Micro35 Footage!

Brian Valente · March 9th, 2005, 02:18 AM

Lol - I have heard of lomo lenses, but didn't know they were manufactured with the spy satellites! I have seen various lomos on eBay for around $180-200. Who would've figured...

Mark Kubat · March 9th, 2005, 02:34 AM

Wow, thanks for the fast reply - this is sounding better by the minute - super exciting!

Larry, know you're using the DVX... I will be too, as well as Sony HDV - but I'll be using SLR lenses...

Hoping James doesn't mind you commenting: can you talk a bit about how it went in terms of ease of use, setting up, etc.

Very cool that the system has now been used in an actual project setting!

Larry, looking forward to your updates here - congratulations - James, WOW...

Wow!

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 03:14 AM

Mark, it really couldn't be much easier. I just took the Chrosziel base off the camera and attached the Bogen plate that came with the Micro35. James had designed the Micro35 to be at the proper height for the camera to marry up perfectly. I just slid the camera onto the Bogen receiver on the Micro35 baseplate and was ready to mount a lens. I set the zoom to a factor of 90, as James had suggested, and focused on the motionless ground glass. At that point, all that was left to do was set the follow focus and slide on the matte box.

The only thing easier would have been to let someone else do it for me. ;)

During the shoot, I had the LCD monitor mounted on top of the camera with the switch set to flip the picture. On one of the shots, we also set up my Sony 9" field monitor turned upside down. We looped through the LCD to send the signal to the Sony.

Brian Valente · March 9th, 2005, 09:28 AM

Larry - you are a wealth of info! Thanks. One more Q - how did you deal with 16:9 if at all? My understanding is that there is no anamorphic solution for this yet. Thanks

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 09:51 AM

Brian, this was the last scene of a movie we shot back in September. The whole project was a bit of an experiment by the producers. There were 4 teams shooting at the same time at different locations. As a result, there were several makes/models of cameras. XL-1, GL-1, VX2000 and my DVX100A. So, we were instructed to shoot 4:3 so there wouldn't be any confusion on where the frame ended.

So, the short answer is, I didn't really deal with the 16:9 issue at all.

As for an anamorphic solution, all you have to do is shoot with anamorphic lenses. ;) Yeah, I don't have any of them either. So, for the time being if I need to shoot 16:9, I will either switch on the bars or do the squeeze thing. According to the Panasonic website, there is virtually no difference between the digital squeeze and the optical anamorphic adapter anyway. At least in the progressive mode. In interlaced, the adapter wins out.

Aaron Shaw · March 9th, 2005, 11:45 AM

Oh there is a difference. Whether it's significant depends on your display medium :)

Using anamorphic 35mm lenses will give you a 2.66 aspect ratio since the CCD has a different ratio than film. Not good! They don't make 16:9 35mm anamorphic lenses of course because 1.85 is rather standard via cropping ;).

There is a solution in the works. See here:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38336

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 12:35 PM

Arron, you are absolute right about the difference in aspect ratios. Don't know what I was thinking. Somehow in my little brain an anamorphic cine lens on a video camera would result in a 1.85 ratio. Guess lack of sleep really does affect the cognitive skills. Thanks for not letting my goofiness go any further.

Aaron Shaw · March 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM

Oh not a problem! I know exactly how that goes - happens far too often to me! I've just been working with this stuff recently so it's fresh on the brain =D!

Brian Valente · March 9th, 2005, 12:51 PM

It seems to me strange that for all the extraordinary effort put into the 35 project to achieve this shallow DOF that 16:9 is so readily given up.... maybe most folks are okay with that, have a different target format, or have an alternative approach??

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 01:07 PM

On the particular project the Micro35 was used, the ratio was decided on months before the Micro35 was available by producers trying to keep things a simple as possible on a very hectic shoot.

Most of the theatrical material I shoot is framed for a 1.85 ratio. 16:9, for one reason or another, doesn't seem as popular with the people I have shot for so far.

Brian Valente · March 9th, 2005, 01:14 PM

thanks for the perspective Larry. I am following the other thread re: 16:9 35mm adapter. Thanks for pointing that out as well

Larry McKee · March 9th, 2005, 01:20 PM

You are welcome. Seems that every production is it's own beast.

Richard McClure · March 11th, 2005, 09:27 AM

Hi all!
I'll be getting to the clips that Larry shot with the Micro35 this weekend. Apologies for not having them available sooner, been extremely busy around here lately.

I'll let you all be your own judge on this, but for me it looks like the Micro35 is a no brainer piece of equipment to have. A good investment for the arsenal.
Just need to scrounge up the $$ and I'll be getting one.

I'll let you know as soon as I get clips and grabs uploaded.

Scott Tebeau · March 12th, 2005, 10:21 AM

Larry:
I have a handful of questions about the lomo’s you used.

Can you tell me what type of mount the lomo primes have. How fast are they, and how much light loss did you encounter using the micro 35. was breathing a big problem, and how smooth/precise is pulling focus.

I am very interested in finding an economic alternative to using still lenses.

Brian Valente · March 12th, 2005, 12:22 PM

search "lomo lens" on eBay. You can find a few primes right now for around 80-150

March 9th, 2005, 02:34 AM	#17
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	Larry, a frame grab or anything - please! Wow, thanks for the fast reply - this is sounding better by the minute - super exciting! Larry, know you're using the DVX... I will be too, as well as Sony HDV - but I'll be using SLR lenses... Hoping James doesn't mind you commenting: can you talk a bit about how it went in terms of ease of use, setting up, etc. Very cool that the system has now been used in an actual project setting! Larry, looking forward to your updates here - congratulations - James, WOW... Wow!

March 9th, 2005, 03:14 AM	#18
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	Mark, it really couldn't be much easier. I just took the Chrosziel base off the camera and attached the Bogen plate that came with the Micro35. James had designed the Micro35 to be at the proper height for the camera to marry up perfectly. I just slid the camera onto the Bogen receiver on the Micro35 baseplate and was ready to mount a lens. I set the zoom to a factor of 90, as James had suggested, and focused on the motionless ground glass. At that point, all that was left to do was set the follow focus and slide on the matte box. The only thing easier would have been to let someone else do it for me. ;) During the shoot, I had the LCD monitor mounted on top of the camera with the switch set to flip the picture. On one of the shots, we also set up my Sony 9" field monitor turned upside down. We looped through the LCD to send the signal to the Sony. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 9th, 2005, 09:51 AM	#20
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	Brian, this was the last scene of a movie we shot back in September. The whole project was a bit of an experiment by the producers. There were 4 teams shooting at the same time at different locations. As a result, there were several makes/models of cameras. XL-1, GL-1, VX2000 and my DVX100A. So, we were instructed to shoot 4:3 so there wouldn't be any confusion on where the frame ended. So, the short answer is, I didn't really deal with the 16:9 issue at all. As for an anamorphic solution, all you have to do is shoot with anamorphic lenses. ;) Yeah, I don't have any of them either. So, for the time being if I need to shoot 16:9, I will either switch on the bars or do the squeeze thing. According to the Panasonic website, there is virtually no difference between the digital squeeze and the optical anamorphic adapter anyway. At least in the progressive mode. In interlaced, the adapter wins out. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 9th, 2005, 12:35 PM	#22
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	Thanks for the correction Arron, you are absolute right about the difference in aspect ratios. Don't know what I was thinking. Somehow in my little brain an anamorphic cine lens on a video camera would result in a 1.85 ratio. Guess lack of sleep really does affect the cognitive skills. Thanks for not letting my goofiness go any further. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 9th, 2005, 01:07 PM	#25
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	On the particular project the Micro35 was used, the ratio was decided on months before the Micro35 was available by producers trying to keep things a simple as possible on a very hectic shoot. Most of the theatrical material I shoot is framed for a 1.85 ratio. 16:9, for one reason or another, doesn't seem as popular with the people I have shot for so far. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 9th, 2005, 02:18 AM	#16
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	Lol - I have heard of lomo lenses, but didn't know they were manufactured with the spy satellites! I have seen various lomos on eBay for around $180-200. Who would've figured...

March 9th, 2005, 09:28 AM	#19
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	Larry - you are a wealth of info! Thanks. One more Q - how did you deal with 16:9 if at all? My understanding is that there is no anamorphic solution for this yet. Thanks

March 9th, 2005, 11:45 AM	#21
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Oh there is a difference. Whether it's significant depends on your display medium :) Using anamorphic 35mm lenses will give you a 2.66 aspect ratio since the CCD has a different ratio than film. Not good! They don't make 16:9 35mm anamorphic lenses of course because 1.85 is rather standard via cropping ;). There is a solution in the works. See here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38336

March 9th, 2005, 12:45 PM	#23
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	Oh not a problem! I know exactly how that goes - happens far too often to me! I've just been working with this stuff recently so it's fresh on the brain =D!

March 9th, 2005, 12:51 PM	#24
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	It seems to me strange that for all the extraordinary effort put into the 35 project to achieve this shallow DOF that 16:9 is so readily given up.... maybe most folks are okay with that, have a different target format, or have an alternative approach??

March 9th, 2005, 01:14 PM	#26
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	thanks for the perspective Larry. I am following the other thread re: 16:9 35mm adapter. Thanks for pointing that out as well

March 9th, 2005, 01:20 PM	#27
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	You are welcome. Seems that every production is it's own beast. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 11th, 2005, 09:27 AM	#28
Richard McClure Tourist Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bakersfield, CA Posts: 1	Hi all! I'll be getting to the clips that Larry shot with the Micro35 this weekend. Apologies for not having them available sooner, been extremely busy around here lately. I'll let you all be your own judge on this, but for me it looks like the Micro35 is a no brainer piece of equipment to have. A good investment for the arsenal. Just need to scrounge up the $$ and I'll be getting one. I'll let you know as soon as I get clips and grabs uploaded. __________________ http://www.americanmovieworks.com http://www.indieshare.com

March 12th, 2005, 10:21 AM	#29
Scott Tebeau Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: portland oregon Posts: 73	Larry: I have a handful of questions about the lomo’s you used. Can you tell me what type of mount the lomo primes have. How fast are they, and how much light loss did you encounter using the micro 35. was breathing a big problem, and how smooth/precise is pulling focus. I am very interested in finding an economic alternative to using still lenses.

March 12th, 2005, 12:22 PM	#30
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	search "lomo lens" on eBay. You can find a few primes right now for around 80-150