More Yummy Glass

[ChristopherBarrett]

Just noticed these Cine lenses on Schneider's site Cine Xenars

Between these and the Zeiss CP.2s there's some pretty tempting lenses for the HDSLR shooters.

CB

[feppe]

I have regular Zeiss lenses 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 for using when I want that extra bit more than what the Canon lenses give, and all for about $1500 total.

The Zeiss Planar 85mm f/1.4 alone in Canon mount costs well over 1000 EUR here, which is around 1500 USD. Where on earth do you get Zeiss lenses at that price; I'll take the next flight!

I think the stupid rat race is happening with video DSLRs as with too many other bits of gear, MFDBs to be included. If the content is superb, story is captivating for the intended audience, high priced lenses not necessary, nobody cares. Leave that to Hollywood. These type of lenses should be rental only except for the few large production companies who see buying as a better balance sheet option.

The worst thing about DSLR video is having the Bloom/Laforet gear slutting ever time you turn around. I'm not seeing the level of work (or it's not being shown to the public) to match what they are piling on those cameras.

You mean videographers weren't gear whores just as much as still shooters until motion DSLRs arrived?

But I fully agree on the gear slutting. I was sick of the shallow-DOF porn before Reverie ended. Thankfully Panasonic is bringing sanity to the scene with the AF100's 4/3 sensor - of course those pimping shallow DOF are complaining how it won't have filmic DOF, ignoring the fact that's exactly what it will produce, unlike the large(r) FF sensors. I've seen a lot of boringly shot short "films" recently shot with these cameras which look stunning, but who cares when they don't have a plot and lack a story.

[bcooter]

To be honest, as much as I like shooting with the 5DII for motion, the visual acutance of it's HD video is poor. All you have to do is look at some footage from the Panasonic GH1 with the bit rate hack and you'll see just how much more sharp and crisp the footage is than any Canon. So while the CP.2 lenses and others are cool, except for the convenience of the built on lens gears, they are a waste of money for 99.99% of shooters out there and certainly not even worthy of the Canon cameras.

I have regular Zeiss lenses 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4 for using when I want that extra bit more than what the Canon lenses give, and all for about $1500 total. I think the stupid rat race is happening with video DSLRs as with too many other bits of gear, MFDBs to be included. If the content is superb, story is captivating for the intended audience, high priced lenses not necessary, nobody cares. Leave that to Hollywood. These type of lenses should be rental only except for the few large production companies who see buying as a better balance sheet option.

The worst thing about DSLR video is having the Bloom/Laforet gear slutting ever time you turn around. I'm not seeing the level of work (or it's not being shown to the public) to match what they are piling on those cameras.

John,

I'm with you on this.

BTW:  It's hard to respond to a thread with yummy in it's title, but here goes.

As much as we all want an arriflex for $2,000 or thinking $20,000 worth of lens kit is gonna turn a Canon into something worthy of shooting the next Hollywood blockbuster, it's just not gonna happen.  At least today.

I don't mind the screwyness of a 5d2 for shooting motion but it's a very limited camera, especially when your shooting for money.   Pan across certain scenes and that weird moire or alaising or whatever pops up and that's not an annoyance, that's a job killer.

The 5d2 is fine for static or behind the scenes images, it's ok when the client says shoot a little video as you go, but we're just not there yet in the digital world.

There is a reason that Red is still fighting it out trying to get their camera up to speed and there is a reason that when you get the real facts, 99.999999999% of all films are shot on film and tv uses dedicated eng style cameras.

The only thing that all these mini primes give you is a happier focus puller, because at least their reliable in their ability to hit a mark, but you can get pretty damn close going over to KEh and buying a bag load of ol' Nikon manual focus lenses.

I own the Canons, the panasonic and the canon video cameras and I've come to the conclusion  that still cameras make great stills, video cameras shoot good video, but as of today only film cameras shoot top quality motion film.

Before I'd plop down 20 grand for a set of mini primes, I'd personally invest in a film crew, an arri rental kit and technicolor for transfer.

With all this in mind, if RED get's it together, makes it so I can walk in and buy what I need today to get to work, I'll write that check, but until their process is easier and I hear only remarkable things about their cameras I'll put my money into rentals.

BC

[BJL]

All 33mm image circle: a few mm larger than ANSI Super 35mm, largest of the various flavors of 35mm motion picture format, just barley enough for the Canon 1D MkIV, not nearly enough 35mm still camera format of the 7D of 5DMkII. Either a bad mistake by Schneider-Kreuznach (which I doubt) or confirmation that digital motion picture making will mostly use formats like Super 35mm and smaller, not the still camera 35mm format of 36x24mm.

P. S. These lenses are primarily in PL mount, and so usable on "serious" movie making cameras, both film and digital. The Canon EF mounts and Nikon F are just easy additional options.

[BJL]

I don't mind the screwyness of a 5d2 for shooting motion ... The 5d2 is fine for static or behind the scenes images, it's ok when the client says shoot a little video as you go, but we're just not there yet in the digital world.

There is a reason that Red is still fighting it out trying to get their camera up to speed and there is a reason that when you get the real facts, 99.999999999% of all films are shot on film and tv uses dedicated eng style cameras.

You seem to be treating RED and video DSLR's like Canon's as the only digital options for movie making. Sony with its Cine-Alta products (some or all in partnership with Panavision) and ARRI with its Alexa and such would disagree, and probably look upon RED as an upstart, yet to fully prove itself.

[ChristopherBarrett]

I know, I know.... but I really want the 5d2 to work!  LoL. Stupid moiré!  It's death for an interiors shooter.

We were on location all week and there was also a video crew there.  5 guys with a RED ONE, Zeiss Master Primes, tons of crap but we actually had more gear and our lighting setups were more involved... still though... that big honkin camera nailed down to a dolly just isn't the way I want to work.  I love the mobility of the 5d.

I dunno.  Maybe I'll rent a RED for a day and see what I think.  It's not like they're any more than a P65+!

LoL...

Oh Man, what have I gotten myself into?
CB

[bcooter]

You seem to be treating RED and video DSLR's like Canon's as the only digital options for movie making. Sony with its Cine-Alta products (some or all in partnership with Panavision) and ARRI with its Alexa and such would disagree, and probably look upon RED as an upstart, yet to fully prove itself.

The only reason the cine alta and the arri digital aren't on everybody's lips is the costs and the fact their still working out a raw file system.  The cost of those two cameras you mention generally put them into the rental category.

Red has a lot already in place and a lot cheaper.

Look I think we all know that everything will be digital soon and for most still photographers that are venturing into minor video and motion projects as John says it's the story not the camera, so a 5d2 or a panasonic will work,  but for serious movie making I doubt if the world is gonna change because of the arri or the cine alta.  Maybe for TeeVee, but I doubt if it's for big screen.

But getting back to these lenses, as mentioned since most are in PL mount, that's where they're headed to the dedicated cine cameras film or digital.

BC

[feppe]

We were on location all week and there was also a video crew there.  5 guys with a RED ONE, Zeiss Master Primes, tons of crap but we actually had more gear and our lighting setups were more involved... still though... that big honkin camera nailed down to a dolly just isn't the way I want to work.  I love the mobility of the 5d.

Better get to the gym and start doing some heavy duty deadlifts, bench and military presses so you'll become a good full-size Steadicam operator Alternatively spend tens or hundreds of hours learning the Steadicam Merlin with 5DII. Poor and overused steadicam work is a dead giveaway of amateurish video, along with poor sound.

Then there are those who think steadicams are devil's spawn only fit for special effects shots or reality TV. It makes for lazier shots in the hands of a weak DOP as you can just roll and go with it - no planning required.

[ChristopherBarrett]

I dig the steadicam, think it could work well for maybe 20 percent of my work, but I REALLY don't like the Merlin.  I'm gonna try out the Glidecam, understanding that I'm going to have to put a lot of time into learning it.  In the end it's all about having fun and the excitement of a new medium, otherwise I'd just stick to my stills.

CB

[feppe]

Steadicam operators train practically a lifetime to be excellent at just one craft.

My point exactly. There's a frigging 440-page book on just operating the damn things. Imagine if somebody wrote a book about operating a ballhead...

[paul_jones]

i see that if fits a 1ds mk4 on the specs.....

[ChristopherBarrett]

This kind of negativity drives me nuts.  Just because there are people who are masters at this and they write 400+pp books, you act like developing any sort of skill level is a life long endeavor.  Hell, there are people who write books on Architectural Photography, but I don't read them because I can tell by the cover photos that they have nothing to teach me.

I thrive on this shit, jumping into new techniques, new approaches, new ways of looking at things.  Otherwise you may as well go work in an office and spend the rest of your days playing Yoville and pretending to be productive.

Do... or do not.  There is no try.

LoL.... sorry, the boy is watching Empire Strikes Back and I'm channeling Yoda.

Mind what you have learned, save you it can.

CB

[feppe]

This kind of negativity drives me nuts.  Just because there are people who are masters at this and they write 400+pp books, you act like developing any sort of skill level is a life long endeavor.  Hell, there are people who write books on Architectural Photography, but I don't read them because I can tell by the cover photos that they have nothing to teach me.

I thrive on this shit, jumping into new techniques, new approaches, new ways of looking at things.  Otherwise you may as well go work in an office and spend the rest of your days playing Yoville and pretending to be productive.

I didn't say don't do it, I was merely pointing out that motion is a very different game than stills. And that Steadicam operating alone is a career in itself. As I pointed out earlier, poor Steadicam and sound are some of the worst offences of poor quality video work.

I'm an amateur so I have the luxury of playing around with silly LF film cameras and taking photos of things which only interest me - but if I was a pro I would ask myself "do I get higher ROI from spending tens or hundreds of hours to learn to operate a Steadicam, or using that time to build a stronger stills portfolio."

BTW, how you decide which photo books to read is the same as mine

[feppe]

I friend of mine is doing script writing classes for the next year. It was an odd idea at first, but now really makes sense. technology has democratized so much about photography and doing the same with motion. The standout image creators will be the ones who tell the best story in their chosen medium(s). That, I truly believe, can't be democratized.

Agree fully. Much of today's photography is technically good or excellent thanks to modern cameras, but sterility is not limited to architecture.

There's a book I'm reading by David duChemin called Within The Frame which is written exactly from the photographer as storyteller perspective. Highly recommended.

[TMARK]

Dig the "steadycam" rig used to make one of the greats.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ixohR12g1qzkz4w.jpg

Its crude, its far from perfect, its a great movie.

Its all story.

[LKaven]

Dig the "steadycam" rig used to make one of the greats.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ixohR12g1qzkz4w.jpg

Its crude, its far from perfect, its a great movie.

Its all story.

I can't make anyone out in that image...what film is that?

[Steve Hendrix]

Dig the "steadycam" rig used to make one of the greats.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_l4ixohR12g1qzkz4w.jpg

Its crude, its far from perfect, its a great movie.

Its all story.

I can't think of a better example. Not that technology and the right tools aren't great enablers (and sometimes necessary), but without great content (in terms of the viewer experience, or even in terms of the creator's own self-directed intent), the means by which you arrived at the result is wasted.


Steve Hendrix

[bcooter]

I thrive on this shit,

cb is doing exactly what photographers have done for a century.  He's the director, dp, camera operator, gaffer, focus puller, editor and colorist.  That's  the way still photographers have worked.

It's actually not  so un normal in small low budget film production, especially self funded production.

In Hollywood it always amazes to have a camera operator on set (for not that much money) that just directed a movie, or dp'd a large budget commercial.

Right now it's kind of a new world..  Of course there is value in high budget, professional production with hundreds of specialists, but if the creative thought is there, the willingness to learn and offer more is present there is nothing wrong with stappin' on a steadicam, walking down the hallway and given a client something that they didn't expect.

IMO, , what CB is doing is great, adds to his repertoire, probably his billing, obviously his standing with the client and though this type of work may someday end up being cg, )heck every image made might someday end up being cg), . . . as of today, party on.

BC

[ChristopherBarrett]

Funny.  For the "dolly " shots I just did, we laid one of my big Pelican cases on the Magliner, I sat on that holding the 5d2 (mounted on the Merlin) and my assistant pushed me down the corridors.  I have no doubt that I'll be coming up with many workarounds to what the big boys do on cinema sets in the coming months.

I go back and forth on the idea of story.  There are definitely projects where I'll want to intertwine interviews with the architects and their clients, but also I think just moving around a space, making beautiful imagery can be just as valid.  Having done just that, my client was, in their words, "blown away" and thought the video told the story of the space far more completely than the three days worth of stills we did months before.  I think you can tell a story without any dialogue, solely through the use of imagery.  If I didn't believe that I wouldn't be a photographer.

As usual, lots of interesting points from the forum giving me much to think about...

CB

[tho_mas]

I think you can tell a story without any dialogue, solely through the use of imagery.

yes, of course. However I'm with John regarding sound. IMO you don't have to bring in interviews or a voice. But maybe background noises, atmosphere. Moving pictures without any sound are mostly "dead" (music doesn't count).