Lens recommendations

I'm planning to shoot a feature film at the end of the year.
One location. Most shot in one room, spread out over a couple of weekends.
I am planning a dual camera shoot.
I plan on buying 2 Blackmagic used 2.5k cinema cameras for this. Scouring the internet for good deals.

My main question is what lenses would you recommend for this situation?

I hope you are trying to find the BMCC mFT mount as you may find suitable lenses. The BMCC has a lovely image and the larger sensor resolution has advantages in post. A concern for me is the camera is long in the tooth and more susceptible to failure at several points due to age of the electrical components, any moving parts, and wear and tear on all connections.

I’d take a good look at the new BMPCC4K which might be easily attainable well before year end. The mount is active mFT and the option of shooting BRAW and Colour Science 4 is a very good option. I believe both sensors have similar dynamic range, but you may also be able to make good use of the Dual ISO sensor in the BMPCC4K. That’s very tempting when working in interiors and may allow greater use of limited natural light and candlelight for example.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nikon AIS (mf) primes are lovely on the P4k.
I use a Gobe lens adapter so no speedbooster or anything.
But I dare say that there are some superb lens choices - the Panasonic/Olympus range will give you stabilisation and AF.
It all depends what you’re looking for!

The 14-35 Oly f/2.0 seems to be holding its value, just sold mine for $850, recent eBay listings show three sold for, from $650 to $850. Current listings for BIN are from $1200 to 2K, a,one with two in auction type sale.
Cheers

The 14-35 Oly f/2.0 seems to be holding its value, just sold mine for $850, recent eBay listings show three sold for, from $650 to $850. Current listings for BIN are from $1200 to 2K, a,one with two in auction type sale.
Cheers

Denny, when were these selling new and at what cost?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe the bargain buying is over...

Blame it on Grant...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick, the price for a new one on EBay is $2300, about what B&H was selling them for, until they were discontinued about two years ago. So $850 is a good price for this lens. They were popular on the AF100 also, so not so new to video shooters. JB has (had, not sure he still does) the Oly 14-35 f/2.0 and liked it also for shooting, not sure what camera he was using it on.
Cheers

Let me rephrase the question, being that this is a super low budget shoot.

What AFFORDABLE lenses would you recommend

Ray and Denny, thanks for the price information. $850 seems fair if the lens is in good condition. Even today’s new price seems decent. Less than my Tokina Cinema ATX 11-20mm T2.9 PL.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have found that for around $175 you can get an Olympus OM Zuiko MC 28mm f2 lens that originally sold for the equivalent of $1000. You just need an adapter like one I picked up for $16 on Ebay. Some posters say that you need a really good adapter to get the most out of this lens though, especially if you want accurate infinity focus.

It's introduction was between 1973/74 without the Multi Coating. The later lenses had the MC designation on the lens which minimizes flaring. This full frame mount was discontinued in the late 80's and they are manual exposure and manual focus. I found this on the internet about this lens:

This retrofocus design Zuiko wideangle uses a unique 9 elements in 8 groups optical design which aims to minimize common aberrations such as distortion, astigmatism, coma and curvilinear aberrations commonly found in design of fast speed wideangles.
One of the technical highlights of this lens is the use of floating elements system (so called " close range optical correction system") which has the lens elements move and compensate when focusing at close distance. Since most lenses are designed to perform their best at infinity and when focusing at their nearest focusing distance, the optical performance usually starts deteriorates, and thus, Olympus optical engineers incorporated an mechanism internally to move certain optical lens groups when the lens is used at its nearest/longest extension. This design has helped greatly to ensure high optical performance be extended at its closest focusing distance. There are not too many ZUIKO wideangles have such system incorporated, the Zuiko 28mm here is one of them, it can close focus to 30cm.
...good wide vision in picture coverage & reasonably compact in size for its speed, high resolving power with high contrast across its entire apertures & focusing range
...excellent for night photography with or without flash, and for shooting in cramped interiors under low light conditions.
...excellent wide angle to supplement OM photographers who may have own a 21mm ultrawide.

Another lens with the close range optical correction system is the Olympus OM Zuiko AUTO-W 21mm f/3.5. Used mint it is worth $200-225.

Here is an example of the Olympus Zuiko MC 28mm on the BMPCC 4K shot wide open at F/2.0:

They made both F/2.0 and F/2.8. I wouldn't have been able to get that bubble bokeh at F2.8.

The Olympus OM Zuiko AUTO-W 21mm f/2.0 used to be quite affordable as well, that is until all those Sony A7 owners scooped them up and drove the price to around $900. It's a classic.

The obsolete OM mount is passed up by people and that is the reason for their affordability.

For comparison of the Olympus 28mm with it's classic bokeh, here is the same scene with the BMPCC 4K, with a cropped Rokinon 12mm F2.0 NCS CS lens shot wide open. It's sharper, but without the magic.

Not necessarily. The best Japanese brands in particular were always keeping bokeh in mind. After all, the expression is coming from their language and their magazines were writing about such 'soft' factors in reviews when American (or German) reviews were still only looking after measurable data.

Today, a lens like the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f1.8 (nicknamed poor man's Otus) is showing both great sharpness and good bokeh. But then, that's not a cine lens.

If you are looking for good lenses with great character, check out Minolta SR lenses. Still cheap, since most can't be easily adapted to EOS, but great on MFT. There is a reason why Sony bought their formulas when Minolta had to give up.

And some Chinese, being late to the party, started to observe such parameters too.

Let me rephrase the question, being that this is a super low budget shoot.

What AFFORDABLE lenses would you recommend

+/- $ 200 zoom-nikkor 25-50 f4.0 ai
+/- $ 100 zoom-nikkor 35-70 f3.5 ai
+/- $ 500 zoom-nikkor 50-300 f4.5 ai ED
All three are parfocal (first two to the eye and maybe even for real).
All three breath when focusing.
All three extend when focusing.
Focus distance 25-50 60cm, 35-70 1mtr, 50-300 2mtr.
The 25-50 and 35-70 have a 72mm filter thread, the 50-300 a 95mm filter thread. 67mm filters will do on all lenses without vignetting, don't forget to add an IR-cut filter in the mix.

One problem with using 35mm film era or modern lenses is that to get a wide enough angle of view, you have to get a speedbooster and that's going to add quite a bit to the purchase price; around US$600+.

I got a feeling that someone who is going to buy two used BMCC's and is looking for a low budget lens solution is not going to invest in a new Metabones speedbooster as he can probably find the 0.64x for around $275 used.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Metabones-Niko ... SwtjlcmrSw
He could next to the BMCC MFT also buy one BMCC EF version which saves money on a booster and doubles his lenses.

And zoom lenses from the 80s weren't always the best (I still have one), which is why they were so often avoided by professional photographers. Old Nikon prime lenses are different thing altogether. My Nikon 300mm f4 AF-ED is still one of the classic telephoto lenses

Looks like someone is disagreeing with you.
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/c ... 2550mm.htm
https://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/c ... 00mmED.htm

My cheap advice is to make sure you have the fundamentals covered with lenses that are sharp and clean, exhibiting low levels of chromatic aberration and distortion. (Get used to Resolve’s tools for correcting these – they’re quite powerful.)

I love to shoot fully manually (mostly with primes) so I have a range of inexpensive old Nikon AI-S lenses that have this covered. A few of my favorites:

Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 (super-sharp normal)
Micro Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 (great macro and short tele)
Nikon 80-200mm f/4.5 (my only zoom)

Ken Rockwell’s reviews are helpful for choosing the best versions of each of these. (I know, I know … opinions diverge on KR.)

Once you’ve got that taken care of, you can get some fantastic “character” lenses for a song. I’ll probably catch some flack for this, but I’ve been picking up some of 7artisans’s lenses for less than $150 each. Used judiciously, you can get some wonderful bokeh from these. (Meike lenses are likely better all-around and cover the same bases, but I chose the 7artisans lenses specifically as effects lenses.)

For me, these are pure, cheap fun. First, their 35mm f/1.2 (!):

gimli.jpg (283.96 KiB) Viewed 6772 times

church-fore.jpg (204.74 KiB) Viewed 6772 times

And their 7.5mm f/2.8 fisheye, before and after Resolve’s barrel distortion correction (note that I haven’t fixed the chromatic aberration):

duo.jpg (352.43 KiB) Viewed 6772 times

These are all a little dark – they were all shot on dank, overcast New England days, with no additional light for the interior shot. But I wanted to show that while they’re not primary lenses, the 7artisans lineup can definitely be useful for someone on a budget. (I realize that some of the lenses I mentioned – like the Nikon tele – really aren’t appropriate for OP’s one-room shoot, but I wanted to provide info for others who might be drawn by the post’s title.)

