17-35 short focus?

[Finner]

This is mainly directed to Evan but anyones thoughts may help. I am not a stills guy but I stopped by a local camera shop today and checked out the nikon 17-35 for the first time. The focus throw from 3' to infinity is really really short. I could see this being a major problem for focus pullers. Has anyone used this lense on a motion camera and if so how did the focus puller fair with it?

[Evin Grant]

It is short, but the lens is fairly wide and if you use a larger gear like the Redrock you will get a bit more precision out of your follow focus. It's not ideal but it's 1/6th the price of the Red 18-50, not that I think it's a replacement, just that it offers quite a bang for the buck provided you're patient with focusing it.

[Finner]

Thanks Evan have you or anyone else had experience shooting this lense with redrock or similar lense adapter system on a HD camera? I just would really like to know if the focus puller had any problems with the short focus throw of this lense at the 35 end in HD. Because if it was tough to focus this thing in HD then 4k will be a nightmere.

[Evin Grant]

Focusing anything at 4K faster than f4 is going to be a nighmare. That's why were so excited about Graeme's focus assist. In general wide angels are easier to focus because of thier larger DOF.

[OUinLA]

where can I find out more about this focus assist?

[Poi Boy]

I haven't used the 17-35 but I have a lot of experience focusing all the nikkor primes with the redrock rings. It is tricky at first but you get used to it and I think it will be more or less the same with red. I personally did not find the wide lenses any easier than the longer lenses since the dof doesn't really change much for any given aperature. You have to keep in mind the bang for the buck part of the equation when you decide to go with the still lenses.
Aloha
-A

[chuck colburn]

This is mainly directed to Evan but anyones thoughts may help. I am not a stills guy but I stopped by a local camera shop today and checked out the nikon 17-35 for the first time. The focus throw from 3' to infinity is really really short. I could see this being a major problem for focus pullers. Has anyone used this lense on a motion camera and if so how did the focus puller fair with it?

Hi Finner,

There are a couple of work arounds on this. One, you could use a smaller diameter gear on the follow focus unit although there is not too much to work with there, and two, a larger gear diameter on the lens. I saw some where that a company was offering these for the Nikon lenses probaly just for that reason. Either way would increase the travel on the focus knob.

Chuck

[Finner]

Thanks Chuck,

Ya I had thought of these things and in fact Curts remote ff will have different focus throw settings on it as well. Problem is on the lense the marks go from 3' to infinity with no numbers in between and these marks are covered by clear plastic so it would be hard to re-stripe the lense and set new feet marks. This is fine with the 17mm length but at 35mm with a 2.8 stop this lense would be pretty much unusable. People can argue with me if they want but from the experience I have this lense would be real trouble at 35mm.

[Roberto B]

great thread boss.. 5 stars





edit


great thread boss.. 5 starsdone.. :sorcerer:

[tj williams]

Hi Finner. So the marks are no good on a bunch of these Nikon/Canon lenses.
whether zooms or primes. Any of us that have looked at many still lenses see this problem.

Now a smaller gear or a remote like Ericks' at Birger, that spreads the focus over a bigger piece of focus disk real estate is helpful.

To work around this lack of lens marking problem, IMO you need to mark the disk for each lens, on the Follow focus or remote, in advance of production, by zooming in all the way opening the lens all the way and focusing to a maglite bulb held alongside the tape, at different distances by eye.

This should also work on primes by just opening the lens fully. Of course zooming in will be more precise if...(see below) and (If you have enough disks to have one for each lens, which will be the only place to have the lens marks)

For Zooms the additional problem I think may be there is that after you do the above and zoom back half way you may find out the marks are not still in the same place!! There is no reason on a still lens without detailed marks that the lens housing mfg. would need to be that precise.

I think this thread is onto a major difficulty in using so many of the still lenses in actual dramatic production. Before I agree that either a smaller gear or remote will work well enough I would sure like to see tests. I'd also want to test each individual Zoom lenses for consistent focus marks throughout it's zoom range, before buying it!

[chuck colburn]

I'm sorry TJ, but you are not allowed to do that. That's the 1st ACs job.
Don't make me call the union hall. lol

[Gordon Prince]

great thread boss.. 5 stars





edit

done.. :sorcerer:

I thought you'd say... loss, not boss. Ah Ah Ah

[Finner]

Ya TJ all the procedures you mention are exactly the way I would go about setting up focus on a stills lense. If you have a good eye and good focus charts it is pretty easy to set focus mark distances on primes. I had not thought of your point about focus not holding throughout the zoom lengths. This could be a very real possibility and would make the 17-35 completely useless for cine use. I did a christmas special in 1999 as a focus puller with a fujinon lense that I striped and marked exactly in the way you mention and the focus did not hold through the zoom. This was something I had never experienced with film zooms and did not realize what was going on until day 2 of the shoot. It was the worst time I ever had on a job. It would be great to know if the 17-35 behaves in the same way. Evan????? I know you are probably busy but I think you own this lense and it would be good to know if it will hold focus through the zoom. If you had the chance to test this would be great. It would be fairly tough to do by eye because the lense is so wide so probably the best bet would be shoot a similar shot on one focus setting through the zoom range and compare focus of each. This way you could just zoom in on photoshop and compare them all. Just a thought.

[Don King]

I had not thought of your point about focus not holding throughout the zoom lengths. This could be a very real possibility and would make the 17-35 completely useless for cine use.

Why? This is a strong statement. This zoom can be a variable lens, not exactly for zoom use going with motion picture application.

[Finner]

Why? This is a strong statement. This zoom can be a variable lens, not exactly for zoom use going with motion picture application.

