Blackmagic Forum

Hey everyone,

Here is a short film shot with the new DZOFILM Arles Primes on the BMCC6K.



Recently I had the opportunity to test and use the new Vista Vision prime lenses.
It was fitting to film in the city of Arles which the lenses are named after.
We wanted to add an artistic side to this project and get inspired from the place that Van Gogh painted and lived in.
My wife is an illustrator so I followed her exploring the city, finding inspiration for her own work.
And I captured some of the scenes the famous painter immortalised through his paintings.

This was our first time visiting Arles, and my first time using the lenses.

For this project I also focused on light and shadow as well as vibrant colours.

This was still a test shoot so I also filmed in a way that I sometimes wouldn’t (ie pointing directly at the sun, or shooting wide open a lot)

We filmed for 2 days in the city of Arles and one afternoon back home in the French Alps.

I used the 25, 35, 50, 75 and 180mm.
Shot mostly between T1.4 and T2.8


Most of the footage is shot handheld, with the DJI Focus Pro
Filmed on the BMCC6K, in 6K DCI at 24 and 48 FPS.

Some shots on the Ronin RS4 Pro and mini iFootage Tripod.
(All the gear is linked in the video description)

I hope you enjoy this video and stay tuned for the review!

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions

Cheers,
Flo

It is lovely. Thanks for sharing, Flo!

Dan Cotreau wrote:It is lovely. Thanks for sharing, Flo!

Thanks for the positive feedback mate!

I like that you went to Arles. That's pretty cool. Love the footage and the feel. There's something about their rendering that I find pleasing.

Chris Leutger wrote:I like that you went to Arles. That's pretty cool. Love the footage and the feel. There's something about their rendering that I find pleasing.

Thanks man! It was the perfect collab/opportunity to be able to shoot there with the lenses. Lovely city . Even though I don't live far I had never visited! Glad you like the footage! Pretty impressed with the combo so far!

Finally some good footage from this Lens. I nearly wrote these lenses off. Awesome clips Florent. Well done. Now I’m considering these. Can you tell me how heavy do they feel to you in comparison to the vespids.

Very nice! Cool that you shot the Arles in Arles. Haha. Very fitting.

I'm definitely all in on these lenses. However, I still say I'll wait for metadata. I'm pushing my contact at DZOFilm on getting it into the lenses. But I'm very happy that they optically achieved this level.

Donnell Henry wrote:Finally some good footage from this Lens. I nearly wrote these lenses off. Awesome clips Florent. Well done. Now I’m considering these. Can you tell me how heavy do they feel to you in comparison to the vespids.

Thanks mate!! They are definitely bigger and heavier than the Vespids. There is quite a difference. Feels pretty much like double on both aspects.

timbutt2 wrote:Very nice! Cool that you shot the Arles in Arles. Haha. Very fitting.

I'm definitely all in on these lenses. However, I still say I'll wait for metadata. I'm pushing my contact at DZOFilm on getting it into the lenses. But I'm very happy that they optically achieved this level.

Haha yeah it was the 'perfect' collab!
Metadata would be great for sure and another big pro for these lenses.

From the footage I have seen thus far Arles might be able to compare with Sigma... but more testing is needed. Indeed if they get the Cook i-data ports they are much less costs than Sigma. (Let's see if Duclose does some comparison tests and evaluations.) However, these lenses are no where near the superb quality of Zeiss Supremes... even considering they are a tenth of the cost.

DZOFILM has been making some waves in the photography world too with their offshoot brand Thypoch; they've been releasing some very interesting lenses for Leica M-mount that have gotten mostly good reviews, at least on the optics; the ergonomics need a bit of work.

Jeffrey D Mathias wrote:From the footage I have seen thus far Arles might be able to compare with Sigma... but more testing is needed. Indeed if they get the Cook i-data ports they are much less costs than Sigma. (Let's see if Duclose does some comparison tests and evaluations.) However, these lenses are no where near the superb quality of Zeiss Supremes... even considering they are a tenth of the cost.

Personally for having used these lenses quite a bit and for also having filmed with the Sigma I disagree. The Arles still have more character to me and a much more pleasing bokeh for example. And not sure why compare them to the Zeiss Supremes, which are obviously not direct competitors and nowhere near the same budget either..

Looks amazing Florent, as always. Weird question, but what's the font you used for the titles?

SUPERBE!

