Todd Terry
1
COW Coin
Forum Replies Created
-
[Trevor Ward] “First, about putting PL glass on the C100. I didn’t realize the adapter was more than just the mechanical fitting. “
Unfortunately PL adapters aren’t like the simple “click on” adapters that most people are familiar with to, say, use a Canon lens on a Nikon body. It’s a lot more complicated than that.
There are two kinds of PL-lens-to-EF-camera adapters…
A lot of PL-mount lenses have a very long “butt end” with a rear element that extends far back past the mounting flange. This makes them extend deep enough into the camera body that it causes physical/mechanical problems. Some people have hot-modded DSLRs such as the Canon 5D to enable them to install a PL mount. What those people have had to do is permanently remove the camera mirror (and seal up the inside of the viewfinder prism) because the mirror would literally hit the lens when it tried to move. A PL adapter doesn’t require that alteration, because it moves the entire lens forward so there is enough clearance. Unfortunately that puts the lens way out of the proper distance to the sensor plane, so other lens elements are used inside the adapter to correct that. These kind of adapters sort of look like an oversized 2x teleconverter between the lens and body. They run about $3500.
The other kind of converter (one is made by Triad just for the C100) does function pretty much like the adapters you are used to, nice and flat against the camera. These can be used with most PL lenses, but some that have very deep rear elements might cause problems (on the upside, most cine zooms do not have deep rear elements, you see that mostly in primes). The upside to this adapter is that it is a lot cheaper than the other type, half the price at about $1800. The downside is that it is a permanent installation, you have to take apart your camera, remove the EF mount, and install the PL mount.
[Trevor Ward] ” Is that the case for the reverse adapter (using EOS glass on a PL camera”
Unless someone has invented one in the last few months there is no such thing as an EF-lens-to-PL-body adapter. When I was contemplating the C300 I inquired of this one company that makes every conceivable adapter combination… except EF-to-PL. See, most EF lenses have powered electronic mounts, controlling iris, focus, stabilization, and in some cases zoom. The PL mount is a purely dumb mechanical thing. So the mount adapter would have to have all the electronics (and power) in it (and some kind of controller box) for the lens to function (especially iris). This one company said they toyed with the idea of making one for the C300PL, but decided not to since Canon “already had a solution for people wanting to already use their EF lenses” (that solution being buy another camera body with EF mount).
[Trevor Ward] ” I was used to have such a large zoom range that worked for everything.”
Welcome to real cinematography 🙂 It’s a lot different than video shooting.
[Trevor Ward] “the 24-105 lenses are too slow.”
Really? The C100, C300, and C500 all go up to 20,000 ISO so there’s almost no such thing as a “too slow” lens for them anymore (you can easily shoot up to 10,000 ISO or more without getting any grain or “gain up” look). My cine zoom (a Russian Foton 37-140mm) is slow as molasses at f/3.8, but with the C300 it’s absolutely fine for even fairly dim interiors. How fast a lens are you looking for? Keep in mind that zooms are inherently much slower than comparable primes (unless you spend reeeaaaal money for a fast cine zoom).
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
I can’t speak to the C100 specifically, as I shoot with the C300… but it’s close enough that the situations are almost identical.
But first of all, I’m slightly confused by your question about using PL mount cine lenses… while the C300 and the C500 are available in either EF or PL mount versions, the C100 is an EF mount camera only… you can’t natively put a PL mount lens on the C100. The only way to do that is with an PL-to-EF adapter, and they are big, clunky, eat a fair bit of light, and are quite expensive (they are more than just a mechanical fitting, they have an optical element in them as well). They are also really hard to find.
But… that being said…
When we decided to get the C300, the only thing that I didn’t love about the camera was that you had to choose whether to go with the EF or PL mount… I really wish that Canon had made the mount interchangeable… but they didn’t, you have to pick one or the other. Since we already had a lot of PL mount glass that we really loved, we went with the C300PL.
I usually shoot cine primes (and almost always prefer to shoot primes), but I do have one cine zoom. I never really got to use the zoom much before because it’s pretty slow and that limited it to exterior use only. But the C300 is so great in low-light situations that I can now use the zoom for interiors, and do on occasion.
I greatly prefer PL mount cine lenses, either for primes or zooms… you’ll find that real cine lenses are hands-down better and much easier to use than SLR still-camera lenses, no matter what your mount. They are much easier to focus than an SLR lens, and cine lenses are purposely built so that they do not breathe… whereas since that doesn’t matter at all for still photography, many still lenses breathe pretty badly.