If this lense does not hold consistant focus through the zoom even if you just use it as a variable prime you will still have no way to have reference feet focus distances for this lense at different mm lengths so I totally stand behind saying it will be useless for cine application. If the focus does hold through the zoom it still has an incredibly short focus throw from 3'-infinity. So short in fact that I could see many focus pullers I hire refusing to use it.

[Gordon Prince]

Btw, Finner, as specialist, what do you think on the new re-housed P+S Technik ZF (Nikon mount) SLR lenses? Suitable for cine use?

http://www.pstechnik.de/en/optics-lensset.php

[Finner]

Gordon

I don't think I would call my self a specialist but I will give you my input on these p+s lenses. The 25 is a little tight for your wide lense and the 85 is a little short for your tight lense. Other then that I have not used these but p+s puts out some good stuff so they probably set these up right. I had hoped for more out of the 17-35 but after seeing the short focus throw of it I have become fairly skeptical of it working well. Also note there is not one post yet from anyone saying they used it on a HD adapter and found it worked well. I just would really like to hear from someone who has actually used this lense for cine or cine style work.

[Gordon Prince]

Understood. But again on these new P+S rehoused lenses. Do they offer a real cine work ability? Or will these cine lenses show the same 17-35mm problems?

[Finner]

They rehouse them for a long focus throw like a cine lense so they probably would be good. What price are they?

[Evin Grant]

They are $2300 each. And although rehoused I believe the focus throw will be the same as the standard ZF still lenses, although I could be wrong on that.

As far as I can tell the 17-35 does indeed hold focus when zoomed, although it's impossible to focus at 17 and then zoom to 35 and expect it to be correct. This is not becasue it changes just because your DOF makes the focus at 17 much less stringent. It should however work fine focusing at 35mm and zooming out, or using an accurate tape mark. Although I understand your concern about focus throw Finner I also think most people buying this lens over the 18-50 Red know what the comprimises are. It is undoubtedly going to take more time, more takes or more light (higer stop) get a tracking shot on this lens. But for some even the Red lenses and P+S are beyond reach. For those who can barely scrape up enough for a body, battery and Reddrive this may offer some challenges but it will also let them take advantage of all that 4K glory for a price they can stomach.
Hopefully when Birger brings out their Nikon G mount we will be able to integrate the AFS into an electronic follow focus that can give you as much or as little throw as you like.

[Mr. Paul White]

Hopefully when Birger brings out their Nikon G mount we will be able to integrate the AFS into an electronic follow focus that can give you as much or as little throw as you like.??...

[Evin Grant]

Eric from Birger has mentioned his intention to bring out an electronic Nikon mount sometime after the already announced Canon EOS electronic mount. He has some work left to do but this should be an option in the not too distant future. It will probably be in the same $1000 price range as the EOS mount.
Of course this will also interface with Curt/Reds super grip and cotrols. At least that seems to be the implication.

[chuck colburn]

The P+S lenses seem to be just larger diameter shells on the stock lenses. While this would be of some help in increasing the apparent throw at the follow focus knob, (like mounting a larger gear ring on the stock lens) they still rotate the oppisite way of standard cine lenses which leads me to believe they are just reshelled as opposed to rebarreled (new longer throw helicoids turning in the proper direction) like what has been done to some other still camera lenses by Century etc.
So far as the 17-35 Nikon not holding focus while zooming, all zooming optics from a 50k Angenieux down to a $100.00 Sigma suffer from what is called the "S" curve. That is you can set the lens up for perfect focus at the long end,(front focus) and at the short end (back focus) and at about one point in the mid range of the lenses focal length range, the lens is going to shift slightly out of focus on one side of the film plane as you zoom from long to wide and the come to best focus again at the mid point and then shift to the other side of the film plane before coming back into best focus at the wide end again. The degree of focus shift and the repeatabiliity going from one direction to the other (among other factors) is what your paying for in a proffesional cine lens. And then there is the problem of slop in the focus threads that can make the follow focus disc markings not repeat when changing direction. Just the facts of life.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

If this lense does not hold consistant focus through the zoom even if you just use it as a variable prime you will still have no way to have reference feet focus distances for this lense at different mm lengths so I totally stand behind saying it will be useless for cine application. If the focus does hold through the zoom it still has an incredibly short focus throw from 3'-infinity. So short in fact that I could see many focus pullers I hire refusing to use it.

Just going to throw in my $0.02... This lens does a poor job of holding focus throughout the zoom range. If I focus at 17mm everything goes a bit soft before I zoom all the way to 35mm. I get a little better result focusing at the long end and then zooming out to full wide, but it still doesn't hold focus.

I can't comment on the breathing vs. the RED 18-50 -- haven't seen the RED lens myself. Besides, I don't think what was at NAB was the final product.

Anyway, the EXTREMELY SHORT focus throw (1/4 turn of the barrel), the way the focus ring slips if you go past either end and the inability to maintain focus on a zoom are all factors that have made me decide on the RED 18-50 or possibly some other short zoom. Too bad too, because as a still lens, this Nikon 17-35mm is a true gem. This lens in a cine setting would be best treated as a variable prime. But it's so touchy... You'll have to be careful no matter what.

I'll see if I can set something up here in a bit and shoot some samples so you can see how much the focus drifts.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I guess I also should add that even focusing in on something in the middle of the range, like 24mm and then zooming to 30mm, there still is a slight change in focus. Obviously, it's not going to the same extreme as focusing at either end of the zoom range, but the focus still drifts.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I will offer to download a part of my Nikon Zoom 17-25mm test that is shot last month. Please be patient to download QT file in Motion JPEG A compression, size 87 MB, 42 sec, 1024x576, 25fps. Shot done with FX1 HDV+Red Rock M2 35mm adapter. Also please do not blame a quality of the test and a lot of issues that starting with CA M2 issue, M2 ground glass issue, HDV compression issue, resolution issue , dynamic range issue, etc.

