Jump to content


Photo

D21 ...


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#1 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 07 January 2009 - 08:43 AM

Hi ! I'm starting a new fil in a month and a half with the ARRIFLEX D-21 , which I never used it ... Does anybody has any recomendation for assisting and pulling focus with this camera? or technical data ? or whatever you discovered using it ... or accesories you would recomend me to ask to the rental house...
and another thing... were can I download the manual ? cause in arri'swebpage, I couldn't find it ...
thanks !
  • 0

#2 Chris Keth

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

Posted 07 January 2009 - 11:24 PM

Arri CSC is wonderful about making manuals available. Here's a link to their camera manual page.

You'll be pleasantly surprises. Working with the D21 on your end is very similar to working with any other arri camera.
  • 0

#3 Matias Nicolas

Matias Nicolas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina

Posted 08 January 2009 - 09:27 AM

Thanks for the links ! ...
What about depth of field? cause I worked last year with the red camera in 4k , and it seemed to me, to have less depth of field than in 35mm... but a lot less !
have you experienced sth like this?
  • 0

#4 James Martin

James Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 January 2009 - 04:48 PM

The RED should, theoretically, have the exact same depth of field as 3-perf Super35....

The ARRI D-21 has (someone correct me if I'm wrong) a 4-perf Super35 (aka Silent) frame. So, it will have "regular" Super35 DoF, or anamorphic DoF if you're using anamorphic lenses with it.

It's also my understanding that the camera was designed to be easy to use and "film-like" in its operation. Though I've not used it myself yet, so I could be wrong.
  • 0

#5 Allan Legarth Nielsen

Allan Legarth Nielsen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • 2nd Assistant Camera

Posted 09 January 2009 - 10:47 AM

Funny, I talked to one of my friends the other vday, and he had a gig on a D-21 shoot. When the aperture was wide open, the dof was extremly narrow, he even had to pull focus on some wide angle shots. He requested a 35mm print to see some of the rushes, and a lot of it was soft. After they tried to at least keep the aperture around 4 or 5.6. Under that it get really critically.

But again it's just what I've heard. Good luck mate!

Edited by Allan Legarth Nielsen, 09 January 2009 - 10:49 AM.

  • 0

#6 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:07 AM

The RED should, theoretically, have the exact same depth of field as 3-perf Super35....


Hi,

It does not, it has a great deal less. Often there is no obvious DOF just focused in the wrong place by 1/2 inch!

Stephen
  • 0

#7 stephen lamb

stephen lamb
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 91 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, Connecticut

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:53 AM

I agree about the RED at least....I had trouble pulling focus on it. It didn't feel like 35mm dof, it seemed that if I was off my mark even a bit, it was way off. Didn't have a chance to do any measured tests, but that's what it felt like.
  • 0

#8 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:56 AM

I agree about the RED at least....I had trouble pulling focus on it. It didn't feel like 35mm dof, it seemed that if I was off my mark even a bit, it was way off. Didn't have a chance to do any measured tests, but that's what it felt like.


Hi,

The thickness of a pencil line would be a big error on a CU of a face.

Stephen
  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:34 PM

I wonder if there really is a difference or not -- afterall, we don't see 35mm's true depth of field until much later, when it's been projected on a big screen or transferred to HD. Whereas with these digital 35mm cine cameras, we can see the lens image "live" more or less -- even the operator on a 35mm movie camera is seeing the lens image projected onto a tiny groundglass screen.

So I think 90% of what is happening is basically that, until now, no one has seen focus-pulling with 35mm depth of field "live", pre-editing, pre-printing, pre-transfer. I suspect even print projection hides some of the flaws due to softening.

Until someone shoots a comparison test, with the 35mm footage ending up at the same resolution, I'm not going to agree that there is a fundamental difference in depth of field.

That said, it seems that the higher MTF characteristics of digital cine cameras, at least when viewed on an HD monitor using a live output from the camera, make it more obvious when the focus is on the subject or not. Some people used to say that about Zeiss versus other optics even in 35mm, that the contrast makes the fall-off seem more apparent. Whether that counts as having "less depth of field" or not, I don't know.

It depends on if you define depth of field as the characteristic of the image as it falls out of focus -- let's say, a receding line of staggered focus charts -- versus whether how clearly you can tell if the focus is precisely on the subject or not. Maybe that's the same thing but maybe not. Even in 35mm film, I question the point of depth of field charts because I feel that either the subject is in focus or it isn't, and most attempts to hold splits or accept mis-focused shots because the chart tells you that it's within the acceptable range... well, half the time it doesn't seem acceptable to me.
  • 0

#10 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:46 PM

The RED should, theoretically, have the exact same depth of field as 3-perf Super35....


I'm happy to be corrected here, but as I understand it, the RED's sensor is only s35 sized if you include the 'look around' area which is not recorded. The active pixel array is 4520 pixels across, rather than 4900pix on the whole chip. This would make it a similar width to Academy 35mm
  • 0

#11 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3072 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 January 2009 - 01:57 PM

Some people used to say that about Zeiss versus other optics even in 35mm, that the contrast makes the fall-off seem more apparent.


There's a D21 show I worked on recently that switched from Zeiss primes to S4's for precisely that reason.
  • 0

#12 Robert Tagliaferri

Robert Tagliaferri
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:03 PM

I agree about the RED at least....I had trouble pulling focus on it. It didn't feel like 35mm dof, it seemed that if I was off my mark even a bit, it was way off. Didn't have a chance to do any measured tests, but that's what it felt like.

Were you by chance using the Red branded lenses?

The focus scale on that lens is VERY compressed... a minute adjustment on the knob translates to a dramatic shift in the lens' focus. It's built like a photo lens IMO
  • 0

#13 Chris Keth

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

Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:13 PM

Were you by chance using the Red branded lenses?

