Video

I do use a single-clip setup for shorter runs. But if I put two VB212's on a belt for very long, and those pants are gonna start to sag!

Thank you so much! You can see a short clip of the film in my recent video about “movie magic” if you’re curious :-)

Do you know of any clear examples which would demonstrate this? I’ve heard these kinds of explanations, but they always seem to be a bit hand wavy. No one has ever shown me an “A vs B” demonstration which shows a quality called microcontrast.

@@nick_salazar Yes. Like I said in my other comment I feel any link I add CZcams deletes my comment. Do you know how I can send you this information?

@@nick_salazar Try your luck with finding this. There is a blog called the other side of bokeh. It's a wordpress site. There is a comparison Leica vs Zeiss Episode #2. Look at the bricks and shadows in the close up crop of the subway. This is not the best example as the light is flat and dull and low contrast. Light also determines the contrast of the scene. The lens varies in how much it can transfer, which is always less than the scene. Maybe instead search for an article called Micro Contrast and the Zeiss Pop by Lloyd Chambers. He has comparison photos.

Thank you so much!

For people who have to do vertical video delivery, that can be helpful. Given the 6:5 coverage, shooting vertically on the V-Raptor in 6:5 mode would yield a 5:3 image, with plenty of room to crop either to landscape or portrait aspects. Personally, I didn't have a need for that, but the possibility is there!

Oh, and for lens coverage information, I highly recommend the online tool by CVP. It's insanely useful: cvp.com/tools/cameralens

A quick look and it appears they just about do cover the entire Komodo X sensor, so shooting vertically would yield a nearly square image that you could crop any which way you like. Even if the corners vignette a small amount, you could either crop or distortion-correct a bit to restore them.

@@nick_salazar Thank you for your reply, my idea is exactly that! Congratulations on the content, I am sure your channel will be big soon! Amazing content as always

That means a lot to me, thank you!

Here here 😊

Thanks so much! I really appreciate the positive comments.

That's so kind of you to say! Thanks for your support and for watching all my crazy rants.

Of course. I am the fortunate one!

Honestly, the more the use them the less I care about the weight, or about other lenses in general. The image is just SO nice.

@@nick_salazar weight is something that I should care about more. You have no idea how much I hurt my body during the last couple of years for my love for filmmaking. 😅

I hear you. Good support and good technique are critical for longevity in this game.

Thanks Alex!

Thank you!

Thanks for your feedback. I’ll keep trying to improve my compositions!

Just a janky little thing I made myself. Nothing too fancy.

Looks awesome for being “janky”! It would be cool to see how you made it.

Thanks Joshua! Maybe I’ll post a video about it one day. A couple folks have asked.

Thank you Zac! I can tell you that every time I use these lenses, I love them just a little bit more. I think the weight is easily worth it in this case.

They should work with most adapters (front or rear).

Thanks Nicholas! I've completely fallen in love with this art form and I'm grateful to be able to share and talk about it here on CZcams.

I think they make a very strong case. I'm always searching, testing, and trying new things. But every time I put these lenses on a camera, I come back with something I'm happy with.

Do you have a problem with my actual description of the lenses and how I compare them to other formats in the video? Or is it just the thumbnail text you dislike? I'm always happy to hear input and opinions, though I'm not too worried about how others perceive me. Call me a common influencer if you like, you wouldn't be the first 🙂

​​​@@nick_salazarMy comment states don't use "IMAX Killer" for your reviews (That's what's in your Thumbnail). It's strange you brought up the content of your review since that was never stated in my previous comment. It seems like you tried a "got ya" comment like "Ha, see you didn't watch the video" when in reality reading comprehension should've came first. Now if you want me to talk about the video, you focus on the depth of field of the bigger iMAX a little too much. Completely missing the point of iMAX. I made another comment on this channel that went in depth unto what makes iMAX different than consumer or other cinema cameras. *SPOILER* It wasn't the depth of field which the depth of field of iMAX is more than achievable on a 35mm camera. Edit: Spelling

I’m not out to “get you.” It sounds like we just disagree, and that’s okay! Hopefully you find some value in my test footage, even if you don’t agree with my analysis and opinions. If not, that’s okay too.

How? Where do you presume the power is going? The batteries aren't hot, so we aren't losing energy as heat. Where else would it go? I don't think this theory makes sense.

@@nick_salazar brother, battery charging is not efficient. you don't recover what you put in.

@@zahidhossain4211 Think of it this way - inside each pack is just a series of smaller batteries tied together. What I'm showing here is the same thing on a slightly larger scale.

Or think of battery grips on cameras - you go from one battery to two batteries, tied together in a similar fashion.

This is correct, there are efficiency losses when charging from one battery to another. A more efficient way to do this is still have one battery separated from the camera when using it, and have the second battery on charge or waiting to be hot swapped in the bag. The seperated battery running from a cable to the camera is a great idea for lightening the weight of the rig.

