Lenses

[kye]

38 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh my God that is Blasphemy coming from an old, hmm I am old,  Leica user. You are Only suppose to shoot in B&W, and Color it if you can. You got it ass backwards!

I remember something from my stills photography days that went something like "An image should only be in colour if the colour ads something to the shot.  Colour is like everything else in an image - if it's not helping the image then remove it".

[mercer]

1 hour ago, Jonesy Jones said:

Good to see that you're getting closer to the finished project. I'm super happy for you and can't wait to see it. I know you'll have a ton of exposure from this site at least. 

A suggestion, I would spend more time on the graphic design elements. The composition of the shot is lovely btw. However, you'd be surprised at how important good design is, for posters, flyers, thumbnails, intro credits, epk's, whatever. Graphic design is actually the first frames of your film. People are already creating an opinion of your movie based on the design, believe it or not, having not seen even a second of the film itself. 

Graphic design is both hard and not hard at the same time. Anytime you see it done well it's like, "I could've done that." But knowing what to do is the difficult part. I always start with research. Brainstorm the meaning and tone you want to convey. It'll eventually come to you if you're patient. I'd volunteer my time to help you with it if you want. But it'd have to wait for a bit as I'm overcommitted at the moment.

The mockups ups done above using the line of bridge is cool, but they of course are missing the "SOS". This frame needs some color. Maybe try the good ol' fashioned movie credit yellow. Just some thoughts.

Also, I am in love with the 28mm fov. 28 can still do portraits, with some but not too much distortion. It can do everything actually. If I could choose only one lens it would be a lens that gave me the equiv of somewhere in the 28-35 range. That's why I love the 18-35. On my P4K with a SB it gives me a 24-50 equiv. Perfect sweet spot with a T1.2.

Anyway, good stuff.

Thanks Mr. Jones! As I’ve said a couple dozen times, what you accomplished in The Luggage with a 7D and sheer will (not to mention talent) has been very inspiring to me.

But I’m actually not that close to finishing. Scheduling and finances has been way more of a problem than I anticipated. This mock-up is a one off that I am toying with. I have a final round of casting and I am putting together a teaser to help get some actors.

I also don’t love the graphic design of that shot but I do appreciate that you get the SOS element as that is pretty important.

I will probably end up doing some type of animated graphic for the opening title shot that appears as the water ripples out to sea and I may have the SOS stay a little longer or appear first. Good idea for the Universal Yellow. The story is pretty dark, so some sort of dark red may work better but yes, I get what you’re getting at.

It’s funny you mention the 28mm FOV. Until recently, I’ve only had slow 28mm lenses and when I got that fast Canon 28, it opened up my whole world visually. Wide angle close ups denote such an interesting feeling and in FF, I can go handheld with it... which is a big plus for my run and gun style.

12 minutes ago, kye said:

I remember something from my stills photography days that went something like "An image should only be in colour if the colour ads something to the shot.  Colour is like everything else in an image - if it's not helping the image then remove it".

You don’t know how many times I’ve toyed with making my film B&W...

For the sake of the discussion, the top 3 were shot with the Canon 24-70mm f/4 and the last shot was with the Canon 28mm 1.8.

8 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The font looks a bit like Chalk more than handwriting mercer. Really a good shot tho, great composition I think

Hahahahaha.... that is actually what the font was called. I went with it because it looked like writing and I liked that it looked aged or weathered. But yes I agree... it’s not right. 

[webrunner5]

Yeah with a great subject and a nice slow film, and darkroom skill you can do wonders in B&W. Just a screen grab so not so hot quality wise. I would Love to see the original print.

[kye]

45 minutes ago, mercer said:

You don’t know how many times I’ve toyed with making my film B&W...

Those are some very impressive looking stills indeed!  Beautiful tones, and the motion blur of those birds is just great

[thebrothersthre3]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Those are some very impressive looking stills indeed!  Beautiful tones, and the motion blur of those birds is just great

Yeah the still of seagulls is wonderful!

Got a few shots with my Fuji 23mm f2 and Minolta 135mm 2.8 
The 2.8 is on the soft side wide open, looks pretty nice at f4 tho. Its not a bad lens but I am not really a fan of the 135mm focal length at least no on crop cameras. Gives a nice reach for wedding tho, probably wouldn't have it otherwise. 4th pic is the 128.