Just try to imagine how would look at 4K with RED in mind.

The movie is an excerpt of lager test and shows a short zoom from 20mm to 24mm and 7 aperture stops starting from 2.8 to 22. Enjoy it. Download is open during the next 24 hours. After that I will shut down FTP on my home server with a cable connection.

Download link
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServer/FTPRoot/Movies/Balcony-09-04-07-1C.mov

For the best download use Firefox web browser on both platforms.

[Finner]

Thanks Jeff. As far as I'm concerned that pretty much seals the fate for this lens and cine shooting. I personally would never use it as a zoom but the fact that this lense has no ability to set any hard focus distances on it makes it useless for a red production shoot.

[chuck colburn]

Just going to throw in my $0.02... This lens does a poor job of holding focus throughout the zoom range. If I focus at 17mm everything goes a bit soft before I zoom all the way to 35mm. I get a little better result focusing at the long end and then zooming out to full wide, but it still doesn't hold focus.

I can't comment on the breathing vs. the RED 18-50 -- haven't seen the RED lens myself. Besides, I don't think what was at NAB was the final product.

Anyway, the EXTREMELY SHORT focus throw (1/4 turn of the barrel), the way the focus ring slips if you go past either end and the inability to maintain focus on a zoom are all factors that have made me decide on the RED 18-50 or possibly some other short zoom. Too bad too, because as a still lens, this Nikon 17-35mm is a true gem. This lens in a cine setting would be best treated as a variable prime. But it's so touchy... You'll have to be careful no matter what.

I'll see if I can set something up here in a bit and shoot some samples so you can see how much the focus drifts.

ANY zoom lens should be focused on the longest focal length if you expect it to hold focus when zooming.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I will offer to download a part of my Nikon Zoom 17-25mm test that is shot last month. Please be patient to download QT file in Motion JPEG A compression, size 87 MB, 42 sec, 1024x576, 25fps. Shot done with FX1 HDV+Red Rock M2 35mm adapter. Also please do not blame a quality of the test and a lot of issues that starting with CA M2 issue, M2 ground glass issue, HDV compression issue, resolution issue , dynamic range issue, etc.

Just try to imagine how would look at 4K with RED in mind.

The movie is an excerpt of lager test and shows a short zoom from 20mm to 24mm and 7 aperture stops starting from 2.8 to 22. Enjoy it. Download is open during the next 24 hours. After that I will shut down FTP on my home server with a cable connection.

Download link
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServe...9-04-07-1C.mov

For the best download use Firefox web browser on both platforms.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

ANY zoom lens should be focused on the longest focal length if you expect it to hold focus when zooming.

Yep, I was just saying that trying it both ways (and in between) still didn't make any difference. The lens does hold focus the best when the focus is set at its longest, but it still loses focus as the focal length is changed.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Everything You Wanted to Know about Nikon 17-35mm Zoom Lens... But Were Afraid to Ask.
Finally get it from the link below

Download at
ftp://84.112.86.213/Library/FTPServe...9-04-07-1C.mov

[Poi Boy]

Hey Sanjin,
I've tried to download a couple of times today with no luck.
-A

[Sanjin Jukic]

Yes Poi Boy I can see you on my server administrator app, the network and backbone is unfortunately "clogged" now in Vienna, Saturday morning, everybody is on the Internet, but try out later during night hours here at CET (Central European Times). Find out a right time using
http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/

[Evin Grant]

The fact that this lense has no ability to set any hard focus distances on it makes it useless for a red production shoot.

Well you need to think of it like an HVX lens to some extent. You will get repeatable results so long as you do not go past either infinity or minimum close focus. The easiest way to ensure that is simply to use a focus gear with built in stops like the Zacuto or even modify a Redrock. Should be pretty easy really.

[Bruce Allen]

This weekend I rented the 17-35 and met up with Matt Garrett, a very friendly and knowledgeable DP / director who happens to own a HVX200 with a sgpro 35mm adapter. I highly recommend him if you're thinking of shooting in LA - he was great to work with.

Anyway, focusing the 17-35 was REALLY tricky. Way more difficult than any other Nikon. On top of the short throw and the lack of hard stops, our focus ring was kinda grungy and kept sticking. Maybe we just had a dud rental - in which case, we have to say: if you're planning on renting a Red and a 17-35 for a shoot, be very careful indeed! Even if we had had a follow focus, I can't imagine our particular lens being workable.

It was tack sharp though - sharper than the 35mm prime we used, in fact! Also, it didn't lose much more light than the 35mm prime at 2.8 at all. So sad. Anyone want to re-house a batch? Evin, have you done anything special to yours?

Anyway, I'll post a link to our high-res test footage soon as long as everyone promises not to crash my server ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Sean]

We just shot a short film using the Redrock follow focus and the Nikkor 17-35. It has a much deeper depth of field, obviously, being wide, and it really worked perfectly well with the Redrock set-up.

[chuck colburn]

This weekend I rented the 17-35 and met up with Matt Garrett, a very friendly and knowledgeable DP / director who happens to own a HVX200 with a sgpro 35mm adapter. I highly recommend him if you're thinking of shooting in LA - he was great to work with.

