Okay thanks, I'm going to ask B & H what more about which one l could use be as well.

I was wondering, it was said before on here not to do crash zooms cause they look dated nowadays. I was watching Cape Fear (1991), and noticed how Martin Scorsese did a lot of crash zooms in that movie, so I figured maybe if he is doing in the 90s, maybe it's not so bad.

As for running with a gimbal instead and using a speed ramp instead like it was suggested, wouldn't speed ramps look dated, in the future from now?

Wouldn't a lot of people look back at movies nowadays and say "those speed ramps are so 2010s", much like how people nowadays say "those crash zooms are so 1980s"?

The answer is do what you feel is right, it's your film

However, unless you've got a parfocal zoom (as in cine or video zoom lenses) or a varifocal zoom that displays parfocal characteristics, you can't do a satisfactory crash zoom.

At this point, you seem to be going in circles, so, I suspect, the thread has gone as far as it can go in giving you an answer..

I’ve noticed over the years here and on other forums that if someone asks for advice “I’m thinking of doing X what should I do?” Even if everyone’s recommendation is not to do X, the original poster will inevitably do X. It’s just human nature why fight it you know you want to do the zoom just do it.

One of the most important things you can possibly learn to do is, to find your inner voice and to listen to it.

Sorry I don't mean to sound stubborn about it, it's just that film riot did it in the video. They crash zoomed with a DSLR lens, and they were able to do it, even though it's supposedly impossible.

It was said before that he was using a lens with a mechanical focus ring and that is how he was able to do it. And I was told on here, that I should just sell my fly-by-wire lenses and get mechanical focus rings, cause it's a lot harder to pull focus on fly-by-wire rings. So if I should get a zoom lens anyway, with a mechanical ring, like I was advised to, that means I can do the zoom after all though as a bonus, doesn't it?

As for the fly-by-wire ring issue I was having. I talked to one person and he said that he has pulled focus on a fly-by-wire with a follow focus before, and it's no problem, and that I must be doing something wrong. Is it possible though, or is it not, and he is just missing something?

The answer is to go to the nearest photographic dealer and test the DSLR zooms until you find one that will hold focus satisfactorily when zooming. This will vary from lens to lens.even on the same model, so you will need to test.

I would suggest starting with a Sigma zoom, the Cine version of this lens does hold focus unlike most varifocal still zooms, which won't. https://www.newsshooter.com/2016/12/04/does-the-sigma-18-35mm-f1-8-hold-focus-when-zoomed-and-could-your-lens-adapter-be-part-of-the-problem-or-solution/

Okay thanks that helps! What about what some people have said that you have to pull focus during the crash zoom on a varifocal in order to get it to work? Is that true, or will pulling focus just not work, especially when doing a really fast zoom, where it's just going to snap back into focus anyway, when the zoom is done?

It may work with auto focus, but you're trying to do something that will have other factors coming in like human error on the manual focus timing, the lens breathing during the focus pull etc. Also, you may get lag with the auto focus.

Get a lens that you know does the job, everything else is going to waste your time. Test, test test. People claim all kinds of things on the internet and they're incorrect in the claim. There is a handful of still zoom lenses which will hold focus to an acceptable degree, the vast majority won't.

Like Brian said you can’t make a blanket statement for every lens. Btw, I can do zooms without refocusing on my Canon 70d with 17-55mm lens. This works because you only need to manually focus the telephoto end, the wide will always be in focus. But I’d imagine a lens like a 70-200mm isn’t going stay in focus because of tremendous range and shallow dof, going from telephoto to super telephoto.

Just when I think this thread will end there is another chapter.

Can we rename it “The Walking Thread”? :-)

Can we rename it “The Walking Thread”? :-)
lol

I would rather see a behind the scenes making of this movie in mockumentary style. Replace the 11 amp scene with whatever an equivalent 11 zoom lens would be.


Spinal Tap - "These go to eleven...." - YouTube

It may work with auto focus, but you're trying to do something that will have other factors coming in like human error on the manual focus timing, the lens breathing during the focus pull etc. Also, you may get lag with the auto focus.

Get a lens that you know does the job, everything else is going to waste your time. Test, test test. People claim all kinds of things on the internet and they're incorrect in the claim. There is a handful of still zoom lenses which will hold focus to an acceptable degree, the vast majority won't.

Oh I didn't mean to imply that I was going to use autofocus, I meant manually pulling focus myself, I was told I need to do, to make it work.

I would get a lens that does the job, all the rest just wastes time on the shoot.

Okay thanks, it's just hard to know what lens does the job, since it doesn't actually on the lens if it can perform zoom when you read the specs and all. I try all the lenses at the store that go up to 300mm and see.

Cant you just email the film riot guys? Youre not trying to contact Spielberg here. Comment on the Youtube vid youre talking about and ask your questions about how they did it/what lens they used, and/or see if they have a facebook page and post there, instagram, Linkedin, etc. Basically pretend youre the stalker in a police procedural and find a way to get ahold of them directly.

Okay thanks, I can try that :)!

As for focus pulling, this one person who I talked to who is a focus puller on movies, and he said that I can use a fly-by-wire lens as long as the follow focus I use has hard stops. Is that true though? Cause I thought the lens would be inaccurate based on what was said, no matter if the follow focus had hard stops or not. Unless he is right, and that might be a way to use it that would work better for focus pulling?

If I sell the lens I would have to take a hit on the money, so if there is any way I could make the fly-by-wire work when it comes to focus pulling, I'll do it. Not just with zooming but any other shots in general, that require focus pulling.

I haven't used a remote focus control on a fly by wire stills lens, only on cine lenses, but I suspect the principle is the same. The higher end controls have hard stops that you set on on the focus knob, you can also adjust the scale length, but you have to put your own focus marking on the focus knob. You have to do this every time you change the lens.

You should use google to research this and the different brands and models available tother with their specification. Also check if they'll interface with your camera/lens combination.

Okay thanks, that's what I was told before. I was told that a fly-by-wire is perfectly usable as long as I mark the marks.

However, when if I mark, say mark A on the lens, and then try to rack focus to mark A, mark A is not in the same place all of a sudden.

I think the fly-by-wire does not have the same places every time, the way their rings focus, unless I'm doing it wrong...

We're going over old ground here, seemingly the speed that you pull focus is a factor with fly by wire, this introduces inconsistencies. I suspect it's designed for a feedback loop, which is supplied by a camera's auto focus system and corrects for this. The remote focus control used by the camera assist you mentioned may also work this way.

This thread is going in circles, for precise manual focus by directly pulling on the lens focus ring using marks, the answer is to get manual focus lenses, forget fly by wire. It's a waste of time for this type of stuff,

That's the problem Brian - the focus ring is useless for marking because all it does is increase or decrease feedback, through, I think, an opto-isolator and gapped cog. Marking the ring doesn't work. Move away from the mark, and return, and it's out of focus.

1. I can’t follow focus with a fly by wire lens what should I do?
2. You need a manual focus lens.
3. Yeah but someone told me it’s possible to follow focus with a fly by wire lens.
4. Go to line 1

Okay thanks. Just making sure he wasn't pointing out something I was missing or anything. As long as selling the fly-by-wire lens, and taking hit in money is absolutely needed then to pull focus. I could also get a camera with a really good ISO and just shoot at a really deep DOF so I won't have to pull focus, but could this also cause other problems though?

You will get increased noise if you increase the ISO and this may become objectionable after a certain point, especially if you want deep focus and don't have the budget to light to the required levels.

Getting the right kit always works out better in the long term.

How much shallow focus (typical narrative depth of field) do you want in the rest of the film? If you dont care then you could just rent/borrow a fixed lens cam with a proper video zoom. solves your problem.