I did! They appear to be somewhere in the neighborhood of f1.3 to f1.4. I didn't have a perfect setup, it was a little seat-of-the-pants. But for comparison sake, I calculated my Canon 50mm RF f1.2 to be f1.16 (we could round that to f1.2 I suppose). I put the Arles 50mm next to it and it came out to f1.28 with the same measurement setup. The Arles 50mm looked to have an apparent entrance pupil of 39mm, diving 50 by 39 yields 1.28, or f1.3 if we round. The 100mm appears to have an entrance pupil of 75mm, so that calculates as f1.33. So f1.3 more or less, for both lenses, or maybe f1.4 to give me a little wiggle room in the measurements. They definitely aren't f1.2, but only slightly narrower.

I re-wrote this as a comment and pinned it, so others can see. Thanks for reminding me to post this 🙂

I can't see why not. However I don't have any adapters so I can't test it for you.

Thanks! If I were putting this on an Easyrig I’d either use a crossbar and grip the two sides, or replace the top half of the ring and grip the top. I don’t presently have an easyrig though so I can’t show you.

Thanks Tony! Glad you're here - enjoy!

I mention that in the video. Again, I tend towards a shallow look more often than your average DP. You may think my choices are bad, and that's okay! Similarly, if you think my video is pointless, that's okay too! At the end of the day this is an art form, and if it were all the same it would be boring.

Thanks for the kind words! Yeah separate batteries are sometimes unavoidable. For example, if I have one battery powering my gimbal ring, doing a power cycle on the RS3 Pro itself (either turning it on OR off) momentarily cuts power to all the other outputs. I have no idea why. But if you're powering a camera solely off that same battery, that camera will die. So backups are needed. I originally played with the idea of running the tiny VB50 on the V-Raptor for such occasions, just as a continuity backstop. It won't power the camera continuously, but might be okay for little hiccups like that. However, the "batteries in a backpack" concept is a bit more robust, plus it cuts weight from the gimbal setup.

I originally started doing it how you describe. I find it way nicer to just use a single cable.

Good to know! I haven’t tried the beta yet.

That's a smarter setup. Chain linking batteries and introducing more cables is a little sketch.

Keep in mind that the batteries stay in a backpack together. Even if they somehow got unlinked, there’s no real danger and then that’s still a 212W battery tied to the camera with a solid LEMO connection. So not much to fret about, even if something went wrong. Which it hasn’t for me. And for an all day shoot I’d much rather have 424W rather than 240W. Anyway, it works brilliantly for me, but if you’re worried about it, then of course feel free to ignore the idea.

Thank you!

RED’s “highlight rolloff” settings are just different LUTs, how the sensor data is mapped onto a final image. Exactly as described in the video above :-) I’m just trying to help people use the words correctly. SENSORS don’t have roll off. LUTs or mappings do.

@@nick_salazar The RED's highlight rolloff setting is not a LUT. It controls how the camera transitions from properly exposed areas to overexposed areas, affecting highlight smoothness and detail retention. This setting is part of the camera's image processing pipeline, whereas LUTs are used in post-production for color grading and transforming color values.

Yes it’s a LUT. It’s applied as a preview for monitoring, but when you get back to grade the raw footage, you can pick which one you use. There are twelve of them, corresponding to the three contrast and four highlight rolloff settings you described above. However you want to describe it, it’s a mapping from raw values the sensor actually records into a finished image.

I do!

Same here, he is making these lenses his personality 😂

@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI that's an interesting take! Actually, I consider that a good thing. I'm always trying to find more confidence in the direction of my work, and finding a "home" in a particular style, workflow, lens, etc, is something I strive for. That doesn't mean I'm not open to other things, but in my experience, the best art comes from people who have a very specific voice, or "personality" as you might say. I hear you that you find it repetitive. But this channel is really my diary. If I write the same entry three times in a row, it's because I'm working something out for myself. If that's not something you want to see, I totally get it. There are other channels 🙂

I think you’re describing the “conventional wisdom” very well. And there’s nothing inherently wrong with it. Lots of great art has been made that way. I simply prefer a slightly different direction.

@@nick_salazar nothing wrong with that my dude 😊🤙 maybe I should have made it more clear in my comment, I was throwing in a comment for any noobies who come across this video. Not really directed at you as the video made it clear that the shallow DOF look is what you like and have chosen to present in your projects. I just see a lot of noobies in the current age of full frame, default to a wide open shallow DOF look as that is what is "cinematic", without making their own considered creative choice for the story. Just as an aside and completely different note. If larger capture formats interest you, I can recommend looking into a set of Mamiya M645 lenses and a M645 focal reducer adapter. The lenses are medium format 6x4.5cm negative which is huge compared to FF, focal reducing them down to a FF sensor gives you an ultra shallow depth of field especially with the 80/1.9 which ends up around a 50/0.95 if my memory of my math from the time is right. For reference, the lenses are rehoused for some of the Alexa 65 glass, but as normal unhoused lenses they are quite affordable. I made a set for my A7 maybe a decade ago and it was a super fun shallow DOF image system to play with. Just thought it might interest you if you wanted a crazy shallow DOF lens set.

