August 21, 2014, 04:31:47 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - leGreve

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
1
We bought a WeTransfer account so we can uploader larger files… if the file size exceeds anyways we pack it up in several zip files.

The good thing about WeTransfer is that you get a download confirmation when the client has downloaded it.

2
Lighting / Re: Studio lighting advice for a newbie
« on: August 05, 2014, 09:35:59 AM »
You can get pretty far with a couple of Bowens Gemini 500w remote lamps.

They take radio cards so you can trigger them with pocket wizards etc.

I think Bowens still have some accessories packages give you some different ways of putting the light out.

Also speedlites with S bayonet adapters means you could use fx. Bowens accessories like beauty dish / soft box etc.

3
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 05, 2014, 08:48:00 AM »
Roger Deakins shot "Shawshank Redemption" with Zeiss Distagon and Zeiss Planers..... just saying.

It's not what you put on the camera, it's how you point it, what you put in front of it and how you light what you put in front of it. The rest is just technicalities that can offer some efficiency and consistency production wise... they are not a gold standard.



I'm not against using cheap kit either.  I'll use the kit for the job.  Cinema lenses are not the kit for stills.  And it's been proven many many times since even 28 days later, that even cheap kit used with care can deliver exceptional results.

Exactly... I think that was what I was more or less trying to say.

I don't support the idea of getting high-end gear just because you can, but because you need it from a production point of view. I know a guy here in Denmark who is just like that.... raking in gear although it's just a hobby, and it hasn't really made he stuff a tad bit better, it's just different kinds of mediocre :D

Heck... if you want great landscapes shots OP why don't go invest in a large format Sinar and shoot film? That would blow gear out of the water in regards to landscape photography.

But in the end, it's not the gear that makes the photographer, it's the end shot that gets presented.

4
Lenses / Re: Why are Cine Lenses so expensive?
« on: August 05, 2014, 03:27:14 AM »
Roger Deakins shot "Shawshank Redemption" with Zeiss Distagon and Zeiss Planers..... just saying.

It's not what you put on the camera, it's how you point it, what you put in front of it and how you light what you put in front of it. The rest is just technicalities that can offer some efficiency and consistency production wise... they are not a gold standard.

5
Lighting / Got myself one of them Amazon china accessories...
« on: July 05, 2014, 02:06:10 AM »
…and apparently not all out of China is crap.

This is NOT an advert for a specific brand or item.

For some time I had been ok happy with my ezybox for my speedlite, but sometimes I miss being able to use my beauty dish and large boxes. So I just Amazon'ed if I could buy a s-mount bracket and I found this Godox thing.

It is as basic as can be. You just stick the speedlite in, tighten the bracket and then attach the Bowens accessories in the s-mount. Be it box, snoot, dish or what ever… it will fit.
The bracket itself has a lightstand mount and the tilt function seems to be pretty functional. By no means slacky or anything and the build itself is sturdy. Makes for a nice little transportable kit.

So just a heads up…. I'm sure you could probably also find brackets for other brands depending on what you have.

6
EOS Bodies / Re: Patent: Canon 5 Layer UV, IR, RGB Sensor
« on: June 28, 2014, 09:35:26 AM »
very interesting....

BTW, those posters who claim Canon has a lack of innovation... comments please?

Was it 7 or so years ago Sigma presented a 3-layered sensor that unfortunately didnt become a hit... Canon just added ir and uv and youcall that innovation..... 7 years later.
I suspect Canon maybe bought Sigmas patent and let it rot on the shelf.

7
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: April 21, 2014, 08:47:17 AM »
I haven't got so many photos done lately… mostly I've been using it for video, so my share is this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRTowWE1C9Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxDNwHkwKC8

8
EOS Bodies / Re: Cinema EOS C200 & C400 at NAB? [CR1]
« on: March 28, 2014, 12:20:17 PM »
How peculiar... I had one of those nights where all you dream about is work.... And in yesterdays dream I was working on a C400....
Gotta love syncronicity... :-)

9
As someone who has not shot any video on my DSLRs, can someone explain to me the value in spending 4k on a 50mm zeiss lens to mount on a DSLR that is going to down sample the image to 2 mega pixels?

Because its not all down to dslr now is it.... The Otus will work wonders on a RED or Sony F55 and handle very well...

Have you seen the focus throw on the Sigma? Its litteraly like 20 degrees or something like that.
For video, being able to find focus very accurately manually is key. If moving the focus 2-3mm means moving sharpness 1-2 meters then the lens is useless for accurate focus. That whole in and out of focus thing that comes from people with no experience or proæer gear.... Its not charming, its bad craftsmanship.

The Otus performs close to the ultra primes, its solid metal all the way, the focus ring is incredibly smooth and the focus throw is around 270 degrees and damn precise.

