why is a mattebox so expensive ? - Page 3 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Open DV Discussion
For topics which don't fit into any of the other categories.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 17th, 2009, 10:55 PM   #31
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
I too use lensers on stands more often than not, but of course these are of limited use for dolly shots. And of course hard mattes are a good start but may not be able to get everything (and talk about something you need to keep an eye on--nothing can kill you like a hard matte on a zoom, then a last minute "tweak" of the focal length resulting in easy-to-overlook vignetting).

I would love it if I always had the time and manpower to set as many lensers as I'd like, but so often these days, it's the final touch that I have to compromise on. And of course I see more than my fair share of Steadicam shots...!
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 17th, 2009, 11:14 PM   #32
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia
Posts: 155
Arri flag?

Charles, I was referring to what I call an Arri flag (a camera French flag on an articulated arm).

I also put that white tape on the inside of my hard mattes. A quick shine in with a penlight makes sure the Op has not changed the aspect ratio inadvertently when using a zoom.

On a flying rig, we are at the mercy of the DP and the actors hitting their marks when we hit ours :)
__________________
Enzo Giobbé
www.enzogiobbe.com
Enzo Giobbé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 07:41 PM   #33
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,543
I was just watching one of the extra features on the new Star Trek disk and it made me think of this thread. Abrams was in love with anamorphic flares and did all he could to intentionally create them. There are a couple crew members in the BTS footage just out of frame with big flashlights pointed right at the camera lens to create flares.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2009, 10:40 PM   #34
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Hardwick View Post
O Of course there will be shooters like Bill who keep pitting their front elements (what ARE you shooting, Bill? but for most of us 'protective filters' are just a low-grade front element that serves to reduce the hood's efficiency and give you 'double suns' - the most perfect example of total internal reflection (flare) as I've seen.
LOL. Tom: I've spent a lot of time with blacksmiths and metalsmiths and craftsman with lots of bits of hard/hot objects in the air. Not to mention all the renovation shows with power tools and saws. And don't get me started on the food fights at food competitions!

Oh, and I live in the land of perpetual winter rain...

I try to buy as good a protective element as I can and change it out every year or sooner, as needed.
Bill Ward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:06 AM   #35
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Motion picture cameras commonly have a 85 series filter fitted when shooting daylight scenes. Using a single high quality filter shouldn't have a noticeable effect if you have have your matte box fitted (zoom lenses have loads of internal reflections anyway), but some matte boxes do allow you to angle your filter(s) to avoid double reflections when you're building up a filter pack.

A clear protective glass does make sense in those environments with dirt, metal particles, blank gunshots, rain etc.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 04:17 AM   #36
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
Motion picture cameras generally have gates a whole lot bigger than our (typically) 1"/3 chips Brian. We might well be shooting at a focal length of 4 mm, and it's at these tiny focal lengths that filters become a big problem because of the huge dof.

Shoot at 12 mm and your filters will be a lot more invisible, even with non image forming light hitting them.

tom.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2009, 06:28 AM   #37
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
That could explain why it is an issue for people. Certainly you'd need to ensure that any filters you use are kept clean.

BTW I've seen rental 2/3" cameras with protective filters, but given that some people clean their lens with their shirt tails that could be understandable.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2009, 12:06 PM   #38
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia
Posts: 155
Audience perception

Audience perception is also a very important factor in lens flares.

A number of years ago, Haskell Wexler, ASC (a die hard Eclair CM3 user - most of "American Graffiti" was filmed with his CM3) adapted a set of 35mm Canon still lenses to his CM3.

While I favored the Nikon system for my 35mm high fashion work (better box, more esoteric lenses: the 28mm PC and 13mm ultra wide linear), I also used the Canon system on occasion, and I have to admit that the Canon lenses were much better as far as flares and inner lens reflections go. That's why Haskell decided to go the Canon route.

Haskell shot a night for night scene with that CM3 / Canon lens combo - where an automobile with headlights on was driving toward the camera, and when the dailies were ready, the scene just didn't look right. The cars headlamps were not flaring in the lens as most viewers were accustomed to seeing, so they had to scrap the shot.

I think that's why directors and we DPs purposely add controlled lens flares to shots. It makes the scene look "more real" because movie audiences are used to it.
__________________
Enzo Giobbé
www.enzogiobbe.com
Enzo Giobbé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2009, 02:50 PM   #39
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Billericay, England UK
Posts: 4,711
I think the only audience members that are 'used to flare' have to live with scratched corneas Enzo, and for them it would indeed look more real.

Degrading a lens' performance in this way is akin to adding barrel distortion in post. Maybe fishes see this way, but I've not met a human who does.
Tom Hardwick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2009, 03:05 PM   #40
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
Don't think we were talking about reality, but about the cinematic look that we have all grown up with. We certainly don't see anything like 24p; 60i is much closer to human perception but few want to shoot a narrative on it. Likewise, flares are one of the little touches that may potentially add to the character of a scene. Having the option to preserve or eliminate them is simply one of the desirable options available to a cinematographer.