I got a feeling that someone who is going to buy two used BMCC's and is looking for a low budget lens solution is not going to invest in a new Metabones speedbooster as he can probably find the 0.64x for around $275 used.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Metabones-Niko ... SwtjlcmrSw
He could next to the BMCC MFT also buy one BMCC EF version which saves money on a booster and doubles his lenses.

You are correct sir.

I'm somewhat surprised at the question being asked here. The OP is a sound engineer with a very long history in films, so I would have thought he'd have extensive contacts in the film industry to ask these questions and get some pretty good answers.

The two worlds arent that much connected.
We never see cinematographers on the dubstage.
Direrectris, producers and picture editors.

I'm somewhat surprised at the question being asked here. The OP is a sound engineer with a very long history in films, so I would have thought he'd have extensive contacts in the film industry to ask these questions and get some pretty good answers.

The two worlds arent that much connected.
We never see cinematographers on the dubstage.
Direrectris, producers and picture editors.

I understand that you may work in isolation of the actual DOPs etc in post-audio production, but don't you have the ability to make contact with at least some of them to get their views, especially as what you appear to want to do is directly related to what they do.

At this point in time you shouldn't be focused solely on price, but on what will work for your circumstances and then let price determine what you can afford. You haven't addressed the circumstances at all, so no one can suggest what might work.

The space of a 2 car garage.

The space of a 2 car garage.

Still not enough information. What's the layout going to be, where are the windows, what sort of lighting will you use, how is the furnishing arranged, where will the actors be positioned, will they move about, how high is the ceiling, what's around the walls, what are the acoustics like, how far from the actors will the cameras be etc?

Nevermind.

Nevermind.

So what were you actually after when you posed this question:

My main question is what lenses would you recommend for this situation?

We don't know your situation.

Yes, you actually do.

Maybe the bargain buying is over as people discover that these can be very good lenses for video. Mind you, even at $850 it's not a bad buy given how good the 14-35mm f2 is overall, especially if you're looking for one lens to cover the wide to mid range.

How would you compare the 14-35 to the popular sigma 18-35, if you've ever used it. I understand that that the 14-35 has a lot better focus throw and is a little lighter, but how do you think it stacks up image quality wise.

I picked up a Sigma 18-200MM DC for $90

Having used both, my choice would be the Oly 14-35 f/2.0, which is more useable for Cine type shooting than the Sigma 18-35 (edit: however, both are quite useable). The Sigma is longer, heavier and has a clinical edge sharped IQ. It is also hard to manually focus, not really useable (for me) at f/1.8, it has more distortion at the wide end and is not parfocal. Edit: That said, the Sigma is quite useable wide open, if you want the thin DoF look, and it does soften the image a little, which is nice. I am not just a big fan of very thin DoF.

The Oly 14-35 is useable wide open at f/2.0, has a more organic film like look to it, sharp but not razor edge sharp, more like a Zeiss lens in this regard, and, as pointed out, has a true coupled manual focus that has a nice long throw, making manual focus precise and quick to set. The zoom is also parfocal (when used on a correctly set FFD lens mount, Ray finds his 14-35 f/2.0 is not quite parfocal at f/2.0 on his Pocket 4K), and the Oly is lighter than the Sigma (which is not parfocal by design) and tends to be front heavy. I think the Oly zoom will also be a better balance on the Pocket 4K.

Edit: These comments are based on my experience and preferences, lens choice is somewhat subjective. That said, you can make most anything look good in post.
Cheers

Denny - Interesting to hear you say that. Those are similar reasons why I've just purchased the Oly 12-40 f2.8. I dont have the budget for the 14-35 f2, but from what I've seen the f2.8 lens offers similar optical quality albeit a bit slower.

Deleted.

Having used both, my choice would be the Oly 14-35 f/2.0, which is more useable for Cine type shooting than the Sigma 18-35. The Sigma is longer, heavier and has a clinical edge sharped IQ. It is also hard to manually focus, not really useable at f/1.8, has more distortion at the wide end and is not parfocal.

The Oly 14-35 is useable wide open at f/2.0, has a more organic film like look to it, sharp but not razor edge sharp, more like a Zeiss lens in this regard, and, as pointed out, has a true coupled manual focus that has a nice long throw, making manual focus precise and quick to set. The zoom is also parfocal, and lighter than the Sigma, which tends to be front heavy. I think the Oly zoom will also be a better balance on the Pocket 4K.

