Vicks. I just shot near a farm and the manure stench attacked my nostrils. in all fairness, you get desensitized after a while. Rub the vicks on your upper lip. Enjoy menthol...
I will always try to steer others from using this camera based on knowing how the footage fell apart in post. Specifically the red channel. It just acted so differently. If you must use this camera, nail your exposure and light well. As with any camera, it can be noisy, but that red channel is weird.
What did they use to get the raindrops on the tape?
This opened up some ideas for filters in the future. Thanks!
I agree with Guy in that shooting RAW would give you more options later. I'd recommend a BM camera as well. Specifically the Ursa Mini 4.6K. It has better dynamic range than the 4K model. If it were me, I'd want the camera with more flexibility in post so that I can have a better chance at recovery should unforeseen lighting changes affect the shots.
I agree. It seems Alex has heard the members of this site and reduced his tagging frenzy. The last post he made seemed to have only relevant tags.
This has already been addressed on this post:http://nofilmschool.com/boards/questions/can-bloke-using-arrey-alexa-tag...
I'm curious for a straight-forward answer on whether or not these optics are new or if the XEENs are truly just rehoused Rokinon Cine lenses. I've seen a lot of people going around forums saying that they're just rehoused. I've also seen an article here on NFS saying that the optics are new from the ground up:
"Optically these new lenses are built completely from the ground up and use Rokinon X coating for minimizing flare."
I've wanted to try the XEENs out as well, but I wasn't too keen on buying a rehoused product. Does anybody have a real answer? Not conjecture?
I'm also curious, is the second hand cine glass available from Zeiss directly or somewhere else?