- → Highest Reputation Content
Highest Reputation Content
Posted by Richard Boddington on 18 November 2013 - 04:31 PM
Normally I would not share this story, but maybe it will inspire others who are in film school etc.
On Saturday we had the Toronto premiere of Against The Wild. After it was over I was out on the street talking to some people. I was tugged on my arm and a man and a woman were standing beside me. The woman said, "our son needs to tell you something." I look down and there's this cute little boy maybe 4 or 5 years old.
So I had to kneel down to his level so I could hear what he wanted to say. He says to me, in his little voice, "I just want to tell you that your movie is better than my most favourite movie of all time now." I said, "wow what is your favourite movie?" He said, "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs, but now I like yours better."
I gave him one of my industry screeners, and he was so excited to be able to take the movie home before it comes out in stores. He had paid me a 100% sincere compliment, with no "adult" motives.
If movies didn't cost so much, and needed to generate revenue, I would say that boy paid me in full for making the movie.
Ok it's a corny story so sue me. But in the fake and cynical film world, this boy was a breath of fresh air.
Posted by Lasse Roedtnes on 17 August 2013 - 08:57 AM
Here's a few photo's of the prototype - bear in mind that it's still work in progress, the red parts are printed plastic parts and will not be there in the final version - the body is 3mm aluminium black anodized.
What you get here is an exclusive sneak peak - there will be video's available and professional photo's taken once the final camera has been made and we are ready for production.
The photo's are taken with my mobile phone so they are not the best quality by far.
Side view of camera
As mentioned the red potentiometers will be replaced and the cover behind them will not be there as well - this will be all aluminium the reason for the cover was because there used to be an LCD display here but that was taken off.
The potentiometers control monitor volume for the headphone and recording gain for the microphone.
All functions / menus are controlled by the JOG wheel - this will not change.
There's one record button, an on/off button and a third button "Phase Advance" which is not showed here as the aluminium side used for this photo series doesn't have the hole for it.
The SD Card is popped up here (it's used for storage of audio) - when inserted it aligns with the aluminium edge of the camera.
On the back side here's what you get:
3.5mm Jack stereo line input
3.5mm Jack monitor audio for headphones
3.5mm Jack mono microphone input
Neutrik XLR + 3pin Jack for true 48V Phantom powered microphone (mono)
USB for firmware upgrade, parameter settings, audio retrieval etc.
7.4V Lithium Ion battery which will last several films worth of shooting on a single charge. (there are many different batteries in different sizes available)
A photo of the Lilliput monitor showing the thru-lens shot with overlaid information - right here the camera is parking it's shutter - what is not shown (because of current parking mode) is:
- Audio VU level
- Light level
- SD Card and audio information
Also you have the option to choose from remaining or elapsed frames.
Camera seen from the other side with the lid on - the white wifi antenna is also visible.
Sorry Matt but you need to go somewhere else for a c*** tease this time
Posted by Lasse Roedtnes on 22 January 2014 - 07:41 AM
Just checking in again to share some exciting news...
We've completed our layout of the electronics and shipped the design off to assembly last week and are now anxiously waiting the 20 working days it takes for the boards to come back.
Anyone that has ever designed electronics will know that this waiting period is excruciating, the anxiety builds up and you start to second guess the design and have doubts about everything in it - quite silly actually, but true.
The most powerful experience is when you initially power it on and press the "ON/OFF" button which in our design sequences all the power supplies and applies power to every circuit on the board. That right there is a do-or-die event because if somethings wrong the whole board could blow up and they you are really in trouble and would suffer a big hit to the schedule and also in terms of economy as a prototype board spin costs approx. 3.000 EUR.
The other thing that can happen is that it just "turns on" and then nothing happens which is exactly what we're looking for - (nothing happens because the micro processor is not programmed) at this point you start validating all the power supplies (10 different ones in our case) and make sure that are all within specifications.
