Lenses

[BTM_Pix]

2 minutes ago, mercer said:

Reconfigured Cameras? Interesting. New side venture? Please include Raw in my model. 

Yes, I aim to be the next CineFran

 

49 minutes ago, HienC said:

anyone still use the contax 35-70mm?

I should have been but got suckered in by the extra range and got the 28-85mm instead.

Good lens but wrong choice.

Not sure anyone on here actually has the 35-70mm ?

[JordanWright]

14 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Not sure anyone on here actually has the 35-70mm ?

I saw one on eBay for £150 but someone beat me too it! should have pulled the trigger right away

[BTM_Pix]

15 minutes ago, JordanWright said:

I saw one on eBay for £150 but someone beat me too it! should have pulled the trigger right away

That wasn't me unfortunately  

[Exporter]

Any opinions on the new Meike cinema E mount or X mount lenses? Would like to pair the Meike 25mm with the A7iii or maybe the X-T30.  

[Geoff CB]

6 hours ago, mercer said:

Nice light... gotta love golden hour down the shore. How did you like that 70-200mm? I know a lot of people go gaga over it? Was this handheld?

 

Loved it for what we were shooting, images that focused on flattering the subject. Very clean skin and nice backgrounds.  Paired very well with the URSA. It was on a locked down tripod. 

[Skip77]

The thing about cine lens vs non cine Nikon, Canon, etc photography lens is that sometimes the photography lens has abetter image and clarity and almost zero breathing over some cine lens. I'm not talking $3K and up priced cine lens either.  Lot's of DP's don't love the Canon prime cine lens and you might just get better video image quality from a great photography lens. And the comments about cine lens being more reliable is bunk.

10 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Canon 70-200 2.8 IS on URSA Mini Pro (Prores 2K 4:4:4). Still from an upcoming short.

That's got a tone of noise in it. Very magenta with lots of noise in the shadows and background. How's the video? Does that noise hold together?

[Geoff CB]

6 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

The thing about cine lens vs non cine Nikon, Canon, etc photography lens is that sometimes the photography lens has abetter image and clarity and almost zero breathing over some cine lens. I'm not talking $3K and up priced cine lens either.  Lot's of DP's don't love the Canon prime cine lens and you might just get better video image quality from a great photography lens. And the comments about cine lens being more reliable is bunk.

That's got a tone of noise in it. Very magenta with lots of noise in the shadows and background. How's the video? Does that noise hold together?

I found it quite organic in motion.

[kye]

10 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

I'll preface this by saying I've got a pretty jaundiced view of that place and one that is pretty outdated as the Koolaid wore off a long time ago with me and this doesn't apply to every discussion or user on there but....

One very cynical and blunt interpretation of many of the conversations that I used to see on there was that when they say "modern" they mean too expensive for them to own and when they say "vintage" they mean the ones they can afford to own.

That melting pot of high end pros and ambitious indies that I was referring to that were brought together on there led to a nuance around that language that, again, a cynical and blunt viewpoint would be suggestive of a snobbery/class divide.

Because of that there was definitely a vibe that many people were dressing for the job they wanted rather than the one they had if you know what I mean and would offer up that caveat of "of course these lenses would only be for personal projects" to offer a shield against some perceived ridicule or scorn from people higher up the food chain when the reality was that the only projects they were doing were personal projects or low enough budget one where hiring let alone buying higher end lenses wasn't on the cards.

I'm not saying everyone was doing that but there were certainly a lot of them that were and it was pretty sad to see.

Instead of just feeling free enough to be able to say "I could just about afford the camera but fuck me the lenses and everything else are killing me, anyone got any suggestions for cheap stuff that I can use to get going with?" (which is exactly what would happen on here) a lot of discussion became couched in people not wanting to be thought of as not shooting this summer's Hollywood blockbuster so a kind of euphemistic/nebulous masking language developed.

The cultism aspect of Red ownership and Reduser isn't just limited to the "How shall we fuck off oh Lord?" deference to the billionaire founder and his colleagues but also extends to the grip it has on the perception of a number of its more rabid followers in somehow elevating them into the higher echelons of film making.

