File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Oh this is a nightmare.

All I want to do is have some sort of extra light source not attached to the camera whilst on location outside.
I *could* buy a Canon OC-E3 cable but it's £50 and only stretches 60cm from the camera so that's almost useless... and I can't use a slave cell because I can't turn off my pre-flash and therefore the slave is picking up the triggering flash too early.

Is there no way of taking a decent portable light source with me? Torches are shit and I have nowhere to plug in studio equipment.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Have you looked at radio triggers?

You can get longer wires in the Canon system but most people don't like them trailing everywhere, even in a studio.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
Which camera you have? You could by some 3rd party cable which is cheaper, or, as>>112862said, buying radio triggers (Cactus PT-04 (32$ for a set, extra recievers for additional 20$) for example).
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>112929
Just need an f/0.7 lens. Worked for Kubrick.
>> Anonymous
>>112932

I carry one in my pack all the time for my walkabouts. It's great!
>> Anonymous
>>112932

I love my copy of it too. The bokeh is wonderful.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>112929
>or similar
CANDLES ARE SIMILAR I GOT U!
>> Anonymous
>>112947

Oh noes! I've been caught in the troll trap!
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>112932

How come there just isn't this fast lens for modern cameras? :(
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113033
Because you touch yourself at night.
>> Anonymous
>>113033
Well, I assume some of them still exist and will still mount, but it was a specialized lens for NASA to use on its Hasselblad bodies (so it was probably Zeiss, although I don't know for sure).

Kubrick wanted a period-painting-look for his film "Barry Lyndon," which meant no lighting rigs. Solution? Make a few phone calls, find the fastest lens in existence, pull a few string, get a copy, have someone re-machine the mount to fit your motion picture camera, make a great film.

Motion picture film is insanely slow, so you probably don't need a lens that fast to shoot what he did, especially with modern DSLRs handling high sensitivity very well. Exposure is a cakewalk for us compared to cinematographers.
>>113035
But this is really why, seriously.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>113037
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm
It's really pretty fascinating.

But yeah, the downside to EXTREM WIDE APERTURE is that it's expensive as hell to do with any sort of optical quality. Canon had a f/0.95 lens back in the day, but it was apparently optically crap. And things like that are so absurdly expensive to make that they fall firmly in the special-case-niche range, just like 6mm fisheyes and 600mm superteles.

(Quick example: The Noctilux is over $5000. For the same price, you could buy some really nice flashes, pocketwizards for 'em all, and a team of hobos to carry them around for you. For people who really need the unobtrusiveness of a Leica shooting at f/1.0, it's a price they can pay. For most people, bumping the ISO or getting a flash is orders of magnitude cheaper and easier)
>> Anonymous
>>113040
Thanks for the information.

But fuck, that makes me want to learn optical theory so I can specify "I want a lens that does exactly this." The only problem with that is that I don't have the money that Kubrick had backing him.
>> Anonymous
>>...In the closing scene of the movie, with a long slow pull-back from the hero of the story as he walks along the river, is a prime example of its application.

wtf

thats not how the movie ends
>> Anonymous
>>113069
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe an early/different cut, or maybe the guy was mistaken about where in the film it was... I don't remember any zooming, but there was at least one scene of Alex walking along the river.

The version I watched ended with that crazy shot of Alex and all the people around him.
>> Anonymous
You could try the Canon ST-E2 but it'll set you back even more;

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Speedlite-Transmitter-ST-E2-Review.aspx