JPNola
Veteran
Hmmmm....
"I don’t have any firm information on the origins of this glass, but it’s not too difficult to deduce a few clues." - Phil Holland on ARRI Signature Primes
ARRI Launches ALEXA Mini LF
- Thread starter Teddy_Dem
- Start date
Hmmmm....
"I don’t have any firm information on the origins of this glass, but it’s not too difficult to deduce a few clues." - Phil Holland on ARRI Signature Primes
rob norton
Veteran
I’m only asking because I thought it was one continuous shot and am wondering how they change rigs, not just asking how they rig and de-rig with ample time. Maybe it’s effectively one shot with cuts (and rig changes).
Run&Gun
Veteran
It plays like one continuous shot (a la Birdman- hidden edits and transitions), but is not. No Film School has a click-bait headline "Watch How Roger Deacons shot 1917 All In One Take", then the first few paragraphs read like it's one take and then they finally get to the facts that it's not. I'm surprised only one person has called them out in the comments section. But it's par for the course for some of those sites (4K Shooters, NFS, Cinema 5D). But if you read the original article(Vanity Fair?) and watch the BTS video it's clear that it's not.
rob norton
Veteran
d'oh i should've known!
I'm glad it's several long takes joined together rather than forcing a true oner for the entire movie. Except seems like marketing department isn't scared to blur the lines e.g. NFS articles etc!
I think I'm more inclined to watch it now knowing the full length isn't one take.
But it's even worse because, if you type in "Roger Deakins one shot" into your search engine, you get a bunch of articles that are basically an "ask no questions" PR for the flick. Yes, some will mention the Rope but they still mostly rehash the talking point of the film's producers and marketers. This doesn't mean it will be a bad movie or that Deakins doesn't know his craft. But it does mean very shoddy journalism.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I think you're really only seeing RED shooters fawning over them, because they will cover the VV Monstro sensors since they're larger than "FF". The "affordable" darlings seem to be the 'super speed' Sigma primes. I was very pleased with my demo. Looked great and built like a tank. I have two friends that have sets(one of the guys actually works for a company that owns two sets) and they love them and one of my reps had one of their clients that shoots for one of the high-end "food shows" that paired them with their Venice's.
G
Guest
Guest
The Sigmas are a good deal. I just haven’t found the look i want out of them yet. Now that they have matching alt coating classics, i am more inclined to give them another consideration, as the two coatings cover a lot of looks. Also, especially after hearing about the Tokinas. After playing with both the Tokina Vistas and alt coat vistas, i was really begining to like their recipe.
Currently i have a pair of Leica R and a R speedbooster as a back up set.
I got distracted by all these camera releases the past couple weeks, but i’ll get back into finding a lens set. But with the R’a ms and access to good rental houses, i am in no rush.
G
Guest
Guest
Now i am seeing this everywhere. At abel earlier today:
As just a framing device, i quite like Charles’ concept, though seeing equivalent dof can be important for some people.
As just a framing device, i quite like Charles’ concept, though seeing equivalent dof can be important for some people.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Timur Civan had a little write-up on his blog several years ago about using a mirrorless camera, grip and lens adapter for a relatively inexpensive directors finder.
http://timurcivan.com/2015/08/cinematographer-tools-building-a-directors-finder/
http://timurcivan.com/2015/08/cinematographer-tools-building-a-directors-finder/
Run&Gun
Veteran
I guess I like the super speed Sigma primes, because I'm generally a fan of the "clean" look(which probably is because of my broadcast/network background). My general philosophy is start with a clean lens and if it needs to be "messed up", you can put a filter in or do it in post.
As an owner/op, if you're only going to have one set of lenses, to me it makes more sense to get the "best, cleanest" glass you can afford then filter it, if you want "soft".
G
Guest
Guest
I agree, but there are versions of clean and sharp. Something about the Sigma lens flare i dislike. Even on the classics. The ambient flare is fine. And the focus breathing can be a bit noticeable sometimes. Though, i didn’t like the Atlas Anamorphics when i was just trying them out, but then once i used them, i realized, they did a good job. And now i like them. So, i’ll just have to rent the Sigmas for a job sometime.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Guest
It’s interesting seeing what lenses become hot items, and which ones don’t.
