Right, so... just wanted to go BMC to break free from 5D codec prison, and wondered what a good lens pairing was that would get me into the comfort, FoV and pleasing to me end result, zone I was used to with Canon 5D + 35mm & 50mm primes.
Perhaps of interest, how I cut my baby teeth in backyard/basement video-making mostly included consumer video cameras that had fixed lenses, and same thing (though much later) with phones. It turns out achieving Deep depth of field was the easy, default, only depth of field. Shallow depth of field OTOH was an elusive holy grail, the puzzle piece missing from my efforts to emulate the cinema style I love. 5D solved all of that for me, for the first time I could get "all" the cinematic shots.
If you carefully scrub my words I never said shallow is the only thing cinematic, I just said it was key. And yes I pointed that out further here, ironically in a case that was being made against shallow being cinematic, where there was actually loads of shallow. That discussion can totally end there. Moving forward I won't do a project without heaps of, or the ability to produce, shallow depth of field, based on everything my eyes have consumed and my skin has goose-bumped. So while DoF is a factor, it's not one I was initially concerned with here. Also, FWIW I've never taken a single "still" with my 5D. I'm not converting, or switching. I've been moving pictures since go. The 5D just happens to be where I finally got the results I wanted (after a ton of experimenting).
Uli Plank wrote:Still, these are both 25mm lenses, that doesn't change, never.
I hear you, but the reality is, as post after post here calls out, "using a full frame lens on an S35/APSC sensor will yield much different results". This is point blank what I'm working through a bit before diving in.
Uli Plank wrote:while Leone might be the master of small DoF
I never said this. He just included a lot in his work (as opposed to not at all), as did many of the guys I fancy.
rick.lang wrote:A 35mm lens is always 35mm regardless of the sensor is not the whole story when one 35mm lens has an image circle of 46mm and another covers 30mm or 14mm.
I am hearing this loud and clear, thanks for reinforcing.
Yes, this article sheds tons of light. Someone else here had me read this, but I just reread anyway. Slapping a lens on one sensor gets completely different (crucially important) results than slapping it on another. Scary enough to force me to reach out.
I do so wish that article ended with a list of suggested (real world, available in the marketplace) lens pairings to get specific FoV results. (FoV, not DoF)
Michel Rabe wrote:Yes but that's Leone using long lenses and smaller distance to isolate the subject (from an endless landscape), not a large format and super fast apertures.
I achieve the same look using my equipment, knowledge and comfort... so I'll probably stay in that lane to get the same results.
Michel Rabe wrote:If you are fine with Leone's shots, who used a much smaller "sensor" and slower lenses than your 5D + primes setup, you should be good with the 6K.
My 6K concerns were not about "shots". More so wasteful downscaling, bloat, storage, processing power in post if my end product will be HD or 4K at most. But I'm hearing here that 6K uses all of the super 35 sensor which I think is important, and the BMRAW compression options makes all of this doable.
Michel Rabe wrote:You seem to have a very specific look in mind and imo there's no way around testing different lenses (that also fit your weather requirements) to stop you from wallowing over things that may or may not bug you in the end.
I was never here about aesthetics or character or DoF. I may have initially conflated the term "look" with "field of view" and my project I shared is indeed highly stylized so that probably didn't help. I simply want to achieve the same field of view and framing I am used to with any given lens, DESPITE image circle, crop factor, and coverage.
BTW my weather sealed concerns are based on wind and sand, not humidity and water. I'm almost exclusively desert.
Marshall Harrington wrote:I spent quite a bit of time talking with Dan Kanes at the Atlas booth last weekend. He gave me a beginners look at the history of anamorphic glass, thanks Dan. He then passed me on to an experienced DP who spent 20-30 minutes going into detail about the characteristics of anamorphic's.
I guarantee this is the next step for me if I go BMC given they are ana-capable. But I am a ways off to say the least.
Marshall Harrington wrote:Like you it's been hard for me to decide between FF and S35.
I think it's just that FF happened to be the first way I was able to affordably access video and lenses that made great looking movies. The fact that it happened to have FF and make things look, and hold up better on the big screen, way better than they should, was just happenstance. If I first had an affordable Super35 camera body with the ability to interchange quality lenses, I'd be fine, but as things worked out that "accessibility door opened" via the 5D first for a lot of us... and the accessible Super35 that met all the criteria (and provides some better ones!) came out after the fact.
Marshall Harrington wrote:built-in ND's has been a game-changer.
Easily 50% of the reason I'm considering any of this.
rNeil H wrote:I'd go for built-in ND and maybe internal cut-offs and not worry about "FF". As a long-time stills shooter, that is a stills thing, not a moving image capture thing.
Solid advice, but again, I was never "worried" about FF, just asking how to achieve the same technical (not artful) results I'm used to.
rNeil H wrote:And depth of field is most certainly not tied to any image size of the camera,
Hopefully no one suggested otherwise.
rNeil H wrote:Never heard a horror story of too much DOF.
Definitely the simpler/safer route. I mentioned earlier people are shooting this way and then simulating shallow DoF in post. It is a
horror story on the eyes when you see it, but I get it from an efficiency, crank it out, time is money, what's next, stand point. Luckily I'm not in that space.
rNeil H wrote:not on sticks.
All of my shots are locked. Bit of a lost art maybe, not sure, but when you see it out in the wild, you know it. Cronenberg's kid did a film called "Antiviral", all locked, quite a statement, quite a look. And when there is a rare scene that calls for camera movement, it just leaps off the screen. Crazy.
Anyway... my shoots are rehearsed with marks to hit. Depth of field is shallow if the shot calls for it, but not shallow enough that their nose will be out of focus if they sneeze. And if I frame a good medium or cowboy shot and a hand moves forward and blurs a little, well then I just pee'd my pants in the editing room, so all good there. I approach full-on movement a little different, perhaps a little older, as well. Pans and tracks where the subject doesn't break the focal plane but moves across the screen in a pre-choregraphed way. These sorts of values and ideas are why I got out of reality TV and loathe shaky cam found footage or the "constantly move the camera a little bit to create energy even if it's just a talking head" vibe. Of course these same reasons are why I can't make an actual living at this
-- Which leads me to -- FYI I'm doing the Auteur thing here. I'm not a hired gun, working on other peoples projects or relying on this for retirement - so always consider that in my visions and responses.
Oh and couldn't agree more on learning the art of Focus Pull! Secretly looking into the most techy/simplest/slickest way to set up a good focus pull system on a theoretical BMC set-up.
And that was the total digression I am trying to say I am not here for, but maybe it clarified some things that were misconstrued.
rNeil H wrote:But of course there are many who love that ... intriguing ... "Canon" image.
For me it was just my easiest access to quality and reliability, everything else was too expensive or too risky. My path of least resistance to "wow, that looks pretty good through a DLP". I'm totally down to expand that horizon if I don't lose something important to me in the process.
Michel Rabe wrote:If you want to replicate the FF look of a 35mm f1.4 you'd need a 23mm f0.9 lens and that's not going to happen.
Anything geared towards cinema and super35 come to mind that would get me close?
Ryan Earl wrote:I think what's never been apparent from the product packaging is what's needed to get a normal field of view at each format.
Hear hear! And love your chart.
Any personal preference on what make/model "28mm on a Pocket 6K" you prefer?
---