"Club Penton" - Ask questions to Hollywood insider "Penton-Man"

[sharkshark]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

L glass is totally addictive. It's hard to use anything else once you get used to it. My only non-L lens at this point is a 100mm f/2.8 Macro, which is about as close as you can get to L glass without actually being it. I wish they would come out with a Macro with IS. It is very difficult to get sharp macro images handheld with your average light out there, even wide open at f/2.8.

With the 30D I went for an "almost-L" lens, the 70-300/4-5.6 IS (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography...s_review.html)...

It's of course no real comparison to the white/red ring lenses, but it does the trick with the 30D (500m equiv) until such time as I really need the one I -actually- want:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_5_6L.html

All tremble behind the 1200mm GOD OF LENSES.

It's Hubble on the ground. Bad ass....

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Awesome camera! I've been thinking about getting one of the Canon full frame digitals, but I just don't know if I'd shoot it enough as I mainly shoot kids and sports which the 1D MkIIN/III work great for.

Yeah, the really fast frame rate is nice for that kind of shooting. You'll probably want to see what Canon has in store for the EOS 1Ds Mark III successor. I'm sure they'll add video capability and probably more than just 1080p/30 mode for the HD part.

One HUGE thing I appreciate with the EOS 5D Mark II is its high ISO performance. The Rebel XTi did relatively well up to ISO 400 but beyond that its color control went haywire and noise just got bad at ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The EOS 5D Mark II can shoot relatively noise free images at ISO 3200 or 6400 and the color still looks correct, even with difficult to photograph items like lighted red neon or lighted red channel letters (both can go very yellow at high ISO ratings with lesser cameras).

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Have you had a chance to try it out yet? What codec does it record in?

Just a couple of test clips. Yes, the 1080p video mode works very well. Just be sure to have a high quality compact flash card in the camera. I'm using a 8GB SanDisk Extreme III card. The camera records the video in MPEG-4 AVC at a constant bit rate of 38 million bits per second and saves it as Quicktime .MOV files.

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Nice lenses by the way. The 70-200mm f/2.8 L is one of my faves (I have the IS version), and the 24-70mm f/2.8 L is one of the best all-arounders. I'd say the 70-200 is on my camera 75% of the time. The B+W circular polarizer is in my bag as well-- great stuff...

I really love my 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. It produces some razor sharp images. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can be a little finnicky about finding the right focus. But the EOS 5D Mark II has the same auto-focus micro-adjustment feature found in the EOS 1Ds Mark III. You can register up to 20 different lenses in the camera to help dial in the sweet spot for each lens.

A good circular polarizer filter is an absolute MUST for anyone doing landscape photography or a lot of outdoor photo work in daylight. The B+W MRC circular polarizer filter isn't cheap (over $150) but it makes a huge difference in the captured images. A serious photographer can't go cheap on a circular polarizer filter. B+W makes good models. So does Heliospan.

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

L glass is totally addictive. It's hard to use anything else once you get used to it. My only non-L lens at this point is a 100mm f/2.8 Macro, which is about as close as you can get to L glass without actually being it.

Canon has a couple other non-L primes that are pretty good, but the 100 f/2.8 Macro is one of the best bang for your buck lenses one can buy in the Canon range. Not having a macro lens yet I'm very tempted on buying one. It's just $500.

For my next lens purchase I'm torn between buying the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 180mm f/3.5L Macro or the 135mm f/2.0L lens. The 135mm f/2.0L isn't a macro lens, but it is one of the most absolutely sharp lenses Canon makes. The 135 brings out every last tidbit of detail within the frame. Very fast lens. Great for things like indoor sports.

A lot of Canon fans want the 85mm f/1.2L and 50mm f/1.2L primes. The 400mm f/2.8L IS USM is a dream lens to me. Canon introduced a new tilt-shift lens, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. That's a dream lens for anyone that does very serious wide angle photography. That lens costs just as much as my EOS 5D Mark II camera body. Ouch!

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Wolverine1980

I want to know when the last time was that Penton Man went to a movie in theatres and was completely blown away by what he saw.

Truly blown away?
Let’s see……. you mean for a ‘public’ theater where you simply pays yours ways and there are no restrictions whatsoever?

That would be when I got through a 2 hr. movie with no cell phones ringing, people talking, babies crying, human body noises or having my feet stuck to the floor while trying to reposition them during the course the motion picture.

[Batman1980]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly blown away?
Let’s see……. you mean for a ‘public’ theater where you simply pays yours ways and there are no restrictions whatsoever?

That would be when I got through a 2 hr. movie with no cell phones ringing, people talking, babies crying, human body noises or having my feet stuck to the floor while trying to reposition them during the course the motion picture.

