dmullen

Joined on Nov 1, 2019

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
In reply to:

cosinaphile: I POP A 50 MM F1.2[NIKKOR] ONTO A GENUINE X0.71 SPEED BOOSTER

DOUBLE THE F STOP .....RECOVER MOST of the fov? 51.something}?

whoknows math?

Actually since the movie was shot for contact printing through all generations, the area of the 4-perf 35mm negative used for 1.66 : 1 projection is 20.96mm x 12.62mm.

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2022 at 02:56 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

The problem with Shot on Film is that when anyone fills out the form on camera aperture, there isn’t an option to select Academy with a hard matte. You can select Academy, which is misleading, or Super 35, which is incorrect and didn’t even exist in the 1970s.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 22:29 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingss4.htm

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 21:57 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_35

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 21:54 UTC
In reply to:

vscd: I wonder how expensive it would be to make a new bunch of them.... the formula is ready, the complexity is not too high... but I guess the ISO is there so no one is willing to focus manually with that lens.

The movie went for a soft look by using mainly a #3 Tiffen LowCon filter, so for the candlelight scenes, they shot unfiltered to compensate for the softness of the f/0.7 lens, so in the end the overall softness of the movie is consistent. They wanted a painterly feeling for the movie, not a razor-sharp image.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 16:51 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

When John Alcott developed Super-35 for "Greystoke" and called it Super Techniscope, he didn't know he had actually reinvented a format created in the 1950s called SuperScope 235. SuperScope involved shooting standard 4-perf 35mm framed for cropping to 2.00 : 1 and then blown-up and squeezed on 4-perf 35mm CinemaScope anamorphic with a 2.00 : 1 hard matte. The inventors of SuperScope realized they could use full aperture and frame for cropping to 2.35 instead -- they called it SuperScope 235 but it is unclear if any features used the process. By the late 50's, masking 4-perf 35mm print projection to 1.85 was so common that producers didn't want to spend the money on blowing up 2.00 to CinemaScope, until 2-perf Techniscope came along in 1960, which had the cost savings of only using a half-frame.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 16:48 UTC

"Barry Lyndon" was shot on 100 ASA 5254 pushed one-stop to 200 ASA, using the f/0.7 lens for the candlelight scenes. So today, one could get the same exposure with a f/1.4 lens at 800 ASA.

3-wicked candles burn 3X faster so are rarely used, and the flame is unusually big of course -- but double-wicked candles are still used in filmmaking.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 16:41 UTC as 17th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

(cont.) John Alcott remembered the 2-perf Techniscope format, which required an optical printer stop to squeeze and blow-up the image to 35mm anamorphic, and figured he could shoot in 4-perf spherical and use the full aperture to gain a slight improvement in the quality of the blow-up (cropped to 2.40, you end up with using about 2 1/2 perfs for the 4-perf frame, so a slight improvement over 2-perf). He called the new format Super Techniscope and that moniker was used for "Top Gun" and "Silverado" which used the format next, but since Techniscope had associations with Technicolor Labs, the more generic name "Super-35" was created.

2-perf Techniscope died in the mid-1970s when Technicolor Labs discontinued dye transfer printing -- blowing up the 2-perf negative directly to 4-perf 35mm b&w matrices for dye transfer printing had been one aspect that improved the quality compared to blowing-up to Eastmancolor dupes.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 16:38 UTC
In reply to:

Jon555: Barry Lyndon was, I understand, Super-35 4-perf (kinda APS), so a f/0.95 or f/1.0 FF lens on a Focal Reducer might have worked well... at a fraction the cost...
https://shotonwhat.com/barry-lyndon-1975

"Barry Lyndon" was not shot in Super-35, which would have required an optical printer dupe in order to reduce the image for standard 4-perf 35mm for making prints -- it was shot in regular 35mm cine for contact printing through all generations. it also was apparently shot with a hard matte in camera for many shots, something like a 1.50 : 1 matte for a 1.66 projector mask presentation.

Super-35 appeared in the early 1980s -- first developed for "Greystoke" by Kubrick cinematographer John Alcott because a 2.2 : 1 70mm blow-up was planned and he did not want to shoot in 35mm anamorphic.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2022 at 16:36 UTC
In reply to:

Fuji_FTW: Wait so this is 10bit ProRest Log but in Rec 709?

They could mean Rec.709 color space, not display gamma.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2022 at 21:55 UTC
On article Opinion: Camera names are getting ridiculous (703 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: What bugs me the most is Olympus, with their lengthy names, like "OM-D E-M1-Mark III", for example, instead of just "M1-III".
The same for "OM-D E-M10 IV", instead of just "M10-IV", "OM-D E-M5 III", instead of simply "M5-III", and so on.

Yes! I can’t keep the Olympus model name straight, it’s like a memory exercise.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2020 at 18:57 UTC
On article Here's our wish list for the Nikon Z6 II and Z7 II (611 comments in total)

Some small f2.8 lenses for street photography would be nice...

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2020 at 02:26 UTC as 86th comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with the Olympus OM-D E-M1 III (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

MadDog357: Good Day,
I'm in need of good advice. I have an older Nikon DX body (D7000) which is still working but has a small sensor defect due to fungus damage (not in main image area) BUT all my DX lenses were destroyed by fungus. Options?: Replace lenses for my old body and plan to upgrade to a newer DX body later, or jump ship to something like this Olympus, Fuji, or other brand? I have reservations regarding moving to the smaller M43 sensor, however, some comments here say it's not a big problem, all things considered.
I shoot mostly stills, landscapes, scenic vistas, city walks, street scenes, family & friends, and not much video - just impromptu stuff like my cats catching prey, street events, and cultural shows during travel. I shoot in bright and low light situations. I need a relatively light system IOT reduce neck and back strain. At the same time, I need a capable camera, one that gives me access to frequently used functions without having to access the menu much.

If your lenses are n/g anyway, probably time to try an APS-C mirrorless camera system, either Sony or Fujifilm. I did have an Olympus E-PL3 years ago though and loved the size and build of the camera, but was unhappy whenever I got into low-light because of the smaller sensor.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2020 at 16:30 UTC
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: What about having a regular camera professionally converted to monochrome? Do I get the same results? Obviously won't be Leica quality, but the world is full of used bodies that are sitting around doing nothing and can be purchased for relatively little money.

I had a camera converted to infrared and talked to the company about a conversion to straight monochrome -- they said the problem is that the bayer filter is basically glued onto the sensor so it cannot be removed easily/safely by a third party, the manufacturer has to decide to construct the sensor without the bayer filter.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2019 at 21:39 UTC
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14