Ben Scott
Veteran
Yes you edited it.. I just want you to keep posting
Its was edited yesterday at midday before your post! And then I only edited in my findings on the 16-35mm!
Why you gotta be like this? *Adds Donny to 'the list' *
FS7: NO Sony Fs7!!
- Thread starter JPNola
- Start date
Its was edited yesterday at midday before your post! And then I only edited in my findings on the 16-35mm!
Why you gotta be like this? *Adds Donny to 'the list' *
Its was edited yesterday at midday before your post! And then I only edited in my findings on the 16-35mm!
Why you gotta be like this? *Adds Donny to 'the list' *
Nice one ! .. you win ..I gotta go sleep with the fishes ..
Luis Caffesse
Admin
JPNola
Veteran
ahal, you said ( predicted ) Hollywood would adopt AF, but they have not adopted electronic ND. Why not? ( I have only my speculation as to why not. )
As to shots being altered for focus difficulty, that’s not something I have ever known to have happened, not that I am always or even often privy to such things. For minimum object distance, sure. But not for difficulty a shot presents to manual focus ability.
As to shots being altered for focus difficulty, that’s not something I have ever known to have happened, not that I am always or even often privy to such things. For minimum object distance, sure. But not for difficulty a shot presents to manual focus ability.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
When you want to improv but have to nail marks to keep focus, that's an alteration. But it's so commonplace that nobody even thinks about it anymore. All the light ranger articles about Uncut Gems were talking again and again how the amazing focus assist tool let them play the action loose.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Speculation I saw on electronic ND (this was several years ago) was that it possibly wasn't "good enough" for the upper levels of production(at least then), meaning the possible inability to maintain color/spectral purity(proper IR filtering) to their required/expected standards. With traditional fixed densities of ND, manufacturers can include the right amount of IR filtering for any given ND density(the darker the ND, the more IR filtering you may need[different cameras and sensors also react differently. I believe the current gen VariCam's are pretty sensitive to IR pollution]).
All of that being said, I love VeND. I wish my F55 had it instead of the stupid 0, 3, 6 stop system it does. I wouldn't ***** if it had 0, 2, 4, 6, like a traditional arrangement, but 3 stop increments are way too coarse. But VeND would be heaven...
All of that being said, I love VeND. I wish my F55 had it instead of the stupid 0, 3, 6 stop system it does. I wouldn't ***** if it had 0, 2, 4, 6, like a traditional arrangement, but 3 stop increments are way too coarse. But VeND would be heaven...
Grug
Veteran
Electronic ND isn't ready for prime-time, because you can't use polarisers with it, so you still need to carry a full set of NDs regardless. Starting at two-stops and ending at seven-stops is also limiting sometimes. So a system like the Venice's has fewer compromises overall (as cool as the electronic system is for the times that it does work - which is a reasonable percentage).
What I don't understand is all of these coursely-spaced internal ND options (0, 3, 6 stops; 0, 2, 4, 6 stops; 0, 2, 4, 7 stops etc.) it would be MUCH more useful (if you can only have four options) to simply have 0, 1, 2, 3 stops - because then you can make fine-tuning adjustments quickly.
THAT is the real time sink of external ND filters - having to change them in and out all the time. Putting one (appropriate density) external ND upfront isn't a big deal, when you have 3-4 stops of discrete 1-stop densities to fine-tune your exposure up or down with. Having to swap a 1-stop ND in and out all the time (because your internal filters all have 2-stop gaps) saves you very little time compared to using external NDs exclusively.
Run&Gun
Veteran
The 0, 3, 6 system, like in the F55/5, sucks. I hate it. Even though I kind of understand the reason(space for a fourth filter that can cover a s35 sensor in a circular rotating tray fully enclosed in the camera body). 0, 2, 4, 6 is what we've had in the ENG world for the better part of two decades, actually going back into the late 90's. 2 stops may be kind of coarse in the "cine" world, but it's usually just fine in the run & gun, ENG, doc style world. MUCH better than 3, anyway.
My P2 Vari actually has a single stop ND in the rear turret, along with the traditional 0, 2, 4, 6 in the front and when I've tried using it, I can hardly tell any difference(but it's not paired with a CC filter for 5600K so it's probably letting the same amount of light through as the 5600K CC filter by itself). They nailed the Venice ND system, as far as options. The Amira, I don't get. Why give me 2-stop increments until the last one and then make it a 3-stop jump?*
In my camera support bag for my F55, I actually carry a set of 4x5.65 1, 2, and 3 stop ND's. The only time they really come out, is for sit-down interviews. There's no time to mess with them running around shooting b-roll solo, most of the time.
For me, at least, 0, 2, 4, 6 is way more useful than 0, 1, 2, 3, because I'm used to starting at at least 2, and if I didn't have at least 6 for outside at certain times and conditions, I'd be hosed. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have single stop granularity, but the times where'd I'd only need/want a single stop of ND in(instead of 2 or more) are heavily in the minority.
*I asked the guys at Kippertie why their system is 0, 2, 4, 7 also and they said because that's what Arri did. I just shook my head.
JPNola
Veteran
You said alter the shot. That’s altering the action.
As I am sure you know, marks are not just for focus. Also for lighting, eyeline, and camera line of sight. Also for boom mic. And for framing-size. Meaning, the DP chose a mm for a framing of an actor and the Mark preserves the DP’s desired framing. If the actor is ad-lib moving the frame becomes pot luck. Where the DP wanted a waist-up shot becomes a cowboy or an awkward framing from breast up. Control of actor movement is integral to Directing photography. It makes for control of framing and depth of field / oof-area. We haven’t forgotten that use of marks altered ad-lib, because rarely is such the case.
The fact that marks are used does not by definition mean an alteration took place, as you are suggesting. It isn’t commonplace that actors or the crew prefer ad-lib action, therefore it isn’t commonplace that ad-lib is “altered” by constraint of marks.
Good point about lighting (and really blocking in general.) Don't forget that on a lot of sets the blocking is done and marked with second team stand-ins, who stay on set for the lighting. First team comes in when lighting is done, is shown their marks, and then usually will do a first team run-through (though often this run-through is filmed as well.) Of course having good stand-ins can be very important as well - since they get to know the actor's style, how they sit and stand. A tall actor who leans in one direction or the other can easily require focus adjustments.
But that's another good thing about marks -- they provide a reference for the focus puller to know where the actor is compared to the intended distance.
And sometimes the marks can also work as barriers. Think about a fairly normal shot where you might start with a 50-50 2-shot, and then one of the character walks to a mark in the extreme foreground to do something. Focus follows them. They then turn back to the other character and focus goes to the distant character. Obviously for the blocking it's important that the characters be lined up properly. But a little mark on the floor is hard to hit exactly, particularly when they're moving into a CU and can't look down -- so many actors will actually request one or more sandbags so their feet have a place to go that they can feel. Because as much as we don't want to do another take because of missed focus, the actors certainly don't want to do another take because they landed 3 inches to one side or the other, and ended up blocking the character or other critical action behind them.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
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.
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.
NorBro
Major Contributor
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.
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.
G
Guest
Guest
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.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
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.
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.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
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.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It’s not a video camera so can’t be my primary camera.
Im selecting a new bcam right now
Im selecting a new bcam right now
G
Guest
Guest
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