it provides a "look". that swhy they are using it, if they were really useable for general purpose they would be using them all the time and not renting 85,000$ Zeiss kits. trust me, they want the "broken Antiquated SLR" look on the film.
SGPro setup - help!
- Thread starter Oedipax
- Start date
Have you tried putting the 50mm lens on an SLR and seeing if you get the same light fall off? If so then it's a lens problem otherwise maybe there is still work that needs to be done in setting up the SGpro.
I never had problems with fall off with my 50mm f1.4 but obviously it can be a problem. Here's a link to a test that finds that the Nikon 50mm's light-fall off disappears at 2.8: http://www.olegnovikov.com/technical/50mmf14d/50mmf14d.shtml
Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
I agree with you, but I'm not sure what you mean by 'broken antiquated SLR' look. To me it gives the impression that images SLRs lenses output look bad or outdated. These guys weren't taking old lenses with the coating peeling off. They were using top of the line zooms with minimal breathing. The Nikon 80-200 was designed with digital sensors in mind so it resolves really well, has minimal CA and has good micro-contrast. Rather than "broken antiquated slr" I'd call the look "sharp, contrasty and gritty." That along with heavy color grading helped give the film its gritty realisitc look.
As you mentioned earlier cine-lenses have a huge amount of advantages over stills which (partially) justify their exorbitant prices:
Less breathing
Easier focusing
Measured in T-stops rather than f-stops
Usually desgined to cut down on ghosting and flares (modern still zooms are doing this too, though)
Hold sharpness through aperture range (again, some of the L series Canons can do this and cine lenses aren't perfect. Many DPs keep their cine lenses at T4 to ensure maximum sharpness)
Come in matched sets.
It's because still lenses lack these (mostly mechanical) features that they aren't used for general purpose on set. But when it comes down to resolution, chromatic abberation and micro-contrast I think the most advanced offerings from Canon and Nikon hold their own with Superspeeds and Cookes.
I can't speak for you but I think we're pretty much in agreement here. Obviously, cinelenses have great advantages over stills in flexibility and ease of use. If either of us had the choice we'd use superspeeds or primos. But to say that still lenses gave Bourne a "broken antiquated SLR" look doesn't sound right to me. And it makes it seem as though advanced Nikon lenses aren't capable of delivering high quality images. I figure that the DP wanted to be able to use some light zooms that would allow for really intense handheld camerawork. And he chose two lenses that would give him the resolution and contrast that he'd need for a big screen film.
(The later it gets the longer my posts become. I'm out.)
by broken i mean not 110% absolutly balls out perfect like s4's.
Oh yeah, I've been using the f/1.4 more or less exclusively on my D50 body for the last year, while I saved up the cash for the SGpro. I haven't noticed the same kind of fall-off in my stills, but it could certainly be that movement makes it more obvious - I'll take some test shots to analyze sometime and see if I find anything. I'm pretty happy with f/2 and 2.8, and 1.4's certainly useable, just not 'perfect' per se.
I've been shooting loads of test footage (I'm on my third tape already, ha) so I'll post some grabs and some footage soon.
Threw up some grabs from my test footage so far: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=107831
Loving the adapter!
Loving the adapter!
Dennis Wood
DVXuser Sponsor
DX format lenses project a much smaller image cone (23.7 x 15.6mm) than the 36x24mm SLR standard. In most cases (if it's a true DX format lens), this image size is closer to that of 35mm motion film lens. You'll need to set up the adapter for that format.