LOL and you left out human body odor. Which movie was that then?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly blown away?
Let’s see……. you mean for a ‘public’ theater where you simply pays yours ways and there are no restrictions whatsoever?

That would be when I got through a 2 hr. movie with no cell phones ringing, people talking, babies crying, human body noises or having my feet stuck to the floor while trying to reposition them during the course the motion picture.

So, I take it that was sometime during the late 1980s?

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Brain Sturgeon

Very late to the party, but who's awesome? You're. Frikkin. Awesome.

Thanks for your input and efforts on this issue! I will look forward to the fruits of your labor in the future.
Sorry this reply is so tardy, but I've been indulging a couple of my other passions with this new toy:



One for the gentlemen:


Not too shabby for an amateur, I hope?
Thanks again Penton! I can hear the sound of how awesome you are from here.

Silly me………and I thought you were actually busy WORKING!
What the heck, are you already a full partner making more than the “spinal” Sturgeon?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#31913235

P.S.
Nice pics.
I think you know which my favorite one(s) is.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I'm not entirely sad. A couple days ago my new gadget arrived: a Canon EOS 5D Mark II body. Yippie.

So, you indeed purchased it.
Nice.
Bobby, in case you or other members haven’t seen this clip………
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2326

If you’re so inclined, this is a way to pay for your new toy –
http://www.dailyfilm.tv/festivals/da...t-film-contest

You’ve got about 5 weeks left.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by DenonCI

So, I take it that was sometime during the late 1980s?

Geez, the years pass so quickly.
I think it was 1974……..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilsa,_She_Wolf_of_the_SS

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

That's pretty unfortunate because it dumbs down the potential image quality of an entire movie production just for the sake of some actor trying to hide some "crow's feet" around the eyes.

Not really, the digital colorist doing dailies has power windows, etc.…..he/she just quickly draws an elliptical shape around the actor’s face on a few close-ups then defocus, leaving the rest of the image unaltered.

Can even make dem eyes a tad brighter if one wishes so.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Heck, that sort of appeal to vanity...

You don’t understand. It’s not vanity, per se.

The thinking is more along the lines of perceived job security by talent. You see, the Director and some of the crew are not the only people that see the dailies. Studio executives also watch them and some talent feel (rightly or wrongly) that a very revealing super sharp image could leave a lasting negative impression in the back of the minds of some studio executives……….the same executives who could potentially be considering them for some future role.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

A 4096 X 2160 image is 8.8 million pixels.

The reasoning for that pixel count is based upon the notion that full frame 35mm film is basically 4x3, ergo 4k x 3k which is 12 million photo-sites.

Then 12 mill for blue plus 12 mill for green plus 12 mill for red = 36 million photo-sites (i.e. 36 mega-pixel)

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

Pathetic link. Epic fail.

THIS is what you meant.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm7-cysfE2c



Note that even the Verve's "original" songs sound ripped off. Bittersweet, indeed.

I was continuing on with the YouTube Girl Next Door theme!
That dude you linked above needs a haircut anyway.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly blown away?
Let’s see……. you mean for a ‘public’ theater where you simply pays yours ways and there are no restrictions whatsoever?

That would be when I got through a 2 hr. movie with no cell phones ringing, people talking, babies crying, human body noises or having my feet stuck to the floor while trying to reposition them during the course the motion picture.

That is TOO funny, brother. I just experienced ALL those things last night during "The Ugly Truth"...

[PeterTHX]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Truly blown away?
Let’s see……. you mean for a ‘public’ theater where you simply pays yours ways and there are no restrictions whatsoever?

That would be when I got through a 2 hr. movie with no cell phones ringing, people talking, babies crying, human body noises or having my feet stuck to the floor while trying to reposition them during the course the motion picture.

So you saw Imagine That?

[DenonCI]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Geez, the years pass so quickly.
I think it was 1974……..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilsa,_She_Wolf_of_the_SS

I wonder if Netflix has it?

[Bobby Henderson]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Bobby, in case you or other members haven’t seen this clip………
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2326

If you’re so inclined, this is a way to pay for your new toy –
http://www.dailyfilm.tv/festivals/da...t-film-contest

That Reverie video from Vincent Laforet is pretty awesome looking. He also used quite an arsenal of Canon glass to shoot the video (not to mention some other really nice lights and other production gear). There's a couple interesting shots using tilt-shift lenses to play with the depth of field.

I've heard about that contest from dailyfilm. The trick is coming up with a decent enough short subject idea that would have a good chance to win. Either way, I'm still making some money doing freelance photography in relation to graphics projects.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The thinking is more along the lines of perceived job security by talent. You see, the Director and some of the crew are not the only people that see the dailies. Studio executives also watch them and some talent feel (rightly or wrongly) that a very revealing super sharp image could leave a lasting negative impression in the back of the minds of some studio executives……….the same executives who could potentially be considering them for some future role.

I agree the movie industry has the potential to be pretty unforgiving or even cruel when it comes to judging actors as they reach a certain age and their appearance starts to make their age more obvious. However, super sharp photography has already been in existence for decades. 5-perf 65mm film formats could clearly define every strand of hair, skin pore or grain of sand on a sand dune. Do we really need to go backwards or just stay stuck in one place? The combination of makeup, lighting and digital tools in post can solve a lot of problems.

One of my father's friends from his Marine Corps days was acclaimed photographer Eddie Adams. That guy did some of the best news photography in the Vietnam war. He did a huge amount of ad work, numerous photo spreads for magazines like Penthouse and a lot of celebrity portrait work. Many of the portraits Adams shot for Parade magazine were produced with large format cameras and the imagery was razor sharp. Every tiny bit of detail was there in full view. I guess certain celebrities would steer clear of Adams for portrait work if he was still alive.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

The reasoning for that pixel count is based upon the notion that full frame 35mm film is basically 4x3, ergo 4k x 3k which is 12 million photo-sites.

Then 12 mill for blue plus 12 mill for green plus 12 mill for red = 36 million photo-sites (i.e. 36 mega-pixel)

I understand that. The sensor provides all the advantages of a discrete 3-chip array (separate chips recording Red, Blue and Green values) on one single piece of silicon. I wouldn't have a problem with Panavision describing its new sensor as having 37 million RGB photo-sites. When they say "pixels" instead then I have a problem with the terminology.

The problem where that inflated pixel count hype falls apart is three separate RGB photo-sites are writing to a single pixel assignment in the final image. When I zoom in 100% on any RGB raster-based image I don't see separate red, blue and green pixels. The actual pixel in the image is just one square tile whose value is being defined by three (or more) color channels.

I don't want that stretch on terminology becoming any sort of "standard" when it comes to describing raster-based images. But the camera companies seem to be adopting it anyway for the purposes of marketing hype.

I'm afraid of that form of technical spin spreading to my line of work. It's already a daunting battle trying to get customers to understand the limits of pixel-based images (their fixed resolution, what sort of pixel count and pixel per inch density is required to print an image at a certain size). All I need is to have someone bring in some little 800 X 600 pixel image wanting it blown up great big and insisting it's really 2400 X 1800 based on cumulative count of pixels in the RGB channels.

[Penton-Man]

^
I know .
It’s really all theoretical semantics anyway because when you scan a film at “4k”, you're often just getting 3456 pixels across the Academy Aperture in reality.

[Brain Sturgeon]

Originally Posted by sharkshark

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...mm_f_5_6L.html

All tremble behind the 1200mm GOD OF LENSES.

It's Hubble on the ground. Bad ass....

Ahh, the mother of all telephotos. I saw the B&H demo video on that lens. I don't know how you can find what you want to shoot on that lens. You almost need an automated coordinate system like on a telescope to find your target given the ridiculously small 2° angle of view. Plus, that 120k asking price is just silly. Now, If I lived on the same block as Megan Fox with a clear view of her bedroom/bathroom...

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Yeah, the really fast frame rate is nice for that kind of shooting. You'll probably want to see what Canon has in store for the EOS 1Ds Mark III successor. I'm sure they'll add video capability and probably more than just 1080p/30 mode for the HD part.

That would be nice, but I would guess we're a year or two out from a Mark III"b" or IV.

One HUGE thing I appreciate with the EOS 5D Mark II is its high ISO performance. The Rebel XTi did relatively well up to ISO 400 but beyond that its color control went haywire and noise just got bad at ISO 800 and ISO 1600. The EOS 5D Mark II can shoot relatively noise free images at ISO 3200 or 6400 and the color still looks correct, even with difficult to photograph items like lighted red neon or lighted red channel letters (both can go very yellow at high ISO ratings with lesser cameras).

Definitely. Canon has done a great job with ISO performance on its latest cameras, including the 1D and 1Ds mark III's.

Just a couple of test clips. Yes, the 1080p video mode works very well. Just be sure to have a high quality compact flash card in the camera. I'm using a 8GB SanDisk Extreme III card. The camera records the video in MPEG-4 AVC at a constant bit rate of 38 million bits per second and saves it as Quicktime .MOV files.

Neat-- when I was going to the Rams' practices, they strictly forbade video cameras; but it would be hard for them to tell if I had a 5DMkII on video mode or shooting pics. I think Bill Belichick might be interested...

I really love my 70-200mm f/2.8L lens. It produces some razor sharp images. The 24-70mm f/2.8L can be a little finnicky about finding the right focus. But the EOS 5D Mark II has the same auto-focus micro-adjustment feature found in the EOS 1Ds Mark III. You can register up to 20 different lenses in the camera to help dial in the sweet spot for each lens.

Personally, I think the "hit" rate with the 70-200mm f/2.8 L is amongst the best out there. I get a lot of funny looks out there when shooting with the lens given its largish size, but once you see the results, it's hard to go back to any other lens. My other "carry around" outdoor lens would be the 24-105mm f/4 L IS. I mainly use the 24-70 as an indoor lens, although I still default back to the 70-200 frequently.

A good circular polarizer filter is an absolute MUST for anyone doing landscape photography or a lot of outdoor photo work in daylight. The B+W MRC circular polarizer filter isn't cheap (over $150) but it makes a huge difference in the captured images. A serious photographer can't go cheap on a circular polarizer filter. B+W makes good models. So does Heliospan.

Yup, their multicoated filters are the only ones I will use.

Canon has a couple other non-L primes that are pretty good, but the 100 f/2.8 Macro is one of the best bang for your buck lenses one can buy in the Canon range. Not having a macro lens yet I'm very tempted on buying one. It's just $500.

For my next lens purchase I'm torn between buying the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, the 180mm f/3.5L Macro or the 135mm f/2.0L lens. The 135mm f/2.0L isn't a macro lens, but it is one of the most absolutely sharp lenses Canon makes. The 135 brings out every last tidbit of detail within the frame. Very fast lens. Great for things like indoor sports.

The 100mm f/2.8 Macro is a very fun lens-- I think it's worth its reasonable price. The 180mm f/3.5 L, not so much. The extra focal length is nice, but not essential-- it also focuses very slowly and pretty much requires a tripod for use. I've not tried the 135 f/2.0 L-- will have to take a peek at that one. The 200mm f/2.0 L is phenomenal, but very expensive.

A lot of Canon fans want the 85mm f/1.2L and 50mm f/1.2L primes. The 400mm f/2.8L IS USM is a dream lens to me. Canon introduced a new tilt-shift lens, the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II. That's a dream lens for anyone that does very serious wide angle photography. That lens costs just as much as my EOS 5D Mark II camera body. Ouch!

I have the 85mm f/1.2 L, and I'm still getting used to its very narrow focus field. When shooting portraits, the focal plane is so narrow you can get the nose sharp and then have the eyes fall out of focus. Almost a surrealistic bokeh with the big aperture. It also focuses a bit slow, so not great for active kids or indoor sports unless you know exactly where your subject is going to be.

The new TS-E's are sold out pretty much everywhere. I'll have to play with one sometime to see what the hub-bub is about.

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Silly me………and I thought you were actually busy WORKING!
What the heck, are you already a full partner making more than the “spinal” Sturgeon?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619/#31913235

P.S.
Nice pics.
I think you know which my favorite one(s) is.

Thanks! I figured you'd like that one...

I am working! I gotta pay for all this stuff somehow!

Interesting that they picked "Spinal Surgeon" for that comparison. 190k is actually significantly more than I thought most FP's or Internal Med docs make. Personally, I think that there are specialties out there that are grossly overpaid for the services they provide, like radiologists and dermatologists. 400k+ for what they do is just silly. Cut that in half, and it'd be about right. I'm heavily biased obviously, but I think Neurosurgeons and some Spine Surgeons earn every penny that we get paid, and then some. The primary care docs do get the short end of the stick as far as salaries go, particularly given the amount of work that they do/patients that they see. Either way, being a physician is not a particularly efficient/good way to make a living in the US. I should've gone into investment banking or business management...

I shouldn't really complain though-- I love what I do and it's a comfortable living.

[aygie]

Hey Penton lots of Mac rumours aout BD support coming soon, anything you know about or care to share?

The new version of Final Cut Pro has BD support built in to use with a 3rd party drives so it kinda makes sense.....

http://www.macrumors.com/2009/08/08/...-organization/

http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2009/...-organization/

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles..._features.html

http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/08/08...with-itunes-9/

[Vincent Pereira]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

While I agree 100% with Soderbergh's disgust over the new flavor of 2.40:1 to 1.77:1 panning and scanning, I would have more respect for his stance if the 2.40:1 movies he has made were photographed in formats bound to a super-wide aspect ratio...

To be fair, his IMO very underrated version of SOLARIS was shot (beautifully) in anamorphic 35mm. Also, I seem to recall reading that he actually used anamorphic lenses combined with 16mm for some of CHE.

Vincent