Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Budget Cine Lens Test  (Read 14218 times)
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 24, 2011, 08:25:43 AM »
ReplyReply

A different test.

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/12/23/lens-test/
Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 18, 2012, 09:30:03 AM »
ReplyReply

http://gizmodo.com/5894194/photographer-hacks-an-almost-100+year+old-lens-onto-his-canon-5d-mark-ii/gallery/1
Logged
Chris Sanderson
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1920



« Reply #22 on: March 18, 2012, 10:45:46 AM »
ReplyReply

 lovely!
Smiley
Logged

Christopher Sanderson
The Luminous-Landscape
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2012, 11:22:38 AM »
ReplyReply

...
out-of-topic ps:

Just come back from set and I don't know you guys but everytime we have a break in a bar, every assistant are playing with their I.phones. "have you downloaded this or that?".
The all breaks are spent in I.phones conversations. Each time it's the same.
I'm just looking at that with absolutly zero interest, but as it's the only topic that seems to animate the plateaux on the pauses, I feel somewhere out-of-the-game.
Am I alone not being interested at all in the I.phone gadgetery on set?
Or have you beaten also to this fashion guys.
...

If the other boys are absorbed in their iPhone world, talk to the girls in the bar. Sadly most of them are texting while the boys are playing with apps. BTW, I still use a Nokia 6210. If I show that the subject changes to all the old phones people were using in the past.

Best of luck,
Johannes
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #24 on: March 29, 2012, 12:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

If the other boys are absorbed in their iPhone world, talk to the girls in the bar. Sadly most of them are texting while the boys are playing with apps. BTW, I still use a Nokia 6210. If I show that the subject changes to all the old phones people were using in the past.

Best of luck,
Johannes

Not only are they all playing with their I-phone, but they are I-phone specific.  I've seen someone pull out an Android and they sneer at it and make fun.

I carry two I-phones on the road, cause I'm always breaking one and all I have to do is switch sims, but I use it for biz, sometmes the maps, weather, and finding a location.  Take a few snaps and for phone calls.

Last year I deactivated my facebook page because I just don't know if anyone would care if I had an omelet for breakfast, or if my feet standing next toa tripod looks like art.

Our first assistant get's over 60 yo 70 text messages from his girlfriend every day.  You hear buzz, buzz, buzz.  I told him he should put it in his pocket that way he could actually enjoy all that wasted vibration.

In fact three months ago my wife bought me a new I-pad and I've yet to take it out of the box.  The old one works and I rarely use it because it's kinda fun for watching movie, or showing c-1 remotely, though we have a dedicated Ipad for our digital kit, so I just don't need it.

What I do use more than I care to admit is I have a Samsung netbook I use to tune two of my hot rods and I actually find myself using it all the time because I can do a spread sheet, actually save an attachment and the battery last about a week.  Also it was a good primer for getting use to pc boxes and I know we'll soon have to move our editing stations to pcs (is peecees a word?) so I am now familiar with the microsoft os and don't find it near as bad as most people say.

When we shoot in studio and i want a break I go outside and look at my Iphone like I'm working, but i just do this to get a break and not to be interuppted.  

Actually (though I probably won't do it) I think my next mobile phone will be a blackberry.  Blackberries seem all business and every really powerful person I know carries one, which means they're usually too busy to play games.   They look like their doing biz rather than farting around with angry birds.

IMO

BC

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 01:10:00 PM by bcooter » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #25 on: March 29, 2012, 01:24:09 PM »
ReplyReply

... buzz, buzz, buzz.  I told him he should put it in his pocket that way he could actually enjoy all that wasted vibration.


 Grin Grin...


Last time I was in assistance with a big fish here, I heard this dark voice of the boss resonating like an old teacher in the primary school, 5 minutes after we all were starting to install the circus: "...and I don't want to see nor hear any I.phone during the shooting folks. Prohibited!" Le vieux (in french le vieux means "the old guy" and can be use for the boss) can't stand them anymore.
I was so pleased.

No need to say that on the coulisses, the main themes of conversations, not kidding, when it's not the I.phone apps are the facebook stuff...pathetic indeed. I don't know wich one I prefer to be honest...now that the i.phones are prohibited on set, I'm afraid the relacement is the facebook see-how-i-brush-my-teath (gosh, how do I write this theath, tith...anyway too lazy to open the digital dictionary)

Peecees now are NOT the peecees of before. I have an Imac that I would like to use as a monitor on a PC workstation. For me there are about the same stuff nowdays. I could pass from one to another with a safe neutrality. Actually I think that a studio equiped with both is more powerfull than one system only.

I do too confirm that powerfull people I know are mainly on Blackberry. I noticed that too.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 02:57:33 PM by fredjeang » Logged
jsch
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 432


« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2012, 04:22:39 AM »
ReplyReply

...
Actually (though I probably won't do it) I think my next mobile phone will be a blackberry.  Blackberries seem all business and every really powerful person I know carries one, which means they're usually too busy to play games
...

I dream of the day, when I'll be powerful too: Without phone, without computer.

Back to lenses. For filming with the Canon 5D Mark II I bought a set of old Olympus OM lenses (24/28/35/50/85, all with f2, exept the 50/1.4) on ebay for 1200 Euro. With the 24 focus pulling is not an option, because the image floats while focusing. The others are fine. I compared (not in an scientific way) them to some Canon (50/1.2, 85/1.2, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/IS II) and Zeiss (CF21, CP50, CF 50/2, CP85) lenses and find they hold up not too bad. Above f3.5 I find them very good. So for some applications this Olympus OM set is unbeatable. Also they have a look I like. But they are not an option for all applications. When it comes to breathing and focus pulling they have problems. But if you know what you do they are very special. The Olympus lenses are very well built and tiny compared to others. With the 5D/7D they give you a very tiny form factor for the camera. I use a small cokin filter system.

