FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!

What's KB?

One thing I think will be interesting is impossible focus shots - having focus in 2 planes simultaneously but soft in-between. Or expanding your depth of field mid-shot which is currently doable with complicated gadgets that readjust shutter angle and aperture simultaneously to compensate for exposure

The classic shot where someone looks at something and we rack focus to the thing and then back to their face could become they look at the thing which then also comes into focus so we can keep seeing their face
 
The Lytros could also change aperture if this is what you mean by expanding depth-of-field.

This would be pretty nuts if you could do this in video (in post).

You couldn't possibly fail at anything you pointed your camera at.

 
Yes I know they can do it in stills. I just mean in video. Additional area coming into focus rather than changing focus from one place to snother
 
In the video above when you see only the person's face in focus and then the background slowly comes into focus while the face stays in focus, it's a slow ramp in aperture from like f/1.4 (or whatever) to f/8, f/10, etc.

I don't know how this could be practical in video with the complicated equipment you mentioned above. What's used?
 
NorBro said:
The Lytros could also change aperture if this is what you mean by expanding depth-of-field.

This would be pretty nuts if you could do this in video (in post).

You couldn't possibly fail at anything you pointed your camera at.

Click to expand...

Looks kinda like the trick you can do on
the Sony cameras which have the variable
ND. Just put the ND in ‘auto’ mode and
change your iris. Basically can ‘rack’ the
depth of field from shallow to deep or
vice versa. As the iris opens up further,
more ND is automatically inserted or as
the iris closes down, more ND is taken out.
The end result, the exposure stays the same
but the depth of field changes.
 
That would definitely do it but there's always that little problem called exposure, lol.

I guess it depends how smooth the light transition looks. Looks good for such a major increase/decrease?

There are no light changes in the above samples.
 
True, Sony eND could do it if the transition is invisible. Though it would also be nice to expand DOF between 2 points without necessarily getting everything in the foreground and background in focus. And you probably need more light with the eND method to get you an exposure at that fat stop, rather than simulating it later.

NorBro, the device I saw for automatically adjusting shutter angle to compensate for aperture changes and maintain exposure was something I saw advertised for film cameras about 12 or 13 years ago. It may have been something you programmed rather than operating on the fly. The example I remember from the film they showed was a shallow DOF shot of some people having a picnic. Then someone on a bicycle rides past them, and the DOF expands to keep the bicyclist in focus as they ride into the background. But, of course, the downside was that you had to use a variable shutter angle rather than staying at 180-degree.

And what would be cool with focus-after-the-fact is if the picnic blanket/group stays in focus and then a focal plane follows the bicyclist into the background so she's in focus, too. But not the rest of the frame. Or maybe it would look really weird and unnatural. But it could be cool.
 
Donny 123 said:
Sony hybrid AF is 90% there and that was only in the last few years .. the change from contrast only has been huge .. always an outside chance Im wrong :) .. but I would bet the farm within 10 years at the very most ,AF will be a thing in high end production.. camera first and some lenses.. then all the others will rush into it .. if its going to save time and so money it will happen ..
Click to expand...

A system that locks you into using Sony stills lenses with all their shortcomings by feature standards, and Sony cameras is not, in my opinion, 90% there.

I understand the benefits for videographers and one man band outfits in some circumstances.

Relatively speaking the Supreme Primes have just come out after 30 years of Master Primes. The life cycle and design phase of a Zeiss cinema lens package is enormous. What you are talking about is not something coming right round the corner.

EDIT: I have no idea why I keep posting in this thread. Sorry if it seems I'm just disagreeing for the sake of it now.

Every time I'm out, they pull me back in...
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
A system that locks you into using Sony stills lenses with all their shortcomings by feature standards, and Sony cameras is not, in my opinion, 90% there.

I understand the benefits for videographers and one man band outfits in some circumstances.

Relatively speaking the Supreme Primes have just come out after 30 years of Master Primes. The life cycle and design phase of a Zeiss cinema lens package is enormous. What you are talking about is not something coming right round the corner.

EDIT: I have no idea why I keep posting in this thread. Sorry if it seems I'm just disagreeing for the sake of it now.

Every time I'm out, they pull me back in...
Click to expand...

I mean the technology not the hardware ,yes I doubt feature films will be using $500 FE lenses .. thats wasn't my point :) but yes Sony are making Cine zooms with AF already that could quite easily be used on a feature film .. still relatively cheap around $6K.. things can change quickly these days .. looking at the past is not really a good guide .. nothing changed for about 100 years till quite recently .... look at how lighting has changed so much in a only a few years .. massive films using LED lights !! you would be laughed out of the room saying that 5 years ago . Sky panels have taken over the world .. if its cheaper ,and faster and works ..it will happen .. look at the huge fall in price of some of the post expensivee s35 lenses when the LF mini came out .. the thing that will swing it .. Roger Deakins will use an AF camera rig ,he's always up for new tech , then everyone will :)
 
Donny 123 said:
I mean the technology not the hardware ,yes I doubt feature films will be using $500 FE lenses .. thats wasn't my point :) but yes Sony are making Cine zooms with AF already that could quite easily be used on a feature film .. still relatively cheap around $6K..
Click to expand...


The 28-135? It's not a cine zoom. It just looks a bit like one. Until the FX9 and FX6 came out it was considered a failure of a lens. I won't bother to state the list of reasons why it has never (to my knowledge) ever been anywhere near a feature set except perhaps for BTS. And my point is that to do it with an actual cine lens is a magnitude of difficulty harder. I don;t know about the 16-35mm but I assumed that's all heavily corrected in-camera too.