The next eureka moment is when you attach the debug adapter for the micro processor and it actually sees it and can talk to it otherwise something is badly wrong - the processor could be damaged (for example if the power supplies sequenced wrong) there could be a design flaw, it could be a soldering problem etc. this is also a hairy moment as it's hard to figure out what's wrong if it doesn't work for the first time.
All the steps above are usually done (if no problems are found) within half a working day - if something went wrong it could be anything from a day to unknown.
This is the point where you start to verify all the existing functionality of the "old" design as well as start implementing all the new features - for me this is the most exciting and time consuming task which unfortunately takes a toll on the family as there's no longer such a pleasure as "spare time" in the weekends and evenings.
I promised myself that I would take photographs of this entire process from un-wrapping the boards to powering them on and make a little blog about it, some people might find it interesting.
As for the promised new features slight changes in the design from the original which are "partially" visible below (sorry but our CAD program doesn't have all footprints in 3D so it looks kinda weird) are:
On the left side above the USB connector (next to the yellow WIFI chipset) you'll find a Mini-DIN8 connector which allows for:
- External trigger support of Recording and "AUX" functionality (on-demand speed change for example) via DIN-8 to Jack conversion cable so you can use industry standard trigger handles known from Nikon etc.
- External pre-trigger, immediate trigger and post-trigger options that allow for turning on a light or strobe just before, just after or immediately together with recording (cool feature for time lapse for example) it can also be used for triggering an external audio recorder if that's needed for any reason.
On the top to the right, next to the SD-CARD you'll find a 4pin power plug that allows the camera to be powered from an auxiliary power source for example if filming for hours with timelapse - the same plug can provide 12V @ 500mA to external devices such as monitors, flashes etc.
On the top to the right, next to the above mentioned 4pin power connector you'll find two new switches - this is the recording switch and AUX function switch - they are now more conveniently placed on top of the camera instead of on the side.
On the top to the right, next to the two switches you'll find a standard RCA / Phono plug for an external monitor support instead of the previously used MINI-DIN connector with proprietary wiring, this means it gets easier to use our camera with standard products without having converter cables!
As you can see below the jog wheel has been replaced with navigational buttons making it more sturdy and robust - also the user experience should be better.
above the navigational buttons you'll find the on/off button and below you'll see the two potentiometers for adjusting microphone gain and monitor audio volume level.
We are meeting with our metal workshop partner this Friday evening and then we should have a plan in place for our pre-production quantity etc. and then we should be able to dive deeper into details.
Enjoy the rest of the week!
/Lasse on behalf of the Logmar team
Posted by Jose luis villar on 21 January 2014 - 01:40 PM
Here is another fashion shot with 50d Vision 3. The telecine was done by Ochoypico, the camera used my Beaulieu 4008 ZM2.
Posted by Lasse Roedtnes on 27 November 2013 - 06:10 AM
I've always been a fan of a heated debate - it's nice to see people getting passionate and if we keep it going we might hit 500 replies to this single thread - think about that isn't it amazing that this thread has spawned so much action in such a short period of time, I find that really encuraging.
I saw on Friedemann's blog that you "never shot super 8"... Is that true ? Maybe the reason you feel it's cheap is because you didn't actually tried it. I can assure you, having (and still) used it a lot of time, it's not as bad as you may think. Now that I've seen this statement, your product makes me feel a little uncomfortable, because I thought it was at last a product made by someone like us here, a real enthusiast that love the format. Now I can't see clearly your goal if you won't use it, apart from just making money.
You too are trying to sell a product here. You too put a wealth a feature to appeal to us. "Pressure plate, sprocket feeding, register pin" are too words to make the potential buyer comfortable.
I don't want to prove anyone right or wrong here, so be it clear. I'm just using some critical thinking to better understand your product, to see if it really is better than what we already have as you claim.