The 23mm F2 reminds me how nice it is to have AF sometimes. Used the standard fuji color profile and auto WB

[kye]

3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Got a few shots with my Fuji 23mm f2 and Minolta 135mm 2.8 
The 2.8 is on the soft side wide open, looks pretty nice at f4 tho. Its not a bad lens but I am not really a fan of the 135mm focal length at least no on crop cameras. Gives a nice reach for wedding tho, probably wouldn't have it otherwise. 4th pic is the 128.

I agree.  

I have two sets of lenses:

• Travel and general stuff: 8mm f4 // 17.5mm f0.95 // 40mm f1.8, which gives equivalents of 16mm f8 // 35mm f1.4 // 80mm f3.6
• Sports and wildlife stuff: 135mm f2.8 // 200mm f3.5, which gives equivalents of 270mm f5.6 // 400mm f7

I'm missing a 80mm lens which would sit in-between the 40 and 135, but I haven't really had the need for one yet.  Maybe for sports, but I'll only consider getting one if that happens.  If I am travelling I don't think I'd take either of the longer lenses, just the main three lenses.

[thebrothersthre3]

1 hour ago, kye said:

I agree.  

I have two sets of lenses:

• Travel and general stuff: 8mm f4 // 17.5mm f0.95 // 40mm f1.8, which gives equivalents of 16mm f8 // 35mm f1.4 // 80mm f3.6
• Sports and wildlife stuff: 135mm f2.8 // 200mm f3.5, which gives equivalents of 270mm f5.6 // 400mm f7

I'm missing a 80mm lens which would sit in-between the 40 and 135, but I haven't really had the need for one yet.  Maybe for sports, but I'll only consider getting one if that happens.  If I am travelling I don't think I'd take either of the longer lenses, just the main three lenses.

Having a long lens is kind of cool for travel. Not really something to take family pics with, but nice for getting shots in public without people being weirded out, if only for the fact that you don't have to be that close to snap a pic of someone lol. Do you use a speedbooster or just regular adapter?

My current set now is: 
17mm 3.5, 28mm f2, 50mm 1.8, and 85mm 1.8 (which is full frame with a speedbooster) Its kind of weird but I am used to an APSC crop, so to me these lenses are like an 9mm, 15mm, 28mm, and 45mm. Then of course I can remove the speedbooster and get the apsc crop field of view. I am getting an extra stop of light as well using the speedbooster getting me 2.8, 1.4, and 1.2 equivalents. Not the easiest to focus wide open haha, but cool to have. 

I have the Minolta 24, 35, 50, and 135, unsure if I'll keep or sell them. 

I'll tell you whats on my radar for vacation and fun stuff though a Zeiss 35-70mm 3.4. Minolta and Nikon also make a similar lens to that. For vaca stuff it would be nice to have just a do everything lens rather than trying to carry around 2-3 lenses. 

[mercer]

2 hours ago, kye said:

I agree.  

I have two sets of lenses:

• Travel and general stuff: 8mm f4 // 17.5mm f0.95 // 40mm f1.8, which gives equivalents of 16mm f8 // 35mm f1.4 // 80mm f3.6
• Sports and wildlife stuff: 135mm f2.8 // 200mm f3.5, which gives equivalents of 270mm f5.6 // 400mm f7

I'm missing a 80mm lens which would sit in-between the 40 and 135, but I haven't really had the need for one yet.  Maybe for sports, but I'll only consider getting one if that happens.  If I am travelling I don't think I'd take either of the longer lenses, just the main three lenses.

Excuse me because I think in terms of FF now but an 85mm is slowly becoming one of my favorite lenses. It’s really cool how you can get depth in the frame by having your subject between the camera and infinity. It’s a really cool effect. And the way it slightly compresses the background without feeling surreal. I guess that’s why I used to like 50mm lenses on aps-c but it wasn’t exactly the same.

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I'll tell you whats on my radar for vacation and fun stuff though a Zeiss 35-70mm 3.4. Minolta and Nikon also make a similar lens to that. For vaca stuff it would be nice to have just a do everything lens rather than trying to carry around 2-3 lenses. 

That’s supposed to be an incredible lens. You may actually like the Tokina 28-70mm Angènieux lens. It just oozes “cinematic...” to use a bad word.  Lol. 

