Jump to content


Photo

Zoom lense to be combined with Cooke S4


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:28 PM

Hello. I plan to be shooting this next month a super35mm film with Cooke S4 at T2.8 and for a couple of shots i will need a zoom lense to perform a zoom close up. Now, what do you think i should choose that achieves the closest image texture and resoultion and that could not destroy the T2.8 DOF style?

Thaaaaaaank you!
  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:46 PM

If you can live with the size of the thing, the Ang. Optimo seems like a good choice.
  • 0

#3 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:49 PM

If you can live with the size of the thing, the Ang. Optimo seems like a good choice.



435 + Angenieux optimo (the big one 24-290mm) + handheld... It sounds terribly good for my back! ;D

Edited by Mr. Macgregor, 20 May 2007 - 12:50 PM.

  • 0

#4 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 20 May 2007 - 12:57 PM

435 + Angenieux optimo (the big one 24-290mm) + handheld... It sounds terribly good for my back! ;D


Hi Mac,

There are lightweight zooms from Cooke / Zeiss / Arg. all 15-45. If you need longer it's going to get heavy unless you use Haskell Wexlers trick of a 16mm zoom with a Teleconverter. I think you will see a quality loss V S4's!

Stephen
  • 0

#5 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 01:01 PM

Yep, i need to go from 30 to something like 100mm in the shot. Slowly. Handheld.
  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 20 May 2007 - 02:12 PM

Yep, i need to go from 30 to something like 100mm in the shot. Slowly. Handheld.


Hi Mac.

The Cooke 20-100 is only 4-5 Kilo! F2.8 (T3.1) so the DOF will be very close to the S4's @T2.8. How close are you going? 100mm hand held CU on (part?) of a face will be fun for your focus puller. I would start weight training :lol:

Stephen
  • 0

#7 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 02:23 PM

Hi Mac.

The Cooke 20-100 is only 4-5 Kilo! F2.8 (T3.1) so the DOF will be very close to the S4's @T2.8. How close are you going? 100mm hand held CU on (part?) of a face will be fun for your focus puller. I would start weight training :lol:

Stephen



A girl lost in the middle of a crowd. We slowly zoom into her face. So she is pretty static. I dont think focus pulling will be a problem. I might stick to T4.0 either if i use the angenieux or the cooke. I need a sharp image free of aberrations.

BTW, Today i was watching 2001 in 1080p and every close up of the apes looks VERY bad (terrible focus and vigneting corners) while all other medium or wide angle shots are extremely sharp.

Sooo, i am thinking now that 100 might not be enough. 150mm should be the goal but i have not been in the location yet. uhmmm...
  • 0

#8 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 May 2007 - 02:59 PM

There is no lightweight zoom that covers 30mm to 100mm. Seems like you'll have to chose between handhel and zoom range.

Angenieux have a 28-76mm Optimo zoom that's meant for handheld.
  • 0

#9 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 03:02 PM

The weight issue was a joke. It is only one shot. Weight is not going to be a problem. ;D
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 05:49 PM

BTW, Today i was watching 2001 in 1080p and every close up of the apes looks VERY bad (terrible focus and vigneting corners) while all other medium or wide angle shots are extremely sharp.


A lot of the movie was shot in low light levels (considering the 50 ASA sensitivity of 5251) in 65mm, so the depth of field is super-shallow at times, and there are some portholing problems with the long lenses. You can imagine how much trouble they had lighting for that front-projection scene in the Dawn of Man sequence at 50 ASA, using basically 8x10 slide projectors for the background image and a grid of overhead lightbulbs to create the soft pre-morning light. I've always wondered if Kubrick-Unsworth-Alcott push-processed some of the movie, like in the Pods, lit mainly by the projection screens and button lights.
  • 0

#11 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 05:53 PM

A lot of the movie was shot in low light levels (considering the 50 ASA sensitivity of 5251) in 65mm, so the depth of field is super-shallow at times, and there are some portholing problems with the long lenses. You can imagine how much trouble they had lighting for that front-projection scene in the Dawn of Man sequence at 50 ASA, using basically 8x10 slide projectors for the background image and a grid of overhead lightbulbs to create the soft pre-morning light. I've always wondered if Kubrick-Unsworth-Alcott push-processed some of the movie, like in the Pods, lit mainly by the projection screens and button lights.