The focus scale on that lens is VERY compressed... a minute adjustment on the knob translates to a dramatic shift in the lens' focus. It's built like a photo lens IMO


The RED zoom is a rehoused still lens. Creating the very fine mechanics to spread out a focus scale is expensive and, as we all know, the RED company is so very 'economical.' <_<
  • 0

#14 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:06 PM

The RED zoom is a rehoused still lens. Creating the very fine mechanics to spread out a focus scale is expensive and, as we all know, the RED company is so very 'economical.' <_<

I had a look at the new Zeiss 8mm lens (for 16mm) the other day and what really struck me that once you went down into the minimum focus region you had a marking for every single centimeter! And that's on a wide-angle lens.

Really, all these people who think they can use stills lenses for narrative filmmaking are in for a surprise.
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:54 PM

Really, all these people who think they can use stills lenses for narrative filmmaking are in for a surprise.


Yet a number of people are already claiming that they have done this on the RED, and even gotten away with no focus-pullers, shooting at wide apertures just by the operator (usually themselves) live-focusing.

I suspect either: (1) they are focus-pulling geniuses with Jedi-level skills; (2) not very critical nor picky; (3) can't tell good focus one way or another, (4) believe things only have to be sharp when neither the subject nor the camera is moving; or (5) have yet to see their work on a giant 75' wide screen. I suppose option #1 is a possibility...

I remember working with an ENG shooter who moved up to HD and couldn't figure out why the focusing was now harder, despite the fact that the HD camera had a 2/3" sensor just like the betacam he was used to using. I tried to explain to him that his focusing was the same, only now he could finally SEE his mistakes -- it wasn't that he was making fewer mistakes before in betacam.
  • 0

#16 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 09 January 2009 - 07:50 PM

It also depends on what they mean by focused. HD being very sharp and clinical, there is a lot of room for soft focus, pleasant images. These may technically be out of focus but look nice or film-like because of the inherent HD sharpness, which some people really dislike.

Some older cameramen claim that even S4's and Master Primes are too sharp for 35mm use. And older lenses (even from as far back as the fifties) have seen a second life for this very reason.

http://web.mac.com/m...ses/Baltar.html

I remember shooting a short as B camera operator on an HDX 900 last year. The DP, who was looking at the video village HD monitor came to talk to me and the focus puller. "It looks too sharp," were his exact words. So we had to throw the focus off a bit for him to be happy. Now, that was the first time the focus puller or I'd ever had that problem!

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 09 January 2009 - 07:54 PM.

  • 0

#17 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 10 January 2009 - 02:53 AM

I agree about the RED at least....I had trouble pulling focus on it. It didn't feel like 35mm dof, it seemed that if I was off my mark even a bit, it was way off. Didn't have a chance to do any measured tests, but that's what it felt like.



I think it's two things. With all the image processing that's going on, it's very easy to PICK a soft shot now. I think projected film in a cinema meant we got away with a lot more softness because film is inherently more forgiving.

But there is also perhaps, a difference in the way the imager's are working. The size of the sensor thickness Vs film. I just dug up some notes from a Lecture when I was doing my MA, that was given by Steve Newman ACS who is a VFX/MOCO/Miniature specialist.

He has just finished Superman Returns. He'd discovered that the Genesis *DIDN"T* have the same DOF characteristics because he was able to measure it. He was doing miniature work which regularly means shooting at T22 or T32 and he consistently found the focus didn't as they were meant to. I hope he doesn't mind me posting this.

"A surprising anomaly came out of this shoot. We discovered the Genesis, even though the chip was the same size as 35mm film negative and we were using the same lenses, actually gave us less depth-of-field than shooting film.
From what I have been able to work out this is because the chip is an infinitely thin surface (unlike film, which has an emulsion thickness of about 25 microns) and this makes the focus more critical. The corrected Circle of Confusion for Genesis is 20 microns whereas for film it is 24.4 microns (or 1/1000?) " - Steve Newman

jb
  • 0

#18 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 January 2009 - 03:44 AM

Yet a number of people are already claiming that they have done this on the RED, and even gotten away with no focus-pullers, shooting at wide apertures just by the operator (usually themselves) live-focusing.

I remember one shot on my film where we were on a 75mm Hawk, the actress was watering plants and slowly working her way into a close-up. I was standing next to the focus puller and could see how he was adjusting for every single time she leaned backwards and forwards. That really was a work of inches. There's no way an operator could have done this.
  • 0

#19 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:24 AM

I remember one shot on my film where we were on a 75mm Hawk, the actress was watering plants and slowly working her way into a close-up. I was standing next to the focus puller and could see how he was adjusting for every single time she leaned backwards and forwards. That really was a work of inches. There's no way an operator could have done this.


Hi,

On every lower budget RED production I have seen, using older cine lenses like Zeiss Standards, almost every shot has focus in the wrong place. On a logo on a T shirt, not the eyes or the middle of an ear. When I mention it they say 'Your being picky, don't you think it looks as good as 35mm film?" I usually reply "What do you mean, the bad skin tones & blown highlights looks just like Video" They reply "the 35mm DOF" I reply "everything important is out of focus"

Stephen
  • 0

#20 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:32 AM

The best lens in the world is useless if you don't have proper focus scales. That's one of the reasons the Primos are so popular. When they got released in the late 80s, their focus scale was much wider and more precise than that of Zeiss Superspeeds, Standards and Cooke S2/S3s. It took Zeiss and Cooke almost a decade to make lenses that were in that category.
  • 0


CineLab

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Opal

CineTape

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

Tai Audio

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Technodolly

Opal