Florent Piovesan wrote:Personally for having used these lenses quite a bit and for also having filmed with the Sigma I disagree. The Arles still have more character to me and a much more pleasing bokeh for example. And not sure why compare them to the Zeiss Supremes, which are obviously not direct competitors and nowhere near the same budget either..

Thanks for that. I was confused because I am not a fan of Sigma lenses. I find the Arles sharp where they're supposed to be and the appealing part from youtube footage (admittedly a problematic judging tool) is the bokeh which is so soft that it's very sexy to my eye. I'm hoping one of the local rental places get them. One place has the Dulens which I'm curious about, so if they had both I could rent and see.

But I'm hoping that the Arles has the character I've seen. They're in-stock now at B&H.

Clinical and contrasty. It does not have that film look. Probably ideal for products and adverts.

WahWay wrote:Clinical and contrasty. It does not have that film look. Probably ideal for products and adverts.

He’s shooting in high-contrast sunlight, of course it will feel contrasty.
Also, the “film look” isn’t always lifted shadows or insane dynamic range. There’s a lot that goes into it.

These lenses have sharpness wide open, pleasing bokeh (IMO), fast aperture, well-controlled CA, and come in a set that’s ready to go. I, for one, am saving up for a set. Compared to my SLR Magic APO Microprimes, which have a wonderful character, these Arles would look really nice on all sorts of gigs.

Sean van Berlo wrote:Looks amazing Florent, as always. Weird question, but what's the font you used for the titles?

Thank you!! I used Avenir Next

Leon Benzakein wrote:SUPERBE!

Merci!!

WahWay wrote:Clinical and contrasty. It does not have that film look. Probably ideal for products and adverts.

Haha ok.

Wahway, I think this is for you:

https://www.v35project.com/takumarles

Very interesting project.

I love Taks!

WahWay wrote: It does not have that film look.

Well, it's available light, so it's going to be more travelogue than dramatic. But this material could easily be graded to enhance cinematic associations, if that's what's wanted.

Start with some grain, do some relighting, adjust contrast (and/or crush shadows), alter the color bias a bit, and add a little vital cinema nostalgia (gate weave!) and voila.....

WahWay wrote:Clinical and contrasty. It does not have that film look. Probably ideal for products and adverts.

I think it looks really nice; some of the best I've seen from this camera. But then I really like this type of look/grade; what goes for the 'film-look' these days is very far from what I remember, having started years ago with the real stuff. It's a very samey washed out muted look; with a lot of what used to be seen as artefacts such as flare etc. Whereas film was often and could be very punchy and saturated. They all look the same now to me, so it's refreshing to see digital film develop it's own unique language.

I do think the quality of the image is more about lenses than sensors now - they are all good really. (nice operator work too of course, Florent ) This recent example from a UMPG2 shows that to me too:



I personally am pretty indifferent to FF; I see no inherent '3D pop' or quality to it; just challenges, for most ordinary users, that are unnecessary. But this footage and the other would make me not hesitate in choosing either camera, if I was buying right now. Very nice lenses too.

That beautiful French city also: every year before lockdown I would drive down through France; through Spain, to see my daughters, and spend 3 days or more doing so in each; same on the return. It makes me 'home' sick. Damn Covid and Brexit

Very Beautiful Florent.

Steve Fishwick wrote:

WahWay wrote:Clinical and contrasty. It does not have that film look. Probably ideal for products and adverts.

I think it looks really nice; some of the best I've seen from this camera. But then I really like this type of look/grade; what goes for the 'film-look' these days is very far from what I remember, having started years ago with the real stuff. It's a very samey washed out muted look; with a lot of what used to be seen as artefacts such as flare etc. Whereas film was often and could be very punchy and saturated. They all look the same now to me, so it's refreshing to see digital film develop it's own unique language.

I do think the quality of the image is more about lenses than sensors now - they are all good really. (nice operator work too of course, Florent ) This recent example from a UMPG2 shows that to me too:

I personally am pretty indifferent to FF; I see no inherent '3D pop' or quality to it; just challenges, for most ordinary users, that are unnecessary. But this footage and the other would make me not hesitate in choosing either camera, if I was buying right now. Very nice lenses too.

That beautiful French city also: every year before lockdown I would drive down through France; through Spain, to see my daughters, and spend 3 days or more doing so in each; same on the return. It makes me 'home' sick. Damn Covid and Brexit

Personally I love shooting S35. But it would be nice to have VistaVision for certain instances. I've never forgotten the first time I put a lens adapter on to the Panasonic HVX-200 and shot that full frame coverage with a 50mm lens. It was very nice. Even if the dynamic range and codec was crap. That was 17-years ago. And, S35 with good dynamic range and good codecs certainly is more than capable.