Many love the classic anamorphic flare and distortion probably best demonstrated by the Panavision anamorphics--that horizontal streak, those oval out-of-focus highlights. There are various filters out there that attempt to recreate this look with spherical lenses. Certainly there's nothing "real" about this look; quite the opposite and therein lies the flavor.

When it comes to headlights, I've never liked the double image you can sometimes get where a duplicate set of headlights appears elsewhere in the frame. Filters are usually the culprit. Many time we will ND or spray the lenses of the headlights with streaks and tips to avoid this or too much flaring. Personally, I think that headlights should only flare if they are a story point, i.e. you are cutting to someone reacting/squinting to the strong light, so the flare becomes a subjective effect in that character's POV. For a standard shot of a car pulling up I'm less interested in seeing excessive flare.
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2009, 03:08 PM   #41
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Mays Landing, NJ
Posts: 11,543
Tom - I agree with the sentiment, but have you seen the new Star Trek movie? It is filled with all kinds of intentional flare. As I mentioned above, Abrams was very keen on this and didn't want to do any of it in post because it wouldn't be "organic" enough. He insisted shooting anamorphic and on film.

In the BTS footage you see them shooting on the Enterprise bridge with no mattebox and two crew members just outside the frame shining lights right into the lens. He also personally hugged the camera and shook it around for every scene in a spaceship. It's a riot to watch him do that to the steadicam guy.

I could have done without all this myself, but... maybe that's more of a subject for the "how to tell if you're an old fart" thread.
Boyd Ostroff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 21st, 2009, 03:20 PM   #42
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia (formerly Winnipeg, Manitoba) Canada
Posts: 4,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyd Ostroff View Post
I could have done without all this myself, but... maybe that's more of a subject for the "how to tell if you're an old fart" thread.
Amen, brother! Not a fan of flares or shaky cam myself. Every time I see shaky cam, I think of watching the ORIGINAL Star Trek as a child and actually asking my parents why people were throwing themselves at the walls. The OPPOSITE walls...

BTW, I'm 38.
__________________
Shaun C. Roemich Road Dog Media - Vancouver, BC - Videographer - Webcaster
www.roaddogmedia.ca Blog: http://roaddogmedia.wordpress.com/
Shaun Roemich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2009, 03:52 AM   #43
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Belfast, UK
Posts: 4,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Papert View Post
When it comes to headlights, I've never liked the double image you can sometimes get where a duplicate set of headlights appears elsewhere in the frame. Filters are usually the culprit. .
At least one of the standard Canon 2/3" zooms does a terrible double image of any bright light sources when being used at the longer focal lengths.
Brian Drysdale is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 22nd, 2009, 11:25 AM   #44
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Papert View Post
Don't think we were talking about reality, but about the cinematic look that we have all grown up with.
EXACTLY my point Charles!

You have 5 actors walking down a hallway (cave, tunnel, etc., take your pick) holding flashlights. Now in reality, probably no one would be waving those flashlight all around, but purely for its dramatic effect, I will have them moving them around rapidly and aimed at the lens, sometimes even adding a bit of very light fog to the scene so the light beams stand out as well.

I usually balance out the headlights to achieve an audience comfortable natural look (streaks and tips, etc.), but HID lights are sometimes a real pain to work with, and I usually shoot the lens bare.

BTW, that car headlight scene that Haskell shot with the Canons was a dramatic/suspense scene of a car going up or down a hill (forget which). The camera was on the car (in master and CU's at the curves) a lot. So it was sort of a story point.

My wife hates that shaky cam work that is so popular today, but it can sometimes be used to great effect. A camera is just a tool, it's how you use it that can can add impact to a scene.

Besides the Steadicam, I have a couple of tricked out Figs (one that rotates on a ball bearing race that I can fly with), plus some other trick odds and ends. The point is, that when the director asks "can you do this?", I like to say, "I can try".

Its all about getting the shot.
__________________
Enzo Giobbé
www.enzogiobbe.com
Enzo Giobbé is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2009, 06:35 AM   #45
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Little Rock
Posts: 1,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enzo Giobbé View Post
A number of years ago, Haskell Wexler, ASC (a die hard Eclair CM3 user - most of "American Graffiti" was filmed with his CM3) adapted a set of 35mm Canon still lenses to his CM3.

While I favored the Nikon system for my 35mm high fashion work (better box, more esoteric lenses: the 28mm PC and 13mm ultra wide linear), I also used the Canon system on occasion, and I have to admit that the Canon lenses were much better as far as flares and inner lens reflections go. That's why Haskell decided to go the Canon route.

Haskell shot a night for night scene with that CM3 / Canon lens combo - where an automobile with headlights on was driving toward the camera, and when the dailies were ready, the scene just didn't look right. The cars headlamps were not flaring in the lens as most viewers were accustomed to seeing, so they had to scrap the shot.

I think that's why directors and we DPs purposely add controlled lens flares to shots. It makes the scene look "more real" because movie audiences are used to it.
Are you sure Haskell used Canon still lenses?
I pretty much copied his personal kit years back, and used Canon K35 lenses with my Eclair.
David W. Jones is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The Tools of DV and HD Production > Open DV Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:44 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network