PPNS

hey, not sure where else to post this, but I'm trying to sell my Meike/Veydra MFT cine lens set to anyone who's interested in the EU. I like them a lot, but have been using them less and less lately. You also get an E-mount adapter, since all of them but the 8 and 12 cover aps-c, and you can buy Meike's 10mm to as a super-wide supplement for aps-c, as well as a X-mount adapter from Rafcamera if you're interested in using them on Fuji cameras. send me a DM if you're interested shot most of these pieces with these lenses: Waves stills Magnolia stills Jamais Adulte stills Asina stills Lejania stills The You project stills

im in belgium and also affected. This makes the site mostly useless imo

luminance mapping and saturation compression in the color space transform in resolve will fix your ugly clipping and make it look slightly nicer.

all of these cameras look like shit with their stock r709 luts applied, just slightly differently. trying to shoot anamorphic without an external monitor seems insane to me

why wouldn’t you want to work in the correct way?

you post the dumbest shit in the world. if you can only make an image look nice on a shitty 1st gen red and not on anything better you are straight up not talented. in the grand scheme of things, if we’re talking pure image quality, when composing your shot, the color of the walls and curtains are variables that are a lot more important than camera choice.

I am the words in your thread title are mutually exclusive. Thats ok, you’re just going to have to accept that for the convenience of vari-nds.

serious question, what is your background zlfan? you keep making the same comparison threads and theyre all pointless. if you’re good at making moving images, all you need is a camera with at least a decent codec (10 bit 4:2:2, and ideally with a log profile). Once that threshold is met, you can start thinking about the actual important facets of the job. maybe documentary based dps will go towards newer hybrids for their assisting features, but other ones will probably never care. If you’re shooting in a context where you get to call yourself the dp, the implication is there already: you’re the head of a department. You already have an assistant delegated to getting the focus right. Ibis will never be as good as a dedicated means to have certain camera movements

stop posting brotha

its almost as if everything other than the camera is more important than the camera itself… (which makes this 90% of this forum’s topics basically entirely pointless)

huge fan, i own a set of formatt hitechs black supermists. shot a whole short on the 1 strength filter.

Not very imo

I know that this music vid was shot on the 6k FF. It looks good, but it would’ve looked good on most other cameras, because of the talented crew i’m going to go against the grain and say that most of stuff online i’ve seen that was shot on the og (as well as the 4k and 6k) looks like shit tbh

1. learn the color temps of things irl 2. set the camera wb based on what looks good and vibes 👍

and if you’ve ever worked with arriraw you would know how stupid and useless uncompressed raw is if if the camera also has a good codec built in.

hey we’re actually posting our work on here again, finally! some nice looking stuff there marty! while it looks decent, i do think this is incredibly vapid

it’s a trick to understand optics and basic math? jesus fucking christ man if any of you gave as much shit about making, or working on interesting art on here and sharing it instead of jacking off your lil dingdongs over new gear, resolutions, different starting point looks of shitty fucking sensors, or being mentally insane about 24 fps this place could actually have interesting discussions. I fucking hate gear. i fucking hate lenses, cameras, shitty lights, cables, rigs etc. Sadly its necessary to understand at least some of it, as it is a means to an end to create what i actually want to create. i suggest others to view it same way. Or learn color grading, like kye said. That has generated a bit of income for me from time to time.

if i had the option/luxury to, i would certainly try to shoot with the 65 once. why not? maybe he occasionally wanted easy access to the inherent extra shallow dof that that combination produces? tarantino has an open bias against digital, and is one of the few directors that has the pull to get the use of more “exotic” film formats financed. I’m sure he likes the extra resolving power you get from bigger film too. that being said, he’s not a very technical guy (and he doesn’t have to be) Literally marketing. Vista vision was a super short lived format, and was competing against 35 anamorphic. Movie studios were in shambles to get people into theatres again, after the rise of the tv, as well as something called “the suburbs” in the us postwar economic boom. their number 1 gimmick to do that was widescreen. This way there was a clear differentiation in what cinema and tv looked like. Essentially cropping in on the negative and scaling that to a wider screen was called techniscope, and gave you a loss of resolving power. anamorphic was a way of getting a wider image into the same negative, and vista vision fed the film differently into the camera, like on stills, with a similar sized negative. Fyi, this was studio mandated and most of the filmmakers hated this change at the time, since it became harder to frame good closeups.

Zooming in = going telephoto. You can’t get shallow DOF on wide angles on small sensors. Telephotos always inherently give you a shallower dof at the same aperture compared to wider angles at the same distance from subject. you’re just describing depth of field again (and maybe the corresponding vignetting, since that’s harder to correct on larger format glass). Going wide open on a 24, 35, 50, 75 on FF at 1.4 for example, is a level of shallow dof that didn’t exist on moving images before 2007. I’m excluding anamorphics here, since their distortion has significant other impacts on visual language, as well as vista vision and 70mm, because you’re not gonna shoot at 1.4 on some of the most expensive film stock in the 50s and 60s. shooting f1.4 on any focal length on FF or f2 on alexa 65s is the ‘unique look’ of larger sensors, since manufacturers aren’t particularly interested in making f1 lenses on s35 (even though they could) if you limit yourself to f2 on FF, you can recreate the whole look with super speeds, or certain leicas on an alexa mini or 35 (and even voigtlanders on mft) limit yourself to 2.8 on FF, and you’re in the same ballpark as most s35 lens sets dof wise. limit yourself to f4 on FF, and the look becomes completely recreatable on mft, and even on s16 with arris ultra primes. Just make sure to scan it well if you’re trying to fool people that you’re going for a modern look i think its worth mentioning that contrary to people’s belief, the magnification number of focal reducers is there to explain what it does to your lens, instead of confusing you even further with crop factor mental gymnastics. A 0,71x focal reducer turns a 35mm f2 lens with a FF image circle into a 25mm f1.4 lens with a super 35 image circle. Its a wide angle adapter that converges light at the aperture. An f2 at 35mm gives you the same size of aperture as an f1.4 at 25mm, and thus the same depth of field, regardless of sensor size. Optics is just math. Not that crazy. If you know this, it’s easier to know, pinpoint and elaborate what you like. In most cases for you guys it’s just shallow dof. also, if you understand the relations between the numbers, you can also understand that manufacturers can just scale down certain lens designs/sets to get the same super shallow looks for smaller sensors. they just don’t want to, because some asshole called 36x24mm “full frame” and accidentally created one of the most successful marketing/disinfo campaigns ever. Also speedboosters suck