Anyway, focusing the 17-35 was REALLY tricky. Way more difficult than any other Nikon. On top of the short throw and the lack of hard stops, our focus ring was kinda grungy and kept sticking. Maybe we just had a dud rental - in which case, we have to say: if you're planning on renting a Red and a 17-35 for a shoot, be very careful indeed! Even if we had had a follow focus, I can't imagine our particular lens being workable.

It was tack sharp though - sharper than the 35mm prime we used, in fact! Also, it didn't lose much more light than the 35mm prime at 2.8 at all. So sad. Anyone want to re-house a batch? Evin, have you done anything special to yours?

Anyway, I'll post a link to our high-res test footage soon as long as everyone promises not to crash my server ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Hello Bruce,

Some of the early ones had focusing problems (way to much slop to be useable with FF units) mayby you got one of those. I could see how sloppy helicoids could lead to binding with age.

Chuck

[Bruce Allen]

Gotcha... I guess this is one of those "rent with extreme caution" lenses... I'll have to go and check out a new one if I can find it...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

Yeah....and buy with caution if used.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Just from my own experiences with the Nikon 17-35, the biggest issue is the short focus through. The entire focal range is covered in 1/4 turn and it's very touchy. The lack of stops at either end of the throw can be solved by placing hard stops on a gear ring as Evin said.

Overall, the lens is great though and while I'm excited over RED's pricing on lenses, I'm still anxious to see how the Nikon glass performs before I hand over all my cash.

Like you found, Bruce, this lens is very sharp. It's definitely one of my favorite lenses and it outperforms most, if not all of Nikon's best primes in the 15mm to 35mm range. As I mentioned previously in this thread, if I were to use it on RED (or any other camera, like the HVX w/ adapter), I would definitely treat it as a variable prime. It's focus is so sensitive and it likes to go soft, even with rather small changes in focal length.

With all its issues, I'd still highly recommend this lens if you plan to use the Nikon mount with RED. If you own a Nikon DSLR already and don't have this lens, then WTF? Go get one!

[number6]

O.K.... the reason I called you all together here is you all obviously have been to more than one rodeo. Therefore, I would like to pose a question... Which has more weight in the look of a film... Lens, cmos/ccd, post? (Really it wasn't me who called this meeting, but thought I would just jump up in front of the croud and pretend it was me)

[David Mullen ASC]

The thing to keep in mind is that there is no monolithic "film look". Movies over the last hundred years have been sharp or soft, colorful, desaturated, or b&w, widescreen or square-ish, warm or cold, hi-con or low-con, grainy or fine-grained, deep-focus or shallow-focus... You're talking about a history that encompasses "Singin' in the Rain" and "Saving Private Ryan" after all.

It may be easier to talk about what constitutes a uniquely video or digital look that film generally does not have, in the quest to make digital images behave more like film ones. For example, in trying to make consumer DV look more like film, you actually spend more time trying to make it look less like consumer DV than you do trying to make it look more like film -- in other words, you minimize attributes that typify the process or format if you are attempting to disquise or mask its origins. If it is inherently deep-focus, you try to make it shallow-focus, for example. If it tends to clip highlights, you try to avoid that. You avoid using shutter speeds that a film camera cannot employ. You avoid interlaced-scan artifacts or obvious edge-enhancement.

[number6]

Points taken. But I guess what I was asking was, as a novice movie maker who probably will go straight to dvd during my discovery process, what should I be more concerned with? That is, should the camera (CMOS) be my most important tool for getting a good image on screen, is the lens as important visually, or can I expect to rectify any mistakes somewhat in post?

EDIT: One reason for my asking is that I have to decide where to spend my "learning time" most efficiently. I've just got x amount of brainpouer and I don't want to stretch myself too thinly.

[David Mullen ASC]

A CMOS camera isn't necessarily always better than a CCD camera, even for a film look.

There are dozens of things to look for in a camera if attempting to create a film-like effect for DVD release. You'd want a sufficiently large sensor so you aren't fighting some super deep-focus characteristic (or use some tricks to avoid that, like some of these 35mm lens adaptors). You'd want a camera with good dynamic range so you don't see a lot of clipped highlights. You'd want a minimum of compression artifacts. You'd want enough manual controls over the camera processing and the lens optics to adjust the picture and shoot in a traditional narrative film style. You'd probably want a progressive-scan camera rather than an interlaced-scan one. It's a lot more complicated than CMOS vs. CCD.

If you're interested in a subject, I don't think you need to worry about limiting what you learn about it.

Truth is that once you have some sort of control over your tools, no matter what the camera, there are much bigger things that make something feel cinematic, like lighting and composition, movement and editing, production design, choice of shot size, coverage, casting, locations, sound, music, etc.

[number6]

Right, I've got a RED on order, but am far enough doun the list that it should be awhile before I take possession. But you bring up another point for me to adress... that is, nuance of the camera itself. So, just thinking out loud here, my early thoughts are to purchase one lens, the Canon HD wide angle one, worry about getting the best footage I can through manipulating the various strengths of the camera, and try to avoid any necessary post correction. Thus, would you agree that someone in my position should be more concerned with the operation of the camera itself, initially, until such time as one can turn the lens and post production to those more specialized? Boy, it's tough being an army of one.

[Joel Kaye]

Thanks Evan have you or anyone else had experience shooting this lense with redrock or similar lense adapter system on a HD camera? I just would really like to know if the focus puller had any problems with the short focus throw of this lense at the 35 end in HD. Because if it was tough to focus this thing in HD then 4k will be a nightmere.

I just pulled focus on a 20mm with the redrock yesterday. Since the depth of field is so deep it didn't seem to present problems - but truthfully the HD resolution of my camera (JVC HD-100) with the RedRock (softer) doesn't come close to what RED will deliver so we're probably going to have to wait for RED for real tests.

Having said that - the RedRock gears are large so that effectively does help the focus puller. I've pulled the focus on the 20mm, 50mm, 85mm and 70-200. I've done it with follow focus marks, monitors and the lens feet settings on the lens itself and it's doable at this lower resolution. (By the way, the 20 2.8 and 85 1.4 don't show much breathing. I think the 20mm is a little soft. This 17-35 sounds better.)

Any tie in to the electronics that the Birger guys do should hopefully allow some electronic "gearing" to make things easier.

I'm very curious to try out the RED lenses though to see if they are much easier to use. As far as optical quality I bet some of these Nikons and Canons will be plenty good.

[David Mullen ASC]

I learned by shooting Super-8, and what I did was create short exercises to master some aspect of cinematography or directing, while also just shooting test after test after test, learning how to shoot sunsets, for example, or interior natural daylight, etc. Or I'd create a short film idea that centered around intercutting simultaneous action for suspense, ala D.W. Griffith. Or do a b&w art piece that was all about shadows and silhouettes.

[Finner]

Points taken. But I guess what I was asking was, as a novice movie maker who probably will go straight to dvd during my discovery process, what should I be more concerned with? That is, should the camera (CMOS) be my most important tool for getting a good image on screen, is the lens as important visually, or can I expect to rectify any mistakes somewhat in post?

EDIT: One reason for my asking is that I have to decide where to spend my "learning time" most efficiently. I've just got x amount of brainpouer and I don't want to stretch myself too thinly.

To make an anology for your question it is not far off asking that you want to buy a car to drive across america but what is most important, tires or steering wheel or engine or gas mileage or mini van or sportscar...

You can see where I am going. Pretty much there is not much of an answer to your question. Either learn a little about it all or direct and hire compitant people to do all the technical end. I would not buy gear if I was in your shoes as it seems to me that your best bet would be to save your money to hire people and rent equipment.

[number6]

T

You can see where I am going. Pretty much there is not much of an answer to your question. Either learn a little about it all or direct and hire compitant people to do all the technical end. I would not buy gear if I was in your shoes as it seems to me that your best bet would be to save your money to hire people and rent equipment.

Yeah, I see your point. But I'm not new to videography, just movie making. I have a Canon XL1 and have recently acquired a couple of Sanyos (HD1 and an HD1a) as well as a JVC GZ HD7. I almost HAVE to oun the RED because I will be shooting initially, small cast and dialogue heavy movies. I actually have two definites in mind, and a third maybe that I will do. My point is, I do not expect overnight success with these two starters, but still, I want to spend LOTS of time getting done what I want to accomplish. Thus, it wouldn't be prudent to hire equipment and people to try for a polished film, because I will spend whatever amount of time it takes to get the story right.

[Bruce Allen]

O.K.... the reason I called you all together here is you all obviously have been to more than one rodeo. Therefore, I would like to pose a question... Which has more weight in the look of a film... Lens, cmos/ccd, post? (Really it wasn't me who called this meeting, but thought I would just jump up in front of the croud and pretend it was me)

I think the "film look" is about management of contrast. I think the human eye sees everything in terms of micro / macro spatial variations in tone.

My theory: "film look" is a combination of:
1. that slight 24p stutter - That's easy - shoot 24p.

2. rich micro / macro variations in tone across space. Think in terms of making music with high and low frequencies, except in this case you are dealing with a mixture of fine textures (high frequencies / treble) and strong overall tonal disposition (low freq / bass). Think about contrast as being a spatial, lively, musical thing, not just tone numbers.

So, if you shoot at 24p and have good lighting and production design in a totally controlled space, you would be fine with digital PROVIDED that the resolution of the digital camera is sufficient to show high-frequency texture and relative tones. The problem is that in the real world, it is tougher to control the "tonal music". Hence the need for film... or Red!

Oh, that's why the lens is important too - working with a mushy lens without nice micro contrast is like recording your favorite band with a microphone hidden in your jacket that can't pick up the high transient sizzle of the cymbals... Of course, making sure you have a little point of absolute black and absolute white somewhere in your frames every now and then helps a lot too.

3. Controlled color palette - Again, good production design and lighting is the key. If you look at a film clip on YouTube, you can often tell that it is "film" just by the color choices. Film stocks also sometimes have wonderfully rich color looks to them which helps "anchor" the color palette choices made on set. But you can emulate those quite effectively in post...

Ah well, that's my 2c. How does that relate to the 17-35? Well, the crispness, DOF, etc all relate to creating that beautiful tonal music of local contrast inside your frames.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Finner]

IMHO You would be better served to buy a HVX or similar and deck it out fully then buy a red with one lense. To go back on the car topic it would be like buying a brand new lamborgini with zero options or seats and a 50cc engine. You have to at least marginally support your camera with equipment because if you do not a much cheaper camera with proper support will easily out perform it.

[number6]

Thanks Bruce, very poetic... and from your post it is obvious you approach your work on a broad front. But as I pointed out in a later post, my brain can't absorb enough to move forward on a broad front. I will attack movie-making with a Patton-like salient thrust into the most critical part of the process, and hope that by conquering that main part, be it lens, camera, or post, that the other parts will not collapse in on my work and defeat my purpose.

[number6]

IMHO You would be better served to buy a HVX or similar and deck it out fully then buy a red with one lense.

Too late! I'm doun for the RED and I'm not givin' up my spot.

[Finner]

IMHO a big mistake. You mention that you feel you are a novice but from what you have stated in your posts your camera skills and knowledge are beginner at best. A red is far to advanced a camera for you and a HVX would be much more appropriate of a camera for you. I am only saying this to help you as you will be able to accomplish much more with a HVX.

[number6]

IMHO a big mistake. You mention that you feel you are a novice but from what you have stated in your posts your camera skills and knowledge are beginner at best. A red is far to advanced a camera for you and a HVX would be much more appropriate of a camera for you. I am only saying this to help you as you will be able to accomplish much more with a HVX.

No offense taken, and your advice is appreciated as well. But the way I see it, the RED won't rust, and instead of learning to fly the little piper cub HVX, I may as well spend that time learning the fly the Dreamliner RED.

EDIT: Quote (myself)..."spend that time learning the fly the Dreamliner RED" I think I'd better get to bed.

[Finner]

But I don't think you will because you will not have enough of a package to use it properly.

I think I may be wasting my time though because I remember you feeling that a script is not needed to shoot a film. So with points like you have made I think you may just be trolling for arguments making this a total waste of my time so I am done. Best wishes.

[number6]

But I don't think you will because you will not have enough of a package to use it properly.

I think I may be wasting my time though because I remember you feeling that a script is not needed to shoot a film. So with points like you have made I think you may just be trolling for arguments making this a total waste of my time so I am done. Best wishes.

I guess if your idea of using your time wisely means having me change my philosphy entirely and winning me over to your way of thinking, then yes, you were wasting your time. If on the other hand offering your point of view while listening to mine helps one or both of us gain insight, then we both could have benefitted... because your saying in essence that in your opinion I am not yet capable of using the RED, helps me understand what I will be up against as I move forward and that I should perhaps explore new methods outside of the established formula.

OBTW, my original question was meant to be "What in one's opinion should be the weighted value attributed to 1. lens, 2. RED capture, or 3. post, for getting the best quality footage for someone who is not expert in any of the three. Which one should I spend the most time on to most efficiently achieve my goal?

[Joel Kaye]

OBTW, my original question was meant to be "What in one's opinion should be the weighted value attributed to 1. lens, 2. RED capture, or 3. post, for getting the best quality footage for someone who is not expert in any of the three. Which one should I spend the most time on to most efficiently achieve my goal?

Before any of that is have a great story to tell. Then have great performers play it.

After that - if you don't capture it all well the rest is irrelevant. I think the thing to study is cinematography - lighting and composition. Someone else can always bail your butt out in post after you've acquired great stuff. But if you capture crap who cares about color grading it and trying to polish a turd.

I think Finner's got the right point though. When "EVERYTHING" comes together is when stuff worth watching gets created. Frankly, I'd master the audio before I'd worry about visuals. No audience puts up with bad audio, but plenty put up with weak visuals.

[number6]

Frankly, I'd master the audio before I'd worry about visuals. No audience puts up with bad audio, but plenty put up with weak visuals.

Still another part of the equation and one I hadn't considered. Thanks for the input Joelnet. Very useful.

[ZzzZZz...]

Hey whats with the indiespirit ?
"you will not have the package to use it properly" get out of here finner.... Off course you should go for the red one number6 and throw some nikon glass at it. Don´t worry about it being too difficult, its just a camera with manual controls. It might be rocket science to make the camera, but it certainly isn´t to use it.
And stop worrying about wanting it to look filmic... thats what brought all these silly dof adapters that make everything look like a cheap soft soapcommercials upon us... and whats filmic about that. Make it look GOOD by using the Red One.
Take a week off and shoot at everything that moves, in order to get comfy with the camera, and watch the crap you shoot in order to learn from your mistakes
Choose a raw shooting style with lots of handheld, choose locations with lots of natural light so you dont need to worry about focus all the time. Get someone to boom for you and use your energy on the acting.

Am I wrong?

[ZzzZZz...]

The car analogy is like this... Do you need to drive a hyundai before you step up to the mercedes?

[Stephen Williams]

The car analogy is like this... Do you need to drive a hyundai before you step up to the mercedes?

Hi,

Funny thing is, in still photography I have not noticed any improvement since cheap DSLR's arrived about 2 years ago.

Stephen

[number6]

Hey whats with the indiespirit ?
"you will not have the package to use it properly" get out of here finner.... Off course you should go for the red one number6 and throw some nikon glass at it. Don´t worry about it being too difficult, its just a camera with manual controls. It might be rocket science to make the camera, but it certainly isn´t to use it.
And stop worrying about wanting it to look filmic... thats what brought all these silly dof adapters that make everything look like a cheap soft soapcommercials upon us... and whats filmic about that. Make it look GOOD by using the Red One.
Take a week off and shoot at everything that moves, in order to get comfy with the camera, and watch the crap you shoot in order to learn from your mistakes
Choose a raw shooting style with lots of handheld, choose locations with lots of natural light so you dont need to worry about focus all the time. Get someone to boom for you and use your energy on the acting.

Am I wrong?

Not wrong in my opinion. You are a man after my oun heart. But Finner is also a man after my oun heart... with a razor (just joking... heard that in a Bob Wills western swing song once and have been looking for a place to use it ever since).

I think there may be more than one type of user on REDuser.net (that just came to me in a vision) but for the sake of brevity I will lump us into 2 categories. That is, Indie shooters who are trying to redefine mainstream movie making, and mainstream professionals who are pretty satisfied with what currently exists... probably because they have so much time invested in learning what they know that they do not want that devalued in any way.

I've come to the conclusion that it will all merge somewhere doun the pike and that a new streamlined way of making movies will emerge. All this pushin' and pullin' can only lead to "something wonderful", but it had better hurry if it is going to happen before Two Thousand And Ten!

[Finner]

I guess if your idea of using your time wisely means having me change my philosphy entirely and winning me over to your way of thinking, then yes, you were wasting your time.

Just saw this and would have answered to it sooner if I had seen it. I did not think I was wasting my time because I did not win you over to my way of thinking. I was thinking that if you were yanking my chain that I would be wasting my time. The thought of shooting with no script and buying a red camera and outfitting it with one lense and no accesories is just so far out there that I thought there was no way possible you could be for real. It's just a camera body is only as good as its parts and a cheaper body outfitted with decent accesories will give you a much better finished product. Make your own decision though as it seems like you are very fixed on this.

[number6]

Just saw this and would have answered to it sooner if I had seen it. I did not think I was wasting my time because I did not win you over to my way of thinking. I was thinking that if you were yanking my chain that I would be wasting my time. The thought of shooting with no script and buying a red camera and outfitting it with one lense and no accesories is just so far out there that I thought there was no way possible you could be for real. It's just a camera body is only as good as its parts and a cheaper body outfitted with decent accesories will give you a much better finished product. Make your own decision though as it seems like you are very fixed on this.

A fair position... For the record I was not yanking your chain when I originally posted that I would not shoot with a script (per sae). I do however have an outline and will craft around this loosely planned storyline... and will edit to achieve any timing points after the fact. It is simply a matter of how we differ. You probably like everything planned and in its place before shooting. I, on the other hand, cannot stand too much structure. I have to have the freedom of movement... kinda like Sundance when auditioning for payroll guard in Bolivia. He couldn't hit 'it until Strother Martin gave him the go ahead to move. After being allowed the freedom of movement he kept the can in the air until he emptied his gun.

I really was sincere when I asked for input on the most important element of getting dialogue and action on whatever media it winds up on. That is, is my time better spent concentrating on entry of the action through the lens, utilizing the best settings via the camera, or concentrating on cleaning up imperfections in post?

I will only be using one lens due to financial considerations. I would prefer to have the RED camera with one lens rather than some other combination, and the Canon HD one looks like something that might give me a good one lens solution, if it will cover the CMOS and will mount. As for zooming it, I will do that manually by simply moving the camera closer or further away, if the lens zoom doesn't give me what I need.

Anyway Finner, this is my situation and while I do get flip and probably annoying at times, it's just me being me. Seldom is any disrespect intended, and certainly none is now.

I'm glad we had this little talk, aren't you?:biggrin:

[Bruce Allen]

Okay, last weekend Matt Garrett and I tried out a different 17-35 (we were testing the Canon HV20 with the sgpro 35mm adapter) - and found it much better than our previous, gunky one. Especially once hooked up to a follow focus. We really needed hard stops on ours, though!

I am up in the air as to whether the 17-35 is a better deal than the PL-mount Red CF 18-50, or another used PL mount, or some wide primes (PL or Nikon). Really, really tricky decision!

By the way, my rental source for the non-gunky 17-35 was Vehe Papaz at www.hdrentals.up.to - he has a bunch of nice stuff for decent indie prices. Definitely recommended if you're in LA! Tell him I sent you - I plan to rent from him again and am hoping he'll give me a good discount for writing this ;)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Poi Boy]

Hey Bruce,can you post some footage and thoughts on hv20 with adapter.
-A

[Bruce Allen]

Hey Bruce,can you post some footage and thoughts on hv20 with adapter.
-A

Yes, I definitely will. I feel terrible because I am a week behind what I have been promising (not only adapter tests, but also HV20 latitude, sharpness without adapter, etc). I have been working crazily sorting out final issues with my LCD case design prior to prototype production and have had no time.

Summary, though: 17-35, 35, 50, 85, 80-200 etc all work with HV20 + sgpro. Every lens shows more vignetting than the HVX200 tested with same adapter, but maybe I should have zoomed in more - the vignetting is consistent across lenses. Definitely some sharpness is lost, but not that much.

Back to the 17-35 focus throw issue, it was definitely the worst lens of the bunch to try to focus with. This was enough of an issue to make Matt and I at least talk about getting the PL mount adapter for the sgpro and going with PL mount lenses. But the older manual-focus Nikons suchh as Matt's 85 are okay... especially with follow focus.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[chuck colburn]

Question. Who is manufacturing follow focus gears for the 17-35mm Nikon?
I saw a site that had some expandable plastic gear rings, but that seems pretty hokey as the pressure angle would vary with the diameter change. Anyone seen proper metal gears for this lens?
If you can't find a decent gear for this lens , I can direct you to catalog sites where you can obtain a gear of suficent diameter and diametral pitch to work with availble follow focus rigs. You would have to take the gear to a machnist and have it reworked (probally mated to a seperate mounting ring) to fit the focus barrel.

[Poi Boy]

Bruce if you would just quit wasting time with your day job you could get more fun stuff done for us, don't be selfish.
Aloha
-A

[Roberto B]

IMHO You would be better served to buy a HVX or similar and deck it out fully then buy a red with one lense. To go back on the car topic it would be like buying a brand new lamborgini with zero options or seats and a 50cc engine. You have to at least marginally support your camera with equipment because if you do not a much cheaper camera with proper support will easily out perform it.


IMHO a big mistake. You mention that you feel you are a novice but from what you have stated in your posts your camera skills and knowledge are beginner at best. A red is far to advanced a camera for you and a HVX would be much more appropriate of a camera for you. I am only saying this to help you as you will be able to accomplish much more with a HVX.


But I don't think you will because you will not have enough of a package to use it properly.