Well I was thinking I would have shallow DOF mostly for the scenes where characters talk and are very still, but then open up deep for action/chase scenes, which is what I was going to use A telephoto for anyway mostly. Would that be too inconsistent of a style, if I had shallow DOF in the talking and close up shots, but deep DOF for action?

There's no reason/rule why you can't do that.

When you plan each shot, DoF is a choice you make. When people paid attention to what their shots looked like - they'd consider what the audience was looking at? Is the background supportive or intrusive - as in if you see mountains with snow on them, the viewer knows where you are, or if you need the viewer to concentrate just on the faces, then an interesting background is counter productive. Backgrounds can often pull focus (acting term) from the subject. Simple stuff, like maybe a notice on a wall encourages people to try to read it rather than listening to what's being said. Equally, if the background 'might' be interesting because it's not quite out of focus enough, then people start to figure out what the blob on the right actually is, instead of listening and looking at what is intended. DoF is a tool. Those people that use it like a fashion item when it's not needed do movie making a disservice - and make the cameraman job 10 times harder. Look at TVC programmes. Do you ever see something like 'How does it work' showing you images that are anything other than sharp? Sharpness everywhere in the frame is critical. News tends too be sharp, but occasionally you see inserts shot by people who think they're shooting art - some of those hotel room celebrity interviews for example. all soft backgrounds and clever shadows - and it really grinds against the rest of the programme.

Shallow DoF is fine when it's needed, but it is NOT a slap it on everything technique.

So we finally agree on a plan that makes sense! What a relief! I feel like we should do something to celebrate.

I’m curious why you’re making this movie? Are you doing it for the fun of it or are you trying to build a reel in hopes of landing a job as a director?

Well I was going to use the telephoto lens for action/chase/fight shots, since I can pan for a long time on a telephoto and follow the actors as the run and all. So does the background need to be out of focus, during a running chase scene do you think?

The decision is yours.

Yep for sure, I am just asking for an opinion on what is better for action scenes do you think? Will deep focus background be too distracting during chases and fights?

If the deep focus is distracting during your fights and chases, you've got a problem with your fight and chase. The eye always follows the action, even if it's in the soft background.

Okay thanks, but what could the problem be then likely, if they are distracted by the deep focus background?

How you compose, light the shot and if your action is unconvincing will be a factor. I watched "Bullett" the other night, much of it has a pretty deep depth of field action and other stiff, mixed with shallower hero shots.

Okay thanks, I can watch Bullitt again, and see how it looks.

Since I was told to get Rokinon lenses, because they have manual focus ring, I read from b & h that Rokinon lenses do not have image stabilization. Is this true though? Cause in the past I found not having it to be a problem, if I want to do shots where the camera moves.

It's an issue with small. lightweight poorly balanced cameras. Users buy camera rigs for their DSLR cameras to try simulate what a well designed film or video camera does when being used for hand held work.

The gimbal mounts have become popular because of this issue on DSLRs. There are other stabilization devices that work with these small cameras.

On a drama, a camera dolly is a handy piece of kit, you can make your own if need be. They can also be rented for a wide range of prices.

Digital cinema and film cameras don't normally use lenses with image stabilization.

I can only imagine how fun it’s going to be to film action scene with a super telephoto lens.

Yes I have been trying to follow the logic on that. I sort of think I understand where he’s coming from but it seems like that kind of lens would only be usedul in certain very specific shots which are not typically what I think of when I think of action scenes.

Hopefully he's using the 300mm on exteriors or large industrial interiors if it's being used on action shots. You also need a very good/excellent tripod if following action with a long lens.

I assumed the 300mm was being used on static shots. eg a dialogue scene.

I believe one of the scenes he wanted to use it for is a car chase which I couldn’t imagine being static. I agree it’s specialized lens, probably its shallow dof is it’s most useful attribute.

I’ve been trying to bite my tongue because I’m sounding overly critical on a subject I’m not an expert on. I think OP would benefit by working under someone else first. I’m a great believer of learning by doing or observing someone who knows what they’re doing. The answer to many of these questions would be second nature to anyone who had been through the process.

