Do You Own Cine Glass?

That's interesting, Mitch. It looks like he has to adapt when he shoots episodes of big shows. Recently, Yellowstone (he shot 4 episodes) with Ultra Primes and Angenieux zooms. Lethal Weapon (2 episodes) with Cooke S4s and Summicrons. Not that IMDB knows all. There are a number of Varicam-shot projects that don't list the lenses used. Probably the cabrio on the DL

I was always taught that you should audition different glass and rent whatever was best for the project at hand. (Not that I work that way in my lowly owner/op and OMB corner of the industry.) I get what y'all are saying that zooms have gotten really good. Somehow it seems wrong. And I saw some tests that Brawley shot with the Panaspeeds. The skin looked great, almost warm and glowing. But the detail was there. I don't think that's the desired look for every project, but I feel like it would be hard to replicate with a neutral lens and a filter...
 
Last edited:
Ah, 'chippy': adjective
INFORMAL
  1. (of a person) touchy and defensive, especially on account of having a grievance or a sense of inferiority.
    "I thought she was hostile and chippy"
Also, a S35 set usually includes an 85mm

When you say not get fired within the hour, is that meant sarcastically? Also, I feel like that review isn't very useful without getting into mechanics and tests. Rehousing a lens and calling it cine doesn't mean it's gonna have great breathing or focus-pulling performance
 
its not sarcastic

director - I want to do the master wide.. all actors and the whole room right through the scene

dop - i dont have a lens to do that

director - your fired

==

Of course no mention of breathing, no PL version for solid focus rotation, so very little cine and very little set. Probably stills quite good though!
 
morgan_moore said:
its not sarcastic

director - I want to do the master wide.. all actors and the whole room right through the scene

dop - i dont have a lens to do that

director - your fired

==

Of course no mention of breathing, no PL version for solid focus rotation, so very little cine and very little set. Probably stills quite good though!
Click to expand...

This seems to be the presumption/attitude across the whole of the Internet. Everyone seems to think that everything being done is “on-set” narrative or commercial work under the umbrella of a “production”. That’s a very(very, very) small percentage of the total work being done daily across the planet.
 
Run&Gun said:
This seems to be the presumption/attitude across the whole of the Internet. Everyone seems to think that everything being done is “on-set” narrative or commercial work under the umbrella of a “production”. That’s a very(very, very) small percentage of the total work being done daily across the planet.
Click to expand...



Yep I was thinking about that fact that not every job is 'drama' and that I think poster Abe does weddings so does the logic stand.. yes absolutely.

And those weddings are the same thing but worse than drama - you need a bigger 'set' as as far I I see it you are going to want a full view of the church and that is probably a vista 16 - s35 11
Obviously not every country does churches.. read church mosque , hotel, whatever.

And the same for sport.. usually you need a shot of the ground, whatever

A wide is an esablisher.. drama, wedding, sport, pony competition, jeweler, baker, taxidermist, brain surgeon we need to see the place they inhabit if you are going to present a coheent editable story to the editor.. who may be you.

I bet you have 4.7 eng lens and would be list without it.
 
I use from 24 to 180 on weddings. (Vista. Is that our standard term now, not full-frame? How fancy)

last music video I shot was all 12mm and 50mm

my most used focal lengths are 35 50 85. Which is what this set is. If they're part of a larger lens collection, it makes total sense.

i think run&gun is right that your focL length needs depend on what you're doing. Perhaps you work in sports and you've got a couple big zooms for covering the game. And you get these t1.05 lenses for hero shots and interviews

And maybe they'll release a 16/85 t1.4 later
 
Yes sir, Sam. I have two wide angle (13x4.5) ENG lenses(and a long) and when that was my "bread & butter", the W/A zoom was my bread and butter. But where I was going with my comment, was along the lines of what Abe said, a set like that can be your "hero" lenses. Your "art" lenses. It just depends on what you do. I have a full set of the Canon primes, but the 14 is my least used(even though I'm an admitted wide angle junky). Usually when my primes are in-play, it's in interview situations and I'm probably on the longer focal lengths.

But Sam to your point, you do need a "proper set" for certain jobs. But for others, you can "get away with" only having a few "hero lenses". Back in the day, when everyone was an "established pro" and it was a foregone conclusion that everyone generally knew what they were doing and what was needed for a particular job, but now, as we've all seen and know, that's not always the case and often, you have someone that has "conned" their way into a job that they really shouldn't be doing and you end up in situations where all of the tools needed aren't available.
 
I get that one can have single or a couple of funky lenses - Ive got my mamiya 80 I whack with, my last legs 28/2 and even a rodenstock 45 and a Copal 80.

I get one can do whole projects on them - if the specific look is agreed by all parties

I also get that these lenses part of the joy is the $50 price tag. (actually some of the lenses I describe above were not cheap)

I think there are words 'cine' and 'set' that get me niggled - especially where people might be throing $5g with (to my eyes little sign of a ROI)

in s35 24 35 50 is not a 'set' that one could do 'cine' work with in a typical manner. And I beleive such 'sets' are being passed off as 'ready for a professional 'cine' set and it is a bad thing.

Im really tempted by the bargain anamorphic.. but I have to slap myself into remembering that without a wide they just wont fly. They are only good for a YT vid promoting themselves.

--

Vista ff35? I guess this is a film makers forum so I choose the filmmakers term. Id call it a proper sensor and a cropped sensor - I started in film and stills where FF35/vista was 'normal' and medium format ws 6.6 or 645 and large format was 5.7inches or larger.
 
By the way, Brawley shared more of his thoughts with me via facebook on the zoom vs prime debate:

- even when zooming in for a CU, you typically have to alter camera angle/height, meaning the change is longer than just racking the zoom ring and therefore swinging lenses is a smaller percentage of set-up time. (I countered that if you're handheld, you can probably repo as fast as you can zoom, but I think he makes a good point. also lighting changes. also, looking at some of his BTS photos, it seems that he often runs 3 cameras side-by-side, sort of mooting that part of the debate)

- he's against owning gear because he thinks you might end up trying to shoehorn it into a project even when it's not the right fit

- he thinks a lot of zooms don't have much personality. and that the primes he favors would often "fail" chart tests because of their flaws that endow character and beauty. like flaring - people are stripping coatings now to get more flare, he says. it's just taste/fashion. he'll take beauty over accuracy.

- some of the primo zooms from panavision have personality, he says, from the 90s era. the 4:1 SLZ and the 11:1 are "legendary" and have shot a lot of what I've seen in my lifetime. (but they would "fail" chart tests because they don't shoot nice charts)

- you can't change bokeh with a filter. or geometric aberrations (3D pop). the 'cooke look' is a geometric aberration

- fuji premier zooms are very nice, but still big, slow, can't focus close, can't do it all, not many anamorphic options, not as tuneable as panaspeeds

- I quoted him William Wages ASC as saying “The most important thing to me is for a lens to be completely transparent,” Wages explains, “meaning it doesn’t impart color. It doesn’t impart anything artificial. I want it to be as clean a palette as possible so that I can change those things with lighting, filtration or color.” Brawley chalked it up to philosophical choices. (I also thought that lens choice was the FIRST step of crafting your visual palette... and Wages was talking on a fuji-sponsored video...)

Now, I admit that I have a collection of vintage and specialty/effects lenses that I don't use much anymore, and have gravitated towards a set of clean/sharp/fast/good-wide-open zooms and primes. It's just much more of a one-size-fits-all approach and they never get in my way. (My one gripe is that the flare suppression is so good that I don't always get the gorgeous flares I would like. But it means I can shoot right into strong backlighting at any angle and still see the subject). With more time and schlepping, I could use those specialty tools as well. But time is often of the essence
 
ahalpert said:
- he's against owning gear because he thinks you might end up trying to shoehorn it into a project even when it's not the right fit
Click to expand...

This implies the Director of Photography is willing to risk their professional reputation just for the hire. On the other hand, if a DP bypasses their own equipment in favour of the best set of tools, this act should strengthen their reputation - something that couldn't happen unless they owned equipment.

I'm sure the shoehorning happens all the time, but that doesn't mean the Producers and Directors aren't mentally blacklisting them for future work.

I think crew member gear ownership in general has frustrated JB based on owner/op ACs not getting involved unless they can get their kit onto the shoot. And it seems like John is much more interested discussing the why vs. the amount of time that gets spent talking about equipment.

I'm extremely grateful for any JB contributions but ultimately think whether equipment ownership is good or bad can only be case by case.
 
rob norton said:
I'm extremely grateful for any JB contributions but ultimately think whether equipment ownership is good or bad can only be case by case.
Click to expand...

For sure, I know that John owns some Ursa 12K's (and before them G2's) that he brings on. I'm not sure if he's still doing so on what he's shooting now, but he was using them for improvisational handheld takes on the Great and the Morning Show. Which I think has a lot to do with their form factor and his familiarity with them. And he shot a feature with them which I think was a budgetary thing. More cameras could be afforded by going Ursa vs Alexa.

He also said he bought an Arri remote head, which I think was because they became a necessity during covid and they weren't always available to rent.

I think what he's saying is that he wouldn't want to shoot every show on the same lens just because he owned it.

As far as damaging your professional reputation, the director might not consider that. If you tell them it's the best gear for the job and you happen to own it. I think the true impact is potentially a marginal diminishment of the end result.
 
ahalpert said:
As far as damaging your professional reputation, the director might not consider that. If you tell them it's the best gear for the job and you happen to own it. I think the true impact is potentially a marginal diminishment of the end result.
Click to expand...

Not everyone will see it as a risk. I'd personally hate to hire some DP who was reverse engineering reasons to get their lenses over the line just because they owned them!

It's not just an immediate risk, the person who did the hiring may become more tech savvy throughout their career and look back on the experience with a different view. Other people, without realising or meaning to, may open their eyes from a simple conversation where they connect the dots. Fairly or unfairly, purposeful badmouthing could occur where decisions get criticised without the original DP there to defend themselves. So I think it's still in one's best interests to be professional across the board, but being professional also includes making money, which is where things get tricky..
 
I feel like owner/op is often budgetary. Like you can give a client a good deal on a rental package that includes a lot of customization (not to mention your familiarity with it). And you make more money. Everybody wins.

but when you're trying to squeeze every last bit of magic out of the shoot so you can win that Emmy or Oscar...
 
ahalpert said:
but when you're trying to squeeze every last bit of magic out of the shoot so you can win that Emmy or Oscar...
Click to expand...

I'd love to be making gear choices based on likelihood of winning an Oscar but it's more like where am I going to put all of these sweaty t-shirts so I don't get kicked out of this corporate office building.
 
I don't follow. sweaty t shirts are your crew?

and just to repeat, I don't follow John's advice. I live in a much smaller pond. I'm speaking academically
 
ahalpert said:
I don't follow. sweaty t shirts are your crew?

and just to repeat, I don't follow John's advice. I live in a much smaller pond. I'm speaking academically
Click to expand...

oh crap, another failed joke on dvxuser!

I was just making fun of myself in the corporate video scene where you're destroying yourself doing everything solo and not being seen as a disgusting slob becomes more important than all of the expensive equipment you have for the shoot.
 
A few years ago I did a network show that I couldn't get any of my gear on because of studio policy. After looking at a bunch of options available from the rental house specified by the producer, I ended up with virtually the same lenses I already own. Kind of funny.
 
morgan_moore said:
Vista ff35? I guess this is a film makers forum so I choose the filmmakers term. Id call it a proper sensor and a cropped sensor - I started in film and stills where FF35/vista was 'normal' and medium format ws 6.6 or 645 and large format was 5.7inches or larger.
Click to expand...

Ha, well no matter where you or I started, we're talking about motion picture production. That industry was started on 35mm running 4-perfs vertically through the camera gate, aka Silent Aperture or now Super-35. It was decades later that Leica realized that they could make a camera for the military (i.e.: spying) that used the 35mm film stock but laid on its side and exposing across 8-perfs, the Leica format or VistaVision / Full Frame 35. When it comes to imaging for motion pictures S35 was the standard way before FF35 ever existed. Proper indeed.
 
Esteemed cinematographer Michael Ballhaus, ASC owned his own camera & lens packages, usually whatever was the latest/greatest from ARRI. Maybe in his early Fassbinder days it was a budgetary thing, but later on he could shoot with whatever he wanted. He knew the cameras and lenses so well he could accurately predict exactly how they would perform and knew how to address all his other tools accordingly. It's like a carpenter being comfortable with his well-designed hammer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top