Leaderboard

I tried to cc this footage & there was something seriously lacking with it (really lacklustre) - i just couldn't get it to do what i wanted (will give it another go, as i probably gave up too quickly). Just think that the 8-bit quality does need a little help & the theory that flat is best is probably the most misguided advice for DSLRs. You simply can't put back in stuff that isn't there in the first place - this isn't RAW. So dialing down everything, IMO, isn't helping anything, its disabling you. With a DSLR you should try to get it as perfect as possible & then tweek it in post - 8-bit isn't that flexible before it falls apart on you. Was also a bit confused why there was noise at iso 200?   Maybe i'll change my mind, but i'm not overly impressed with GH3. No criticism of your footage intended (as i don't think there is anything wrong with it - just the theory behind it) & I was really grateful to have something to play with.   Thanks, it was really good & brave of you to do this.   Perhaps we could all do this more regularly, so we can really test out cameras before we take the plunge?

Axel   Kids upbringing is a whole other debate.   Inglourious basterds was also shown ON TV where children can watch.   So lets separate this into how I feel.   Tarrantino films should not be accessible by those under 18. 2) Tarrantino is not a Master at what he does by a long way. Inglourious basterds did not have amazing acting although Chris Waltz came out as the best actor. I watched the film because I thought it was going to be a take on spaghetti westerns which it wasn't. The best scene was the opening where Tarrantino built the tension up quite well and he let the girl live which was obviously his big mistake as this later leads to his downfall. Okay Brad Pitt was the Jewish (Wish we'd done it this way) Hero Who came across as a nice good old American Jewish boy who dished out justice as a severerly deranged war criminal would. So a sort of highly wishful thinking film for jews who can never forgive Nazis. The Brad pitt hero was the same as say Sadam Hussein who was rumoured to put victims in mincing machines or his son rumoured to use a drill to kill people. It has in the past been tradditional for the good guy to kill people who had to be stopped and do it as a neccesary evil quickly. However Tarrantino has decided the hero should be a bad guy who kills and maims people with torture in the most sadistic way his mind can conjure up. This used to work well with if it was the bad guy who did this and then got his comeuppance but Tarrantinos films lose any moral compass or right and wrong and replace it with so called real world reality which is also a lie and aimed squarely at those who have no real understanding of violence but like to think they are one of the boys. We used to live in an age where people saw dressing smartly proved you worked hard and your way up and had pride. We now live in a world where robbing stealing mugging is a good way to get those things and idiots that are proud of it. Tarrantino might say he is only refelcting back what the world really is. I say he is defining the evilness into hero status. Stories must always have a moral compass Must always show good triumphing in some way and must never allow bad behaviour to become role models.   Clint Eastwood played a pscho gunslinger who killed the bad guys and got the gold. Morriconne added a great score that made it all cool. Tarrantino tried to rip those off and turn the clint character into a torturer / sadist nutjob and then add cool music and even doesnt use those essential ingredients that say made the man with no name very well at all. But well enough to attract people with wannabe violent attitudes to it. In doing so he redifines the hero status of mad max into mental max with torturer war crime status.   Filmmaking shapes culture and society to some degree there is no doubt about that. Tarrantino has exploited one of the last areas to explore precisely because it is sick. Sick films contribute to a sick society to some extent I'm afraid.

  This is sorta what I did, but using a 52mm->67mm step-up ring.  The 52mm portion fits perfectly around the rear element and the 67mm edge fits just up under the rear bayonets.  Un screw the back plate, pop on the step-up ring, tighten the back plate back down.  It's a purely mechanical solution that will hold beyond the capability of any glue.  Instant rear threads for the Century Optics adapter at a very popular size requiring no additional adaptation for several Nikkor and even some Lumix lenses.   Once screwed in, the anamorphic adapter would sooner rip through the threads on the taking lens or rip the taking lens off the camera body before that step-up ring will ever come undone from that anamorphic.  It's a purely mechanical, clean and robust solution.  

The official position is that Metabones is contemplating that possibility, but could neither confirm nor deny whether there are concrete plans to do a medium format Speed Booster. Basically everything about the roadmap that can be disclosed is already in the FAQ section of the Metabones site. All the rest are "neither confirm nor deny". We are all ears to your ideas but your understanding is appreciated that we have to operate with a certain degree of secrecy but for various reasons not everything could be disclosed publicly.   If you would allow me to put down the official hat but just state my personal opinion, however, a medium format to full frame SB would not have rocked the world like the full frame to APS-C SB had. By that I mean, for APS-C there is no way to get a 17/1.0 other than 24/1.4 + SB. However, name any medium format lens, multiply both its focal length and aperture by 0.7 or thereabouts, and there is always already a full frame lens which could do its job. e.g. Mamiya 80/1.9 => 56/1.3, pretty close to a 50/1.4. There are no medium format lenses that I am aware of which were fast enough or wide enough for some breakthrough to occur in the full frame world.