I think I may be wasting my time though because I remember you feeling that a script is not needed to shoot a film. So with points like you have made I think you may just be trolling for arguments making this a total waste of my time so I am done. Best wishes.

finner, stop thinking you are a clever guy knowing what's better for the other posters.. or about the skills and knowledge of anyone who committed the error to hear you once.. i write for living and i can confirm that's possible to shoot a feature without a script.. ask it to Mike Leigh

[Matt Garrett]

I'm pretty sure we could get the focus a little better and zoom in a bit more on the hv20. Wayne also suggested getting a spacer to help out on the vignette.

[Bruce Allen]

Bruce if you would just quit wasting time with your day job you could get more fun stuff done for us, don't be selfish.
Aloha
-A

Ha ha! Need day job to be able to afford to rent the 17-35 and the Kino ;) But more important is Matt generously bringing his expertise, adapter, camera, etc...


i write for living and i can confirm that's possible to shoot a feature without a script.. ask it to Mike Leigh

Without an INITIAL script. I think Finner was reacting to number6 seeming to suggest that he will just go off and making his movie without much of a rehearsal / workshopping process... seemingly without a method to the madness... I think Leigh doesn't actually do much improvising when he's shooting.

I have Secrets and Lies sitting on my desk at home. Genius.

I must admit though, number6 has me totally intrigued. I will definitely seek out and watch his movie when it's made! He's an interesting guy...

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Roberto B]

I think Leigh doesn't actually do much improvising when he's shooting.

do not bet high there.. :weight_lift: you can do una bruta figura.. :meh:


I have Secrets and Lies sitting on my desk at home. Genius.

without script, lines.. whatever.. last scene?.. the actors were informed on set about what mike thought for that particular scene..

someone said to me.. mike had no idea on next day's lines.. :sorcerer:

[Bruce Allen]

Okay, I'm going to be on topic now. Our tests with the 17-35 and other lenses with the HVX200 and sgpro were just featured on FresHDV - there's a link on this page so that you can download a 720p video file:
http://www.freshdv.com/2007/06/nikon-lens-tests-with-the-sgpro-35mm-adapter-and-hvx200.html

Now happily going off topic into this wonderful chat about our beloved Mike Figgis... (EDIT: whoops, I mean Leigh, I am dozing off here...)

do not bet high there.. :weight_lift: you can do una bruta figura.. :meh:
without script, lines.. whatever.. last scene?.. the actors were informed on set about what mike thought for that particular scene..

someone said to me.. mike had no idea on next day's lines.. :sorcerer:

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I agree that it is quite possible that he doesn't know the exact lines. But I think he has worked out the through line for the scene, what the character wants, etc very carefully beforehand through the rehearsal process.

I learned in the theatre to spend lots of time in the rehearsal room on just getting the actors to relate to each other naturally in space, in character. That way, when we moved from rehearsal room to stage, we wouldn't have to worry so much about blocking. If the actor knows their intention and how to relate to the other characters in the scene, all you need to do as director is put the props in the right place and the actors will almost block the scene for you... I think Mike's process is similar - he doesn't know the words, but he knows very precisely each beat of what is going on at a deep character level for everyone in his film. Maybe it's intuitive, but I think it comes from the rehearsal / planning process.

Again, I think the idea is that you have a through-line that works on SOME level. Lost in Translation was a very short script, but there was a through line. As long as Number 6 has that whole "plan for shooting" in his mind (see, I am giving up and not calling it a script any longer...), he should be okay... but does he? That's the big question - anyway, I will enjoy watching his film to find this out! Can't wait, can't wait...

Ah, found it on the Figgis imdb page:
"You will find hardly any improvising on camera anywhere in my films. It's very structured, but it's all worked out from elaborate improvisations over a long period, as you know. Literary, word-bound people often say, "Ah well, if that's the case who's the author?" Which is remarkably dumb, isn't it?"

If you know him personally I would love to know if he is actually just lying about this and just works intuitively. That would be fascinating!

Sorry, I am getting totally OT but I love talking about directing.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Roberto B]

Now happily going off topic into this wonderful chat about our beloved Mike Figgis...

Mike Leigh.. secrets & lies.. london film school..

i also checked his imdb page and found this:

«Most of Mike Leigh's work in theatre and film is done without any initial script. He and the actors improvise their characters and the scenes under his overall control.»

i swear it was not me who wrote the same text.. lol :spidy:

[Bruce Allen]

Mike Leigh.. secrets & lies.. london film school..
Sorry - it was late - I meant Leigh though! I know Secrets & Lies - I have the screenplay for Secrets & Lies sitting on my desk.



i also checked his imdb page and found this:

«Most of Mike Leigh's work in theatre and film is done without any initial script. He and the actors improvise their characters and the scenes under his overall control.»

i swear it was not me who wrote the same text.. lol :spidy:

I believe you! I just think that once he is finished rehearsing, he definitely does have a more clear plan of scenes, through-lines, characters, etc - his equivalent of a script. That method is big in South Africa where I grew up - some of our best plays are workshop theatre, where director and actors developed the script together through rehearsals and share writing credit.

If Number6 had said "oh, we'll rehearse or workshop for a few months" then we wouldn't be so concerned... and interested, I guess... but he's talking about shooting without a script and without trained actors too, I think. Again, I thoroughly look forward to his movie and hope it will be the next Bicycle Thief. Stranger things have happened and I am looking forward to seeing his directing very much.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[Roberto B]

la casualità.. have you ever heard about it?.. Roberto Rossellini and the neorealists.. otherwise, they had worked so much the script.. there was a colective.. not just one or two scriptwriters.. but they often changed all the lines later.. the shooting time was the epifania.. i'm not sure if there's translation in english (lol.. the anglo people like the planning too much!..)