I'm not saying it will never happen. I'm saying the timeframe this turnaround in design/manufacture/iteration to get it right/adoption will take a hell of a lot longer than being stated here and I believe my 'there will be people living on Mars first' statement was not hyperbole but a rough assessment of how far along we are with both projects.

EDIT: Oh the 16-35mm is a rehoused regular G Master 16-35mm f2.8 stills lens with focus gears on the barrel that you can't really use because it is focus-by-wire.

EDIT EDIT: God why can't I leave it alone?
 
Last edited:
Sure, but the sony 16-35 only costs $5500. So basically only 5%-25% of the cost of a premium caliber cine zoom lens.

And again, there's nothing about any of the contrast-detect, phase-detect, lidar, or stereoscopic autofocus/depth-mapping systems that prevents their use with regular focus motors. As is the case with the light ranger, cvision, and the Ronin lidar system.

You can't leave well enough alone because focus control is a fundamental part of cinematography and even partly automating it would be a sea change, thus we're all invested in the outcome
 
Yeah but we are all fairly entrenched in our opinions. Some believe it will be happening v soon some feel it is a way off.

And there's not really any more to it than that but I can't. Stop. Posting. Agh!
 
Ben Scott said:
The 28-135? It's not a cine zoom. It just looks a bit like one. Until the FX9 and FX6 came out it was considered a failure of a lens. I won't bother to state the list of reasons why it has never (to my knowledge) ever been anywhere near a feature set except perhaps for BTS. And my point is that to do it with an actual cine lens is a magnitude of difficulty harder. I don;t know about the 16-35mm but I assumed that's all heavily corrected in-camera too.

I'm not saying it will never happen. I'm saying the timeframe this turnaround in design/manufacture/iteration to get it right/adoption will take a hell of a lot longer than being stated here and I believe my 'there will be people living on Mars first' statement was not hyperbole but a rough assessment of how far along we are with both projects.

EDIT: Oh the 16-35mm is a rehoused regular G Master 16-35mm f2.8 stills lens with focus gears on the barrel that you can't really use because it is focus-by-wire.

EDIT EDIT: God why can't I leave it alone?
Click to expand...

Your a bit behind the times again Scott :) .. Im not saying the 28-135 is a cine lens , and thats not a new lens thats for sure !.. they have a new range of 3 fully manual cine T3 zooms coming out .. 16-35 is out already and presumably a 24-70 and 70-200 will be the next ones .. did you use the living on Mars line when using LED lights on big feature films was talked about :)
 
Donny 123 said:
Your a bit behind the times again Scott :) .. Im not saying the 28-135 is a cine lens , and thats not a new lens thats for sure !.. they have a new range of 3 fully manual cine T3 zooms coming out .. 16-35 is out already and presumably a 24-70 and 70-200 will be the next ones .. did you use the living on Mars line when using LED lights on big feature films was talked about :)
Click to expand...



I spoke about the 16-35. It's a rehoused stills lens isn't it. And focus by wire.


No, LEDs were always going to be the future I had LED fixtures from very early on.

I'm not a Luddite. I'm not trying to hold back technology.
 
Supposedly the focus by wire on the 16-35 is much improved. Of course, it could only ever be as good or worse for manual focus as proper mechanical control...

But again, people seem to like the canon 18-80 a lot even for manual focus (and it's an AF lens as well). The 18-80 is effectively just one price tier above the 16-35 (considering that it's an S35 lens and not FF) and already it's a more capable unit (crash zooms, etc)

I mean, I agree with everything you say about the disadvantages of autofocus and automatic lenses, in-camera correction, etc. I just don't think there's a bright line dividing usable and unusable kit. Certainly on a movie like Into the Void, they did s*%t tons of post stabilization and monkeying with the image anyway. Distortion correction or breathing correction are not off the table in post, especially if you have a very high resolution image capture. I'm not saying that would be my preference or my chosen philosophy. But hey my preference would be to still shoot on film yet I mostly shoot an fs7/a7siii combo. Even on digital at my price tier of ownership, my preference would be UMP and P6K as far as IQ is concerned. But there's more to IQ than just the sensor/codec
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
Supposedly the focus by wire on the 16-35 is much improved. Of course, it could only ever be as good or worse for manual focus as proper mechanical control...

But again, people seem to like the canon 18-80 a lot even for manual focus (and it's an AF lens as well). The 18-80 is effectively just one price tier above the 16-35 (considering that it's an S35 lens and not FF) and already it's a more capable unit (crash zooms, etc)

I mean, I agree with everything you say about the disadvantages of autofocus and automatic lenses, in-camera correction, etc. I just don't think there's a bright line dividing usable and unusable kit. Certainly on a movie like Into the Void, they did s*%t tons of post stabilization and monkeying with the image anyway. Distortion correction or breathing correction are not off the table in post, especially if you have a very high resolution image capture. I'm not saying that would be my preference or my chosen philosophy. But hey my preference would be to still shoot on film yet I mostly shoot an fs7/a7siii combo. Even on digital at my price tier of ownership, my preference would be UMP and P6K as far as IQ is concerned. But there's more to IQ than just the sensor/codec
Click to expand...

Everything is a compromise until you're making features basically. And then it's compromise of a different type..
 
Ben Scott said:
I spoke about the 16-35. It's a rehoused stills lens isn't it. And focus by wire.


No, LEDs were always going to be the future I had LED fixtures from very early on.

I'm not a Luddite. I'm not trying to hold back technology.
Click to expand...

Err no you said the 28-135 .. you didnt mention the 16-35 ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top