Tom, It's completely true what is mentioned - I have properly only shot one film in total of Super-8 in my lifetime, and that film has been shot on our own camera entirely. Obviously I've worked endless hours with test cartridges inside our camera and played with that but when talking about real shot film for private purposes then it's only that one film - My first motion camera was a Panasonic NTSC video camera which I purchased on my first trip to USA after graduating university in 2004. I still own it today and the last time it was in use was in 2010 when I used it to film my daughters first months after birth, I wish I had our camera ready back then as the NTSC video looks "horrible" (especially when my PAL TV tries to convert and upscale it to HD).
Just because I wasn't born back when Super-8 had it's glory days doesn't mean I don't want to strive at creating the best camera electronics ever made (just like all the people Erkan mentioned tried to do before me) nor does it imply that I'm not affectionate about what we (Logmar) are trying to achieve - I would put it the other way that I do not carry any emotional baggage from the Super8 era so I can concentrate on looking at the results and judging from that.
In all honesty this camera started as a farther / son project back in 2008/9 being a Krasnogorsk motor driver and then quickly evolved from there since we both had the appetite to make something more grand than just a plug-in for an existing camera body - In the beginning I just went along for the fun of it (I really enjoy working with my father) and although many people including our own family thourght we where nuts for spending so much spare time and money I could see that my father really believed in film and thourght it so important to finish this camera, so that other's could also share his passion, that's when I realized that perhaps this camera we were building could have some success as there had to be more people out there with the same dream.
Does Tommy love the super-8 format? - Absolutely - if he didn't we wouldn't have a camera for it today!
Do I love the Super-8 format? - I love the image our camera produces - I do not like the image other cameras which I've seen produces like for instance this video I just randomly found on youtube:
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=qd87_jjK1-8 not judging the content but only looking at the video I do not like the lack of Image stabilization, the image moves all over the place and the image pulsates in brightness/intensity which makes it (to me) miserable to watch.
My "dream" (which might be different from yours) is to reproduce the look of movie theather quality on an 8mm easy to use camera, that will allow people to film (for instance) their children and proudly show it to their friends without having to excuse the quality or state "you know how super-8 looks like - this is expected behaviour". - I realize this is a strong statement which might hurt some people's feelings but never the less this is my dream and since I was born in 1983 and brourght up with video and later on with HDTV and plastic colors looking at my fathers old super8 recordings from his childhood just looks dull and bad to me - it's hard (in my mind) to make this format appealing to a younger generation without doing a mayor overhaul and vetting out all the "quircks" as well as making it appealing from a technical standpoint (no more wind-up cameras etc.).
I have a dream that one day my daughter (who is severely handicapped) will be able to show her caretakers or perhaps remaining family (when my wife and i are no longer around) some film of how her life was growing up and the only media that can give me this assurance of time is film, which doesnt fade out or becomes lost as digital memory does it - this is why I'm doing it, that's my motivation and it's a very strong one for me.
Are we in it for the money? I would be lying if I said no, since there has to be a profit to ensure warrenty and pay back our investment, but make no mistake we are not whipping the cream on this camera with the current price point of 2.000€ ex. vat, the small scale of things makes it extremely expensive to make. If we had the luxury of say Arriflex that we could manufacture 1.000 cameras inhouse with existing equiptment the case would be different
however we need to get third-party vendors to do the majority of the work and they do not work for free as mentioned earlier labour costs are extremely high in Scandinavia - properly amoung the highest world wide which doesn't help us at all.
I know there's also Tommy on the team, but he's not the one we're talking to. I asked about Lasse's motivations, not Tommy's. I read too that they initially wanted to make a 16mm camera, but as the market is declining more rapidly, they turned to Super 8 instead. Put this way, it sounds like a marketing move to me.
My motivations are listed above
It was a "marketing move" - There didn't seem to be a point of releasing a camera with no market for it
That said our camera is a platform - the "box" supports 8, 16 and 35mm with more or less the same mechanics* and electronics (*=ofcause there's big differences on take-up etc. but the motor etc. is the same)
it was build in this way so that we could "quickly" spin derivatives depending on the market situation and allow us to build follow-on camera's later.
