Todd Terry
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
I watched it, Nik…
Yes, it does work exactly as I imagined, it basically “blows up” the lens’ image so that it is large enough to cover the S35mm sensor.
Eh… I’m not sure what I think about it. I’m not crazy about the idea for a couple of reasons.
Firstly, personally for me I wouldn’t use it because I never shoot ENG style. I use primes, I rarely use zooms. And when I do, I don’t want or need a servo-controlled zoom, I prefer an old-fashioned cine-style zoom. But… that’s all dictated by my shooting, which is all very cine style. If I were shooting more “news style” (and already had a killer B4 lens) then it might be appropriate.
You know the positives already, so I’ll just play Devil’s Advocate and point out what, to me, are the downsides.
Firstly, is light loss… which I suspected. The guy in the video admits you have a 2 1/2 stop light loss… which is huge. That means you will need five times as much light compared to not using the converter. That might not be too much of an issue, especially if you are just planning to shoot primarily daytime exteriors. Also, the C300 is soo light sensitive that you can increase the ISO to account for that. But, of course as a general rule lower ISOs are better. I usually try to shoot with the C300 as low as it will go, although 850 is considered “optimal.” I’ve shot much higher, though, and it still looks good.
Secondly… not every lens will work. You must use one that has a built-in 2x converter, which frankly I think adds some image degradation. I’ve never seen an ENG lens that looked as good with 2x on compared to how it looked without it.
Thirdly… this guy gives a bit of conflicting info. For one, he says DoF will be decreased, and he says DoF is a function of the focal length of the lens. Well, who knows? In theory, the depth of field should be the same as it is with that same lens without using the converter, at a given f-stop. And DoF is a function of the focal length of the lens combined with the f-stop and the sensor size. So his info isn’t totally complete.
Fourthly… I’d really want to see some true image tests. The samples he showed seemed to have a fair bit of barrel distortion in them, to me. You’ll notice a lot of the comments were from people who wanted to see a true test with proper charts, etc.
Fifth… the guy admits this is not as good as a “proper” cine zoom lens.
To wrap it up, would I use this? I might, if I had a really really great HD B4 lens and wanted to use it on, say, a Canon DSLR.
Would I use it on my C300? No, personally I wouldn’t.
The C300 is such a fantastic machine, I just hate to see an inferior lens cobbled onto it, which is what I think would happen in a lot of cases. Remember that no matter how nice and expensive your C300 body is, that is not the most important part of your camera rig… the glass is. By far. Glass is really the place you want to make an investment. Just as an example, when we travel to distant locations (which isn’t that often), I never ship ahead or check as baggage my little case of lenses. Everything else, yes, but not my lenses. They are by far the most valuable part of the equation… and from a purely financial standpoint they are worth a lot more than all of the other gear… definitely a lot more than the camera itself.
The good news is, that higher-end lenses (especially cine lenses) are a good investment. In five years my C300 will be absolutely worthless, I won’t be able to give it away because by then there will be something so much better/easier/faster/smaller/cheaper. The lenses, though, will not have depreciated… in fact they will have increased in value. Mine were already 20 years old when I bought them abut six years ago, and I probably paid a fair bit more than the guy who bought them brand new. And since then they’ve probably doubled in value again (thanks to so many people wanting vintage cine lenses on Alexas, Epics, C300, C500, etc.).
Hope that helps. I don’t mean to be hatin’ on the converter because it is an interesting option… but I don’t think it’s one that I would choose.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Erik Anschicks] ” I have put in an email to Duclos… “
Good, maybe they can help. Several years ago I had an identical Foton but with the oddball Russian OCT-18 mount and I asked Paul about converting it to PL mount. He said he could do that, but for some reason I never had it done… I just bought another one that was already PL mounted. So at least I know he is familiar with the lens and I think has worked on them before. Maybe you’ll get lucky.
[Erik Anschicks] “To go back to the original question though, do you think that the 24-105 would make the most sense for this type of shooting and just as an overall best first zoom choice for this camera?”
