Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Down

Author Topic: Scarlet  (Read 57429 times)

adammork

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 162
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #200 on: February 09, 2012, 03:50:40 PM »

I use this matte box: http://www.chrosziel.com/data/chrosziel/produkte/documents/MB_456_E.pdf

mainly because of the "flexi-insertring" two of those rubber donuts cover all my lenses, it's a quite clever feature :-)
Logged

bcooter

  • Guest
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #201 on: February 09, 2012, 04:26:21 PM »

I know this goes against all the video, cinema world, but I hate matte boxes.  They're big, heavy and nothing screams say your lines slow like a matte box.

I can understand cutting flare, though honestly if I get flare it's because I want it, I do know how to flag a light.

Anway, just one opinion.

BC
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #202 on: February 09, 2012, 04:32:18 PM »

I don't think any of want a Matte Box

ND is however useful and my experience is that glass in front of the front element is prone to unpleasant flares

I guess if you have the wedge for a bunch of high quality screw on filters then a MB can be avoided

But the maths can add up to buy just one set of filters and an MB

And the time savings avoiding 'screwing around on set' can be considerable

Ive bit the bullet with 2 Tiffen vary NDs - thats $600 which is a % of the value of my FS100 camera

Of course I'm sure that doesn't buy the coffee on one of your productions :)

Also a MB can offer grad on the sky etc - not that you need that with HDR

S

Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #203 on: February 09, 2012, 04:59:07 PM »

I really hate matte box too, but I also really hate to screw filters.

Matte boxes are insanely priced and big, screwing filters put me insanely on nerves.

So...where is the solution ?


Maybe just...nothing.

There was this Cokin P holder, you remember? super light and adpatable on rods (they do that in India) but they aren't standart and the Cokin ND are crap, they magenta cast. (like those latest super high tech from Mars 80MP backs...)
« Last Edit: February 09, 2012, 05:12:27 PM by fredjeang »
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #204 on: February 09, 2012, 05:48:43 PM »

I would always use nothing interior

And outdoors Im using vari ND

If I had cine lenses that don't extend - all the same size and everything I would use a MB

On the FS100 - Solidcamera are developing a behind the lens ND

I suppose the same would be possible for Scarlet when used with still lenses (but I guess not PL)

S
Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #205 on: February 10, 2012, 09:31:47 AM »

...

Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #206 on: February 10, 2012, 03:55:19 PM »

Sorry you've lost me

I was laying out that Matte Boxes and one set of filters can be a money saver compared to buying a pile of screw on filters!

Sure Red and Scarlet are 'cheap' - I agree with that

As for not banking on the FS100 for bigger jobs Id agree with that too

:)

S

Logged

fredjeang

  • Guest
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #207 on: February 10, 2012, 05:21:30 PM »

Sorry you've lost me

I was laying out that Matte Boxes and one set of filters can be a money saver compared to buying a pile of screw on filters!

Sure Red and Scarlet are 'cheap' - I agree with that

As for not banking on the FS100 for bigger jobs Id agree with that too

:)

S



In the end I'm not sure I want the mattebox. In fact I'm sure I don't want it after considering all the aspects. I recognized it's super usefull, practical and fast and a must in cine practises but I rather to follow another route.

Probably 2 good zoom lenses that cover the all range with 2 fader ND permanently mounted on them would do the job. I hate to screw (no pun) but I prefer that to weight.
The irony is that I spent my all life with prime mentality and know very little about zooms. I ignore what are the good ones suitable for Red-Canon affordable. Of course, with unlimited budget you go Angénieux and you're secure, it's top, but I don't have the budget for such gear.

What was this IR filtration with ND filters on Red ?  Another oscur complication on the chain ?

 
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 05:29:54 PM by fredjeang »
Logged

ftbt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 88
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #208 on: February 10, 2012, 08:09:17 PM »

... What was this IR filtration with ND filters on Red ?  Another oscur complication on the chain ?

Doesn't really have anything to do with RED. Digital cameras are more sensitive to infrared light than a film camera, and this becomes more noticeable when using ND filters, especially as the density of the filter is increased. An IR filter is supposed to cut off infrared wavelengths but not interfere with visible red wavelengths.
Logged

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
    • http://www.brucealangreene.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #209 on: February 10, 2012, 11:48:49 PM »

Re: IR filters.

You need them when using ND 1.2 and heavier. The ND filters block light but not IR. When the light to IR ratio is too low, you get weird colors without the IR filter.

I shot a scene indoors, day for night with no filters and blackout cloth on the windows. The widows lit up because the IR came through the cloth. Putting on the IR filter turned day back into night!
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

smthopr

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 296
    • http://www.brucealangreene.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #210 on: February 10, 2012, 11:54:12 PM »

And you will need/want ND filters up to ND 1.8 and even 2.1 when you shoot in the sunlight with iso 800 on the RED camera...

Also, heavy ND filters can have some extreme color cast and exposure inaccuracies. Inspect them and test them carefully before buying or renting.  I have learned this the hard way! Same for the IR filter too.
Logged
Bruce Alan Greene
www.brucealangreene.com

ChristopherBarrett

  • Guest
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #211 on: February 11, 2012, 10:46:48 AM »

I use the Arri MMB-1 which is a nice compromise between weight and usability.  It mounts up on 15mm LWS so you don't need a heavy bridge plate on bottom.  When I'm swapping out glass, I don't have to worry about moving, cleaning and remounting ND's and Grads... which keeps me from screwing shit up.

I've always been particular about lens flares.  On stills, I usually have a compendium hood AND one or two black cards on stands near camera to make sure I'm flagging my lights that are on the edge of frame.

etcetera...

CB
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2326
    • sammorganmoore.com
Re: Scarlet
« Reply #212 on: February 11, 2012, 11:16:30 AM »


Probably 2 good zoom lenses that cover the all range with 2 fader ND permanently mounted on them would do the job. I hate to screw (no pun) but I prefer that to weight.
 


Yes this is my position Two Vari NDs (Tiffen) and mainly 18mm or 35-70mm nikkors

You still have issues with flare - a kind of wash - different from sexy flare - I think it is the filters - flat at the front

That is why I have a french flag on a magic arm

BTW you (probably) can't have them on permanently - you lose a stop so would want to be 'naked' indoors mostly I guess

S

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]   Go Up