i dont get this argument? you can get essentially a 95% match across most image formats, but since you can get just that tiny bit shallower with larger sensors that makes it all moot? the reason to get a gh or fx or pocket camera is because its a shitty camera to own. It’s for personal projects where theres no budget, or as a bcam in certain situations, either as an extra angle during scenes, or to rig it on a car so the good expensive camera doesnt break. If you have to use it, a few compromises should be made. In the case of mft that’s mostly not being able to be super shallow on wide lenses, but for normal use cases, you’ll be fine. this stuff should be liberating to know? If there’s budget, why wouldnt you rent a mini/mini lf/35/venice? Its obvious better cameras have advantages! there’s a certain other test by manuel luebbers where he conducts a similar test with a mini and 65, where he shoots more shallow. the same conclusion arises: the large format look is just super shallow depth of field when the lenses are wide open. If theyre not, the look can be matched with different formats. i think theres about a million things more important than hitting the sweet spot of separation in real life scenarios. that being said, with the right choice of focal lengths and distance from camera, you can get pretty shallow dof from any format! i just think they hit a great balance of being sharp and slightly soft at the same time. The vignette you get at t/1.4 is nice too. Zeiss CP2 set is garbage tho, so i’m not going to generalise statements about their brand. i think 1080p is a great delivery resolution, but i’m not always inclined to shoot it. Someone in the editorial suite is probably going to zoom on something without my intention, and then they’ll get mad at me for not shooting in a higher resolution. I’d prefer to avoid that. He likes it because it was twice as shallow as S35. Just like the 2x anamorphic used on moonlight are twice as shallow as spherical s35 “We shot Beale Street on the Alexa 65, a large-format camera. You get a much more shallow depth of field than you would with a Super 35 sensor, or 35mm film if you're shooting film. It's what helps that rack focus to the foreground on Brian to be as dramatic as it is.” https://filmmakermagazine.com/106532-laxton/

The ifs have a grammatical function. I’m explaining to you how optics work. A 24 at 2.8 on a 36x24mm sensor and a 12mm at 1.4 on a 18x12mm sensor will look exactly the same when placed at the same spot, with exactly the same separation. that is also the reason i linked yedlins article: you get to see example images where he matched the look of 1 certain FOV and DOF on different imager sizes and lenses. this is just pure math that you’re trying to disprove. “Even the same lens on the same camera will have a different look with a couple steps forwards or backwards.” not sure what you’re trying to say here. Flaring and a different focus point tend to have an influence on the image, sure. I agree that 1.4 lenses on mft are more rare, but that’s a different aspect in this argument (manufacturers not wanting to make high quality mft gear anymore). if the client is broke, i use my pocket 4k and meike lenses or olympus zoom. If theyre not, i rent an alexa and some lenses (i like zeiss super speeds a lot). I don’t see why resolution is relevant to this discussion though. are we trying to move goalposts again?

the fov is dependent on the focal length as well as the imager size. 21mm is not inherently a wide angle focal length. It’s - very wide on MF - wide on FF and s35 - a widish medium on mft - mild telephoto on s16 - regular telephoto on B4 broadcast. lf you had an f/2 20mm lens on ff, and an f/1 10mm on mft, with similarly designed optics, your shot would look the same if taken from the same spot. https://www.yedlin.net/NerdyFilmTechStuff/MatchLensBlur.html

i guess its a nicer starting point than the v log conversion. Pure nonsense. human eyes are not closer to 40mm on FF than 21 on MFT. FF only makes it easier to get shallower DOF. Focal lengths dont “round out” your subjects, lens design does. FOV is created between relationship of the focal length and the film back size. Dof by the size of the aperture. If the colors of the cameras, as well as the dof and fov, were matched, you wouldn’t see a difference. Read the yedlin articles again.

tastelessly shot and lit imo. they really couldve used olan collardy again

In the context of commercials: - you frame for your main aspect ratio (1.78/16:9 for tv). At the same time, the soc media versions will be 9:16, and thus they have more vertical height to work with, instead of using the 16:9 portion of the sensor. You also gain a bit of reframing lattitude if you mess up. in the context of narrative: - you can use a taller aspect ratio like 3:2/1.5 (EO) or 4:3/1.33/1.37 (Ida) without cropping too much of your sensor. - you can use anamorphics without cropping too much of your sensor. - if you’re shooting for a wider aspect ratio (1.85 or scope or whatever), you get to look around more of the frame in the viewfinder. hard to explain, but its handy.