Leaderboard

Just for the hell of it, filmed myself running in the Texas countryside and put it to a Johnny Cash song.   http://vimeo.com/56426354

My wife in tango mode... I shot this video on the last day of 2012 using my two GH2´s with Zuiko 11-22mm and Konica AR 40mm.   http://vimeo.com/56585126

00:45-00:50 are nice shots.  Really great little short!

Beautiful.

do not look for nuances in my posts i am mental : ) i am also dyslexic. one of the big advantages studio or rental lens had and still have in a limited fashion today was servicing. jdc had at least 6 people that could strip a lens down and rebuild it the same with samuelsons movie rental. panavision at least 20 people around the world. a lot of that expertise has gone that is a big reason why vantage hawk have dominated so much. they get them built new but have good people that can look after the optics and engineering. panavision are in trouble massive debts but have real optical treasure in store rooms and on shelves spherical and anamorphic. they upgraded some of the c series probably ruined the look of some by recoating. again the technicians are such an important part of the process. i have been lucky my moller was perfect when i got it so never needed a service maybe others are not as good. wave error and scratch dig are important and destructive elements in optic making. technovision,jdc and panavision all used either zeiss,leica or cooke taking lens very expensive and the best and cylindricals that took weeks to make and polish.. the high quality moller and low wave front error was much easier to achieve i think because they are so tiny compared to these 2kg movie optics. my view is also moller had to make something that was overkill for the 8mm film format because of kern. bolex where a great engineering company who had a super tight relationship with kern optics. kern had made a prototype scope lens but did not have the experience of others like isco,moller or chretiens benoist berthiot. kern made some amazing 35mm format spherical optics for the alpa camera so they would of been up for it. moller probably just thought fuck it lets blow everyone out of the water. bolex would have been shooting and projecting that 8mm and 16mm scope footage 15 foot across. one look was probably all it took for swiss bolex to get their name put on the side of the german moller lens.   paillard bolex where a massive company and unlike companies today most of the products where made in one facility or at least in the same town. the engineering quality of the stuff out of the door was pretty incredible. when you have such supreme high  standards on the cameras then the optics have to match or exceed requirements. this stuff is so over engineered it is unreal that is why you can pick up a 16mm or 8mm bolex and it will still run great 50 years later. this is great it is in 4 parts but this shows the factory nothing amateur going on here just pure engineering as science. https://vimeo.com/11029378

i have floated around some high fulluting circles in my time also looked after vittorio storaro`'s anamorphic lens which where owned and made by technovision and cleaned up robert altmans custom optics on the way out onto a movie. i worked for the owner of technovision Henryk Chroscicki and also joe dunton the 2 most important men in hollywood movie anamorphics after takuo miyagishima of panavision. i worked at panavision in the 1980s when the warped belief was the c range where shit and old fashioned technology when compared to later generations. the mind set was also confused because late generation panavision optics where so pure and yet they could not understand why great dps still wanted to use the more flawed jdc and technovision scope stuff. i collect anamorphics all sorts. when people contact me i say test your gear locked down on a tripod rather than read that something is shit test the thing then you decide. why not start testing wide open and stop down from that point. it is not important what someone else thinks really if the owner is happy that is what matters. clearly if you are being paid you have to back up that belief on firm ground. my moller will outperform nearly all of them wide open. it will also give a sharper picture than a panavision lens from the 60s or 70s at f2.6. what hollywood gives you apart from size is ease of pro use. clearly a complete single focus fixed focal length hollywood scope lens is best but the dual focus moller bests many scope lens from film history. truffaut was one of the greatest film men whoever lived i have one of his old dyaliscope lens it shot this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksyUySDjEYU dyaliscope where known to be sharper than most hollywood lens. it performs well at f4 at f5.6 it is rather good given the restrictions one has to applaud the great film men of the past. especially as that la nouvelle vague generation went on location so much. my moller beats dyaliscope into a cocked hat. has the moller ever shot a movie like this no but if it had the night time street scene would have been sharper also the early scene where you see the shadow of a camera cast by the brutish light that was needed sometimes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w95qiN91X5Q truffauts dyaliscope and my moller http://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/8336906516/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/8335849555/in/photostream/

  If you push the shadows down that is the same as lowering the ISO. So what you mean is that ISO 10,000 is too noisy and you push it down to 6400 to get acceptable results. This is why crushing the blacks works so well at ISO 12,800 on the GH2 in black and white. CMOS sensors have a signal to noise ratio per pixel and if your signal is high enough it masks the noise which is why well exposed bright areas of the image are cleaner even at ISO 12,800. Think of a raw image at the native ISO of 800, it will look noiseless over areas of a shot where the luminosity only requires ISO 200, and where the light is dim you need to adjust the curve to bring up the shadows and that is where you see noise.   The 50mm at F1.4 remark is a bit odd. There's a reason most films are shot stopped down to T5.6 as a default. You need a margin of error and for when something is moving back and forth quickly you certainly can't keep them perfectly in focus 100% of the time at F1.4, not even a ninja focus puller can do that on ALL types of movement. Some movement is random and you cannot account for it. With a locked down shot, of course F1.4 is fine. For most stuff, your actors will be going in and out of focus especially at closer focus distances, which is often not what you want.   I use very fast apertures a lot but only for locked down shots where there's no focus racking.