Canon has a new batch of cine zooms that are available in either EF or PL mounts that look to be pretty nice, reasonably fast (I think they are in the f/2.8 neighborhoods), and are half the price of the first two zooms that they offered for the C100/C300/C500. Then again, those original two lenses were $43,000 and $47,000… so even half of that is still a bit more than a lot of people are comfortable spending for a single lens. Then again, it still a fair bit less than a good set of cine primes.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Eric…
We love having new members and welcome their contributions… but your posts are quite “advertisy.”
I’m sure the fine folks at the COW would be happy to hook you up with some banners…
https://www.creativecow.net/page/sponsorship
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
No, sorry.
If you could do that, Canon wouldn’t be selling many C500s.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Yeah, as John says just buy that locally. Not specialty stuff, and that’s going to be pretty darn heavy. Shipping expense would exceed the sales tax savings.
And…. that should be a moot point because of course you’re paying sales tax anyway, aren’t you? 🙂
We do… ever since an audit resulted in a wrist-slap for not doing so.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Great, David…. I knew it would!
You’ll find that lower baseplate is just easier to use all ’round, too… your rig won’t be so top-heavy any more.
Happy shooting…
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Mads made some great points.
I think a couple of the tricks to being successful in the production business are to 1) find an underserved or niche market, and 2) be hands-down better than anyone else.
That’s what we tried to do.
The vast vast majority of our projects are broadcast television commercials. Most of our clients are advertising agencies, although we have several clients that we work for directly.
Before we started our company 16 years ago, potential television advertisers in our market had two choices… first, they could go to a television station or cable system and have a television spot produced. They spent almost nothing, maybe $200, and they certainly got a spot worth every penny of that. Their other option was to go to the only “real” post house in town, or to one in a neighboring city. There they would get a great production… but spend $50-100K on it and have no money left for a media buy.
We saw this as an underserved market and set out to provide production for clients who need something 100x better than they can get from a television station, but at about a fifth or so of the cost of a big production house.
In our particular market we found this was a good choice… that this area was indeed underserved. We do not target mom-n-pop businesses as potential clients (although as it turns out, we do have plenty of those as clients). Nor to we target the ginormous companies that have national advertising agencies… that would be wasting their time, and more importantly, mine. We target those in the middle.
Being better than anyone else can be the harder part. We are better than anyone else in our market, and I can say that without bragging. Part of that is that it (sadly) seems that these days the “quality bar” is set pretty darn low for people thinking they ought to do production for a living… and a lot of people out there trying are just terrible at it. Good. Good for me. And you. And all the other people who are doing good work. The other part of it is that we work very hard to make sure our work is good, and better than a client can get elsewhere for the same money.
The niche we’ve found and the way we do things might not be the same for everyone else in other markets. In fact, it’s guaranteed not to be. But I think it’s finding what works for you where you are that’s the key.
Still, there’s no guarantee for success. We’ve very fortunate that we usually stay pretty busy. we’re not killing ourselves and burning the midnight oil right now, but we still have a full production schedule. That’s not always the case though… I remember two summers a go a period of about six weeks where it was just dead as a doornail. We had lots of upcoming and potential big projects, but they were all weeks away. And the phone wasn’t ringing with anyone who wanted something right then. It can be a scary time, indeed. Especially to me… because I’m the last person that gets paid here.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Jeff Fink] “he wanted my help in making this film.”
[Jeff Fink] “I initially agreed to help”
Look at your own words, man. He asked for your help in making a film. You agreed to help.
You also said you initially agreed. Ergo, you’re now changing or backing out on what you agreed to.
Not good form, man. Others might chime in and surprise me with a different opinion, but I’m betting you would be hard pressed find anyone sympathetic to your position here in this forum.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
[Adina Zaiontz] ” I cannot physically do any of what you suggested as I am not the creator of the file… I have instructed the video producer to add a watermark.”
I’m guessing that being a producer and writer you are not an editor, and don’t know what is easily doable and what isn’t. No big deal, we don’t all do everything.
But it really is easy. If you are able to “instruct your producer to add a watermark” you can just as easily “instruct your producer to add a timecode.” It really is just as easy. In fact, it’s easier… as virtually all NLEs allow you to more or less simply click on an on-screen time code. For a watermark, the editor would have to physically create and overlay it as a super. Not hard, but not as easy as the timecode. If they can do one, they can do the other.
But… whatever works. Watermarks though do make you look suspicious of the clients, whereas timecodes look legit.
If you’d rather have a watermark than a timecode, that’s perfectly fine. But that’s a “I don’t want to do that” situation, not a “I can’t do it.” Either is easy, and if your editor’s hardware will do one, it will do the other.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
-
Sounds like you hijacked his film, to me.
All releases are in his company’s name. That makes the issue of who technically “owns” the footage irrelevant, as his company is the only one that can do anything with it, no matter who’s physical property it actually is.
T2
__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com