Image credits and further reading: Django Unchained / Robert Richardson at The American Cinematographer Magazine ~ Django Unchained echoes spaghetti westerns at Kodak camera and television Learn the ropes and unholster your gun - The EOSHD Anamorphic Shooter's Guide I honestly can't remember the last time I was so gripped by a mainstream piece of cinema. For the first half I had a permanent grin etched on my face for at least an hour, and for the second half I was on the edge of the seat with the kind of tension and sheer terror that you rarely see with the pacing of most mainstream movies - Ridley Scott did it with Alien and Tarantino's completely mastered it here. The first act is like the journey of a roller coaster up the tracks and then for the 2nd half it comes rocketing down and you're terrified. Django Unchained is a towering achievement - and here's how it was shot.

Hey,   trying to get familiar with the lenses, i just finished buying stuff that now ive understood that i need absolutelly a rig or a steadycam rig, by the way what you think would be better?   ive done a quick test that i want to show you guys.   https://vimeo.com/60781305      

  Great idea. I would like to see this as well.   But until we get it... for those who are curious, here are the Nikon D5200 camera tests that I shot this week (H264 files out of the camera): https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B9ZhDqZ6DYvfN2c3eHJsMFBhM2s/edit?usp=sharing

I totally agree! It would be great to have an EOSHD sub forum like Screening Room, called Footage Sharing or similar, where people put up Wetransfer link in individual threads. I'd love to play with BMD, 5D Mkii GH3 etc with my own software and hardware...

Thanks a lot, guys!   I couldn't find any JB Weld here in Brazil, so decided to go with the 52-67mm step up ring. My bayonet had a little lock inside, so I had to carve up a level for it to fit in and then screw it all the way. On the first attempt, it didn't fit at all, then, i destroyed just a bit of the ring, and it almost worked, but the aligning mechanism became too hard. I got back to the ring, took off a nice aluminum chunk and voilá! Perfect.

Great to finally hear a good explanation for why the two modes look different. For me the difference is subtle, and don't forget to check the look of motion cadence, since this should look nicer in the ALL-I mode.

'Covert' Flare Factory in black..    

There's plenty of them out there Caleb and this is by no means a full list! Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Thelma & Louise) Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Bastards, Django Unchained) Christopher Nolan (Inception, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige Memento) Paul T. Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights, Punch Drunk Love) Wes Craven (Scream, Nightmare On Elm Street) Baz Luhrmann (Romeo + Juliet, Moulin Rouge) Not forgetting the legendary anamorphic work of Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris, Stalker, Mirror) of course.   Anamorphic is still the standard for film.   That the Alexa is the only camera to shoot 4:3 for a true Cinemascope aspect ratio with 2x anamorphic is utterly absurd.   The camera manufacturers need to drop 16:9 sensors for cinema production. It isn't a cinema standard, never has and never will be.   Here's a piece on anamorphic production on Arri's website http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/learn/tutorial_anamorphic_production.html   Although the resolution benefit is less with digital than on film, it is the whole look that has captured me, it is spellbinding. I like the very wide 3.55:1 you get from a 2x lens on 16:9 actually but recently I have taken to taping up the left and right of my screen to give me composition in 4:3, then I crop that in post and do the 2x squeeze to produce 2.39:1. I'll upload some of these projects in the coming weeks.

  Hope you'll look for medium format to full frame. Would be awesome to have some Hasselblad Zeiss to Canon EF, or even Mamiya 645 to Canon EF. Would blow away any 35mm and smaller lens and they are cheaper and cheaper as film disappear (less and less film roll available on eBay each week).

Will there be a passive Canon to M43 mount Speed Booster from Conurus until the smart adapter ships in the summer? This is something I'd love to see. I actually use Canon mount adapter rings for all my Contax Zeiss, Leica R, M42, Pentax, Olympus OM and Nikon glass and so for these lenses I don't actually need an EOS Speed Booster for Micro Four Thirds to have electronics in it :)   Although it is of course preferable and most people would buy the Smart version, I'd love to see a passive Canon mount version in March alongside the others.