@@jamesandcamera thanks for the suggestion! I've dabbled in the world of large-format adaptation, most deeply with my F-Zero Camera project: czcams.com/video/gCBNGQ_jQKo/video.html - it's a BIG setup but delivers unique results. So far I haven't found any smaller solutions which provide a meaningful advantage over full-frame f1.2 - f1.4 sets. The 645 lenses can get you one or two focal lengths slightly faster, but at the moment I tend to prefer what Arles does, even if it's slightly slower.

@@nick_salazar yeah the large format stuff is super fun to use as an experimental DOF adapter. Would work great in a crewed and grip supported cinema setting where they are used to supporting and managing large systems with a team. Not so easy to manage as a solo operator. I didn't know they made an off the shelf product now, it's been a long while since I played with it. That's cool and easy for people with budget 💰

​​@@jamesandcameraCorrection: it makes the Mamiya 80mm f1.9 into a 56mm f1.33. Since it only speedboosts by 0.7

That’s why it’s art! You don’t have to like it. I do :-) And yes, IMAX is (in part) about depth of field. At least, it can be and sometimes is used for that reason. It’s also higher resolution, but past 4k our eyes don’t know the difference unless the screen gets VERY large (like, The Sphere large). Anyway, again it comes down to artistic preference. If you know what you like, more power to you! Strong opinions make for strong art.

@@nick_salazar 🙄CZcamsrs

Haha, fair enough. I mean that with these lenses, independent filmmakers can effectively achieve an IMAX look but without the need for all of that unattainable IMAX rare and VIP-rental-only equipment.

@@nick_salazar Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The lens doesn't make it IMAX and I am sure you know that.

Sounds like you don’t quite know the precise argument I’m making. I’m guessing you didn’t watch the video. Either way, once you’ve watched, if you want to debate some specific point about it, let me know!

@@nick_salazar I'm good. I have no interest in watching your click bait titled videos made by an influencer.

​@@nick_salazarI'm on Front Foot's side, IMAX is way more than achievable shallow depth of field. 1. Resolution Film for IMAX Reaches a theoretical 18k, something that these lenses will not help you achieve. 2. Dynamic range The range of shadows to highlights are something amazing and unique to IMAX which renders skin tones and skys in a wonderful way. Something these lens won't help you achieve 3. GRAIN The grain structure of IMAX lends itself to be both clean and still retain that organic feeling leading to very much detailed scenes that feel lile you can jump right in. Again not achievable with these lenses. 4. And lastly, ASPECT Ration Shooting in large format 4:5 kind of forces you to think about framing alot more since viewers will be seeing your film in 3-6 story high Screens allowing for alot of head movement. Again the lenses have absolutely do nothing to emulate that.

Cooke describes several traits which they say contribute to their signature look. Warm color, uneven bokeh magnification from center to corners, bokeh characteristic, etc. I wouldn't say that these Arles primes really have those same characteristics, it's a different look. In short, Cooke goes in a specific direction (which many people love), while Arles mostly stays very neutral, clean, and sharp, with a bit of warm color and very soft bokeh. The fastest Cooke set, the S8, also opens up to T1.4 and of course has the "Cooke Look," but is 15 times more expensive, and much heavier as well. Personally, I LOVE the overall look from the Arles primes.

​@@nick_salazarYou should get Arles ❤

I don't know why it happened, but I'm sure it has to do with people like YOU watching and commenting. So thank you! It's great to know that these videos are helpful or entertaining in some way.

@@nick_salazar Thanks, and you're welcome 🙂

They’re very nice! I like that they’re lighter than Arles (on most focal lengths), plus the EF mount versions will give you metadata which can be nice. The Sigma lenses aren’t quite as clean or well corrected, but they’re still very good. They also exhibit significantly more focus breathing on most focal lengths. I don’t tend to mind the breathing too much, but if you mind it, Arles will be much better controlled.

@@nick_salazar I tend to use them the most on small productions. Those lenses being able to resolve around 33mp worth of resolution is insane. They also make my 3.8MP or 2.8K videos looks so much more sharp so I can just imagine how much more sharp they'd look when paired with your RED. Btw is there a way to connect PL lenses such as the Cooke S4i to EF mount?

@@shueibdahir yes there are PL to EF adapters, but the flanges are pretty close so you'll want to check the compatibility with the particular camera and lens you want to use them with before pulling the trigger on something like that.