Our vision is to become the preferred supplier of easy to use, afforadble film cameras wheather it be 8, 16 or 35mm.
It's a big vision but we believe we have the ingredients to make it work.
Also you mention: "if the playback speed varied that would be noticable only as "lip sync" problematic - you wouldt be able to tell if it was running too slow or too fast (unless we are talking many fps difference)".
Small format sync difference could be more understandable due to the slower speed than larger formats!
Film transport speeds, mm/sec. @ 24fps: 456 for 35mm film, 182,98 for 16mm, and 101,5 for Super 8/Single-8.
Erkan - your statement about the transport speed is true, however when watching the recorded film you are playing it back at a fixed speed and hence you wouldnt notice if it ran a little too fast or slow regardless of the transport speed since frame rate is what you see with your eyes and then it doesnt matter what the transport rate is - the only way to tell is that audio comes out of sync or if the movie all of the sudden plays back in charlie chaplin mode
Please don't throw these words.
People may think that "It also smells that you are the third person or guaranteed a free camera"...
I would like to clarify this a little so that people dont get the wrong impression or starts screaming conspiracy
Logmar is compromised of Tommy and myself - a two man strong team doing mechanics and electronics, we've had help externally with certain aspect of the project, for example we've hired in some marketing people to do logo and website and we've had an external FPGA designer wokring on our first CMOS based viewfinder but that is "history" now as we now use CCD, we've also had help from friends with getting some of the first mechanical parts manufactured before we had enough money put together to have it made a proper factory.
When we the first time told people about our project (on this very forum, in this exact thread) a few people approached us volunteering to alpha test our camera. One of these people was Mr. Friedemann, who amoung others have been instrumental to our current success by providing feedback on things to improve in both hardware and software. We rely on these people to give us open and honest feedback on things they like and things they don't like as well as figuring out what can be improved - for instance when it comes to stuff which can break (see below)
As a direct result of this feedback we are doing a major overhaul of the camera just now - removing the jog wheel and replacing it with navigation buttons instead - as Erkan also pointed out the jog wheel could break off and that happened to one of our testers - also the WIFI antenna placement is under consideration (luckily we haven't had any lawsuits over an alpha tester going blind yet) but it's position will most likely move. Other things we are improving is the battery holder (making it more sturdy) as well as placing the record button and alternate speed/phase advance button in a different more accessible place and adding the provision for an external record trigger - for example from a handgrip with trigger button or similar.
There's no agreements of giving away free cameras to any of our alpha testers nor paying them to work for us! - their work is entirely voluntarily – we just provide them with a camera and film plus accessories, provided they give us the film shootings they’ve made so that we can publish them on our website as well as provide us with feedback on the camera - after the alpha test the cameras are returned to us as the alpha camera's will no longer resemble the final product this has been agreed with all our testers in advance.
Also having external testers provides us with an unbiased opinion - obviously we think we are the best in the world and that our product is as well, but third party people doesn't have this bias and that's why we use them.
Posted by Friedemann Wachsmuth on 25 November 2013 - 11:24 AM
Tom, sorry for the troll comment, but it feels just unreal if so many tangible and verifyable facts are simply ignored.I just made a little video for you. You can reproduce this test yourself easily.
Here is the pressure plate of a Kodak Cartridge, freshly extracted for you:
Here I am extracting a film gate from a Frankenstein Canon 310xl just for you:
https://dl.dropboxus...25 at 17.13.png
This shows the two parts before forming a film channel:
Note you can actually SEE the film channel when pressing them together:
And finally here you can see that the film runs "free" through it. Note the swiss spring scale in the second scene and see how free "free" is. It needs less than 5 cN to pull the film through even though my finger's pressure was much higher than that from the cartridge spring:
I hope we can finally close this discussion down now once and forever. The pressure pad is NOT a pressure plate and does not work the same way a pressure plate does. Period.
