1. If, in the field s.besten a 16:9 anamorphic lens used and the original picture with the camera shot, or 2. you set the camera to 16:9 and filmed with a normal lens?
3. The other option would of course still with an anamorphic lens to work and to 16:9 at the same time to film.
Corrected me when I write something wrong, but just anamorph states that the 16:9 picture to 4:3 optical is squashed? I do not know how I can achieve better result, but the third option should then make no sense ...
Has someone experience with the 16:9 Movietube?
Many dear greetings Constantin
Antwort von PowerMac:
All depends whether the camera can record 16:9 anamorphic. The best is of course a 16:9 - CCD chip.
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
Lenses for film anamorphic distortion, incidentally by a factor of 2nd
PS: I find such Geraffel (35mm adapter) totally absurd. If you are interested, you can love me the reason to ask. But I fear that you are not interested in you and I would not talk about stuff to reload.
Antwort von PowerMac:
Do you understand me?
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
Good morning. No, I mean Constantin.
He wants to know whether it is with an anamorphic optics is done and he has 16:9. And it looks as if it is such a part wants to buy. Could well be that he is not yet critically examined so that has to do what he should.
However, since you should not stop travelers ...
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey,
Of course I'm interested in the reasons. I would not buy the adapter, but to rent. I could not test adapter yet, just want to have enough information beforehand to me with the product ausseinander set. These include, of course, synonymous experiences!
I do not know yet exactly the difference, the more you want @ PowerMac, but it would be nice if you sign to me that both cases only (with and without anamorphic, "true" 16:9)
Thanks in advance and many greetings!
Constantin
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
----> High slide
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
Have found the thread where I had expressed my concerns.
Copy / Paste: And to the adapters ...: If I have a smaller depth of need, lend me I prefer a camera with a smaller depth of field possible. One such adapter, I think for money, firstly because it costs a lot of money, secondly Lenses synonymous nor what cost (and there should not be ... so thrifty rental), third is not every day working with selective blur. Fourthly, the main criterion (but does not apply to everyone): The picture must of course still through the optics of the camcorder. Can we still speak of quality? And the light loss is synonymous is not entirely free. All in all, a dubious (!) Investment. But apparently in the area of semi-popular, as the requirements adequate appropriate format.
Furthermore, the sharpness is synonymous not the only means to attract the attention of the viewer to one thing to steer. There is still highlights, light (ie light and dark in general), color, detail shots, pans, etc. You have to sound just a format appropriate to the overall layout design. The blur is not dependent.
And if it has not been for low depth of field camera designed to bend and break with all the consequent disadvantages and costs to adapt, I can not understand.
Synonymous I know someone who is necessarily such a MINI35 for his Consumercam wants. With him is pure Selbstverarschung. He says he would THEREBY the best pictures of the magic world. The problem with him already in the correct lighting of the motive. From Kadragen reasonable times apart.
As I said, selective focus is a bit overrated. Good if you have the opportunity to do so, but not at any price. Does any know myself.
Antwort von CanonFanTom:
Schleich @ Michel
ööööhhhhhööööööö ... and where do you get it please to rent an HDV mini35/movietubes + Back-Camera + Optics + HS sentence Follow Focus a digital film camera with the same depth of field behavior (ie 35mm chip) including optics accessories + equivalent?
Ever, the rental prices of D2 ARRI, Panavision Genesis & Co seen? Do you believe these magnificent pieces, one lender about s.einen "amateur" out, never with "large" Mills (Film / Broadcast / adapter solution) has worked?
From a financial forth would be the comparison with 2/3-Inch-Mühlen (pronounced like depth of field behavior as 16mm film) even more realistic. But it has its reason why many cameramen synonymous with a HDCAM, Varicam and Viper happy with Pro35 adapter optics and film work.
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
... the basic look of the film should be the only one with such an adapter how. Moreover s.Kosten nor Fazen of the material, or "digitizing" ...
Thank you anyway for your opinions! I must now expect much ...
Many dear greetings Constantin
Antwort von jens:
"Blackeagle123" wrote:
Moreover s.Kosten nor Fazen of the material, or "digitizing" ...
Hi Constantin, Fazen which goes in the other direction ...;-) Regards, Jens
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hello Jens,
thanks for the correction! Then you simply think "Fazen" and take away the digitizing, which is tuned rear. ;-)
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
"Anonymous" wrote:
From a financial forth would be the comparison with 2/3-Inch-Mühlen (pronounced like depth of field behavior as 16mm film) even more realistic.
... I mean that. Because it is synonymous for most cases. I spoke of a "meet the requirements adequate appropriate format" and "smaller depth allows."
"Blackeagle123" wrote:
... the basic look of the film should be the only one with such an adapter how. Moreover s.Kosten nor Fazen of the material, or "digitizing" ...
Oh, now gehts los: (
Sure, it is a property of 35mm film that is quite low Tärfenschiefe (we call it times to satisfy all)-how. And this is done just with the compromises, with such an adapter. That's true.
Only the true price / performance ratio, not quite. Better is the money to invest elsewhere. If Lower DoF must be just a camera (only for the appropriate settings), without which such a silly trunk, or in other areas, what the total production to a higher level could be. As I said, you can focus on other methods to evade.
And if it is-only-look to it ... hmm. Since I am the wrong person.
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Well, just from talking to look at is just a movie in my opinion does not make sense. Because it is, of course, to the look! (What else should the content of a film across in pictures?)
The camera of which you speak, the look of a movie house-how, show me the times ;-) Such depth you get with today's cameras are not (yet) out, and if so, then it really looks after tape out. The desired look is so not (yet) reached! Then the cameras but specializes ...
As already written, I must try, by getting the products to the test video dealer!
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
The first paragraph, I honestly do not understand. Especially the bracketed phrase you should see me again exactly explain. For my understanding, the contents of a movie still images in a hopefully interesting and well told story and not look back (if so, would such a thing as "Domino", which I recently enjoyed was actually something like a terrific film ).
And I have not written or claims that there was a video camera, which features the image of a film camera how. But there are cameras that are less DoF hinbekommen than a 1 / 8 "Chipper (for example, just 2 / 3"). And for selective sharpness with the work that really reaches out. AND the price / performance ratio of true (in general).
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Schleich Hey Michel! Okay, quite honestly, I've written the post, when I had not much time ;-) Yes, the definition is now much more a matter of "look": Includes "look" only color, contrast, brightness, or a certain look is synonymous thus ascertained that a certain person always in the middle of the picture emerges of and mostly left to right is while another person is always right of the picture emerges? I think the "look" for much more than just colors, contrast, etc. Therefore, I write that a picture without a "look", no expression has ;-)
When we speak of but THE movie look(what you think in my test), we mean of course something else ... Since it is now almost as expensive, an expensive camera to borrow approximately the desired depth is reached, such as a camera, the broadcast material provides, in combination with a Movietube, in addition to the DOF is still very low and a movie will look, I decide course for the latter! About price / performance, we need not to speak, because I totally agree with you there. But I think those who give the adapter, and just thought why not give him overly expensive! How good are the results, I must, as has been written, ausprobeiren, maybe I have a different opinion! Have you ever worked with the Movietube?
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von CanonFanTom:
there is not "the" film look after you should strive ... it is about the right look for the substance to be found. poverty would be a certificate for a cameraman, if any of his movies would look like.
and it is just still the choice of camera systems synonymous with under a factor when it comes to choosing the right looks goes.
-mini35/movietube OR HS with 35mm film lenses with open aperture for maximum depth blur -2 / 3 duty broadcast camera or 16mm for moderate tiefenschärfe (= synonymous less stressful when schärfe draw) -1 / 3 duty miniDV / HDV camera without an adapter or 16mm when the hide for much tiefenschärfe (eg total dissolved rather plan sequences?)
The digital (back-) camera with their individual presets or the selected film stock provide for the contrasting behavior, graininess, etc.
Again: FILM DOES NOT LOOK! ! ! There are only suitable or unsuitable look for a particular substance!
Equally important, whether with or without the adapter, for example, is the question, "what with focal lengths do I rotate? Example, only very very Total Teligen and to restrict and normal 50mm focal length to be completely gone, can be very significantly to the look and feel of an individual film contribute.
just as a suggestion ...
(PS: How many of the so hotly discussed here, has ever worked with adapter? Sharpness with Follow Focus pulled nem? Or ne HDCAM or Viper in his hand had? Hmm ... Well, how many?)
Antwort von PowerMac:
Amen. And Prost. Interesting about this "camera style in the current film - reports and analysis" of Prümm / Bierhoff / Körnich (ed.), Marburg 1999,
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
@ Constantin:
Then do you mean something like the "stylization" of each film is subjected. Whether on film, video or mobile phone is rotated. In the ideal case, the style of the drama and abstracted hopefully the information on the essential. The style can be synonymous to nature, like the characters in the movie or just talk about how the picture looks like concept (for the latter is also a wonderful film Caché ... rotated on HD).
Quote:
Since it is now almost as expensive, an expensive camera to borrow approximately the desired depth is reached, such as a camera, the broadcast material provides, in combination with a Movietube, in addition to the DOF is still very low and a movie will look, I decide course for the latter!
(Komisch. .. why does the camera now at once the film look?;)
I would prefer Grosschipper, since one-depending on a larger-noise ratio and has the better signal processing should be. The broadcast will be synonymous to synonymous when it is not my goal. Perhaps there is a synonymous filter what a digital white balance is preferable ... it is bottomless, so can we now.
In any case, I once lived an adapter for installation. The guy was quite happy, after a few times s.Schärfeknauf was rotated (the immediate satisfaction).
Better were his contributions of local theater and art events are not in the slightest. On the contrary, he has become slower (and poorer). He is also obvious with the creative and above all "subtle" use of this tool =- -= completely overwhelmed and has been synonymous, a new object of desire identified. A Steadycam for the poor. That he lacks now (long-term Selbstverarschung ... I said it).
If he had more money, would (if not slow learning occurs) so go on.
Only one negative example, not next.
@ Guest:
Right. It is nonsense to talk about it, so I tried it synonymous to avoid. Only without the ... Klugscheißer raushängen to leave ... is 50mm in 35mm film quite langbrennweitig. Not be confused with small!
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey,
So today I had the opportunity with an expert to speak on ZDF, among others Directing led the 2006 World Cup spot. It was with great HD Cams to DVCPro recorded and a larger variant of the Movietube used. He brings this special film-look, not only by low depth of field (as it really is), but because he is a picture on a screen casts and then by special lenses to the chip in the Camera transmits. The Picture So basically looks exactly like the movie. It has even more possibilities, such as the exposure time for digital cameras.
Also could I get the same times with a Steadicam rumlaufen. Was a Great Day Today! =)
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von PowerMac:
sweet!
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey ;-)
Antwort von Schleichmichel:
I noticed it. You have caught it.
Good light!
Antwort von Coolpixx:
Hai
I have my "mustard" to Movietube already under another Theman posted here in the forum. Synonymous here still wants something to say.
The Movietube is exactly like any 35mm adapter only part of the "film look". Because of garnicht goes alone. The depth shift is very important ... it makes the 35mm adapter. Then the light. Much more important than 25p gimmick is it like auszuleuten film. And then there is the question: Movietube + Steadycam? Geht. However, we are then with radio sharpness, etc. far away from the low Bugget. On both issues, I have a short demo clips together.
And finally the issue 16:9: It would be synonymous with a 4:3 Cam and the 35mm adapter to work. It is in the projected cut into it zoomed. Thus, it would be no preference with what format the camera records. Verlusstfreier excerpt from the picture is obviously 16:9.
Cu Stefan www.coolpixx.com
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
404ERR
Antwort von PowerMac:
Google! A Depp (= assistant) in addition to the Steadicam herläuft, the current distance between the object and Lens filmed estimates, at the monitor and using a small remote control to adjust focus via radio.
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hey,
exactly with the remote control, I had found synonymous. Just thought that would be wrong, because at a Steadicam not really need extra man, the sharp (as I thought until now ...)
Is it not possible that the cameraman and even regulates looks at the monitor while it is held?
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von PowerMac:
No..
Antwort von Bernd E.:
"Blackeagle123" wrote:
Is it not possible that the cameraman is itself regulates
This is not for two reasons: Firstly, he has no more free hand and secondly, he would with a handle to the carefully balanced Lens Camera shake bring back. Incidentally may be synonymous Focal Aperture and in this way be altered. If you are interested in the topic Steadicam, this report from the practice of good reading:
www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=114
Gruß Bernd E.
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Well,
then you would have with a high depth of field work or a second man added here. I do not know whether it Movietube remote control there ... you know that?
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von PowerMac:
Huh? Movietube is just an adapter.
From front to back:
35mm-Optics -> Movietube Adapters -> Optics of the HDV camcorder -> CCD chips
Radio sharpening for 35mm are nothing new.
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Exactly. And s.dem adapter regels you the sharpness, as well as zoom. If I use the product correctly, a picture on a kind of "canvas" is thrown and of the camera shot. The camera is on manual focus and will be set once. -> Misunderstanding?
Many greetings Constantin
Antwort von ami842:
"Blackeagle123" wrote:
Exactly. And s.dem adapter regels you the sharpness, as well as zoom. If I use the product correctly, a picture on a kind of "canvas" is thrown and of the camera shot. The camera is on manual focus and will be set once. -> Misunderstanding?
Many greetings Constantin
See our Test: http://www.high-definition-television.de/ and then Movietube
Antwort von PowerMac:
It governs the sharpness but not s.Adapters but s.der 35mm-Optics. Is time that you get such a thing ansiehst times. The questions are repeated slowly!
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
I have again asked to insure, because someone in the post above me wrote that the sharpness s.der Camera control. My question, if you remotely control the Movietube can use! Komme unfortunately currently do not have to send me such a view adapter: (
The Shootout is interesting. Especially since all three adapter much "cheaper" than Movietube and are min35. From the processing and quality, they are clearly for the "Lowbugger" and the "film test" thought. The head on the Picture below is just one difficulty with these models. Up to the posts: The Camera is in the sharpening setting fixed. When is the Movietube abzufilmende disc at infinity focus range. So do you focus on s.der Kamrea INFINITY. The focus is s.der Optics withdrawn. How to "dramatically" important are the optics used is often underestimated.
Cu Stefan
Antwort von Blackeagle123:
Hi Stefan, Thank you for your Slashcam Conclusion of the contribution. I see that you like, find it still fits relating to, gearde for Lowbudget projects. Depending on how much budget we finally made available to receive, one must consider synonymous, where you can save!
Obviously, the depth of one among several factors, but an important one. You should be aware of what you by small or large depth of field effect for the viewer reached and whether it is really advisable, with less depth of field to work! For my use, the extremely low partial depth even in a background of the story, or should be the effect of the story further.