That said, you can make most anything look good in post.
Cheers

I shoot with the pair of f1.8 Sigmas professionally on a daily basis and have no issues with them so it is surprising to see the negative post here about the 18-35. That lens I would argue is the best bargain lens available today for video. Especially the "unusable" at f1.8 comment, I do not understand this at all so maybe you could expand on what you mean by this... just the manual focus aspect? If so, I have done manual racks at T1.5 (speedboosted) with "hand on lens" focusing with no real issues in regards to the focus ring, its just the narrow DOF that makes it hard.

The "clinical" argument is always a weird one to me as all that is required is a filter thrown over the top and honestly I have never had a paying client complain about the "clinicalness" of a product, but it is likely I just serve different people. I would personally rather have neutral, sharp lenses that can be altered to have more "character" than those I have to worry about issues such as CAs, flaring, softness at wide apertures, etc. For normal use, clean and dependable I say. For narrative, rent a set of particular lenses with character that matches the tone/feel/aesthetic.

I also personally do not require parfocal zooms or light lenses since I use a tripod so that is another thing to think about. I need basically multiple primes in one barrel so this is either important or not important depending on what you do.

The shorter focus throw is a trade off since you get the benefit of auto focus and would not get this benefit with a cine lens that has a longer focus throw. Throw these lenses on a Canon Cine (I use a c100 along with a Pocket 4K) and you get the benefit of good video AF and very good IQ for a very low price point.

SO basically, for the OP, your needs are going to determine what is going to work best for you. Personally I find the pair of Sigma f1.8's to be a bargain set of f1.8/T2 zooms that provide unreasonably good results for sub 2K USD and I use them on Canon and BMD cameras. More incredibly the set is T1.5 with slightly wider than s35 AOV when used with the speedbooster on the unreasonably good Pocket 4k, with the option to use a non-focal reduced adapter for "more reach" if you choose.

The issues people might have with them might or might not be important. For me, the pair is a money maker duo that I have a really hard time finding any significant faults with.

Sorry, not intending to be negative about the Sigma, just pointing out the differences between it and the Oly Zoom. Both are very good lenses, and a lot of nice work has been shot with both. The Sigma is very popular due to its fast speed and lower cost, you get a lot of lens for your buck. Lens IQ is somewhat subjective, and different lenses have different optical qualities that effect their IQ, and contribute to their look in Cinema shooting. So a lens choice is going to depend on what you are shooting and the look you want.

The Sigma is a very capable lens, but it does have its short comings, especially when used on a smaller camera body (as any large front heavy lens will have). Also this lens was designed to be an auto focus lens for still photography on a larger size sensor, this is not bad, but is just a design feature of the lens. The larger projected image circle,does allow the use of a Speed Booster (another advantage in some situations), I prefer to use lenses designed for the sensor size I am using, and I like the look in the Oly f/2.0 Zoom better than the Sigma, but that is My preference, for what I shoot. If I was to shoot a battle scene, I might select the a Sigma Zoom to get the look that would be appropriate for this type of shot.

My opinions expressed here, are just that, my opinion based on my experience, not a judgment. Any recommendations implied are based on what I would choose to use. That said, lens selection is very subjective, and what works for one, might not suit another photographer. This is why I do not offer lens advice on which lens one should buy. Instead, I try to show the differences between a given lens being considered to help someone make their Own choice. I am not endorsing one lens over the other.
Cheers

Sorry, not intending to be negative about the Sigma, just pointing out the differences between it and the Oly Zoom. Both are very good lenses, and a lot of nice work has been shot with both. The Sigma is very popular due to its fast speed and lower cost, you get a lot of lens for your buck. Lens IQ is somewhat subjective, and different lenses have different optical qualities that effect their IQ, and contribute to their look in Cinema shooting. So a lens choice is going to depend on what you are shooting and the look you want.

The Sigma is a very capable lens, but it does have its short comings, especially when used on a smaller camera body (as any large front heavy lens will have). Also this lens was designed to be an auto focus lens for still photography, this is not bad, but is just a design feature of the lens. I prefer the look in the Oly f/2.0 Zoom, but that is My preference, for what I shoot. If I was to shoot a battle scene, I might select the a Sigma Zoom to get the look that would be appropriate for this type of shot.