I've seen the material on a 8 meter (23 feet) screen with a Panasonic DPD 7700 projector. It looked good on that screen too. Before and after I watched films from Arri D21/Zeiss Master Primes on the same screen. If you concentrate on the film, you can't see the difference. But you can't do everything with the 5D/Olympus you can do with the Arri/Zeiss combination and vice versa.

Best,
Johannes
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 11:57:53 AM by jsch » Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2012, 06:51:18 AM »
ReplyReply

The Olympus OM digital are very good lenses. Extremely well built and great glass. More compact than the equivalent. The pro-line is sealed and no distortions.
Generally on the vintage the OM are good oportunity for their qualities.

Another extremely good performer is the 28mm f2 Kino Precision from Kiron. It's vastly used in movie because it's a high performer lens, up to the top with the bests and also, important, you can focus very close, almost macro and the ring is short and precise. With one turn (no need a follow focus) you cover the all focussing range. I have one and it's incredibly easy and reliable to follow focus without ff, and certainly better than still autofocus lenses that aren't working. No surprise the cine industry is using it quite a lot, and IQ is very good. If you can find one in e-bay go for it because they don't last very long.

Also, some Vivitar serie 1, specially the ones made by Kiron (you have to know what you're buying) are great performers. These aren't zooms but varifocal lenses. I read complains about this by people with obviously limited experience and don't know the goodies (specially in motion) of a varifocal lens vs a proper zoom. It allows to do things impossible with a normal zoom but they require more craft experience and more training. These are top quality varifocal lenses. Highly recommended if you can get one by Kiron.
Make a research in internet about the way to recognise the top units, because then the production quality decreased.

« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 05:25:29 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #28 on: April 03, 2012, 01:36:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Last year I deactivated my facebook page because I just don't know if anyone would care if ...

Analog is so more tactile.

www.tinyurl.com/d9zqkos


« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 01:42:04 AM by Bern Caughey » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #29 on: April 03, 2012, 03:52:14 AM »
ReplyReply

One of our assistants brags he has thousands of friends . . . on facebook.

My take is that's like having an ant farm and saying you have 2,000 pets.

Anyway, I did a page, like most people, never really used it, never checked it until one evening during a pro bono creative brief, one of the participants was insane.  REALLY certifiable and all she could talk about was facebook.

She kept flitting around of space reading everything on everyone's desk, knocking things over, asking to take equipment (she said borrow) wanted a lesson in photoshop, then insulted everyone in the room.  I said that's enough and it's time we call her a taxi and send her home.

A few hours later every bit of her social media lit up with insanity, mentioning everyone and some ended up on our page so I turned it off.  Just didn't understand the risk vs. the result.

I think the facebook idea is good . . . well better put, I guess it's ok if I was starting and indie band, but it hit me that there wasn't any reason for me to talk about my switch to whole grain cereal vs. toast.

Maybe someday I'll need to use it and turn it back on, but with the mountains of e-mails I get that I don't want to open, much less read I didn't have the time and really who cares if I ride my bicycle 4 miles every morning.  (I don't ride a bike I drive . . . heck I'd drive to the bathroom if my car would fit in the hallway).  (I stole this line from Bern.)

insert smiley face.

IMO

BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #30 on: April 03, 2012, 04:59:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd go even further.

I think that now it's more profitable for the business to have a private website than a public one, zero presence in social networks and the more we're "difficult" to reach, the best.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #31 on: April 03, 2012, 05:07:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I'd go even further.

I think that now it's more profitable for the business to have a private website than a public one, zero presence in social networks and the more we're "difficult" to reach, the best.

I think it's important nowdays to be careful what you show.   Client's are too quick to label you, agencies pitching an account eill grap a clip or an image, drop in a logo and make it theirs, at least for the initial creative brief.

It's just the way the world works now.

problem is if you show what you do, it's gonna get used usually without you ever knowing it, which is no big deal cause when they do it for real they're going to use different talent, backgrounds, etc.

Still, you gotta show what you do.

IMO BC
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #32 on: April 03, 2012, 06:11:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Maybe showing short representative reels or displayed only the campaigns that have been closed and payed.

I think that showing very little, just the best, just the important campaigns (important I mean not necessarly the biggest but the
ones that went out best).

IMO, it's maybe not even necessary to have those displayed in a personal website but directly in prod-houses webs.

That's what Aveillan does. He doesn't even have a public website.

"I shoot-I take the money-they display-I am reachable through others".

Recuenco has another politics. He even display publicaly in HD almost everything he does.

My sensation is that the networks have reached such ridiculous levels that they start to be counter-productive for the serious people. I know more and more big fishes that tend to step away from the public noise
and their business aren't not affected the wrong way.




Ps: I found a vintage compendium. It works superbly. It's called "the shade +", made in New York USA. Well it's light, not built like a tank though (tht's why it's light) but good enough qualy to handle on set and takes 75x75mm gelatin filters and 6x6 inches to cut for the front. I think it was distributed by Hamma.
It's intertesting because you can mount filters in the front of the compendium that therefore can be used for water etc..."
It comes originaly with a 67mm thread mount and adapters are easy to find. I prefer those compendiums than the matteboxes or screw NDs.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2012, 08:38:38 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad