Leaderboard

i propose we kidnap tony wilson and hold him captive for as long as it takes to extract all relevant information. and the irrelevant info too,.. dude has some great stories :D

you can technically shoot everything with 1 lens  :P   stop shopping, start shooting,... that way you can figure out yourself what you're missing/needing.

Quick grading test (wetransfer) GH2 original - G6 original - GH2 curve - G6 curve (same curve). GH2 @ 1080p24 65Mbps - Smooth -2-2-2-2 G6 @ 1080p24 24Mbps - Natural -5-2-0-5 ISO 160, same aperture and shutter speed. I'm really impressed. Shadow detail from the G6 is so much nicer, as is the grain. Even in the unedited footage of the hacked GH2 you see some dirty noise in the shadows. With the G6 it's a fine grain.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing. I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images. How? Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC. In Photoshop: Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm! To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it. List terms explained: Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera No = doesn't cover the sensor Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example) Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list Primes Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof] Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof] Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof] Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof] Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof] Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof] Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)] Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof] SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD) Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof] Zooms Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5247.msg34019#msg34019   You can do it, but only at an aspect ratio of roughly 2.35:1   Comparison:   http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7CANqYdhx_U     http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wHcZwMB5gKs

Just bought a Leica Leitz Elpro VIIb for 30 euros. It's a +0,75 achromat, 54mm thread.. they don't come bigger, but probably useful on my baby anamorphics!

very nice price. i would be tempted but my leica noctilux lens cap cost me 300 euros to replace. the idea of drilling a hole into it fills me with wallet horror : )

Maybe it could be a spreadsheet on Google Docs. That way, anyone could contribute to it.

You passed on a few : Benoist Berthiot Cinemascope 16m/m (Hypergonar) 6 various models (The best) Hypergonar HI FI 1 Hypergonar C35 (Gorgeous George) Carl Zeiss Jena and Rectoscop at Rathenow several models Dyaliscope - several models - attachments and full lenses http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/dyaliscope_lenses.pdf plus some rare versions by Andre Fougrat Ruralscope SK Cinelux series Totalvision

Found this old list of achros http://www.angelfire.com/ca/erker/closeups.html

And a quick macro test during a rainy Saturday afternoon.   http://vimeo.com/65995146  

Happy to help, I'm as curious as everybody else :)

  A loanword like Zeitgeist? Interesting, because there are so many equally strong words for Wut in english.   Tony Wilson is right. And Andrew too. This is not about escapism or, as I wrote, Utopia. It's about filling the heads with false values. Easy to decipher in Armageddon, which indeed could easily be a nazi propaganda film (well, in a way), not so easy with Star Trek, almost the greek legends and heros of my childhood.   And Star Wars. What's wrong with Good fighting against Evil?    'What is thy name?' 'Legion. For we are many.' (Early example of someone who suffered from multiple personality disorder after watching too many stupid movies)

I gotta say I disagree with a lot of posts in this thread. It says in the title 'total beginner'. I don't think recommending $1000+ glass is necessarily a good idea. As great as some of these recommendations are, dropping a large amount of money on a new hobby is never a good idea.

Do a lens cap test and find out yourself. Doesn't take too long.   Record 10 seconds of footage with the same settings at each ISO with the lens cap on. The results might surprise you. I've found with my GH2 ISO 1250 is cleaner than 250.

Taylor Hobson 1" f1.9 (25mm) I think this is another Serital but it's not marked so I can't be sure. It looks very similar to the Serital but it's slightly longer and is slightly bigger in diameter. Focused at infinity at f1.9 and then f5.6 Minimum focusing distance at f1.9 and f5.6 Again the Red box is the BM Pocket Cinema Camera crop I chose the same subject matter for all three lens' in order that people looking to get any of these can have some form of comparison. Although hardly a scientific one. I think I'll dig out my old Arri Schneiders and my Cooke tomorrow...

Taylor Hobson Serital 1" f1.9 (25mm) Another old newsreel lens. Nabbed this one off ebay for £40 ($60) Bargain! Focused at infinity at f1.9 and then f5.6 the Red box is the BM Pocket Cinema Camera crop Minimum focusing distance at f1.9 and f5.6 I'm happy I got a bargain with this one. Not good wide open, but then most lens' aren't. Stop it down a bit and it gets really nice. Should cover the PCC sensor with ease. P.S. Don't judge these shots on their artistic merit, I just shoved the camera out the backdoor...