With some of them it was borderline cosplay.

In about three or four years when everyone is sick and tired of cobbling stuff together and manufacturers are sick and tired of being caned by cellphone advances eating their real camera sales, we will all get camcorders again.

And breathe a massive sigh of relief at the liberation of it all.

I mean, I seem to recall you only wanted a bit of a bump in quality and shallower depth of field from your XC10 and look at the absolute rabbit hole you've tumbled down  

I didn't detect the class system on there, but probably didn't read for long enough (plus I was interested in learning about lenses not the users) but that dynamic makes total sense and is probably an inevitable consequence of mixing expensive cameras with human nature.  Pity though, elitism is a lose-lose situation.

We may very well all get camcorders again.  lol about the rabbit hole I fell down, but it's been a fun adventure and totally worth it as I have learned a bunch about myself.  Had I known then what I know now I wouldn't have gone the XC10 route as its technical priorities don't align with my aesthetic priorities, and I'm not sure that a camcorder could really hit all the buttons for me, at least with current technology.  

1 hour ago, Skip77 said:

That's got a tone of noise in it. Very magenta with lots of noise in the shadows and background. How's the video? Does that noise hold together?

Remember that frames you see here are re-compressed to JPG or whatever, so depending on the software used to extract the frame it might be super crunched  

[Skip77]

5 minutes ago, kye said:

I didn't detect the class system on there, but probably didn't read for long enough (plus I was interested in learning about lenses not the users) but that dynamic makes total sense and is probably an inevitable consequence of mixing expensive cameras with human nature.  Pity though, elitism is a lose-lose situation.

We may very well all get camcorders again.  lol about the rabbit hole I fell down, but it's been a fun adventure and totally worth it as I have learned a bunch about myself.  Had I known then what I know now I wouldn't have gone the XC10 route as its technical priorities don't align with my aesthetic priorities, and I'm not sure that a camcorder could really hit all the buttons for me, at least with current technology.  

Remember that frames you see here are re-compressed to JPG or whatever, so depending on the software used to extract the frame it might be super crunched  

Re-compression only brings out the information on the original.  Except for banding issues re-compression doesn't push everything off the deep end.

What gear and lenses did you go with?  What was the lesson learned?

[kye]

4 hours ago, Skip77 said:

Re-compression only brings out the information on the original.  Except for banding issues re-compression doesn't push everything off the deep end.

What gear and lenses did you go with?  What was the lesson learned?

Recompression will make an image worse in all kinds of ways, depending on what settings were in there and what was in the source.  I'm not saying that the image in question was perfect to begin with, but just clarifying that the artefacts are a mixture of what the camera saw, what the artefacts the codec in-camera created, and what artefacts the still image compression put on top of all that

I all my travels with equipment I learned that:

• I prefer Manual Focus over AF, because AF isn't there yet and with MF I have full creative control
• I don't mind the aesthetic of human focus pulling and don't need everything in focus at all times (I shoot only travel and home videos so I have full creative control)
• I really like being able to get subject-to-background separation via background blur, which if you're at a distance from subject requires a large aperture
• I also shoot exclusively in available light, and shoot a lot at night, and I have pretty good night vision so I also want a camera/lens combo that 'sees' in the dark as well or better than I do, which means a combination of high ISO and large apertures
• I really really like 10-bit files as grading them is just as good as 14-bit (IMHO, but I did comparisons between compressed 10-bit, and 10, 12, and 14 bit RAW)
• I'm not very good at mixing the focus direction (I've shot with the "wrong" MF direction lenses before and afterwards it screwed me up for a week or more each time)
• I'm not super-picky about consistency between shots and I can always compensate between lenses etc in post (at least to my personal standards, probably not to others)
• When I shoot sports I want very very very long lenses (I shoot a lot at 840mm FF equiv)
• I hate hate hate clipping and I like ~12+ stops of DR (as opposed to less) as I like creating a lower contrast output image that shows off the full range (reminiscent of how high DR cinema is graded)
• I'm pretty good at spotting the most expensive / highest quality cameras and codecs in blind tests, so my tastes run towards RAW and ARRI colour science
• I like 16mm, 35mm, 70-80mm, FF equivalent focal lengths (and a very long zoom for sports)