What i dont understand is why the projections are not washed out by the soft stage lights. How can this be achived withouth veeery low power lights?
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 May 2007 - 07:31 PM

What i dont understand is why the projections are not washed out by the soft stage lights. How can this be achived withouth veeery low power lights?


That's the nature of front-projection screen material -- the micro-balloons in the material are the same 3M material used in reflective road signs at night. So when the projector and the lens are perfectly aligned along the same axis (requiring a 45 degree semi-mirror with the projector at a right angle to the camera), the image is bounced back into the lens with incredible brightness, plus the actors in the foreground have their shadows from the projector beam blocked by their own bodies.

It helps too in this case that the backgrounds being projected were on the bright daylight side, so any washing out from set lighting would be less noticeable.
  • 0

#13 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 May 2007 - 10:25 PM

That's the nature of front-projection screen material -- the micro-balloons in the material are the same 3M material used in reflective road signs at night. So when the projector and the lens are perfectly aligned along the same axis (requiring a 45 degree semi-mirror with the projector at a right angle to the camera), the image is bounced back into the lens with incredible brightness, plus the actors in the foreground have their shadows from the projector beam blocked by their own bodies.

It helps too in this case that the backgrounds being projected were on the bright daylight side, so any washing out from set lighting would be less noticeable.


So is the projector just dim enough, due to the super-reflective screen, that the image thrown onto the actors is just totally washed out by their own lighting?
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 May 2007 - 10:31 PM

So is the projector just dim enough, due to the super-reflective screen, that the image thrown onto the actors is just totally washed out by their own lighting?


Yes. Although you'll notice that the eyes of the jaguar sitting on the rock in "2001", are glowing because they are reflecting the front-projection image.
  • 0

#15 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 22 May 2007 - 02:19 PM

Yes. Although you'll notice that the eyes of the jaguar sitting on the rock in "2001", are glowing because they are reflecting the front-projection image.


If I remember correctly, in Disney's 'Island at the Top of the World' there are some close shots of a Viking with a fire front projected in the background, which also shows up in his eyes.
  • 0

#16 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 May 2007 - 01:38 PM

The weight issue was a joke. It is only one shot. Weight is not going to be a problem. ;D

Well no joke, the Optimo 24-290 weighs just shy of 25 pounds, is more than two feet long, requires a sliding baseplate for support and uses filters at least 5.5"x5.5" in size. I cannot imagine ANYONE successfully shooting handheld even for a single shot with one.
  • 0

#17 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2007 - 02:15 PM

Well no joke, the Optimo 24-290 weighs just shy of 25 pounds, is more than two feet long, requires a sliding baseplate for support and uses filters at least 5.5"x5.5" in size. I cannot imagine ANYONE successfully shooting handheld even for a single shot with one.


Do they make a way to have the eyepiece a foot or so in front of the body? I think he'll want it to be balanced, lol
  • 0

#18 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2007 - 02:16 PM

Yes. Although you'll notice that the eyes of the jaguar sitting on the rock in "2001", are glowing because they are reflecting the front-projection image.


That's excellent! Thanks, David.
  • 0

#19 Mr. Macgregor

Mr. Macgregor
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 108 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2007 - 06:30 PM

My idea was this: if the zoom lense is too heavy, lets have my assistant holding the lense with his shoulder, so we are like two camera man. The shot is handheld but i dont have to move around. So we need two more extra assistants, one for the focus and one for the zoom. I promise to upload the shot when finished here. Plus a photo of the 4 of us "attached" to the Arri. :lol:
  • 0

#20 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 23 May 2007 - 06:49 PM

My idea was this: if the zoom lense is too heavy, lets have my assistant holding the lense with his shoulder, so we are like two camera man. The shot is handheld but i dont have to move around. So we need two more extra assistants, one for the focus and one for the zoom. I promise to upload the shot when finished here. Plus a photo of the 4 of us "attached" to the Arri. :lol:


What's the point of handheld with that ridiculous lens if you don't have to move? Just operate on appleboxes and a sandbag or two. That will be wiggly enough to sell the handheld look but much better on you and your assistants. Handholding that thing is like trying to quickdraw a cannon.
  • 0


Abel Cine

CineTape

Visual Products

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Technodolly

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery