FS7: Fujinon announce MK 18-55 T2.9 and MK 50-135 T2.9

It's nothing to do with shame. It's to do with the fact that it is a completely different discipline that happens to have some common language.
 
Ben Scott said:
So it's a tech you could only use on occasion, which means you'd have a focus puller anyway, so why not just use a focus puller?

Do you know of any theatrically released movies that have used AF on a shot as you describe?
Click to expand...

Yes, its just like everything else, used on occasion. In a few years the AF will be better than the focus puller for some shots, and it will be used.

AF is not used very much right now I think, which is not the point. The point it that its easy to imagine it being very useful, and narrative filmmaking is much more than well funded commercial films. A lot of films have the same person pulling focus, changing lenses, setting up the camera, assisting the dop etc. Im sure that AF-capable systems will find its way into productions sooner or later.
 
It absolutely IS the point. It's not used in the same way that auto exposure isn't used. Because a human that can actually discuss the requirements of a scene will always be better at doing this in a naturalistic way.

Forget well funded commercial films. Even mid-low budget music videos have an AC or two.

I've never worked on or heard speak of a professional feature production that didn't have the basics. It costs too much money to NOT have them.

As for amateur low/no budget jobs that's fine, and yes I understand as a solo operator with no backup an AF camera on a gimbal will get you some decent shots in amongst the focus hunting and the focusing on the wrong things and whatnot, but those jobs also often don't have insurance or catering or payment or risk assessments either. In short, they can be wonderful experiences and create great worthy works but they're not an example to professional productions of how things should/could be done in most ways.
 
Its not a shame thing Morgan.. not sure where that came from.. :).. but you do see it on the various forums around.. people from DSLR or stills backgrounds talk about exposing shots to the right .. and changing ISO for every shot.. they dont understand about continuity in a scene.. and how actually thats the hard part.. especially in narrative .. shoot all day for one scene that has to look the same on screen.. the idea of messing with the ISO and stop for every single angle or shot is the very worst thing to do.. not even mentioning the poor grader or editor who will have to try to save it.. even framing is a very different discipline with moving as opposed to still images.. having an eye can for sure be the same between the two.. but actually as job they are very different.. and auto just doest feature in a moving image for pretty much anything.. except sticking your camera out of a tank and hoping to get a shot I guess..
 
People in filmmaking are at the forefront of all manner of technologies and are constantly and consistently pushing the envelope especially with focusing technologies and motors and remote controls and programmed moves etc. autonomous AF just isn't an area they are particularly interested in.
 
Ben Scott said:
It reminds me a bit of when a makeup artist on a shot I was DPing on Red was telling me how awful Reds are, despite it not being his discipline.
Click to expand...

That's probably because they have learned that shooting with a RED at 6/8k makes the makeup visible, along with every wrinkle and flaw they are trying to cover up. Knowing that is part of their job.
 
Harry Lime said:
That's probably because they have learned that shooting with a RED at 6/8k makes the makeup visible, along with every wrinkle and flaw they are trying to cover up. Knowing that is part of their job.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. It was because on the last job he been on he'd overheard a conversation between 2 producers discussing issues with a Red that were solved by 2012.
 
Ben Scott said:
It reminds me a bit of when a makeup artist on a shot I was DPing on Red was telling me how awful Reds are, despite it not being his discipline.

To be honest if he's a steadicam operator moving through a scene it's even harder for someone to be pulling focus just off watching the scene and observing marks and pulling off a monitor is an even better way of doing it.
Click to expand...

Ben Scott said:
No it wasn't. It was because on the last job he been on he'd overheard a conversation between 2 producers discussing issues with a Red that were solved by 2012.
Click to expand...

Then that's something else.

But for the record, not all makeup people are ignorant of the images that our little boxes make and have their preferences.

.
 
Absolutely. However if you'd met him, ignorant is probably one of the first 5 words you'd use to describe him.

As a makeup artist, don't tell a DP using a particular tool on a job that his tool is ****.
 
I don't want to be a party pooper but isn't this thread supposed to be about the new lenses and not if AF will replace MF? ;)
Why not start a separate thread for that discussion?

Back to the subject:
If these lenses were available in EF- or PL-mount, or if Panasonic made an E-mount for the Varciam LT, I'd probably buy these. The range 18-55 is not ultimate, but it's better than 18-35. As someone mentioned earlier the range 18-70 (or 80) and T2.8 would've been great. Both IS and AF wouldn't hurt for certain occasions, but the lack of them is not in any way a dealbreaker IMO.
 
There is only so much you can say about the lenses.

It's only natural for the conversation to turn once people get bored.
 
FYI… I had a chance to get hands-on with the 18-55mm Fuji today at Texas Media Systems. If you care, here are my thoughts…

First, I appreciate what Fuji had in mind when they created this lens (and probably the 50-135mm), which was to bring a no-optical-compromises cinema lens set to the masses at a certain price point. Sure, you're not going to get all-metal construction in a lens at this price point, but the lens feels nice and solid to me, and it's really small and light. The Fuji rep told me that that the 50-135mm will be the same size as the 18-55, which is impressive.

Second, there are a couple of killer features that I haven't seen anyone really talk about here. There's an easily-accessible back focus adjustment on the lens barrel, which is nice. But the one that really surprised me was the Macro function. There's a little Macro button at the base of the lens. Slide it over and you've got a really nice macro lens.

Overall, I think Fuji is right on with what they're doing. If you need IS and AF and all that, these aren't for you. But I was pretty impressed with what I saw. I'm interested to see the 50-135mm when it comes out.
 
If I have two people in the frame with focus on the one talking suddenly the other person reacts to the first I want to pull focus to him at the speed I feel works best hold the focus till I made my point and then return focus to the first guy maybe at a different speed there is no way any automstisim can gage that, I use AF in gimbals to hold focus on a subject but off course I would prefer a focus puller for that as the way the AF engaged limits what I can do with it visually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top