Canon CNE primes (additionally Sumire)
Zeiss CP.2 and 3 (additionally Super speeds mkiii, supreme, ultra, B speeds)
Sigma Cine (complimentary set of classics)
Tokina Vista (as well as their alternate coating version)
Xeen (the older superspeed Rokinons get all soft wide open for effect)
And recently there are many more.
All of the lenses above had a moment. The vistas less so. And Canon’s seemed more like wish list lenses for a while, but i don’t know a lot of owners or renters. The Xeens looked set to take over the budget world, but perhaps they went too big with the housing when cameras were beginning to shrink.
Enter Sigma Cine and Art, and there was sharp fast affordable glass that looked serious and was the right size.
CP.3 was the right size, but not as fast. And CP.2 glass got a bad rep for being cold and contrasty when cameras were struggling with Dynamic Range and magenta skin tones. Regardless, i see CP.3 lenses at just about every rental house.
Canon CNE primes (additionally Sumire)
Zeiss CP.2 and 3 (additionally Super speeds mkiii, supreme, ultra, B speeds)
Sigma Cine (complimentary set of classics)
Tokina Vista (as well as their alternate coating version)
Xeen (the older superspeed Rokinons get all soft wide open for effect)
And recently there are many more.
All of the lenses above had a moment. The vistas less so. And Canon’s seemed more like wish list lenses for a while, but i don’t know a lot of owners or renters. The Xeens looked set to take over the budget world, but perhaps they went too big with the housing when cameras were beginning to shrink.
Enter Sigma Cine and Art, and there was sharp fast affordable glass that looked serious and was the right size.
CP.3 was the right size, but not as fast. And CP.2 glass got a bad rep for being cold and contrasty when cameras were struggling with Dynamic Range and magenta skin tones. Regardless, i see CP.3 lenses at just about every rental house.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'd like to get either Leica Summilux-C or Arri Signature Primes. I wonder what will be more popular, the Alexa Mini LF or the 4K Super35 Alexa Mini that Arri is planning to release. It's interesting that Deakins chose the Mini LF for 1917 after having put down the Alexa 65 in a forum post and choosing the XT and Mini on say Bladerunner.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yes, the demo footage I've seen of the Sigma Classics or whatever exactly they're calling them, I'm not a fan of the flare/full lens halation/washout that can happen. The "vintage" look can and does work for certain projects and subject matter.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I'm wondering if it has anything to do with them largely shooting "available" for 1917. They said it was pretty much impossible to light it, since they were running around through these huge expanses of space out in the open and moving around 360 degrees. I think that was one of the reasons that they used the Alexa 65 on The Revenant, because they shot a lot of scenes available or with very minimal lighting or augmentation.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
What does a larger sensor and more resolution have to do with lighting it? As far as I'm aware neither of those increase the dynamic range, particularly with Arri cameras which use the same sensor design and photosite size on their larger sensors as they do on their smaller sensors.
IMDB shows 1907 was shot in 4.6K and mastered in 4K. I wonder if they're not using the outer portions of the 4.6K image in the final cut to give room for re-framing which is particularly helpful for a one-take.
You have to like the idea of shooting without lighting augmentation..."Let's hire one of the best DPs in the world and make a movie that he can't do hardly anything with regarding lighting."
That was before the LF was out, so it was either s35 or s35x3, with different lenses and all that stuff. Now he has a comfortable middle ground. ARRI management probably nudged him a bit toward LF as well.
Grug
Veteran
Roger's made it pretty clear that he prefers pristine optical performance, and that's made the Master Primes a staple for him for a long time.
There was (and still is) nothing to match the kind of pristine performance you get from Master Primes on the 65mm format of the Alexa65.
The Signature Primes definitely deliver that on a full-frame sensor though, so I guess he was happy to make the move up in formats with the Signatures.
I'm also interested to see if he decided to move back to the Masters when Arri's new S35mm camera arrives.
G
Guest
Guest
One lens company i don’t undersrand why i kind of like them: Spirit Labs
They have 7blades iris and chromatic aberations... some of the least popular things in a lens... but the purple exterior is especially polarizing. You can only buy them as a whole set....and yet, the couple times i have put them on a camera, once an LF, i kind of like them.
They cover Alexa 65, LF and Monstro V V. Practically no breathing. Small. And they’ll have an anamorphic adapter in the future.