Chris Leutger wrote:Wahway, I think this is for you:

https://www.v35project.com/takumarles

Very interesting project.

I just bought a 55mm Auto Takumar, waiting for it to arrive.

John Paines wrote:

WahWay wrote: It does not have that film look.

Well, it's available light, so it's going to be more travelogue than dramatic. But this material could easily be graded to enhance cinematic associations, if that's what's wanted.

Start with some grain, do some relighting, adjust contrast (and/or crush shadows), alter the color bias a bit, and add a little vital cinema nostalgia (gate weave!) and voila.....

I read about this lens, it is going for the clinical look. I have no problem with clinical look, just that if I look for one there are other lens I would choose.

Tom Roper wrote:Very Beautiful Florent.

Thank you mate!

timbutt2 wrote:Personally I love shooting S35. But it would be nice to have VistaVision for certain instances. I've never forgotten the first time I put a lens adapter on to the Panasonic HVX-200 and shot that full frame coverage with a 50mm lens. It was very nice. Even if the dynamic range and codec was crap. That was 17-years ago. And, S35 with good dynamic range and good codecs certainly is more than capable.

That's a throw back, Tim. I remember those spinning ground glass 35mm adaptors - they were awful! Around that time a little before, I was making TV programmes around Europe with a couple of DSR 570s and I bought the first JVC HD101 there; I still have it, like new (and perfectly working) and still think it's a design classic. For regular TV work it was as good if not better than the DSRs; but for HD there was a huge gulf between it, 720p HDV and high end cameras. Yet it cost then more than an Ursa 12K now! Nowadays the differences between prosumer and high end are not worth pixel peeping.

Anyway, JVC introduced an optical adaptor for 16mm PL lenses - very expensive - just to get barely perceptible shallower DOF; such were those days. Shallow DOF has never interested me much; I actually like deep DOF and nice crisp focus; and I really don't like meaningless blurred backgrounds especially in outside daylight. Super 35 is great though, because it has all the characteristics that I grew up with in cinema. I'm in a different field than most of you and I would find it hard to give up B4 lenses on my UBG2; with their huge flexibility; from extreme macro to extreme telephoto; all parfocal; fast and easy to focus without aids. But I'm also glad that I could mount PL lenses on it and shoot Super35 too. I can't imagine wanting anything larger. I hate AF, that is old school shameful to a pro and best left to smartphones IMV

[quote="Steve Fishwick]… I would find it hard to give up B4 lenses on my UBG2; with their huge flexibility; from extreme macro to extreme telephoto; all parfocal; fast and easy to focus without aids. But I'm also glad that I could mount PL lenses on it and shoot Super35 too …[/quote]

Absolutely. I’m not sure which is going to fail first, the UM4.6K or the Fujinon 20x7.8 BRM, but as long as they’re working I use them in every shoot.

rick.lang wrote:Absolutely. I’m not sure which is going to fail first, the UM4.6K or the Fujinon 20x7.8 BRM, but as long as they’re working I use them in every shoot.

Aye Rick, I have a J16 for when I first got the Broadcast G2 (I wish I never sold my other B4s now); it cost 300 quid on eBay. It's got a doubler too, so the range is fantastic. It's a 'standard definition' lens but is tack sharp and built like a tank; everything works and still smooth; not a mark or growth on it. As you know they touted, particularly Canon, and still do; SD, HD and 4K and even 8K for B4/broadcast lenses. Well that's a load of marketing guff, largely though not totally I say. This SD lens certainly resolves well past HD, with little CA or aberrations. I've mentioned elsewhere, we paid £11k for a SD J11, in about 2004; the HD 'HJ' equivalents that were just coming in then, were about double the price; and an engineer from Canon told me off record the only difference was one single rear element.

Currently there are some real bargains amongst B4 lenses on eBay. The very best and sharpest HD lens in my view has always been the Canon HJ17. With that lens there is absolutely no need for a 4K lens on the Ursa Broadcast G2 (though the Fujinon kit lens is very sharp but far less quality build than the HJ17). I have seen them going for around 1500 pounds, for mint ones, and when the pennies are good again I'll be snapping one up.

I always love this video as an example of extreme B4 capabilities :

Steve Fishwick wrote:That's a throw back, Tim. I remember those spinning ground glass 35mm adaptors - they were awful! Around that time a little before, I was making TV programmes around Europe with a couple of DSR 570s and I bought the first JVC HD101 there; I still have it, like new (and perfectly working) and still think it's a design classic. For regular TV work it was as good if not better than the DSRs; but for HD there was a huge gulf between it, 720p HDV and high end cameras. Yet it cost then more than an Ursa 12K now! Nowadays the differences between prosumer and high end are not worth pixel peeping.

Anyway, JVC introduced an optical adaptor for 16mm PL lenses - very expensive - just to get barely perceptible shallower DOF; such were those days. Shallow DOF has never interested me much; I actually like deep DOF and nice crisp focus; and I really don't like meaningless blurred backgrounds especially in outside daylight. Super 35 is great though, because it has all the characteristics that I grew up with in cinema. I'm in a different field than most of you and I would find it hard to give up B4 lenses on my UBG2; with their huge flexibility; from extreme macro to extreme telephoto; all parfocal; fast and easy to focus without aids. But I'm also glad that I could mount PL lenses on it and shoot Super35 too. I can't imagine wanting anything larger. I hate AF, that is old school shameful to a pro and best left to smartphones IMV

Yeah, those spinning ground glass 35mm adapters were a pain in the arse. But at the time our perception was that Shallow Depth of Field was the key to a cinematic image. Remember the ⅓" sensors were never really giving us anything close to film quality.

I do remember shooting the Sony EX-1 both with and without the adapters. The sensor was a ½" sensor, and that definitely made it more appealing. It was the closest to Super 8mm. And, that camera looked fantastic with its larger sensor when paired with the Letus 35mm Adapter. Still, I elected to shoot without the adapter as much as possible due to my distaste for the clunkiness of the adapter.

Yet it was those adapters that lead to the perspective that Full Frame was the standard for many, and then the DSLR Revolution reinforced it. And, so many people started shooting Full Frame with a lens wide open because that is what they perceived to be cinematic.

Meanwhile, I was influenced by more classic cinema with the deeper depth of field. Especially in Film Noir.

This doesn't change the fact that I would still be very interested to play with the new DZOFilm Arles Prime lenses on the URSA Cine 12K using the full sensor. May be a good time to do another comparison of that scene by shooting it again with that lens and camera setup.

That was all around the same time, Letus, Brevis, Redrock Micro, Red One, and my worst dslr ever, 5DMkII, had so much aliasing, stairstepping in video, wouldn't even be fair to call it HD. EX1 was a pretty good HD cam.

Tom Roper wrote:That was all around the same time, Letus, Brevis, Redrock Micro, Red One, and my worst dslr ever, 5DMkII, had so much aliasing, stairstepping in video, wouldn't even be fair to call it HD. EX1 was a pretty good HD cam.

That's all true Tom. Wasn't Letus that South American dude who started the project on DVinfo.net? Oh how we struggled with 1/3" chips - Tim's right. The gulf was so enormous, whereas today if you expose right, the average punter won't be able to tell between a Pocket or an Alexa. I still love my old JVC HD101E though, it's got a 16mm quality to it; or so I reckon

The JVC HD101E was something special in its time, but they made one big mistake. The zoom lens that was usually sold with it closed the aperture too far and went badly into diffraction. A colleague of mine who was very good at pulling the iris filmed a documentary in South America and had to pull between dark interiors and blinding light outside. When he came back and started editing, some exteriors looked like SD. Badly bitten, even if his exposure was perfect.

Sony did it better with the EX-1, limiting the lens to f8, IIRC.

Well, nostalgia mode off.

Uli Plank wrote:The zoom lens that was usually sold with it closed the aperture too far and went badly into diffraction.

That's true Uli, the kit lens was bad. But if you kept below f8, preferably f5.6 (f4 is the sweet spot for 1/3") not as bad as it was made out to be. At the extremes you mention the CCD sensor would go to pot too. This was all shot using that crappy lens about 15 or so years ago for a crazy German, who never paid me, in the end, so it's mine now



But all in all it was quite a thing; and I still have the BR-HD deck that went with it (HDMI out fortunately) and some tapes shot in good light can still look good. My camera assistant crashed us bad, on a trip out to Italy from Spain once. My Sony DSR 570s were toast. I was back in action with that JVC within the week, while they were fixed, and it was that good I used it mostly from then on. The trouble was this was all in SD. Avid nor nothing worked with it in HD 720p. Now ironically I can capture perfectly via HDMI from the Ultrastudio 4K Mini, with RS422 deck control; and uprez on the fly to 1080, effortlessly - too late sadly