to get too anal about it). Also, after shooting a lot looking at 16:9 squashed footage, I find that my eyes play tricks on me & objects just start to look odd when unsqueezed if i don't walk away before reviewing the footage.
-
You are very limited with the 60D+ML RAW - especially if trying to use one of the crop modes for shooting anamorphic. With my x1.5 anamorphic i shot in 5:3 mode, with a resolution of 1280x768 & i got about 13secs of recording time. It upscaled very nicely to 2.39:1 (1920x803) & of course so much better than H264. With a x2 anamorphic you could try going down another resolution step to 3:2 (1152x768), which will give about 18secs & then putting it into a timeline scaled to 2.66:1 (1920x722) - once unsqueezed (horizontal) you'll be slightly downscaling your footage & will only loose a tiny bit of the sides. That's probably your best option. The only other alternative is to shoot H264 (with increased bit rate of x2.5-3) for all close ups & maybe medium shots. Then for all the wide shots, that need the detail, use RAW.
-
Best squeeze for the 54 is 2.66, which is 66.86%.
-
I re-edited a project because i found that FCPX dramatically reduced the banding in some Canon 60D footage, in comparison to transcoding it via 5DtoRGB & using FCP6. Quality didn't seem to change, but then again it could be that it did - it got rid of the banding/artifacts in the sky so i was as happy as larry!
-
Anamorphic squeeze/stretch and its effect on color space & bit depth
Bioskop.Inc replied to QuickHitRecord's topic in Cameras
Interesting, but surely we aren't doing the same type of up/down scaling (4k to 1080p), we're just stretching or squeezing & not changing resolution to such extremes. With DSLR footage I don't think i could ever notice, just because it was so crap to begin with. Furthermore, with the Anamorphic BM Pocket footage I've filmed, there's been no noticeable difference either. However, with FCPX I don't think i get the option anymore concerning square pixels. But surely the pixels would not be square until you unsqueezed them? So perhaps we should really be thinking about only unsqueezing Anamorphic footage, thus getting the true resolution & then downscaling afterwards - I don't think it will give us anymore bit depth/colour space, but it might better preserve it. Or do you mean by unsqueezing we might actually lose something? Damn! I think i've just confused myself! Quick, get an expert in here... -
I'm assuming you're asking how to get 2.35 with a x1.33 anamorphic: Unsqueeze = 126.5% Squash = 73.53% Might be out by a little.
-
Found this hidden in a long list of bookmarks - FCPX effects from Motion: http://www.macprovideo.com/hub/motion/motion-10-easy-effects-for-final-cut-pro-x Thought it could be useful for some people.
-
Yeah I know they won't, but even so a minimum that would make me really happy is if they just added something inbetween 3200-4500.
-
certainly a dream team combo!
-
In the Inspector box, goto Transform, then Scale & change theX axis to 200% to unsqueeze or the Y axis to 50% to squash.
-
Thanks BR, really very helpful. My only gripe with the Pocket is the WB settings, i'm always caught needing an inbetween setting, so footage can be too warm or too cold. All easily fixable in post, but it would be nice to have a manual setting with a full range & get it right in-camera. Will try & post a few samples later in the week to get people's feedback...
-
Ok, i thought so & what they do have is v.nice, as a starting point or a finished look. As i've said the highlight/shadow roll off is lovely & almost impossible to replicate - I can get one close but then the other suffers as a consequence. So by good starting point, you mean get the exposure & contrast right (for BM cameras, put the life back into the flat film/log files that come out of the camera), then you go for the grade - that's how i've been doing it recently.
-
This reviewer says BMPCC only has 9 stops of dynamic range...
Bioskop.Inc replied to brianl's topic in Cameras
Well that explains it all then & with that reasoning then yes the Pocket has far more DR! The French do like to be a little different & having lived there for 8+ years i found this all over the shop - a prime example is, normally you grade papers & the mark will be a percentage (0-100), in France they want you to grade between 0-20! So i presume they're using a different scale or something, but in the end they come to the same reasoning that the Pocket has more DR than a DSLR - all is well with the world once more! -
Well i tried the free version (doesn't have too many pre-sets, are there more in the paid version?) & it is nice, especially the shadow/highlight roll off (the grain is nasty, really nasty - yuck!). However, when i compared it to a few tests i'd been doing I found that i wasn't really that far off after all - mine were slightly more contrasty, with a bit less saturation in the mids/highlights. So i think it might be best to save some money (those Speedboosters aren't cheap) & learn something in the process.
-
@BurnetRhoades : So basically you're saying that FC is v.good for getting digital Log footage out of its flat state & into a more celluloid looking environment. But you still need to or should i say, you still can then go away & CC/Grade to really fine tune everything to your taste. So far with my BM Pocket footage i've been able to achieve everything I want in FCPX, you've just got to follow numerous correction steps (6 minimum) & build up/re-build the footage before it looks really good - none of that muddy footage for me. So will FC enable me to get nicer results (will it really look like film) or is it best to just do it the long way a few times & make pre-sets.
-
This reviewer says BMPCC only has 9 stops of dynamic range...
Bioskop.Inc replied to brianl's topic in Cameras
If its only 9 stops of DR, then that sure is a big & robust 9 stops! I've used RAW & ProRes Film/Video modes - they are all a dream (well RAW is an extra hassle I can live without). Even if it turns out that it really is only 9, the pocket just shits all over the majority of DSLRs or anything else close to its price range for that matter when it comes to image. The way you can push the footage in any direction is simply amazing - i've been doing some test CC/Grades all day for a doc i've nearly finished shooting & whatever i want to do, i can do. You just can't get hung up on this type of nit picking stuff! Its a damn nice Cinema Camera in a ridiculously small package, which produces some of the best images i've seen in a long while. Everytime i use it i just chuckle to myself about the nonsense spewed by all the detractors. Can't use it, won't use - who gives a fuck! -
Funny about that but there's absolutely none added - are you confussing sharpness with resolution? Only thing used were some excellent quality lenses stopped down to about f5.6 & ML RAW! edit: Sorry, my bad there was a little added when going from DNG to TIFF - will see if taking it out makes a difference. Thanks for pointing this out - strange as i don't normally sharpen anything. edit2: Such a tiny amount of sharpening was added that its not worth changing - each to their own taste!
-
Neither the BM Pocket nor the Digital Bolex are low light monsters - especially the DB, but the pocket's ASA 1600 is fine & cleans up nicely if you really have to. Unless you're filming in a field with no lights, the f2.8 is fine & with a SB even better. If you're really worried, then get the 28mm & crop out any mild vignette that you might encounter when using diopters. Found this on Vimeo - obviously not low light, but exactly the lens pairing of Iscorama+Nikon 35mm f1.4:
-
The f2.8+SB becomes faster & you don't get the problems you find with the faster versions. But as BR says, on a s16 sized sensor the f1.4 might be fine. Conversely, i'm thinking of continuing my Russian obsession & getting a "Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 M42" to go with my 54 (which were made to be compatable with zoom lenses), but i've no idea if a 36 will behave well with a zoom. They're cheap & have a lever to change focal length, which seems to produce a smooth zoom (see p.10 of the BMPCC c-mount thread for pics of the lens & pics taken with it).