I dunno… it’s probably wide enough on the short end, but my gut instinct is that it’s not long enough on the tele end. I’m really not the right person to ask for a couple of reasons… one, with the exception of the occasional use of the Foton I hardly ever shoot zooms… I’m a primes guy. I’ve used it a fair little bit lately, but normally it’s not uncommon for me to go weeks or even months without taking the zoom out of its case. Secondly, I really know bupkus about DSLR lenses, other than the couple of times I’ve tried them they drove me crazy. My experience is really limited to shooting cine lenses. I’m guessing you are used to cine lenses too with your Zeiss primes, and I think that like me still-camera lenses would drive you bonkers when trying to focus them… especially for longer focal lengths like you’d be using to shoot games. It’s just that with SLR lenses you only have to make about a fifth of a ring turn to get from nearest focus to infinity (compared to almost a full barrel turn with a cine lens) that precise focus is very very touchy. Plus most it not all SLR lenses breathe to a degree… which is perfectly fine and a non-issue for still photography since that does’t matter, but with motion video that can be a problem. The zoom is going to be a bit clunky, too, compared to a cine lens.
Hope I’m not sounding snobby about SLR lenses… they do work, indeed. But with my limited experience I just found them quite hard to deal with.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
That shouldn’t be hard, Craig… I can think of two different ways right away to do that with PVC.
They’d take a few min to describe/illustrate though and I’m heading out the door right now, just saw your post… I’ll try to post my ideas in the morning…
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Yeah Craig those are attached by their sides to the case only. They are not attached to the deck at all.
What are you trying to do exactly, and with what kind of gear? Might have some options or ideas…
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Well Nik I might have spoken too soon in that long diatribe I wrote.
It could be that that’s more than a mechanical adapter, on second look there does seem to be an optical element in it, which might be there just to “spread” that small image out to make it cover the S35mm-sized sensor. That could very well be the case. Unfortunately the website is a bit facts-free on how that works (or at least what I could quickly find). I didn’t see a video. Assuming that company has taken all that into account, then it would work.
The upside would be that the focal lengths then would probably be right and transfer from one sensor size to the other without that radical change.
The downside would be light loss… firstly from that optical element in the converter (every new piece of glass in a lens eats some light), but moreso from the fact that it would be taking a 2/3″ image and spreading it out over a much bigger surface area to cover 35mm… about five times bigger. So the picture the sensor sees would be much dimmer and ergo the camera as a whole is less light sensitive.
But again, it might work. It was considering this just an “adapter”, usually a mechanical fitting to allow you to attach a lens to a different-mount camera. On second look this seems to be more of a “converter” which might indeed allow you to do that. Serves me right for talking out of my ear in an uneducated way.
Still though, the thing is pretty cheap… you’d think a true “converter” would be a fair bit pricier than that.
And no, I haven’t used the Canon 18-200. Unfortunately I really have zero knowledge of SLR lenses, my only experience is really with cine lenses so I’m woefully uneducated regarding what’s going on in the still-lenses world. I rarely shoot zooms, either… it’s almost always primes with me. The only zoom I ever use is the Russian Foton 37-140mm, and then only rarely (a great lens, but slow as molasses).
Sorry if I jumped the gun.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Just a PS… also keep in mind that the field of view will be radically different for the same lens depending on whether you use it on a 2/3″ camera or a 35mm camera like the C300.
For example a 50mm lens is about a “medium” lens on a 35mm-format camera. That same 50mm lens will be more like a short-telephoto on a 2/3″ camera.
That’s because while the size of the circle of the projected image from the lens is always the same, with the 35mm sensor it uses a much bigger chunk of the circle… whereas with the 2/3″ camera it only uses a much smaller piece of that image, only about a fifth of that that the 35mm uses.
That’s something to keep in mind when deciding if the focal length range of the particular 2/3″ lens will work for you with the C300. The lens will be much wider on the C300 than it was on the 2/3″ camera from start to finish throughout all the focal lengths.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
It’s very hard to say, without trying it… which I know is not a very helpful answer.
