Peter Jackson Lenses

[Bachman]

Not sure if this is already known, but Jackson was using Cooke S4's on the REDs

[M Olsen]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1762&page=3

Hi, Astro posted on the above thread that the lenses used were S4's, Optimo Zooms, and Zeiss Standards (2.1).

[Bachman]

Cheers. What lenses are you planning on using?

[M Olsen]

Cheers. What lenses are you planning on using?

Most likely the RED lenses.. and rent in additional PL requirements

[DSH]

I've got a full set of Ultra Primes so interested in any reports on those with the RED camera. If anybody gets a chance to test, let me know.

[Greg M]

I've got a full set of Ultra Primes so interested in any reports on those with the RED camera. If anybody gets a chance to test, let me know.

I'll report results after Red #83 ships.

[thornben]

I gotta say, for Cooke S4's... the picture looks pretty ugly. Totally the wrong stop for the lenses is my guess. It is so bright here in NZ, I have been in the same situation before where you stop down to get the right exposure rather than wait for the ND's to come out of the truck (where someone left them). Either that or thhere wasn't a matte box in front of the camera as they were pre-production RED models.

[Jarred Land]

we did use a mattebox on both cameras. and we did use ND's. To suggest that PJ team didnt know what they where doing or perhaps too lazy to get ND's out of the truck im a little out of line.

your not making a very good first impression thornben....

[Don Woods]

I gotta say, for Cooke S4's... the picture looks pretty ugly. Totally the wrong stop for the lenses is my guess. It is so bright here in NZ, I have been in the same situation before where you stop down to get the right exposure rather than wait for the ND's to come out of the truck (where someone left them). Either that or thhere wasn't a matte box in front of the camera as they were pre-production RED models.

Yep why would it make sense for a team that works on big budget motion pictures and that is shooting footage that is going to be more combed over and looked harder at then anything they have ever shot and not do a professional job. That makes no sense mate..

[M Olsen]

I gotta say, for Cooke S4's... the picture looks pretty ugly. Totally the wrong stop for the lenses is my guess. It is so bright here in NZ, I have been in the same situation before where you stop down to get the right exposure rather than wait for the ND's to come out of the truck (where someone left them). Either that or thhere wasn't a matte box in front of the camera as they were pre-production RED models.

Whoa.. another expert.

Jeez.... .

[Bachman]

I gotta say, for Cooke S4's... the picture looks pretty ugly. Totally the wrong stop for the lenses is my guess. It is so bright here in NZ, I have been in the same situation before where you stop down to get the right exposure rather than wait for the ND's to come out of the truck (where someone left them). Either that or thhere wasn't a matte box in front of the camera as they were pre-production RED models.

Hell, damn lazy Kiwi's

[Rocco Schult]

Hell, damn lazy Kiwi's

:bleh: :biggrin:

[David Mullen ASC]

Anyone who has ever photographed an action scene with long lenses and multiple cameras knows the danger of shooting at wide lens apertures - half your footage will have focus problems. What they did for the short was very practical and typical for outdoor action photography, which is try to keep to the middle of the lens.

Shallow-focus is pretty but it's not always practical.

I was just watching the behind-the-scenes doc on the Mel Gibson "Hamlet" and Gibson was quite angry at one point by the fact that so many low-light scenes were being shot wide-open on T/1.4 Zeiss lenses, so he had to do multiple takes simply for focus reasons. But then they talk to DP David Watkin who was saying (paraphrasing) "if I could have used more light and stopped down, I would have. No one likes working at wide apertures, certainly not the focus pullers. But it looks ridiculous when you have a candle in a scene and it's not the brightest light in the frame!"

[Roxco]

Anyone who has ever photographed an action scene with long lenses and multiple cameras knows the danger of shooting at wide lens apertures - half your footage will have focus problems. What they did for the short was very practical and typical for outdoor action photography, which is try to keep to the middle of the lens.

Shallow-focus is pretty but it's not always practical.


So how will the RED ONE help focus pullers in low light scenes?

Are there some things (Shoot 2K?) that makes it a better tool?

Thanks again David for all your excellent posts,

Rosco

[Evin Grant]

The focus assist may help in this regard too.

[David Mullen ASC]

Hey, if you want 35mm-style depth of field, then you have to deal with 35mm-style depth of field... you can't have it both ways, super shallow-focus with the ease of shooting prosumer DV.

Despite various focusing aids on the market, ultimately you need a skilled focus-puller when shooting tight on lenses at wide apertures.

It's not just a matter of keeping the subject sharp -- if you are shooting for large-screen presentation, how fast and when you shift focus can have a visible effect, so timing is important, which is the problem with most auto-focus systems.

One development will probably be to give the focus-puller his own HD monitor large enough to see if the shot is soft. Focus-pullers won't generally pull by looking at a monitor because then they will be late, chasing the subject rather than anticipating where they will be going, plus you don't want to be shifting focus trying to find it, but a large enough monitor would be useful to see if you are off and sneak in a correction, especially if an actor is delivering a long speech in an ECU and moving around a bit.

Right now the most common aids on 35mm movie cameras are "Cinetapes" that continually measures distance to the subject. But things can fool it so you need human intervention and interpretation.
http://www.btinternet.com/~gordon.segrove/cinetape.html