My opinions expressed here, are just that, my opinion based on my experience, not a judgment. Any recommendations implied are based on what I would choose to use. That said, lens selection is very subjective, and what works for one, might not suit another photographer. This is why I do not offer lens advice on which lens one should buy. Instead, I try to show the differences between a given lens being considered to help someone make their Own choice. I am not endorsing one lens over the other.
Cheers

For sure, I get what you are saying. I think I just get surprised sometimes by words like "unusable" and do not feel that those kinds of words make sense when it comes to a tool especially when many people either in professional or non-professional use find the tool perfectly usable. Preference makes sense to me, saying something is not usable is something entirely different. I don't endorse any particular brand and definitely do not think these particular Sigma lenses are at all the "best" for everything or perfect by any stretch. I just wanted you to clarify some of what you were saying and provide my opinion on this as I think the OP would benefit from this.

No worries mate, and I did not say the Sigma was “unusable”, I do not use terms like this either. I did say the Oly was more useable (implying both are useable, one just more so for me).
Cheers

No worries mate, and I did not say the Sigma was “unusable”, I do not use terms like this either. I did say the Oly was more useable (implying both are useable, one just more so for me).
Cheers

"It is also hard to manually focus, not really useable at f/1.8, has more distortion at the wide end and is not parfocal."

^ This is the sentence I was referring to and asking for clarification. Not really useable, unusable, similar but not the same entirely so that would be my mistake if I did read too far into the way this was said. I simply wanted to clarify this.

Lots of good imfo.

There's always the balance of budget vs needs.
I won't be buying +$800 lenses for this particular project.
And I'm sure what I end up using, a lot of Cinematographers wouldn't use.

At this point, when it comes to the lenses, its tough to be a case of "best of the worst".
However, by the time we start shooting this, having 9 months of time to get to know the equipment, and experimenting a lot, I can rent quality lenses, if need be.

So, with that in mind, what kind of lens would you rent for the following situation.
Small room , size 2 car garage.
2 people.
Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

Duane, I see your point, edited my original post to clear this up, and so none else miss understands my comments. To me, many lenses are not “really useable” when shot wide open, for what I shoot and the look I want. Most lenses sharpen up after they are stopped down one or two stops, and their IQ somewhat changes.

In addition to the Sigma Zoom, you can add the S!R Hyperprimes f/1.x, the similar fast Primes by Voightlander. Does this make these lens unusable, no, and each has a unique look wide open, some giving a soft dream like look. The Sigma is quite useable wide open, but for me, at 18mm very hard for me to focus. I have the same issue with my Elite S16 9.5 Super Speed lens wide open. But again, that is just me.

Another user may not have the same issue, and a friend of mine (whose lens I used) loves his Sigma 18-35 for landscape shooting in a Nikon DX DSLR. He did have to get the lens dock, to calibrate the lens AF for his camera, but once that was done, the lens works quite well in AF mode for him.
Cheers

So, with that in mind, what kind of lens would you rent for the following situation.
Small room size 2 car garage.
2 people.
Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

Depends on if you want a wide view of the entire room, or just the two actors, or a close up of each actor cutting between them. Each shot requires a different focal length lens. You can get an application for IPhone and Android phones, like pCAM or Viewfinder Mk2, which will show you the angle of view of a given focal length lens on a given camera and a given distance (whew, that’s a mouthful).

As for a specific lens, I do not know the look or atmosphere you are trying to create. Look at examples of shots taken with different lenses to see which ones you like. Lens choice, aside for the mechanics like focal length and max f/stop, are subjective. What I like, you might not.
Cheers

So, with that in mind, what kind of lens would you rent for the following situation.
Small room size 2 car garage.
2 people.
Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

Depends on if you want a wide view of the entire room, or just the two actors, or a close up of each actor cutting between them. Each shot requires a different focal length lens. You can get an application for IPhone and Android phones, like pCAM or Viewfinder Mk2, which will show you the angle of view of a given focal length lens on a given camera and a given distance (whew, that’s a mouthful).

As for a specific lens, I do not know the look or atmosphere you are trying to create. Look at examples of shots taken with different lenses to see which ones you like. Lens choice, aside for the mechanics like focal length and max f/stop, are subjective. What I like, you might not.
Cheers

^ THis bottom half of notes is perfect and is exactly what you need to do. A period piece would need one kind of look (like Panchros), something more modern like Kingsmen might require something totally different (like Cinealtas).