You’ve linked us specs to the MTF adapter, but what we really need are the exact coverage specs on the particular lens that you intend to use… that’s the important part.
That adapter might let a particular B4 mount lens fit… but that doesn’t mean that lens will cover the sensor. That it, the circle of its projected image might not be large enough to completely cover the sensor from corner-to-corner.
Lenses are not generally made to cover more of an area than they have to. That’s why all 35mm-format lenses can be used on a 16mm camera (assuming the mount is right), but not that many 16mm lenses can be used on a 35mm camera.
So, that lens might cover the sensor fully… or it might slightly crop the corners, or it might fairly severely vignette. It’s hard to say without trying it… but considering a 2/3″ sensor is roughly the same size as a 16mm film frame, I’d be pretty surprised if that lens would cover your C300’s S35mm-sized sensor.
Compounding the problem is the fact that since the lens was not designed to do that, it might be difficult to find those particular specs on it that would let you know if it will work. The specs will probably say that it covers a 2/3″ sensor… but probably won’t tell you how much larger a sensor that it theoretically could cover, since it wasn’t really designed for that.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Craig Alan] ” How did you attach the PVC so its solid enough to hold light stands?”
Hi Craig…
Well… I didn’t. None of my PVC tubes hold any light stands, although they are strong enough to hold them if I wanted (although they would have to be much larger pipes). There are three PVC tubes (of two different sizes) attached to one end of the case (the bottom of the three pics in the above post). Two of them hold umbrellas, and the other transports the mic boom fishpole. They are attached to the case by small bolts, with the heads inside countersunk in the pipe (to avoid snagging the umbrellas). In the pic you might be able to see a small hole or two drilled in the pipes. These are access holes so I could drill the countersinking in the opposite side of the pipe, and so I could get a screwdriver in there when attaching them to the case. In case you are wondering about that fatter middle pipe… that’s a “holster” for my zoom lens. On these shoots I was using the zoom a lot, but when I wanted to pull it off for a quick shot with a prime I didn’t want to take time to pack the zoom away so that’s a quick place to park it. The slot in the side accommodates the focus/zoom levers. There’s an identical “holster” inside the case (you can see it in the top pic) for more secure transport of the lens.
As for actual light stands, they are on the opposite side of the case (seen best in the middle pic). The plywood deck has a thicker hardwood piece screwed/glued to the bottom, and I drilled three 5/8″ holes (with spade bit in a drill press) at the appropriate spots so the inverted stands would nest together nice and tight. I really should have used Matthews baby wall plates, but they are like 30 bucks each and their baseplates are actually too big to put that close together. No matter, the baby pins fit in the holes nice and snug… it’s tight and secure enough to use the stands as handles when driving the case around (the swivel wheels are on the opposite end).
Between the stands is a 5/8″ post (just a bolt with the head cut off) to give me a spot to park the one grip head I was taking to hold the boom pole cradle. Similar posts are inside the lid to park the LED heads.
Hope that helps…
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[stan welks] “So if I have 60fps footage being brought into a 30fps Premiere Pro project:
1.) I choose Modify Clip > Assume this frame rate: and enter 30 fps in this location?”It depends on what you want the results to be. If you have a 30fps timeline and put 60fps footage on it, if you want it to be 50% slow-mo, then you don’t have to do anything… the footage will automatically be slow-mo.
Now, if you want to return it to normal speed, then yes… go MODIFY >> INTERPRET FOOTAGE >> ASSUME THIS FRAME RATE and put it 60 (or whatever the fps of the ORIGINAL clip was). Then it will play back on your timeline in normal speed. It might be slightly artifacty, and if there is a lot of motion in the shot it might appear a little stuttery (the narrow shutter look) because the footage was at a much higher than normal shutter speed for 30fps… at at least the motion will be right speed.
[stan welks] “Does this process degrade the quality of the video in any way?”
Yes.
It might introduce some motion artifacts.