[kye]

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Having a long lens is kind of cool for travel. Not really something to take family pics with, but nice for getting shots in public without people being weirded out, if only for the fact that you don't have to be that close to snap a pic of someone lol. Do you use a speedbooster or just regular adapter?

My current set now is: 
17mm 3.5, 28mm f2, 50mm 1.8, and 85mm 1.8 (which is full frame with a speedbooster) Its kind of weird but I am used to an APSC crop, so to me these lenses are like an 9mm, 15mm, 28mm, and 45mm. Then of course I can remove the speedbooster and get the apsc crop field of view. I am getting an extra stop of light as well using the speedbooster getting me 2.8, 1.4, and 1.2 equivalents. Not the easiest to focus wide open haha, but cool to have. 

I have the Minolta 24, 35, 50, and 135, unsure if I'll keep or sell them. 

I'll tell you whats on my radar for vacation and fun stuff though a Zeiss 35-70mm 3.4. Minolta and Nikon also make a similar lens to that. For vaca stuff it would be nice to have just a do everything lens rather than trying to carry around 2-3 lenses. 

I have travelled with the XC10 which was 24-240mm equivalent and also the APS-C Canon 18-55 and 55-250 but found that I don't do a lot of long zoom shots, or if I do they don't tend to make it to the final edit.  My films are really about where we are and what we're doing, rather than the people waaaaay over there    Just an individual style thing I guess.

All those lenses are normal adapters, so 2x equivalent.

I saw that Zeiss 35-70mm 3.4 and tried to work out how I'd use it but it's just too slow for me.  I film in natural / environmental lighting and a lot at night so need all the light-gathering I can get.  People are critical of having super-fast lenses because shallow DOF is so yesterday and Hollywood only uses 2.8 and they're difficult to focus and blah blah blah, but I've been really happy that my 17.5 goes to F0.95 because it takes the ISO down and reduces noise and brings the colours to life.  I also understand that there's an aperture dial and I can set it to something other than wide open ?
If I could afford it I'd probably have all 0.95 MFT lenses, or go 1.4 FF + 0.64x SB for the same effect.

18 minutes ago, mercer said:

Excuse me because I think in terms of FF now but an 85mm is slowly becoming one of my favorite lenses. It’s really cool how you can get depth in the frame by having your subject between the camera and infinity. It’s a really cool effect. And the way it slightly compresses the background without feeling surreal. I guess that’s why I used to like 50mm lenses on aps-c but it wasn’t exactly the same.

Yeah, my 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon is 80mm equivalent so I'm looking forward to that.

I previously only travelled with 35mm and 116mm equivalents, so I haven't used an 80mm equivalent in real life yet.  TBH I'll be happy to get past thinking about lenses and actually learning the ones I have decided on.  All your contributions of 28mm lenses has kind of put 'learning a focal length' onto my radar - I think I knew it was a thing but hadn't really thought about it seriously.

[mercer]

20 minutes ago, kye said:

TBH I'll be happy to get past thinking about lenses and actually learning the ones I have decided on.  All your contributions of 28mm lenses has kind of put 'learning a focal length' onto my radar - I think I knew it was a thing but hadn't really thought about it seriously.

Well, it’s like zoom lenses... you can stand in one spot and zoom in and out but to get good separation, you still need to use your feet. Eventually, you can quickly see how your subject reacts to the foreground and background along with whatever composition you are going for... it kinda snaps into place. I’m sure more seasoned shooters than myself can figure it out without waltzing around the set. 

Also, there is something to be said about using only one lens. My next film will be shot with one lens and it will probably be either a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm.

I think it’s Polanski who believes that a scene should be shot with only one focal length otherwise the perspective will be too askewed and it will be harder for the audience to be pulled into the scene.

[kye]

In case anyone wants to DIY their own lens....

This channel is great - he does all kinds of fun things.  It's also a great example of content vs cameras - who cares what he shoots with, it's interesting

[Ehetyz]

I may be going full retard on F1.2 lenses.

The Pentax has been my workhorse-fifty for the past few months, it's served me well, but it has a few glaring issues, worst of which is the heavy green/red CA on high contrast areas. So, time for an upgrade. The Revuenon seems to do the trick, haven't seen any CA from my first tests with the UM4,6K and the bokeh is gorgeous. Seems a little sharper than the Pentax as well. Going to bring it along for a commercial shoot this weekend and see how it holds up.