If I was only shooting stills and needed AF, I would consider the Sigma. But since I mainly do video on various cameras from dslr to sony yo red, the Sigma makes NO sense what so ever.

10
50 1.4 cine on the left, 10 in the middle and 35 on the right.

Took them long enough to make that standard 50mm..................

11
Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Zeiss Otus Initial Impressions
« on: March 15, 2014, 04:04:43 PM »
I think it is the image quality at 1.4 that sets this lens apart. Beautiful bokeh is ruined by lack of quality in the in-focus part of the image; there's non of that with this lens.

The 85 1.2 has been described as 'astoundingly good' in the centre at 1.2 but compare it even at 1.4 to the Otus and it's like night and day.

As you stop down the superiority will fade; and all lenses start to gravitate together at f11 in terms of resolution.
I agree that it is when shot wide open it really shine. But compared to other lenses I have used (and have) I would say that it is in a class of its own from 1.4 to 4.0.

The thing with these kinds of debates and the "camps" that arise, also heavily depend on what your needs are….

The AF people will never find a way to justify this lens….. the people who constantly venture above F8 (for what ever reason) will find it hard…. and the people like me, who work both as a cinematographer but also a commercial photographer, are happy that we can get something that operate similarly to the other Zeiss primes, with premium image quality and handling. Seriously….. The Otus handles way better than ANY dslr lens I've ever had for video / film work. I almost find it that much better than Zeiss' own ZE /ZF series, even though those also have a nice throw.

Since I work most of my shots below F4 for narrative work, the IQ of the Otus is great to have.

I totally agree that for some things you'd probably go for some other lens…. heck, for run & gun viral stuff I mostly grab my Canon zooms since high apertures wont make it worse… atleast according to the client.

So…. just like some people will happily invest in a set of Ultra Primes from Zeiss, a set of CP.2s or Canon CN-Es then there are also people like me and Eldar who don't mind spending on the things that give us what we need.

NO dslr lens has what I want or need except the Otus. End of story. Even if the Sigma Art comes in with great IQ, it will still be a stills AF lens with, for me useless and in precise focus throw. So I wouldn't even consider that… and for stills work, if I need better than what the Canon lenses can provide, I'd jump up to Phase One instead, for both amazing resolution and detail but also way better color rendition than dslr.

12
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: March 02, 2014, 03:28:21 AM »
You might as well check out the group I made with Otus videos and will continue to add to as people upload videos with otus lenses

https://vimeo.com/groups/229279


13
Lenses / Re: Review: Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 Distagon T*
« on: February 26, 2014, 04:06:40 AM »
I don't regret one second buying it…. it really is that good. I did a test against some other lenses we had lying around and while some of them were ok in the center at 2.8 Most of them were crap in the corners.

The so-called great value for money 50 1.8 looks terrible compared to the Otus… really down right terrible, and it feels equally as terrible operating. I never understood why people were so hyped over this Canon 50 1.8, but I guess that is needed when all you can afford is that.

I'll be picking up every Otus lens as they come out… as simple as that. But I fully acknowledge that some people are depending on AF to get the job done. I'm not… and if I am I'd still choose expensive L lenses over cheap non-L.

The thing is…. I shoot a lot of video. Actually video has become my main business by now. So I need something that operates well for video and even L lenses dont do that. The throw is too short and the sharpness fall off looks ugly, often the bokeh as well.

There's a reason that most major cinema releases, heck even Sundance and Cannes short films are shot on Arri Master / Ultra Primes or Cooke lenses. Because even though they are completely manual, the operate better, they are consistent in look and light transmission and that nice long throw for pulling focus.

Yummy.

14
Portrait / Re: We, The Photographers......Self Portaits..a Who's Who on CR
« on: February 23, 2014, 12:27:07 PM »
Took this one partly as selfie, partly to test the Zeiss Otus which I had brought on my hike up this "little" fjell, Freikollen, near Kristiansund Norway.

The Otus, while clearly marked with distance numbers, it took quite a few to nail a sharp one ;) No smiles, sorry, I just don't do that without looking goofy.

15
EOS Bodies / Re: Will the next xD cameras do 4k?
« on: February 18, 2014, 06:03:14 PM »
…Or get crushed by the wave….

Canon does HAVE to respond to GH4. It just got listed in Danish shops at the following price points:

1750 dollars / 1050 pounds / 1275 euros.

This is for 4K that turns into 1080p 10bit 4:4:4. Why the heck would I buy a Canon DSLR if I needed a hybrid camera?

That's why Canon has to respond and has to soon, otherwise I'm going to ditch all my EF lenses and go Nikon.
Man, I'm almost bugged out that I got the EF version of the Otus instead of the Nikon :/

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12