It will, as I said, definitely appear more choppy and stuttery to restore normal speed motion from high fps footage, compared to footage shot at normal speed in the first place.
It’s a bit complicated, but I’ll try to explain why. It has to do with shutter speed (and again that’s shutter, not fps). A “normal” shutter speed (one that mimics a 180° shutter in a film camera) is “one over twice the frame rate.” Ergo, if you were shooting 24p then a “normal” shutter would be 1/48th of a second. Likewise for 30fps, a “normal” shutter speed is 1/60th of a second. If you shoot at a higher speed than that, the higher you go the more it eliminates the motion blur in each frame. Now, people might think that the sharper and less motion-blurry a frame, the better… but not true. Your brain needs that motion blur to interpret the strung-together frames as smooth motion. Now, lets say you want a slow-mo shot, so you shoot it at 60fps. Well in that case a “normal” shutter speed will be 1/120th of a second. That will look perfectly normal if you play it back at 60fps, and it will also give you a nice smooth slow-mo if you play it back at 24fps or 30fps, depending on your timeline. BUT… if you re-interpret the footage so that you get normal speed motion, that’s as if you originally shot the footage at normal speed BUT with a 1/120th shutter, much MUCH higher than normal. Ergo, each individual frame is much sharper than it should be with almost no motion blur, and your brain interprets this as sort of choppy motion with a staccato look to it. That’s what I meant by the “narrow shutter” look. That’s done on purpose in a lot of action films to make scenes look more, well, “actiony.” But unless you are wanting that look on purpose, it is usually very undesirable.
[stan welks] “If I am shooting something with lots of action, perhaps a car race or a game, and I want to slow down just a portion of my footage, what is the best way to approach this? Shoot the footage at 30fps and then stop the camera to change the settings to 60fps to shoot the footage I intend to slow down?”
Yes, exactly.
While you can slow-mo regular-speed footage to create “fake” slow-mo, and while you can reinterpret high-fps footage to give normal speed motion, neither of those options will look nearly as good as shooting the footage in the proper intended fps in the first place.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[stan welks] “60fps…will play back at normal speed in a 30fps or a 24fps Premiere…”
No, footage shot at 60fps will play back in slow motion if you drop it natively on a 30fps or 24p Premiere timeline. On a 30fps timeline it will appear as 50% of original speed. On a 24p timeline it will appear as 40% of original speed. If you want it to appear as normal speed you have to go to the original clip: MODIFY >> INTERPRET FOOTAGE >> USE THIS FRAME RATE and define whatever frame rate you want it to play back as… in this hypothetical case, 60fps.
[stan welks] “allows you to slow down footage in post and achieve better quality than footage shot at 24 or 30fps and slowed down?”
Definitely. Shooting at 60fps will allow you to display real slow-mo (just as an overcranked film camera would). Simply slowing down 30fps or 24fps footage gives you “fake” slo-mo, by simply duplicating frames, which gives a much jerkier and more stuttery look.
[stan welks] “are there reasons to not always shoot at 60fps in case you may want to slow footage down in post?”
You really should only shoot a higher-than-normal frame rate if you have a reason to do so… i.e., if you are planning for that to be a slow-mo shot. You should not shoot all of your footage at a higher frame rate just in case you might want to slow some of it down… maybe. The simple reason is that displaying 60fps footage at its native speed on a 24 or 30fps timeline simply won’t look as good as footage shot at the “correct” frame rate. For one thing, your shutter speed at 60fps is going to be much higher than the shutter speed normally would for 24fps or 30fps footage… which is going to give all of your footage that staccato “narrow shutter” look that is likely not going to be appropriate for the look you want (note that I’m talking about shutter speed there, not frame rate… which are two easily confused yet totally different things). So DON’T shoot 60fps for normal-speed footage. Unless you are trying to replicate “Saving Private Ryan” or “Gladiator” or any of those other super narrow-shutter films.
Use 60fps for footage that you will slow-mo. Use 24fps or 30fps for normal-speed footage, depending on the frame rate of your project.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