(Imagine Queen's "Under Pressure" as Soundtrack underneath the video, please)
Posted by Guy Holt on 29 December 2012 - 04:50 PM
…. you first have to decide what you want it to look and feel like before deciding how to light it, you can't just light in a general way, there should be a concept behind it first.
David is right, to successfully light a night scene on a tight budget requires that you first have a concept for the shot. From there you can figure out an innovative approach to accomplish that look. What tools who need and how you deploy them will follow. A good example is a very similar scene I lit on a “low budget” feature called "Black Irish." It was a pivotal scene where the youngest son of an Irish American patriarch crashes his derelict older brother's car setting off an unfortunate series of events. For the scene we had to light 1000 ft of Marginal Street in Chelsea for driving shots on a process trailer and the scene of the accident. Our biggest challenge was to create through the lighting the feel of a car hurdling down the road at high speed.
The problem was that even after lighting the equivalent of three football fields, the process trailer couldn't obtain a speed of more than 30 mph before it was out of the light. The traditional approach of under-cranking the camera to increase the speed was not an option because the scene was a pivotal one with extensive dialogue inside the car. So, we had to create the effect of speed through the lighting.
I came up with a concept that was as beautiful in its practical simplicity as in its psychological complexity. To heighten the sense of speed of the process trailer shots we rigged 500w practical fixtures along a four hundred foot wall on one side of the road. We spaced the practical wall lights twice as close together as they would be normally. This way, as the car passed by, areas of light and dark would pass rapidly by in the background and exaggerate the speed at which the car was traveling. When it came time to shoot the static wide establishing shot of the car racing down the road, we dismantled every other wall practical in order to reinforce the effect. On an unconscious level the viewer's mind registers in the establishing shot the wider spacing of the wall lamps. So when in the close up process shots the pools of light in the background are racing past at twice the rate because there are, in fact, twice as many lights, the viewer's mind registers the car is traveling at twice the speed it is, in fact, traveling.
In addition to the wall practicals, I simulated car dash board light on the actor's faces with a 12v 9" Kino Car kit. The play of the passing wall lights on the actor's faces were created by a revolving 650W Fresnel with diffusion on its doors rigged on the process trailer. To light the long stretch of road, I simulated the pools of light that would be created by street lights by rigging 6kw space lights under the baskets of 60' condors that were spaced about 200' apart over the road. In addition to the Space Light, each condor basket also carried a 4k HMI Par that filled the stretches of road between the pools of tungsten light with a cool moonlight. To continue the moonlight down the road there was yet another 4k HMI Par on a Mambo Combo Stand. Because this 4K was further down the road than was practical to run cable, it was powered by a Honda 5500W portable generator. A 12kw HMI Fresnel with 1/2 CTO through a 12x frame of Soft Frost served to pick up the deep background from the front on one end of Marginal Street while a 6kw HMI Par lit the other end.
To supply power on both sides of the road for a 1000' stretch was no small task. I used three generator plants strategically placed so that our cable would never cross the road in a shot. In addition to the Honda 5500W portable generator that powered the 4kw HMI Par light for the deep background, I used a 800A plant to power the 4kw HMI Pars and 6kw Space Lights in the condors, the 12kw Fresnel, and the base camp trailers and work lights. The 6kw Par, 12 - 500W practicals, and an assortment of smaller HMI's used to light the post crash scene were powered by a 450A plant on the far end of the roadway.
This example, demonstrates that once you have a concept you can come up with an innovative approach to accomplish it. The tools and how to deploy follow. This example also demonstrates that the right tools, used in an innovative way, can create startling results on a low budget. Since “low budget” is a relative term, to address Megan’s situation, it would be helpful to know what the budget is for this scene and have more details about the sequence and location.