I have to get them in the real world, to figure it out once and for all. They seem a good fit for a mini LF, since they are small in size amd easily handle the frame.
They have 7blades iris and chromatic aberations... some of the least popular things in a lens... but the purple exterior is especially polarizing. You can only buy them as a whole set....and yet, the couple times i have put them on a camera, once an LF, i kind of like them.
They cover Alexa 65, LF and Monstro V V. Practically no breathing. Small. And they’ll have an anamorphic adapter in the future.
I have to get them in the real world, to figure it out once and for all. They seem a good fit for a mini LF, since they are small in size amd easily handle the frame.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
So let's consider that the Master Primes are T/1.3 and the Signature Primes are T/1.8. It's known that the larger the sensor, the shallower the depth of field you can get as you need a longer focal length to get the same framing, but also, the slower the lens' T-stop is of lenses available for larger sensors cameras, which then heavily negates the whole shallower depth of field. I just pulled out depth of field calculator (which didn't have Arris as options, so Canon DSLRs it is), and f/1.2 on a 7D had a pretty close depth of field to f/1.8 on a 5D, with the 5D and 7D sensors being pretty close I believe to the Alexa 35 vs Alexa LF. The 5D did still have slightly shallower depth of field, but just slightly.
Okay, but now consider that at f/1.2, the 7D is letting in an additional stop of light to the sensor, while the 5D with similar depth of field at f/1.8 and at the same ISO is letting in a stop less of light. So, at the same ISO, the 5D is now the worse low light camera. However, in that particular case, the 5D has better ISO performance than the 7D. But, jumping back to Arri, which uses the same photosites and ISO performance across their various cameras and sensors, what I'm getting at here is that, the larger the format, to attain the same depth of field, you would then need around a stop of more light, making larger format Arri cameras worse in low light.
To quote Deakins, "I like the focus depth of the standard [Super35] image."
That quote in context: https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/blade-runner-2049-alexa-65/
So, considering a smaller sensor like Super35 can get similarly shallow depth of field with the faster lenses available for them, while larger sensors (which in Arri's case do not have better ISO performance) require around a stop more light to get the same depth of field, then what exactly is the benefit of larger sensors? The lenses are also larger and heavier. I've been told they have a different look to them, there's less distortion to the image. And, again with Arri, you get higher resolution, but it's debatable if that really helps much.
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/o...aphy-cameras-lenses-2018-nominees-1201929841/
So again, Super35 with its faster lenses can get similiarly shallow depth of field, but getting deep depth of field is much easier, so doesn't that make Super35 easier to work with in terms of getting desired depth of field? Adding NDs if you have too much light is way easier than adding in an additional stop or two of lighting to a scene via HMIs and such.
Okay, but now consider that at f/1.2, the 7D is letting in an additional stop of light to the sensor, while the 5D with similar depth of field at f/1.8 and at the same ISO is letting in a stop less of light. So, at the same ISO, the 5D is now the worse low light camera. However, in that particular case, the 5D has better ISO performance than the 7D. But, jumping back to Arri, which uses the same photosites and ISO performance across their various cameras and sensors, what I'm getting at here is that, the larger the format, to attain the same depth of field, you would then need around a stop of more light, making larger format Arri cameras worse in low light.
To quote Deakins, "I like the focus depth of the standard [Super35] image."
That quote in context: https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/blade-runner-2049-alexa-65/
So, considering a smaller sensor like Super35 can get similarly shallow depth of field with the faster lenses available for them, while larger sensors (which in Arri's case do not have better ISO performance) require around a stop more light to get the same depth of field, then what exactly is the benefit of larger sensors? The lenses are also larger and heavier. I've been told they have a different look to them, there's less distortion to the image. And, again with Arri, you get higher resolution, but it's debatable if that really helps much.
https://www.indiewire.com/2018/02/o...aphy-cameras-lenses-2018-nominees-1201929841/
Bruno Delbonnel said:
So again, Super35 with its faster lenses can get similiarly shallow depth of field, but getting deep depth of field is much easier, so doesn't that make Super35 easier to work with in terms of getting desired depth of field? Adding NDs if you have too much light is way easier than adding in an additional stop or two of lighting to a scene via HMIs and such.
Last edited: