Author Topic: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)  (Read 2726 times)

アレクサンドル・ コスマキス

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« on: June 29, 2018, 02:18:54 PM »
Hi guys !

Two years ago I posted a trailer test of a film in progress. I realized it with the Canon 5D mark 3 and magic lantern. Edited with Davinci Resolve 11 and Sony Vegas 13. It has a budget under $ 500.
Camera Settings : Nikon argentic lens 28mm - 50mm - 105mm / Canon FD 70-200mm / Vivitar m42 75-210mm
MLV Setting : 1/48 - 2.35 - 24 fps rec / 25 fps out (by mystake!) - RAW 1080p

I finished it some time ago already, the film was selected in a festival in Greece, but received no price ^^


I said that I will share the film in its entirety, so here it is!


I wish to thank all those who have made possible this mod "Magic Lantern". I spent a lot of time understanding how to get the image I like, and thanks to your contribution I learned a lot. Thanks again!


Here trailer of the movie :
Here the movie :




50mm1200s

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2018, 12:53:02 AM »
Great job. I got this Ubi sunt feeling.

Positives:

- Screenwriting is good. Liked how it uses the rain as a symbol of sadness (pathetic fallacy)
- Soundtrack is pretty good.
- Actors are good. The kid did great.

Some critics (as you would expect from a technical forum):

- The bokeh is too "Cannon'ish". I think you would benefit very much from some old pieces of glass. I've been using old manual lenses for years now and I can say they do a great difference on the look. A Helios 44-2 with a low-end anamorphic lenses (like a Anamorphot-50), would make the images more interesting.

- Most scenes inside the house are underexposed. This is not wrong 'per se', but I think it would be better to overexpose the scene by +1.5 f-stops and then on postproduction make it darker, if it's an artistic choice. This way you preserve more information, less noise and have more flexibility on color grading.

Quote
the film was selected in a festival in Greece, but received no price

Keep your head up. I'm sure your next one will be even better. Ganbatte.

アレクサンドル・ コスマキス

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2018, 02:14:49 AM »
Thank you !

About pictures i understand what you explain. Set and setting are still difficult to me with Raw. I actually shoot with sony a6300, but i would like to use again 5D mark 3 with MLV on next one.

I will do some test with your advices :)

ibrahim

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Physician & videographer
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2018, 01:20:19 AM »
Great job. I got this Ubi sunt feeling.

Positives:

- Screenwriting is good. Liked how it uses the rain as a symbol of sadness (pathetic fallacy)
- Soundtrack is pretty good.
- Actors are good. The kid did great.

Some critics (as you would expect from a technical forum):

- The bokeh is too "Cannon'ish". I think you would benefit very much from some old pieces of glass. I've been using old manual lenses for years now and I can say they do a great difference on the look. A Helios 44-2 with a low-end anamorphic lenses (like a Anamorphot-50), would make the images more interesting.

- Most scenes inside the house are underexposed. This is not wrong 'per se', but I think it would be better to overexpose the scene by +1.5 f-stops and then on postproduction make it darker, if it's an artistic choice. This way you preserve more information, less noise and have more flexibility on color grading.

Keep your head up. I'm sure your next one will be even better. Ganbatte.

Thanks for the shared video.

Could you explain what's not so good with canon's bokeh vs the older lenses. Do you mean that the old ones have a rounder shape than canon's?

I am planing of selling all my canon lenses and save money to buy the zeiss milvus for drama filmmaking in 2.35:1 on my 5d3. From what I have learned these primes are fantastic lenses for filmmaking but quite expensive.  :D 
Canon 5D Mark IIIs & Canon 600d | Ronin-M | Rokinon 35mm T1.5 Cine AS UMC | Samyang 85mm T1.5 UMC AS Cine VDSLR II   | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | etc
Dual sound system: Tascam DR-60d MKII | Audio Technica AT899 | Sennheiser MKE 600

50mm1200s

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #4 on: July 04, 2018, 04:05:30 AM »
Thanks for the shared video.

Could you explain what's not so good with canon's bokeh vs the older lenses. Do you mean that the old ones have a rounder shape than canon's?

I am planing of selling all my canon lenses and save money to buy the zeiss milvus for drama filmmaking in 2.35:1 on my 5d3. From what I have learned these primes are fantastic lenses for filmmaking but quite expensive.  :D

Well, I'm not an optics specialist, don't quote me on what I'm about to say, but here's my perspective. Each lens has its own "personality", that is, a blend of some variables that constitutes the formed image:
- MTF (resolution and contrast)
- Chromatic Aberration
- Distortion
- Vignette
- Flare

Canon lenses are very good, but generally they have this very diffuse light transmission. What I mean by that is that they try to replicate the human eye features and create a very smooth depth of field, high contrast and low focus breathing (the relationship of focus between objects). From my personal perspective, the image generated is very good for technical shots, such as architecture, but boring as an artistic choice. Also, they try to avoid lens distortion as much as possible, and that may be very good for movies.
That's why some of the most expensive lenses on the market (Cooke s5/i, Panavision G-series, etc) have what can be considered defects by academics. Cinematographers have to make artistic choices and these choices are not based on the most correct academic perspective, it's based on "look and feel" you want people to perceive in this exact story you want to tell.
Let me give you an example: many cinematographers, like Dan Laustsen, don't like to shoot on lenses that are too sharp, because they say the actors skin needs to be kinda soft while on screen or else it looks ugly. In the case of Laustsen, he even uses a Black Promist filter to soft the image even more. These cinematographers have the money to use the most sharp lenses out there ("diffraction-limited", like Zeiss Otus), but they choose not to.

I myself did many tests about this. I use old lenses of years now and when I get on my hands some newer lenses from Canon I always am dispointed by the result.
I made this test to show you what I mean: The first image is from a old Komura 135mm f/2.0, wide open. The second is the same lens, wide open, but with a oval filter, trying to simulate the anamorphic 'feel':



ps.: sorry for any grammatical issues... english is not my mother language.

Levas

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • 6d - Nightly build user
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2018, 09:51:05 AM »
I am planing of selling all my canon lenses and save money to buy the zeiss milvus for drama filmmaking in 2.35:1 on my 5d3. From what I have learned these primes are fantastic lenses for filmmaking but quite expensive.  :D

Whatever you do, first lens you should buy and everybody can pay for is an helios 44-2.
Go to google, images and search for helios 44-2 and see what images it creates.
They go on eBay for around 50 dollars.

Bought this lens myself, and I like to use it now and then, it's very flat in contrast, but it has this amazing swirly bokeh characteristic.
wide open and even stopped a little, it's only sharp in the center. So with wide open diafragma, your subject must be in the middle.
Not sure if it's just me, but I like to use this lens on bright daylight, summertime days, because it's very flat in contrast.

That said, my favorite lens is the canon 35mm f2.0 I.S. it's amazingly sharp and good contrast, and it has I.S. !!!
The helios 44-2 is not good for indoors and wintertime...and sometimes you want to put your subject on the sides of the frame (rule of third).
So for clean, sharp and contrasty video, it's the canon 35 2.0 I.S. for me.
And for the times you want a lens with some weird characteristic I choose the helios 44-2.


ibrahim

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 195
  • Physician & videographer
Re: Short Movie in RAW (Magic Lantern with 5D Mark III)
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2018, 12:05:26 PM »
Well, I'm not an optics specialist, don't quote me on what I'm about to say, but here's my perspective. Each lens has its own "personality", that is, a blend of some variables that constitutes the formed image:
- MTF (resolution and contrast)
- Chromatic Aberration
- Distortion
- Vignette
- Flare

Canon lenses are very good, but generally they have this very diffuse light transmission. What I mean by that is that they try to replicate the human eye features and create a very smooth depth of field, high contrast and low focus breathing (the relationship of focus between objects). From my personal perspective, the image generated is very good for technical shots, such as architecture, but boring as an artistic choice. Also, they try to avoid lens distortion as much as possible, and that may be very good for movies.
That's why some of the most expensive lenses on the market (Cooke s5/i, Panavision G-series, etc) have what can be considered defects by academics. Cinematographers have to make artistic choices and these choices are not based on the most correct academic perspective, it's based on "look and feel" you want people to perceive in this exact story you want to tell.
Let me give you an example: many cinematographers, like Dan Laustsen, don't like to shoot on lenses that are too sharp, because they say the actors skin needs to be kinda soft while on screen or else it looks ugly. In the case of Laustsen, he even uses a Black Promist filter to soft the image even more. These cinematographers have the money to use the most sharp lenses out there ("diffraction-limited", like Zeiss Otus), but they choose not to.

I myself did many tests about this. I use old lenses of years now and when I get on my hands some newer lenses from Canon I always am dispointed by the result.
I made this test to show you what I mean: The first image is from a old Komura 135mm f/2.0, wide open. The second is the same lens, wide open, but with a oval filter, trying to simulate the anamorphic 'feel':



ps.: sorry for any grammatical issues... english is not my mother language.

Interesting. I even read one of Kurt Lancaster's book where he mentioned the same regarding the fact that many tend to dislike the sharpening effect some lenses have, hence they soften the image in post. Thanks for the info, I'll take that into consideration.

Thanks for giving the tip Levas. I'll look closer into that lens.
Canon 5D Mark IIIs & Canon 600d | Ronin-M | Rokinon 35mm T1.5 Cine AS UMC | Samyang 85mm T1.5 UMC AS Cine VDSLR II   | Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM | Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II | etc
Dual sound system: Tascam DR-60d MKII | Audio Technica AT899 | Sennheiser MKE 600