Guy Holt, Gaffer, ScreenLight & Grip, Lighting Rental & Sales in Boston
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 13 April 2017 - 03:57 PM
I'm all for active engagement, but attack the message, not the messenger. Or at least try, I know I fail at that sometimes.
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 01 January 2016 - 07:37 PM
This year I wanted to post a series of frames from movies that I saw in my youth through graduating college that made me want to make movies. These won't necessarily be the greatest movies or best frames ever, they are just images that stayed in my head and went on to influence me.
Today I am going to post a frame from "Kagemusha", which was one of the first foreign-language movies I saw in a theater in its first run. I was visiting home in the fall of 1980 in my first year at college, at the University of Virginia, where I was watching a lot of old movies on campus, but I believe I saw this movie in Washington D.C., probably in Georgetown.
This particular shot still amazes me, a line of soldiers marching along the horizon at sunset -- it's better seen in motion than as a still because the floating dust and the movement creates these ever-shifting shafts of orange light, almost like something out of "Close Encounters". What puts the shot over the top though are the figures in the foreground, talking among themselves with that incredible background going on behind them.
After seeing this, I saw every Kurosawa film I could over the next few years (remember this was before home video, so I saw them projected in revival houses and in screenings on campus.)
Posted by Freya Black on 31 December 2014 - 09:20 AM
Sorry how many features you shot on film? just wondering
Okay theres far too much of this "Just wondering" crap happening on cine.com lately.
What does this have to do with the thread exactly?
The thread isn't about Giray so I don't see how it's appropriate at all to start asking the guy about his personal life experiences in the middle of the thread for no reason.
You also quote from the thread... If you are suggesting the guy is not allowed to have any opinions or a discussion on the subject until he has a long line of feature credits under his arm then that seems really out of order and pointlessly hostile.
Posted by Gregory Irwin on 19 June 2014 - 11:55 AM
Having mentioned the disk on the follow focus, I have always believed that using that disk for marks is a big mistake. First: there is at times, way too much sloppy play in the gearing mechanism. That could cause one to be off of the actual lens mark. Second: it causes the focus puller to look at too many different places (ie. the subject, the lens marks and the disk) thus moving one's head too much costing lost reaction time. I believe that by placing your head at the film plane and looking straight down the center line of the lens, one can see the subject and the lens engravings with a simple shift of the eyes. In other words, if you need to make focus marks, make them on the focus ring of the lens with a simple tic mark of a grease pencil or even cut out tape arrows. This is much more efficient. But everyone has their style and way of working. You have to figure out what works for you. Still, keep it stupid/simple.
Posted by Adam Frisch FSF on 29 January 2014 - 04:46 AM
I have a distinct feel the film business is just entering what the music business went through in the last 10 years - and came out of. A giant shakedown.
With DVD dead, there is no outlet for the smaller films and no way for them to recoup their money. Which ultimately means they won't be produced. I used to see a lot of films that didn't get theatrical release on DVD, in fact my whole childhood/teenhood was spent watching that stuff. Now I never do that. Can't remember the last time I bought a film that had not had a theatrical release on iTunes etc. That kind of viewing has moved to TV shows. Consumption has changed. And it's obvious that these new digital deliveries (that I'm all for btw and is the future) is mainly benefitting consumer and content provider at this time, not producer and filmmakers. Have you heard what Netflix etc pay for low budget features? It's ridiculous. You might get $3k for licensing your feature worldwide for a year, if you can even get it in there.
It's going to become exactly like the music business: little micro budget features that get self released on a website and never make a dime and are basically charity films, or Jay Z/Daft Punk steamroll machines - and nothing in between. Which means there will only be room for huge Hollywood stuff at the cinemas, or Oscar fodder dramas. None of which a new generation can cut their teeth on. I suppose the bottom line is there are just too many directors, too many filmmakers, too many DP's, too many producers making content. Maybe this is the armageddon the industry needs. However, from a purely selfish standpoint, it does mean that most avenues are closed off for those of us who would like to move to features in the more mature part of our career. The obstacles are:
1. Since TV has become the new film in terms of quality, it means the veteran DP's will rule that domain and that entry into the long form business will now become much harder for us without extensive feature/TV credits.