To this end, I ended up with:

• GH5, as it has 6K 10-bit low-sharpening H265 mode, 4k60, and 1080p180, EVF, loads of buttons, MFT crop factor for the long focal lengths, I don't care about AF, and the colour science and 10-bit make it nice to work with for nice colours (although I still have huge amounts to learn about grading)
• 8mm F4 SLR Magic (to be upgraded to 7.5mm F2 Laowa lens when I sell my Sigma 18-35)
• 17.5mm F0.95 Voigtlander (the default lens on the camera)
• 40mm F1.8 Konica Hexanon (on a dumb non-SB adapter)
• 58mm F2 Helios (on a dumb non-SB adapter)
• 70-210mm F4 Canon FD zoom on a 2x Canon teleconverter on a dumb non-SB adapter
• Rode VMP+ (with the attenuator set for a safety track)

I am missing a prime in the ~80-85mm range but haven't managed to find a budget friendly option yet, considering how little I would use it the budget isn't that much.  For trips I would either take a three-lens set of 8mm, 17.5mm, and 58mm, or a four-lens set with more extension of 8mm, 17.5mm, 40mm, and 85mm.

I have bought a bunch of other lenses and literally have a box of stuff to sell, and there's a 135mm f2.8 Minolta in there that I'd also consider taking on a trip for extra coverage, so I'm not sure about keeping that one or not.  It's always a compromise between travelling light and being flexible...

On 8/5/2019 at 4:35 AM, BTM_Pix said:

In the great equaliser of the granite worktop and colourful booze bottles then it would likely be Samyang again  

This 50mm lens shootout is about as comprehensive as it gets and includes the Cooke Panchro.

http://www.mikkotimonen.com/50mm-shootout

 

Had a look over this and it's interesting to look at the Dog Schidt, which (I believe) is a Helios 58mm F2 modified to flare a lot (depending on the options chosen in the customisation).  It really shows how soft it is at F2 and how sharp it is at F4.  The bokeh on that is quite pleasing and quite reminiscent of the higher cost options.  

@mercer was right about the bokeh on the Rokinon being really busy and distracting, I didn't expect that from it.  It'd suggest that's because it's dirty (which IIRC is what the texture in the bokeh normally reveals) but it looks like internal reflections or something and not just random dust or fingerprints or whatever.  Any ideas?  It's quite off-putting to me.  I looked at a bunch of the cheap vintage brands like Rikenon / Mamiya-Sekor / Chinon / Revuenon etc but eliminated them because of the hard-edged distracting / bubble bokeh and the fact I want my bokeh to shift attention to what is in focus rather than be a special effect that pulls attention from what is in focus to the background!

[Skip77]

17 minutes ago, kye said:

Recompression will make an image worse in all kinds of ways, depending on what settings were in there and what was in the source.  I'm not saying that the image in question was perfect to begin with, but just clarifying that the artefacts are a mixture of what the camera saw, what the artefacts the codec in-camera created, and what artefacts the still image compression put on top of all that

I learned that:

• I prefer Manual Focus over AF, because AF isn't there yet and with MF I have full creative control
• I don't mind the aesthetic of human focus pulling and don't need everything in focus at all times (I shoot only travel and home videos so I have full creative control)
• I really like being able to get subject-to-background separation via background blur, which if you're at a distance from subject requires a large aperture
• I also shoot exclusively in available light, and shoot a lot at night, and I have pretty good night vision so I also want a camera/lens combo that 'sees' in the dark as well or better than I do
• I really really like 10-bit files as grading them is just as good as 14-bit (IMHO, but I did comparisons between compressed 10-bit, and 10, 12, and 14 bit RAW)
• I'm not very good at mixing the focus direction (I've shot with the "wrong" MF direction lenses before and afterwards it screwed me up for a week or more each time)
• I'm not super-picky about consistency between shots and I can always compensate between lenses etc in post (at least to my personal standards, probably not to others)
• When I shoot sports I want very very very long lenses (I shoot a lot at 840mm FF equiv)
• I hate hate hate clipping and I like ~12+ stops of DR (as opposed to less) as I like creating a lower contrast output image that shows off the full range (reminiscent of how high DR cinema is graded)
• I'm pretty good at spotting the most expensive / highest quality cameras and codecs in blind tests, so my tastes run towards RAW and ARRI colour science
• I like 16mm, 35mm, 70-80mm, FF equivalent focal lengths (and a very long zoom for sports)

To this end, I ended up with:

• GH5, as it has 6K 10-bit low-sharpening H265 mode, 4k60, and 1080p180, EVF, loads of buttons, MFT crop factor for the long focal lengths, and I don't care about AF
• 8mm F4 SLR Magic (to be upgraded to 7.5mm F2 Laowa lens when I sell my Sigma 18-35)
• 17.5mm F0.95 Voigtlander (the default lens on the camera)
• 40mm F1.8 Konica Hexanon (on a dumb non-SB adapter)
• 58mm F2 Helios (on a dumb non-SB adapter)
• 70-210mm F4 Canon FD zoom on a 2x Canon teleconverter on a dumb non-SB adapter
• Rode VMP

I am missing a prime in the ~80-85mm range but haven't managed to find a budget friendly option yet, considering how little I would use it the budget isn't that much.  For trips I would either take a three-lens set of 8mm, 17.5mm, and 58mm, or a four-lens set with more extension of 8mm, 17.5mm, 40mm, and 85mm.

I have bought a bunch of other lenses and literally have a box of stuff to sell, and there's a 135mm f2.8 Minolta in there that I'd also consider taking on a trip for extra coverage, so I'm not sure about keeping that one or not.  It's always a compromise between travelling light and being flexible...

Had a look over this and it's interesting to look at the Dog Schidt, which (I believe) is a Helios 58mm F2 modified to flare a lot (depending on the options chosen in the customisation).  It really shows how soft it is at F2 and how sharp it is at F4.  The bokeh on that is quite pleasing and quite reminiscent of the higher cost options.  

@mercer was right about the bokeh on the Rokinon being really busy and distracting, I didn't expect that from it.  It'd suggest that's because it's dirty (which IIRC is what the texture in the bokeh normally reveals) but it looks like internal reflections or something and not just random dust or fingerprints or whatever.  Any ideas?  It's quite off-putting to me.  I looked at a bunch of the cheap vintage brands like Rikenon / Mamiya-Sekor / Chinon / Revuenon etc but eliminated them because of the hard-edged distracting / bubble bokeh and the fact I want my bokeh to shift attention to what is in focus rather than be a special effect that pulls attention from what is in focus to the background!

What do you think of this footage? It's shot on the Z6 with Nikon lens. (adaptor).  If this looks off or more video then cinematic let me know.  

A good set of cine glass is a must at some point. 

 

 

[kye]

7 hours ago, Skip77 said:

What do you think of this footage? It's shot on the Z6 with Nikon lens. (adaptor).  If this looks off or more video then cinematic let me know.  

A good set of cine glass is a must at some point. 

 

 

It looks pretty good, but not great.  I can offer more feedback than that if you're interested, but a lot of this stuff is quite subjective too, and with art there isn't a right or wrong way to do it.

What were your goals with the piece?  Are you happy with it?  What kind of feedback are you interested in?

[Skip77]

2 hours ago, kye said:

It looks pretty good, but not great.  I can offer more feedback than that if you're interested, but a lot of this stuff is quite subjective too, and with art there isn't a right or wrong way to do it.

What were your goals with the piece?  Are you happy with it?  What kind of feedback are you interested in?