I continuely get the feeling we’re trying to give landing instructions to someone who has never flown a plane before.

Long lenses have been used many times in car chases, they'd be more of a problem on interior shots.

Car chases are dangerous, so should be treated with caution. people have been killed filming them.

Yes, I suspect OP has limited experience,

I'm using the long lens for running chase scenes mostly like in this scene here, you can see how the long lens, pans with the actor, as he is running, especially near the end of the scene:

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (Graveyard Scene) - YouTube

I'm also using it for shots where you want actors to appear closer together, even though they are not. Like at 1:00 into this over the shoulder shot, notice how the actors look much closer than they are for the OTS shot, with the long lens:

Stoker Movie CLIP - What Do You Want From Me? (2013) - Nicole Kidman Movie HD - YouTube

This is what I wanted a telephoto lens for, shots like these. For the running chase scene, I did some tests, and it seems that if it's at least 300mm, it can track with an actor for a very long time.

So wouldn't a telephoto lens be good for shots like these?

As I mentioned, you need a good tripod for that type of shot.

Yep for sure. In The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly clip though, it seems that in about 6:16 into the clip, that the camera is moving very fast. I read that the longer then lens, the faster it looks when you pan. How long is that lens at 6:16 into the clip. It looks long than a 300mm caues when I pan with a 300mm with a running person, it doesn't look as fast, so they probably used a lens longer than 300mm, no?

That film was shot in Techniscope, 2 perf pull down 35mm. It looks longer than a 25 to 250 zoom. perhaps a 400mm. or 500mm Kilar telephoto.

Oh okay, thanks, it looks at least 400 to me judging by how fast the background is moving, as I cannot get it to move that fast when someone is running on my 300mm. So perhaps I need one that can zoom to even 400mm or 500mm.

But are there any lenses with a mechanical focus ring that are good for that, that are under $1000, even if used, since Rokinon doesn't make any that go that high? I thought about a used Canon 150-600, but not sure if that is a fly-by-wire ring or not, or how the quality is on those.

What about the lens in this clip at 10:24 into the clip, would this be a 400mm or more?

Seven Samurai - Drama Through Action | CRISWELL | Cinema Cartography - YouTube

Buy the earlier versions of stills lenses, they'll be manual focus. Canon lenses are usually at the higher end of the quality scale, even older ones.

Okay thanks, but I went to the store, and you can also get Tamron that is a mechanical focus that goes up to 400mm as well, if that would be better at all. I can look for some earlier ones as well such as a Canon 150-500 or something like that.

As for getting Rokinons when it comes to wider shots, the Rokinons do not have image stabilization though, so does that mean I should avoid them since I have a light camera, where IS may be needed?

The Rokinon lenses will be better if you are serious about film making. The life of the camera will be shorter than the lenses, buy a rig for the camera to make it more suitable. The DSLR form factor is pretty poor for shooting video, so it's best to regard it as a module and accessorize it.

You can see some listed here: https://www.productexpert.com/9-best-dslr-shoulder-rigs/

Okay thanks, but what do shoulder rigs have to do with it? I already decided to get the Moza Air gimbal, but don't I still need image stabilization, especially when moving the camera, even on a rig?

A good well balanced rig means you don't need IS. Professional digital cinema cameras don't use IS on their lenses, when shooting hand held shooting because the camera is shoulder mounted, rather than held out in front. For other body positions, the handles are at the balance points. Having a reasonable mass also helps steady things.

The JVC GY-HD100 is example of a small video camera that didn't use IS, because of it's ergonomic design (it looks like a small ENG camera), while every other HDV camera needed IS. It was steady enough to be shown on a cinema screen.

Of course, you also need to practice.

If you're going to use a gimbal, you shouldn't need IS (auto focus may be another matter), although a hand held shot is different to a gimbal shot,