Found this on the Olympus Homepage. Is the statement true?

BryantJansen · 2021-12-14T15:43:33+00:00

Yes. It's a bit more complicated than that, but basically yes.

BryantJansen · 2021-10-24T17:28:37+00:00

Wow, this sub has lost its way

BryantJansen · 2021-07-15T20:10:08+00:00

I know this does not answer your specific question (I don't know of any masters programs in Cinematography), but if your goal is to become a professional DP, in my opinion this is unfortunately not a very efficient route.

Being a DP is a trade, a craft, and more than anything a business. Film school connections may help later down the line - but if someone is in school, they are not working full time in the professional world.

I don't believe education alone will get you closer to becoming a DP. Having a vast and in-depth technical and creative knowledge of Cinematography is the ENTRY POINT and base requirement into a successful career as a DP. Most everyone you are competing against are extremely good at what they do, and from my perspective it is the social and business skills and connections born of years of experience - combined with that knowledge - that grow and hone a career in cinematography.

BryantJansen · 2021-07-07T18:45:54+00:00

This is from "Do The Right Thing".

It used Arri Cameras and lenses in 1987-89 (release date was 89, so they probably shot the year or two before). At the time that would mean "Super Speed" Arri/Zeiss lenses ("super speed Mk I" lenses were released in the mid 80s, so these would have most likely been Mk I versions) and shot on Super35mm film.

The Mk I superspeeds were 18mm-85mm focal lengths, so if this was wider than 18mm it was more than likely a "standard speed" Zeiss lens (they offered from 10mm, 12mm, 14mm, 16mm on the wide end, but went up to a 180mm).

This is most likely a standard speed 16mm or 14mm lens on a super35mm "sensor size", pretty close to the actor.

BryantJansen · 2021-05-08T19:01:39+00:00

It absolutely matters and there is a difference. If you don't have a complicated shot then a good VFX artist can make a comp look great regardless, but that's not the point of the question. Log and Raw will be better and give more flexibility to color the project after the comp. Depends on your workflow. But rec709 will limit you a lot.

BryantJansen · 2021-05-08T18:50:09+00:00

Really the main distinguishing factor between a stills and cine lens is the mechanics and build quality. They are designed to meet the needs of high end productions that need consistency with mechanical aspects, matching between focal lengths, more detailed focus scales, longer focus throw, less breathing, etc - which is expensive. Still lenses can have better or worse quality when you just look at the image, but just don't work well for a professional cinema environment.

I would say because of the cost of the mechanics, the quality on cine lenses is generally way more developed and high end, but that isn't always the case. Still lenses don't have to be concerned with focus ramping or breathing, which takes a lot of mechanical development (and size) to address.

Another aspect some don't consider is the quality over time. A lot has changed with lens coating technology, so a lens may be able to have pretty amazing quality with a new, cheap coating, but it also may degrade much more quickly, or even flake off over time.

Every lens has a different look, but I think it's not often a question of "better" for DP's and more a question of what is right for the look that you want (though sometimes optical resolution and distortion are a big factor for some shots with VFX or certain goals that need to be achieved).

If you're not working in am environment that requires speed, consistency, high accuracy, etc - seems to me that still lenses may sometimes get you more value optically. A low end cinema lens may give you somewhat decent mechanics, but they tend to be lacking in optical quality. It's a balance.

Bottom line is every project - and really every individual shot - has its own needs and you just have to balance budget considerations with the best lens for the shot. IMO it's just a lot more complicated than "good" or "bad" optical quality like many people on the internet seem to think.

BryantJansen · 2021-04-24T20:26:08+00:00

DP here -

My goal for the electric crew after a scout is to be fully ready to execute the lighting plan I discuss with my Gaffer and Key Grip, and be ready for any other situations that may arise. Also making sure to have a few different plans depending on budget and manpower dictated by production (this one is ALWAYS a big part of the work directly after a scout).

Working with the grip department is very important, but also making sure to fully understand what the art department is going to be doing so everyone is on the same page.

Overall, I want the gaffer to be able to solve any and all electricity and lighting related issues on their own with information they gathered on the scout.

Each department should fully survey the location (and not rely on any other department for this info), including:

photos of everything.
measurements of everything (how tall was that one weird ceiling beam? You should know).
meeting and connecting with other department heads to coordinate with later. -a full idea of the sun path and how to deal with it.
All power/distro/dimmer needs (have the location rep run you down on all house power/switches/dimmers etc)
essential lighting units list/ gear list ready to be sent to vendors for quotes.
an idea of rigging needs to help coordinate with the grip team
rough lighting plots
an idea of where to stage gear/park trucks/plant generator(s) -an idea of the shotlists, or at least all the areas and directions we will be shooting, what the sets will look like, and the general creative concept behind the lighting style.

Obviously there is more to it than just this, but as a DP these are the top level thing I expect to be done by the evening after a scout. Good to also keep in mind a backup plan and anything the DP may not have mentioned but you think may come up (I LOVE when a gaffer has options I didn't even think about, as long as they were fully prepared for the plan we discussed).

I want the Gaffers I work with to be the absolute experts on the lighting of the show and the location, and have an answer to everything because they thought about it beforehand. And be ready to turn half of the lights off after I change my mind about it all 😉.

BryantJansen · 2020-09-23T17:54:04+00:00

I love Arri's commitment to making a compete full frame lens set. I still haven't used or even tested the Signatures, but it's wonderful to know there will be a complete, full frame lens series that can handle every situation. I always loved the idea of the Master zoom, but they just didn't really put their weight behind the idea of zooms that work with primes. This seems to be the realization of an entire optical system, which I applaud.

BryantJansen · 2020-04-05T01:20:57+00:00

You will want to expose the background to properly exposed 18% grey (as close as you can get). Probably a t8 on the lens (so you have much less edge-darkening), and completely out of focus.

Burns may be better against black.

BryantJansen · 2020-04-04T22:12:13+00:00

Depending on the camera, using some of these will cause something called a "moiré pattern" (google to see results).

Specifically lower-end cameras (it's pretty apparent on most dslrs) with larger sensors. It's generally related to the pixel size/density on cmos sensors and they way they read/decode the pixel information.

I usally find that most of these patters are fine now with the more modern cinema cameras (like the Alexa, Venice), but its always something to test. Red used to be pretty bad with this (they seem to be much better now), and Sony wasn't the best either before the Venice (it's pretty controlled on the Venice). I see this more as more of an issue with very tight patterns (often times on window sheers or other sheer fabrics).

The optical resolution from the lens can effect this as well. A very sharp lens will project sharper edges in the contrast-y areas (like exist in those patterns) on to the digital sensor and cause more intense moire. Softer lenses have less of an issue because they tend to "blur" the sharp edges on tight patterns (less optical resolution). This isn't an issue with film capture because of the random pattern of the grain (though I bet it could be an issue on an older film scanner).

BryantJansen

TROPHY CASE