I did not film those videos or part of that channel.

Please give more details about the footage looking only pretty good.  That's what I signed up to EOS

Only on the technical side. The footage looks full and deep to me like the Canon 1DX footage or P4K. Sky isn't blow out, great color. 

[heart0less]

42 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Only on the technical side. The footage looks full and deep to me like the Canon 1DX footage or P4K. Sky isn't blow out, great color. 

To be honest, it doesn't appear as 'full and deep', at least to my eyes.

Teal & orange LUT, faded blacks and whites - just another 'cinematic look AD 2018'

A little of WB and exposure issues.

I did like some shots, though.

 

But let us get back to the topic - lenses.

[Skip77]

19 minutes ago, heart0less said:

To be honest, it doesn't appear as 'full and deep', at least to my eyes.

Teal & orange LUT, faded blacks and whites - just another 'cinematic look AD 2018'

A little of WB and exposure issues.

I did like some shots, though.

 

But let us get back to the topic - lenses.

I posted this to show non cine Nikon lens. That is in topic.

What faded blacks ?  The black level goes to the darkest dark on the grey scale and nice middle tones up to highlights. What is faded blacks anyway? Do you mean when the darks are lifted and darks aren't black but 2-3 values up?  That's not what this footage is. You gotta do better then that.

What exposure issues? I am asking because I want to learn.  

Not very much teal and orange applied to this footage. It has a look but even Sony color would show throw with this grade.

I think you have Nikon bias going on a little. I've seen horrible footage from the GH5 that people wet their pants over.  Did I mis the area that people discuss real footage? Sorry for the rant it's just that I don't see anyone talking about real footage. 

Thanks for the input.

[heart0less]

40 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

What is faded blacks anyway? Do you mean when the darks are lifted and darks aren't black but 2-3 values up?

Yup, this is exactly what I was referring to.

Whites aren't truly white, blacks don't reach black levels. You can also notice a slight teal/orange shift in those.

42 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

It has a look but even Sony color would show throw with this grade.

I think you have Nikon bias going on a little.

Ouch.
I'm far from stating I don't like Nikon colors (I do, actually). I just don't like this specific grade.

And I believe anyone can shoot great things with any camera (be it GH5, A7S, Nikon Z6, T2i, etc.), when proper preparations are made and when one knows their gear - just take a look at <200$ EOSHD challenge.

50 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

What exposure issues? I am asking because I want to learn.

Some shots are underexposed, IMHO.
0:05 - 0:11, 0:19 - 0:25, 0:29 - 0:33, 0:46 - 0:47

The shot that really appeal to me is: 0:26 - 0:29

[Skip77]

15 minutes ago, heart0less said:

Yup, this is exactly what I was referring to.

Whites aren't truly white, blacks don't reach black levels. You can also notice a slight teal/orange shift in those.

Ouch.
I'm far from stating I don't like Nikon colors (I do, actually). I just don't like this specific grade.

And I believe anyone can shoot great things with any camera (be it GH5, A7S, Nikon Z6, T2i, etc.), when proper preparations are made and when one knows their gear - just take a look at <200$ EOSHD challenge.

Some shots are underexposed, IMHO.
0:05 - 0:11, 0:19 - 0:25, 0:29 - 0:33, 0:46 - 0:47

The shot that really appeal to me is: 0:26 - 0:29

Thru out the video 90% of the scenes have blacks that reach black levels.

You took one scene from the whole video. The one you referenced looks like he made a choice between blowing out the tent and bringing it down.

 

 

The image above is rich with data information.  Dark, middle and light tones are present. He said he shots flat and this shows you can move the footage around. 

Underexposed scenes? Under-graded maybe. Most cinematographers shoot their exposure don to protect the highlights and keep tonal value on the subject. Nothing looks underexposed where he pulled it back up and footage fell apart.

I looked at the 200$ EOSHD challenge and the cadence and video data recorded can't keep up.  

Thanks you for your input and feedback.  This might be the first discussion in months about video quality.