So, with that in mind, what kind of lens would you rent for the following situation.
Small room size 2 car garage.
2 people.
Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

Depends on if you want a wide view of the entire room, or just the two actors, or a close up of each actor cutting between them. Each shot requires a different focal length lens. You can get an application for IPhone and Android phones, like pCAM or Viewfinder Mk2, which will show you the angle of view of a given focal length lens on a given camera and a given distance (whew, that’s a mouthful).

As for a specific lens, I do not know the look or atmosphere you are trying to create. Look at examples of shots taken with different lenses to see which ones you like. Lens choice, aside for the mechanics like focal length and max f/stop, are subjective. What I like, you might not.
Cheers

I'm going to be shooting with 2 cameras. I want to be able to cut between different views of the same take in editing if need be.

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

You're asked to shoot a film in that type of setting.

What Lense would YOU show up with, knowing it's a low budget indie shoot.

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

You're asked to shoot a film in that type of setting.

What Lense would YOU show up with, knowing it's a low budget indie shoot.

Pair of Sigma f1.8 zooms or set of Zeiss ZF primes. That's what I would do.

First, I would find out what the script is, meet with the director to see what they want, find out what the period the film is set in, and look at the story board. Then I would scope out the set and/or location, use the Viewfinder app to get a feel for which focal lengths will work for the shots needed, check what the lighting is, take light meter readings, then decide which lenses I needed for the camera being used. This is what pre-production meetings are for.

This is not shooting an event, this is a narrative shoot, and you have control over the situation (Director does anyway), lighting, camera angels (which need to be blocked out with actor movements), camera location, etc.

Otherwise, I wouldn’t take the job. I do not do cold turkey anymore.
Cheers

Ok, let me rephrase the question.

You're asked to shoot a film in that type of setting.

What Lense would YOU show up with, knowing it's a low budget indie shoot.

Pair of Sigma f1.8 zooms or set of Zeiss ZF primes. That's what I would do.

Thanks for the info.

Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

I think you are overly concerned about the lens. Any decent 12-40 zoom will be fine, and a zoom will make your shoot go faster making reframing quick and easy. Your bigger challenge is lighting and image quality. I would do a mock setup with the lighting as you expect it to be. 2 table lamps (occasionally in the shot) will be very contrasty and likely result in underexposed shadow areas (think lot's of noise) and harsh, potentially blown out highlights. I would rent a compact LED lighting kit that matches the color temp of your lamps, and edge light the actors against the darker background. They would also serve to bring the middle tones up closer to the highlights created by the practical lamps. The "cinematic look" that everyone is chasing is 70% professional lighting, 10% camera & lens, and 20% art direction. Shoot Braw and you can always make the scene "darker" in post, but you cannot bring up detail that isn't there in the file without bringing up noise and associated ugliness. Lighting a scene to look like darkness is harder than it looks.

Low level lighting for the majority.
Think a room with say 2 table top lamps.

I think you are overly concerned about the lens. Any decent 12-40 zoom will be fine, and a zoom will make your shoot go faster making reframing quick and easy. Your bigger challenge is lighting and image quality. I would do a mock setup with the lighting as you expect it to be. 2 table lamps (occasionally in the shot) will be very contrasty and likely result in underexposed shadow areas (think lot's of noise) and harsh, potentially blown out highlights. I would rent a compact LED lighting kit that matches the color temp of your lamps, and edge light the actors against the darker background. They would also serve to bring the middle tones up closer to the highlights created by the practical lamps. The "cinematic look" that everyone is chasing is 70% professional lighting, 10% camera & lens, and 20% art direction. Shoot Braw and you can always make the scene "darker" in post, but you cannot bring up detail that isn't there in the file without bringing up noise and associated ugliness. Lighting a scene to look like darkness is harder than it looks.

Thanks. That's really helpful.
I actually did a quick little mockup last night. And I was actually blown away by the image quality of the Bmcc in such a low light level situation. We shot a short last year with a DP who was really great and helpful, and one major portion of it was shot in a similar situation with a Red Epic in 4k. When I got the footage home, I thought we might not be able to use that footage, the noise was so bad. We had to do major noise reduction.
The test I did last night, already looks better without any noise reductuin whatsoever.

I've been doing several test shits, and I absolutely love shooting RAW now. The starting point colorwise when importing it into DaVinci is IMO fantastic.