2. When a young director you came up with gets a shot at a feature, he will never be able to take you along with him. At those heightened entry budget levels, they will demand a veteran DP. They never pair rookie director with rookie DP. They'll gladly take a chance on a new director, but never on a new DP.
3. The only hope for a fresh DP is that a veteran director, who has the clout to push you through the system, takes you on for a film. And why would he do that when fifteen Oscar nominated DP's are falling over themselves to work with him?
The entry points are closing like wormholes and I sense it will get a lot harder in the future to make that transition. I hope I'm wrong.
Posted by Marc Marti on 28 November 2013 - 12:37 PM
Switar 16mm primes (the AR models, not the RX ones) work like a charm in super-8.
I use to travel only with a 10mm Switar in the Fujica and the quality is outstanding. Besides, they are small, light and not very expensive.
That's the point. Quality standards are not the same now as in the 70's, and this camera puts super-8 directly in this century.
Designed as an amateur format, its flaws were "acceptable" when it was created, but not these days, where everybody is used to HD images and can shoot a high quality picture for very little money.
I remember a test from José Luís Villar where he confronted images from an HDSLR with the Vision stocks shot with a Beaulieu. Sharpness was almost the same, but the filmic image looked much more richer. That's the way to follow...
And of course, if anyone wants the old "home-movie look" always can purchase an old Sankyo on ebay for a few bucks. As simple as that.
Posted by David Mullen ASC on 30 March 2013 - 10:08 AM
APS-C is closest to the size of Super-35 cinema / 3-perf 35mm (approx. 24mm x 13mm); Full-Frame 35mm is closest to the 8-perf 35mm VistaVision format (36mm x 24mm). So the focal lengths used in APS-C for typical field of view would be the same if shooting in Super-35, and if you used any PL-mount cine lenses, they would be designed to fill the APS-C sensor area, not the FF35 sensor area.
APS-C sensors vary in size from 20.7mm × 13.8 mm to 28.7mm × 19.1mm. The Canon 7D sensor size is 22.3mm x 14.9mm.
Generally the only difference in "look" is the typical depth of field because the larger sensor sizes use longer focal lengths to achieve the same field of view. Once you had matched field of view by using a lens that was about 1.6X shorter on an APS-C camera, you'd have to stop down a FF35 lens by 1.6-stops to match the depth of field. So FF35 cameras tend to produce a shallower focus look; however, they also tend to be more sensitive in low-light and thus it's not hard to rate them faster and stop down for more depth of field to compensate.
Posted by Satsuki Murashige on 16 April 2017 - 04:30 PM
I have a tendency to be dramatic,
Really? I hadn't noticed.
I like to vent about shit that pisses me off because there is no reason for it. Zeiss had ZERO reason to make the CP2's close focus 12+ inches, they could have expanded it because the barrel diameter is so large, there is no way focusing it closer would have vignetted. I hate manufacturers that purposely build-in deficiencies so buyers will spend more money.
Well again, while I support your right to vent your frustrations here (and we all do it), if you keep making unsupported erroneous technical assumptions like this then you're gonna keep getting called out for it. Is that really what you want?
In this particular case, how exactly do you know that there are 'zero reasons' for 12" close focus on your Zeiss CP2 lens? You assume that this is a 'purposeful deficiency' in order to 'make you spend more money.' What specific evidence do you have for this claim?
Why not instead just say something like, 'In my experience, I wasn't able to achieve the close focus the lens spec claims - why?' Which is completely truthful, observational, and would net you some helpful responses toward fixing the problem.
Being a responsible forum member goes both ways - if you don't want chaos swirling around you, don't help foment it in the first place.
Posted by Gregory Irwin on 15 February 2014 - 07:15 PM