 

[heart0less]

40 minutes ago, Skip77 said:

Thanks you for your input and feedback.  This might be the first discussion in months about video quality.

You're welcome. 

I just consider videos and movies as a form of art and art is always perceived subjectively. 

Sure, they have to be recorded somehow and with something. 

I also can't deny that specific camera/lenses qualities play a big role in the final result, because they really do, but, right now, we live in such interesting times, that almost every camera (heck, even a phone camera) can be used to tell a story / document important situations. 

It all comes down to how well one can use available resources. 

I wish I could go back and look at videos for what they are, not paying attention to the technicalities we became enslaved to.. 

[Skip77]

34 minutes ago, heart0less said:

You're welcome. 

I just consider videos and movies as a form of art and art is always perceived subjectively. 

Sure, they have to be recorded somehow and with something. 

I also can't deny that specific camera/lenses qualities play a big role in the final result, because they really do, but, right now, we live in such interesting times, that almost every camera (heck, even a phone camera) can be used to tell a story / document important situations. 

It all comes down to how well one can use available resources. 

I wish I could go back and look at videos for what they are, not paying attention to the technicalities we became enslaved to.. 

It's weird that we really don't have many deep dives into really comparing what these cameras can or can't do.  We have carts and tech test but not much that actually push the camera in real world test. It all matters.  That why I posted links and asked opinions. I don't care if people don't like my comments or not, I want to learn about cameras and it seems many people just want o find what's negative and then they won't stop commenting. 

Not many people take memorable photographs or video content. Not many people are capturing the moment.

[kye]

7 hours ago, Skip77 said:

I did not film those videos or part of that channel.

Please give more details about the footage looking only pretty good.  That's what I signed up to EOS

Only on the technical side. The footage looks full and deep to me like the Canon 1DX footage or P4K. Sky isn't blow out, great color. 

Considering it's not your video I will not analyse too deeply or be too critical, but this is what I see:

• There is quite a bit of variation between shots, some are really good and some aren't as good
• Overall the colours are pretty good
• It wasn't shot with an ND (the fan shows no motion blur) so that gives it a slightly video look, but this is a minor point
• I think what lets down some of the shots in this film are lighting and composition - this is where the top end of cinematography really shines and in this video some shots are very nice and others have odd framing, distracting backgrounds, unflattering lighting angles, etc.

Having said all that (much of which is nit-picking) it needs to be acknowledged that this video was obviously shot on the street, the models were shared amongst many photographers, there appeared to be no artificial lighting and I didn't see any lighting modifiers in there, and it's likely that the time available wasn't huge.  In those circumstances it's a completely different challenge, and comparing a high-end cinematographers showreel to something shot run-n-gun in probably only an hour or two doesn't make sense.

If you're interested in good examples of cinematography then I'd encourage you to stop looking at YouTubers and start looking at the pros.  Make a list of the most gorgeous movies, TV shows, and advertisements you've ever seen, research who shot them, who graded them, and then go find their showreels and use those as a reference point for great images.  

Here's a good one:

Then read as much BTS stuff as you can find.  Using IMDB and shotonwhat.com will unearth huge amounts of information about how these images were created.

Also, there is no substitute for hard work.  Find a shot you like, take a whole day and try and replicate it.  Work out what lighting was used, what lens, what angles, then pull it into post and try and replicate the grade.  

Find the sites that sell very expensive LUTs (not youtubers - people that actually work in the industry on movies/tv/advertising) and find their before/after images.  These are useful because they often have a colour chart in them, so if you have a colour chart of your own then you can try and replicate that look and be able to apply some science to it.

It's great to connect with other people, and this site has many skilled people that will answer questions etc, but there's no substitute for hard work.  If reading about things or talking to people on the internet made us great at film-making we'd all be multi-award-winning geniuses!

[Edit: also, videos comparing high-end lenses, like the ones that BTM_Pix posted just recently are great too, because they will be well lit and perfectly exposed/WB etc, and probably aren't graded either, so can serve as a great reference point]