Taylor Hobson Super Comat 1" f1.9 (25mm) It's an old newsreel lens I picked up when I bought a Filmo a few years ago. Mines not great and it's tiny, which makes it a pig to use, but it works (a minor miracle considering it's easily 60 years old) Focused at infinity at f1.9 and then f5.6 the Red box is the BM Pocket Cinema Camera crop Minimum focusing distance at f1.9 and f5.6 I'm using a red box rather than the canvas resize method because I find it easier to judge the falloff on these old lens'. My file naming has gone a bit pear shaped. Ignore the 'mm' after the f stop value in the picture titles

Original shots first, then graded in DaVinci Resolve* Panasonic G6 - 1080p24 @ 24Mbps Profile: Natural Contrast -5 Sharpness -2 Color 0 Noise Reduction -5 Panasonic GH2 hacked (moon trial 5) - 1080p24 @ ~70Mbps Profile: Smooth Contrast -2 Sharpness -2 Color -2 Noise Reduction -2 Always the same settings on both camera's. All shots at iso 160, with Panasonic 14mm 2.5 (on various apertures). White balance fixed (cloudy). *The grades are just meant to show what happens to the image if you lift shadows for example. Not meant to improve the image. Each shot from both camera's is graded exactly the same, except for the last shot (extreme grade), which is made to match both camera's for brightness/contrast. If you ask me, the G6 eats GH2's for breakfast. On YT the difference isn't that big, the fine grain of the G6 is made into the same garbage as the GH2 because of the compression. On the last extreme grade shot it is pretty clear on YouTube though. Will upload originals later. Here some screengrabs from the last grade (lifted the shadows with a huge curve in a power window on the right). Watch in full res - 1080p! G6 GH2 This almost makes me wonder if I'm doing something wrong with my GH2, but it really does spit out files with bitrates up to 150Mmbps (the scene I posted earlier) with the Moon Trial 5 hack. Anyway. I want this camera!

You can clearly see the better DR of the G6 there though. Less contrasty, far superior highlight roll-off and shadow detail. I'd rather shoot with the G6 for this reason. Same lack of moire and high detail of the GH2, but better colour processing, dynamic range, and noise, and less banding artefacts. 50p, peaking and manual audio level are just bonuses. Fingers crossed for a firmware update release so work can get started on a hack. Considering the much better starting point than the GH2 provided, imagine what a high bit rate hack like Driftwood's work could result in.

I'm surprised Screens Pro cannot see where the frustration is coming from, he just has to open his eyes.   I think Canon's failings fall under many categories.   First there's their very slow product cycle on the good stuff like 7D and 5D, which is totally out of step with the current pace of development. We waited 3 and a half years for the 5D Mark III, still waiting for the 7D update. When the 5D III did finally hit, it didn't meet most people's expectations, even for stills. The Sony sensors in the D800 and RX1 thrash it for dynamic range and resolution. In 2008 Canon had a massive lead vs Sony in CMOS technology. They've not kept up.   Then there's stuff they have simply turned off in firmware. We had to wait a year for 1080p HDMI from the 5D Mark III, despite this being a feature 2009's 7D. They simply flicked a switch in firmware and gave it us. Why wasn't it there in the first instance? God knows what else the hardware can do but they don't allow us to access. 30fps raw burst is a prime example. Magic Lantern simply access a process that is already happening in the camera every time you shoot.   If you look at the raw video feed from the sensor in the 5D2 and 5D3 it is very similar, both have a bit of moire and aliasing in the raw but then the 5D Mark II somehow makes that worse in firmware and the 5D Mark III cures it altogether. Then when it came to the 6D, Canon decided to "un-cure" it, frustrating many 6D owners and forcing them into a more expensive upgrade path. Again, this segmentation is all artificial and very bad for business.   Then there's the conservative approach to innovation. They can innovate with the sensor in a $15,000 camera, but then put the same sensor in a $6000 and $25000 body. As a result, one is needlessly crippled and the other doesn't perform like a $25000 camera, needs external box for 4K, loud fan, etc. When it came to their mirrorless, that was a token gesture towards an important and growing market, and they fucked it up. 2 lenses at launch. Rebel insides in a smaller casing. Chuck it out on the market quick. They have no EVF on any of their stills cameras in 2013. Their live-view AF is the slowest on the market. They are going to be hurt big time by being so conservative. So they have shrunk the Rebel even further, but SL1 again has no new features and the video quality is still dreadful by modern standards (i.e. unchanged since 2009).   Imagine how killer the 1D C could have been if it wasn't just a 1D X with 4K enabled. If the had redesigned it, the profit margin would not have been as large, but they wouldn't then give us the terrible prospect of such a beautiful image trapped in a camera ill suited to deliver it.   Video quality on their APS-C line has stood still since 2009, that's 4 years now. In that time, Panasonic have improved upon the GH1 twice. The GH2 a big leap in image quality, the GH3 a big leap in terms of codec, features and the body. Nikon have gone from being nowhere with the D90 to a camera like the D800, and the superb for the price D5200. They are leaving Canon in the dust for APS-C image quality, be it stills or video.   Canon have reused the same sensor in 8 cameras.   They have used the same Super 35mm CMOS in 3 cameras.   They have released the same flagship DSLR twice, one with a $6000 premium.   That is all very healthy for margins but not good for the customers who expect image quality improvements from their APS-C DSLRs, proper 4K raw recording capabilities from their $25,000 C500 and proper video ergonomics from their $12,000 4K DSLR.   The whole thing is a joke and needs to be changed.   I am sure people in the US arm of Canon are pushing Japan to be more innovative. I am sure the inspiration for Cinema EOS came from the US market and DSLR video. The only way Canon can be saved is by a dramatic intervention from the US.   There's a few more problems too...   - They refuse to support Magic Lantern, even threatening them with legal action if they touch the 1D X, despite the fact Magic Lantern increases sales of Canon bodies - C300 is $15k but still 8bit 4-2-0, leaving very little room under $15k for better specs - 700D a totally reheated 650D with new badge and mode dial - SL1 same crappy image quality in video mode - 4 year wait (maybe 5) for 7D Mark II!! - Little expertise on increasingly important software side - vs Resolve 10!   Canon has to realise that they cannot just do business as usual and carry on leading.   To stay top you have to push as hard as those underneath you.