As far as lighting goes, we're going to have lots of time to experiment with that. The set will actually be built in our 2 car garage well in advance. And I'm going to be doing lots of experimenting with lights, which I will also purchase. My idea is, find good deals, buy, the n sell afterwards.
We did the same thing when we produced our musical "London Calling" I found an amazing deal on an X32 mixer, wireless mics for a cast of 13, and speakers. So we are able to rehearse for 2 months with the gear we'd have at the performances. When I sold the mixer, I sold it for about $200 less than what I bought it for.

It would have cost me $200 a week to rent one.

This is all encouraging. Much better than the impression I got from your original post. Lots more planning and detailed shot lists to be done. That also gives you an idea about focal lengths.

One comment that might not be helpful but as a heads-up on the use of primes or zooms given the close quarters of your set. I can imagine putting that I’m my generous two-car garage with your set crew, lights, props, walls, your audio equipment, your cameras, the director, script, continuity, assistants. It’s very cramped unless your in-frame set is very small.

My point is I wouldn’t see the need for a zoom in these conditions, but you will need a couple of wide primes. Or use a non-parfocal zoom sparingly as a variable prime lens. The possible issue I’m getting to is that focal lengths and the distance from your subject to your film plane determines your perspective and using a zoom without moving the camera alters your perspective in a different way than if you use prime lenses and change the location of the camera as needed. The use of either option likely means different blocking. Not a decision you want to make on set for every shot if you can make that decision now to suit the story, subject, and director’s intent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rick,

A zoom used as a collection of primes gives you multiple FLs in one barrel, making it easier to grab shots without changing lenses. This is how I use zooms in narrative situations and is how I would expect a cinematographer to use a zoom for this situation. I'm not a fan of the plant your feet and zoom to your desired composition approach... That's rather lazy and not particularly creative in this kind of project as what your say is true regarding perspective. If you are doing grab and go documentary like shots then this is normal, but for normal narrative situations I would expect more calculated decision making on what FLs are used when and where.

The big difference between the zoom and prime is that a fixed prime does not provide the luxury of zooming just a tad past junk on set (sometimes you can't just zoom with your feet) and changing FLs quickly which can be a time saver for small or no budget productions... Also allowing you to experiment by grabbing a quick closer or longer shot without the hassle if changing lenses if your desire.

With the sigma 1.8 zooms for you can schedule all wider shots done (18-35) and all close ups (50-100) done in essentially two blocks of time with 1 total lens change.

Of course if you were only using say 2 primes and had only those two FLs you could schedule the same number of changes, however you would be limited in your FLs and placement on set as well. Might not matter at all, could matter a lot.

I know that some people say I use zooms wrong as I don't care at all if they are parfocal and I chose FL s ahead of time, but used just like a set of primes in one tube I've found to be quite freeing and a big time saver for these kinds of productions.

This is all encouraging. Much better than the impression I got from your original post. Lots more planning and detailed shot lists to be done. That also gives you an idea about focal lengths.

Picking up another Sigma today for $100 to experiment with as well.
A Sigma EX 50mm f/2.8 EX DG.

Dune00z, I agree it’s all about keeping the camera moving whether shooting a few primes or with a variable zoom to suit the needs of the director and your interpretation. And that perfect composition can be made much easier with a slight change of the focal length on a zoom (after which one always checks focus).

I use either, zoom or primes, after consultation with the producer or director. Sadly though, I’m not shooting narratives in the traditional sense but some of these aspects come into play enough that I realize when over reliance on a zoom can be a problem when the camera is not on the move as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With the sigma 1.8 zooms for you can schedule all wider shots done (18-35) and all close ups (50-100) done in essentially two blocks of time with 1 total lens change. Dune

Duane, Henchman (the OP) is using two BMCC 2.5K cameras, where a normal AOV is 20mm, so a 18mm is not going to give him a wide shot, more like a wide normal, unless he has a BMCC Speed Booster.

Something around 10-12mm? I didn’t think the SpeedBooster was an option with the emphases on affordable. An 18mm with the SpeedBooster for BMCC will get yo to effectively a 11.5mm AOV on 135 film sensor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Affordable is a relative term. Without an actual dollar amount there's no telling what people mean. About 2k or so USD for those lenses and the adapter is highly affordable considering what you are getting but I don't know what the guy's budget is. If you can't buy decent glass I argue rent great glass.