[kye]

3 hours ago, Ehetyz said:

I may be going full retard on F1.2 lenses.

The Pentax has been my workhorse-fifty for the past few months, it's served me well, but it has a few glaring issues, worst of which is the heavy green/red CA on high contrast areas. So, time for an upgrade. The Revuenon seems to do the trick, haven't seen any CA from my first tests with the UM4,6K and the bokeh is gorgeous. Seems a little sharper than the Pentax as well. Going to bring it along for a commercial shoot this weekend and see how it holds up.

The big review I posted yesterday had the Revuenon 55/1.4 in it and it was sharp across the frame, but the bokeh was very hard and kind of distracting for me, so I'm curious to see how you find the 1.2.  Of course, I have read that Chinon, Revuenon, Rikenon, Mamiya-Sekor may all be the same lens or had some kind of rebranding going on, so they might have completely different heritages 

[Bioskop.Inc]

58 minutes ago, kye said:

The big review I posted yesterday had the Revuenon 55/1.4 in it and it was sharp across the frame, but the bokeh was very hard and kind of distracting for me, so I'm curious to see how you find the 1.2.  Of course, I have read that Chinon, Revuenon, Rikenon, Mamiya-Sekor may all be the same lens or had some kind of rebranding going on, so they might have completely different heritages 

If it has Tomioka on there, as well as Chinon etc. its the same lens - Tomioka made them & they were sold/rebranded (55mm f1.4 & F1.2). If there's no Tomioka on it, it might not be the real deal.

@mercer Make it in B&W - so under rated these days (just think/watch Ida & Cold War). I shot something a while ago, in colour & have decided to go B&W for the edit - also saves a lot of time with CC!

[mercer]

7 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Make it in B&W - so under rated these days (just think/watch Ida & Cold War). I shot something a while ago, in colour & have decided to go B&W for the edit - also saves a lot of time with CC!

I love B&W! I could make every film in B&W, without any “reason” to do it but for this film I want the cold desaturated blues and tans of a seaside town in winter. I am also prepping for my next short that I am pretty certain will be in B&W. But to be honest, all of my “grades” are just me practicing and I won’t make any final decision until I lock the cut so in the end, B&W could be a better fit for the film. We’ll see. 

It definitely adds a certain level of melancholy to my shots... so it could be perfect in the end. 

And to not have to worry about color is definitely a bonus. 

Here’s a quick B&W conversion of my poster mock-up. Obviously, I still don’t like the font. And again to keep the discussion relevant to Lenses, this was shot with the Canon 28mm 1.8...

[JordanWright]

Is you like black and white films, don't miss Roma.

[thebrothersthre3]

6 minutes ago, JordanWright said:

Is you like black and white films, don't miss Roma.

Gotta watch that soon.

I am really thinking about doing something B&W, would be really freeing. I am color blind so B&W sounds very appealing.

[Bioskop.Inc]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Here’s a quick B&W conversion of my poster mock-up. Obviously, I still don’t like the font. And again to keep the discussion relevant to Lenses, this was shot with the Canon 28mm 1.8...

You've just made a great point with this B&W version of your Poster, without the distraction of the colour your eyes are drawn to the guy & they stay with him. In the colour version your eyes wonder around the frame & his silhouette gets lost in the sky.

Nice shot, nice lens - keeping it on topic!

[mercer]

5 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

You've just made a great point with this B&W version of your Poster, without the distraction of the colour your eyes are drawn to the guy & they stay with him. In the colour version your eyes wonder around the frame & his silhouette gets lost in the sky.

Nice shot, nice lens - keeping it on topic!

To add, with the B&W version, the small glints of light on the bridge become more prominent and add a little more meaning to the shot where they are a little lost in the color version...

Hmm... I have some thinking to do.

Lens

[kye]

10 hours ago, mercer said:

To add, with the B&W version, the small glints of light on the bridge become more prominent and add a little more meaning to the shot where they are a little lost in the color version...

Hmm... I have some thinking to do.

One thing you can try is the old B&W conversion trick is to adjust the brightness of the different channels underneath the B&W conversion.  This can help to bring in more contrast, especially in the sky where the conversion loses a bit of punch.

In Resolve, you'd play with the Hue vs Luminance curve.