New moving ground glass mechanism

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Ben Winter

Dan's could be any worse...try using big lenses maybe. I've got a 135mm on the way.

The longer the lens the more shallow the DOF. So that 135mm is going to have a lot less in focus than a 50mm at the same distance.

A 20mm is going to give a wider focus range, but I think they tend to be soft or may introduce other issues.

I see what's going on with the gears now... thanks.

[Ben Winter]

Yeah, never mind...me talking gibberish again. Sorry.

[Dan Diaconu]

For some reason I was not notified of your replays.(Joel, email me please)

Gearing the lens is covered on the DVD, same for FF use and mounting configs.

For lenses use:
One usually will choose a certain focal as to tell the story best (best lens for the shot and the action involved)

If there is a lot of movement, one usually needs to "see" that movement and a wider lens (28?35?) will usually do (for close range). You can get the same field of view if you have the room to record the action with a tighter lens (50?) but you will have to step back the camera (may not be practical as well)

Longer lens are usually for "beauty shoots"/portrait lens. Most of the dialog/reactions fall in this category. There are also exceptions when one would choose a wide and place a character in CU (1 ft from the lens) and the rest of the room/scene soft and use a "head turning" or a "door opening" in the BG to motivate a focus roll from the CU to BG.

Playing the action "within the DOF" of a lens is cheap! (and in a sense cheating) You don’t cheat nobody but yourselves. Don't make it a rule and don't be lazy! Pull focus! Even if that means you have to rehears the action and take some marks.

Use the DOF avail at higher apertures (2.8 or 4) only as a "safety net", but PULL FOCUS!!! On a wide lens is much easier to get the shoot, but on a tighter lens you would defeat the whole purpose and risk to end up at the end of the day with “softies” after all the sweat and expenses involved. Old fashion results and beauty shots come following old fashion rules. That is why they use a “focus puller” and a “focus puller” could make up to $500/day! All there “sweating bullets”, end of the day the pic is soft! Don't be lazy!

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

Use the DOF avail at higher apertures (2.8 or 4) only as a "safety net", but PULL FOCUS!!!

You're a great inventor Dan and I really didn't want to have cinematography rant but since you insist...

I think you started off strong by saying you use the lens that tells the story best but you kinda lost me when you didn't say the EXACT same thing about aperture. DPs DO NOT shoot F1.4 all the time simply because they CAN. That simply isn't best a lot of the time.

Sometimes F2.8, F4 or F8 makes the prettiest bokeh and/or tells the story best in a given environment. Sometimes F16 does best. There are a ZILLION examples of shots in FEATURE films using VERY deep DOF because that's what told the story best for that scene.

Also, where is the sweet spot of most lenses? It's not 1.4 or 2.8. In reality, DP's are at F4 or f5.6 a lot of the time. Those are still SHALLOW apertures that blur the background beautifully. The DPs still have to pull focus, block and can't get lazy at those apertures. Pull out your DOF chart and take a look at a 50mm at F5.6 and tell me how "lazy" a DP can be about pulling focus. (Here - I'll help: focused at 5 ft the near focus is 4.6' and far is 5.6'). A FOOT! If the actor takes one step closer they are going out of focus at 5.6. And the closer they get to the camera the more shallow the DOF becomes. At 2 feet there's a whopping one inch. Yeah, real lazy.

Here's a nice link everyone who worships at the alter of 1.4 can use to petrify themselves: http://bobatkins.com/photography/technical/dofcalc.html

Check out F1.4 focused at 5 feet and see what you get. Commander Data better be pulling focus for you.

[Dennis Wood]

Joel, something in Dan's award winning digital focus system for cinecams tells me I'm going to enjoy his reply to your post :-)

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Dennis Wood

Joel, something in Dan's award winning digital focus system for cinecams tells me I'm going to enjoy his reply to your post :-)

Hah - my post was actually an incredibly clever subliminal ad for Dan's digital focus system! Which is a cool idea by the way - as I said, Dan's a great inventor. :-)

[Dan Diaconu]

hehehe... you pips....
Soo... the lens "sweet spot" is 4-5.6?????????
Nooooooohhhh,
I wouldn't have guessed in a million years! Dam .... (mumble, mumble)

But you know what that means?

It means that instead of a inky-blondie you will need two read nec-ogh-cough heads! Double the light for each stop that is. Time and budget come to mind (space for extra c-stands, sand bags, screens and filters)...... and all of a sudden, you wonder: hey ! where did everybody go? me crew, where is she? why don't she work for me to set up lights’s such?
Because der ain't no crew nor budget no mo, siR and you have to do with a bounce card and ged-a hel-out-a-dere.

In an "ideal" world we would be all shooting FILM and we wouldn’t be having this conversation here. However, the world is not perfect and we do. We stretch the budget every day (nooooh... do we?) for what-not including lights package and crew to set it up. Did I hear anyone mentioning we don't even shoot no stnkn' film no mo?

Outside? By all means! Is FREE and we can do 4 and 5.6 especially for medium shoots.

CU and ECU, (outside) will "cry" for ND's instead of 4 and 5.6 (subject to taste) Why?

Because most CU require some diffusion anyway to cut down the wrinkles, (or you don't come back to photograph me! HERE THAT? God, I look like hell) (well, the filter to hide “all that” is the lens covers, maam, mumble and teeth grinding in the BG with a charming smile on the face).
But you know what? You can get that FREE at 1.3 (or 1.4)

The problem is inside when the budget hurts. I have seen and done both 4 and 1.3 to realize the challenge of focus pulling. I got my hands freezing on the focus knob at night in the woods while raining. Been there. Looks like the trip to heaven goes through hell.... (still smells like coal and tar around here for some reason, which is good! because that means I am not there yet!)

