70% of Bourne ultimatum was shot using 2 Nikon DSLR zoom lenses
 

Just finished reading the latest American Cinematographer. They used the modified f2.8 Nikon 28-70mm and 80-200mm zoom lenses. They seemed to be very impress with the nikon glass that 70% of the movie was shot with the two Nikons.

Here's a link for you guys that are too lazy to go to your local book store. http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...atum/page1.php

There was a problem with the link. Try this...

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynam...atum/page1.php

Nothing new here.
People have been shooting with re-housed primes and zooms for some time now.

Nice article. Fun to see them still using Eyemos for some shots. (I have a 16mm Elmo thats WW2 vintage... runs like a beautiful sewing machine.)

They could have used a pinhole lens and the film wouldn't have been any worse... and might have been better... as much as you can compare levels of awful.

What I don't understand is how somebody who shot something like that can get another job with all the talented people around.

As far as shooting it around the world, an excuse for a vacation, because it didn't show in the movie. A green screen and 3 miniatures could have been used for the 3 brief shots that ineffectively tried to take advantage of the location.

Personally, I liked the look of the film. It worked for me.

It's also not surprising that many people dislike it intensely. It's a matter of taste.

Wow, Jack...don't hold back on how much you hate this movie (lol) actually it sounds more like you hated the cinematography?

Of course, the movie - as compared to the cinematography - had some serious problems. The marketplace scene went on and on and on. And...

SPOILER ALERT!!!





The final scene where Bourne jumps though the window is ridiculous! Did he DRAW the dang thing on the wall before he jumped through it!?!

I really enjoyed the movie, and the cinematography. Paul Greengrass has a documentary background and I like the way he (I assume it was he) brought in the documentary style - I'm sure it was an influence on his choice of DP.

I didn't hate the shooting at all - I thought it was noticeable, alright, but not in a distracting way.

And I love how they filmed that fight scene in a tiny bathroom. It looked like a real life location, but maybe it was a set.

Cine lenses are a crock of poo
 

The Cine-lens industry is possibly one of the biggest marketing scams in history.
Thank god newcomers such as Red will blow the lid off the infernal cine-lens rip-off.
It is well-known that cine lens manufacturers have been re-packaging SLR lenses for decades and re-selling them at 10 or 20 times their original value.
All they do is sift through hundreds of SLR lenses and group them together in samples with similar colour casting.

I say pfffft! to cine-lenses, especially in an age of digital grading.
It's very easy to perform a manual white balance with each change of SLR lens, and you can always match it further in post.
That's what I do with my XL2 with Nikon SLR primes via the Novoflex XL-Nikon adaptor, and with the LetusXL 35mm adaptor.
The Expo Imaging ExpoDisc Neutral White Balance Filter for Digital Cameras is ideal for this.

White balance! White Balance! White Balance!

That's all you need to do to achieve the same level of colour matching you might get from a nice expensive set of so-called cine primes which are really just matched SLR lenses in a fancy casing!

Cinema lenses also have a lot more travel in their rings, which makes pulling focus much easier. Not that that justifies the ludicrous costs ... but it is a very real reason for choosing cineprimes.

Sorry, but you are incorrect!
White balance! White balance! White balance! is not all you need to do to achieve the same level of color matching you would get from a set of color matched prime lenses.
And most of the prime lenses made for Cinema are not just matched SLR lenses in a fancy casing. They are purpose built for Cinema!

By your statements, I'm guessing than you are new to the industry, and/or have never used a real matched set of Cine lenses.

And even if they do shift through hundreds of SLR lenses, doing that and putting them into new mechanics and then calibrating by hand (like Cooke) isn't that cut price. Also, you can't white balance a film camera and you can't adjust contrast if you're just going through a traditional neg to print path.

Although, you can get modified stills lenses (Van Dieman used to do them)most cine lenses are specialized lenses (Although, some stills lens elements might be used in the design of some lens).

RED also has a good production run on their lenses, which enables a saving in their manufacturing costs compared to the numbers produced for 35mm cine cameras. This is helped by the optics for the current RED lenses come from manufacturers like Sigma, so there's a saving in these being supported by the DSLR market.

I haven't yet heard how these hold up against say a Cooke zoom, but I'd imagine they give pretty good quality for a lot of productions.

That made me laugh. It's the funniest post I've read in a long time. At least, I hope it was meant as a joke...

LOL... it's common knowledge "cine" lenses are repackaged.... mostly Nikon glass - even if it's just the top 0.1% of factory Nikon SLR glass, it's still SLR glass.

Obviously I'm referring to digital production. I haven't heard of a white balance setting on a film camera, doh!