'Sharpens up nicely.'   nobody in the real world sharpens up ther footage after they shoot it! .......its a photoshop trick I have never in over 20 years sat in an edit suite saying - 'this will sharpen up nicely' and I dont know ANYONE of my colleagues who does it on commercial professional jobs!!   Your Camera should produce a great image straight out the box. I don't have the time or inclination to sit there in an edit suite sharpening up every take in post because the Camera is producing a soft image   You don't do that with Red, Arri Alexa or GH2 GH2 does not need 'sharpening up' it works straight out the box. Canon have a soft codec regardless of how good their sensors are.

I think price vs what you get rules supreme for most.   The big fuss is about the aps-c line-up. Canon just doesn't have a competitive offering there right now imo.

Going to do some more testing today. Going to include some grading tests as well. Just did a very quick test with a detailed scene with the Moon Trial 5 24p hack at 150Mbps. The GH2 does show more detail in this case, but that shouldn't be very surprising :) Sharpness -2 on both camera's. GH2 @ 150Mbps: G6 @ 24Mbps Next week I'll compare the G6 to the EOS 100D ;)

whatdayawanna no   is the dealer a wanker yes. does he give  a shit no will he sell it yes is it worth it in this case no why is he a wanker well like all dealers he cannot be arsed to test. he cannot be bothered to get a camera guy to check it why well he has seen that most stuff sells it does not matter if it is good or bad. it will sell. even people on here have admitted to buying broken iscorama and  a year later are looking for advice.   nothing really outrageous about the price you see if they did test it and it had flaws they would then have to mention it or lie. ignorance is bliss and profitable. sorry for the bad speiling eye is dislaxic iscorama is a waiting game if you want to buy bid in an auction or wait for a sale from a shooter. or spend less money and get the only other magic optic worth a mention  moller 1.5x

Hey Rob....  Forget the rubbish original taking lens...:)  your isco36 optimised FF58's went out today....       

over inflated is that inflated as in bubble. this is not some south sea bubble not some tulip o mania no big bang. show me a pro anamorphic as good as an iscorama or better tell me the price. iscorama is cheap optically under priced it is not about the price but the precious value. how many folks have shelled out silly money for china junk optics with 0.95 f stop. poor copies of leica noct china has little value now or in 30 years. the stuff may work but has little soul that is the modern way we live in satanic times a new dark age. iscorama is from a time a great expansive period 1900-1950s the period when great optical men tried to best each other in design. out do and out wit in light ray trace. sub standard is the norm today . input tapped into computer cheap aspherical optic added a new lens for the hd world. clowns knocking out variations on a theme or just blatant copies average at best. iscorama inflated no way. a good price for those who can make it work. the bolex moller 1.5x is treasure for me has a better look than the iscorama another optical marvel under priced.   we all want a bargain all could do with a free lunch forever. all would like a mercedes for the price of a shit ford. we want the best for next to nothing now godamit and how dare we not be given it. what is the problem. we know the cost but not the value.     the same chap shot this which i like https://vimeo.com/37044086