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Dan Diaconu

It means that instead of a inky-blondie you will need two read nec-ogh-cough heads! Double the light for each stop that is.

Yeah, you're right about all that stuff. Or get Kinos (even more spendy - but efficient)... but yes, a real light kit will be required... along with a focus puller to make pretty stuff.

Luckily, I've shot a number of 16mm shorts so none of this stuff is unanticipated. I probably won't be runnin' and gunnin' much. I want to make a "movie".

But isn't this where the MPIC shines? Brighter than the rest? The brightest unit does have a big advantage. Of course the G35 and Micro35 guys are claiming almost no light loss from the lens.

[Dan Diaconu]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

But isn't this where the MPIC shines? Brighter than the rest?

Well, if God created man in his likeness, we all do the same with what we do, right? We create according to what and how we are, right? As for me, being folliculary challenged, I shine (even in low light) and so do all my "toys" (FF with LED's? phew)

[Bill Porter]

Ha ha ha

Dan, you are a nut case but that one was hilarious

[Steev Dinkins]

Originally Posted by Joel Aaron

Sometimes F2.8, F4 or F8 makes the prettiest bokeh and/or tells the story best in a given environment. Sometimes F16 does best. There are a ZILLION examples of shots in FEATURE films using VERY deep DOF because that's what told the story best for that scene. DP's are at F4 or f5.6 a lot of the time. Those are still SHALLOW apertures that blur the background beautifully. The DPs still have to pull focus, block and can't get lazy at those apertures. Pull out your DOF chart and take a look at a 50mm at F5.6 and tell me how "lazy" a DP can be about pulling focus. (Here - I'll help: focused at 5 ft the near focus is 4.6' and far is 5.6'). A FOOT! If the actor takes one step closer they are going out of focus at 5.6. And the closer they get to the camera the more shallow the DOF becomes. At 2 feet there's a whopping one inch.

I thought I'd finally respond to this, since I've been testing this more lately.

I'd say with any of these 35mm adapters/imagers, if you're wanting to take the lens down to f/16 or even f/8, in order to increase your depth of field for the look you're after, or for ease of focusing, your image is going to turn to mud, haze, and blotches. Ya gotta remember we're dealing with the illusion of shooting on film. The very nature of what we're doing with these contraptions is working in the art of magic. So it's important to know what boundaries you have to work with in order to create your illusion. I will most likely not go past f/5, for the sake of image quality.

If I really needed a lot of depth of field, I'd take the rig off and use the stock lens. So, yes this all means that your 35mm imager work will be requiring some high maintenance focusing for sure. It's a real eye opening experience to me. I'm up for the challenge for the rewards it brings. Most in depth discussions on these boards, regarding 35mm imagers, raise the issue, should keep raising the issue, and should *not* exclude the issue, of the need to get really aggressive, dedicated, and ambitious about focusing.

As Dan said, ideally we would be shooting on film. I'll add that an alternative in the future will be relatively affordable 35mm sized sensor digital cams.

Until then, it still stands that it's an amazing time where we can get the look we're after, to some degree, using relatively inexpensive technology, that is now available.

[Greg Bates]

Originally Posted by Steev Dinkins

I thought I'd finally respond to this, since I've been testing this more lately.

I'd say with any of these 35mm adapters/imagers, if you're wanting to take the lens down to f/16 or even f/8, in order to increase your depth of field for the look you're after, or for ease of focusing, your image is going to turn to mud, haze, and blotches. Ya gotta remember we're dealing with the illusion of shooting on film. The very nature of what we're doing with these contraptions is working in the art of magic. So it's important to know what boundaries you have to work with in order to create your illusion. I will most likely not go past f/5, for the sake of image quality.

If I really needed a lot of depth of field, I'd take the rig off and use the stock lens. So, yes this all means that your 35mm imager work will be requiring some high maintenance focusing for sure. It's a real eye opening experience to me. I'm up for the challenge for the rewards it brings. Most in depth discussions on these boards, regarding 35mm imagers, raise the issue, should keep raising the issue, and should *not* exclude the issue, of the need to get really aggressive, dedicated, and ambitious about focusing.

As Dan said, ideally we would be shooting on film. I'll add that an alternative in the future will be relatively affordable 35mm sized sensor digital cams.

Until then, it still stands that it's an amazing time where we can get the look we're after, to some degree, using relatively inexpensive technology, that is now available.

Amen Brother!

[Michael Maier]

That's a good point Steev. Stopping down the lens will defeat the purpose of shallow DOF in the first place. I’m not sure I would shoot wide open for softness reasons, but a F2.8 to F4 seems to be about the most reasonable working range to keep the DOF shallow. At F8 and up you might as well use the stock zoom and save you the trouble.

[Joel Aaron]

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

At F8 and up you might as well use the stock zoom and save you the trouble.

Stock video lenses are more like F22 than F8.

The reality appears to be that F8 is just not doable on these adapters. That solves that - it's simply a limitation.

I never intended this to be about lazy focusing. It's an asthetic thing. I find F1.4 WAY too shallow in many instances. I hate most of "teacup" tests people post where the front edge of the cup is in focus and the back edge of the cup is already out of focus and everything behind that looks a like a 100 pixel blur. That looks like crap for anything but teacups and thimbles. I'll probably be F4 to 5.6 most of the time.