Thread: NO Sony Fs7!!

Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 16222324252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 344
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,609
    Default
    I think it depends a bit on how the set is lit. If the set is broadly lit with naturalesque sources, like "sunlight" streaming through the windows and filling the room, it's easier to move around and maintain the lighting. As opposed to lighting the actors from specific angles in a static pose.

    But I can tell you from my ACing days that the likelihood of blowing focus was a regular part of the discussion on complex camera/actor moves and shallow DOF situations. And sometimes you have to play it conservatively (ie simplify or stop down) even if you had a better AC than me. Or else you just have to run a lot of takes, which means the director will be agonizing in the editing suite about throwing out the performances he liked best because they were soft.

    I'm rewatching Star Trek DS9 (great show) right now, and it's full of soft focus close-ups. On static-actor, static-camera shots, no less. I'm pretty sure they would have axed most of those shots if it had been distributed theatrically. But smaller viewing screen = more DOF = unusable shots become more or less usable. Hate to break it to you, Doug.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    In general, I think the main disconnect within the AF conversation comes from aperture expectations.

    Because if someone's using their cine lenses at f/4-f/8, I think even the loudest AF supporters in the room would agree you don't need it as much, or maybe ever.

    But I think the realization that you really don't have a choice at f/1.4 hasn't sunk in yet (at least if you'd like a better hit/miss/catch-up ratio).

    ___

    It will be manageable if everything is static or very controlled, but eventually - even with the best blocking in the world (which I think is becoming too stressful) and the best pulling in the world - you're going to end up under or overshooting your mark because of a misstep. Takes will be ruined. The odds will always be against you as movements become more complicated, or there's freedom for improvisation.

    Just look at how much missed focus there is with S35 in Hollywood filled with presumably masters of their craft.

    But again, knock the aperture down and then this discussion isn't the same. It's really that simple...f/4-f/8 vs. f/1.4-f/1.8.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    In general, I think the main disconnect within the AF conversation comes from aperture expectations.

    Because if someone's using their cine lenses at f/4-f/8, I think even the loudest AF supporters in the room would agree you don't need it as much, or maybe ever.

    But I think the realization that you really don't have a choice at f/1.4 hasn't sunk in yet (at least if you'd like a better hit/miss/catch-up ratio).

    ___

    It will be manageable if everything is static or very controlled, but eventually - even with the best blocking in the world (which I think is becoming too stressful) and the best pulling in the world - you're going to end up under or overshooting your mark because of a misstep. Takes will be ruined. The odds will always be against you as movements become more complicated, or there's freedom for improvisation.

    Just look at how much missed focus there is with S35 in Hollywood filled with presumably masters of their craft.

    But again, knock the aperture down and then this discussion isn't the same. It's really that simple...f/4-f/8 vs. f/1.4-f/1.8.
    Yes, with CAD lens design and the latest AF, shooting at F1.4 in an improvised manner, even without marks is possible. That is something no filmmaker has ever really thought "I need to have that" in particular once cameras started getting really sensitive, but hey, now it is a creative reality. that is improvement.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,465
    Default
    So just finished my first three days with C200 (and FS7 when my media was full!)

    The AF feels like
    a) it actually gets focus .. rather than the nearly focussed of the FS7, stock monitor and wide stop.

    I did some wild shots.. (product on conveyor belt moves towards camera) that would be impossible manually

    b) its a bit like using a mallet - not a lot of finnesse

    Marks, rehearsals big monitors, skill and MF would probably look prettier often.

    Shooting thought drippy glass I had to do manually.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    FWIW, unfortunately the C200 isn't the best choice for AF from Canon...hopefully those aren't your first AF impressions.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,465
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    FWIW, unfortunately the C200 isn't the best choice for AF from Canon...hopefully those aren't your first AF impressions.
    I had two reports (from grown ups) of it being the same as the C70 before I got it?

    As I said it seems super accurate until you get some glass and raindrops involved.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    True, true...if you one day get to use a R5, let us know what you think.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol, UK
    Posts
    10,465
    Default
    It’s not a video camera so can’t be my primary camera.

    Im selecting a new bcam right now


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Default
    Zack Snyder's "Army of the Dead" on Netflix is shot primarily wide open on some crazy rehoused vintage Canon lenses at like 50mm f0.95. All manual focus -_-



    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI1JGPhYBS8


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    9,622
    Default
    So much softness and out-of-focus, but it's perfect.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

Page 26 of 35 FirstFirst ... 16222324252627282930 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •