Leaderboard

  I'd go for the G6 over hacked GH2 as well. The codec is actually better implemented on the G6 and you don't get a nasty Russian man with personal issues calling you Voldermort into the deal. Bonus!

Wanted to share some stills from the Trump on my D800 from yesterday morning.           Yay nice 2X oval bokeh :)

  No but last time I checked, the 64GB KomputerBay card cost $120 and the Alexa with Codex cost $80,000. Take your pick!

  It takes stating the obvious to new unchartered territory.   When his wife gets in the car, he probably tells her to make sure it has wheels.

For real. Like we've never had the content is king rant here before. Thanks for stopping by bro. We had no idea.. Lol

To learn more about using raw video on the 5D Mark III, get your copy of the EOSHD 5D Mark III Raw Shooter's Guide here What is the real advantage of installing Magic Lantern on your Canon DSLR, specifically in this case the lovely 5D Mark III? Is it possible to finally SHOW it? Yes it is. Here is the most in-depth comparison yet between the standard video mode and raw and why the image quality is worth your attention. [url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11395/real-difference-normal-dslr-video-5d-mark-iii-raw-video]Read the full article here[/url]

Nice! http://www.metabones.com/product/micro-43/canon-fd-lens-to-m43-speed-booster-adapter-73-detail

here we go again

The Mix Pre-D connected to an iPad looks like a great option. 

  lol I'm following you at the rate of a snail, but yes, we're getting there~!

  You can't!  In the way I mean it, 14bits of each primary color.  Looks like I have to go into those "complications".  Camera sensors are monochrome.  They read light be placing little filters over each pixel, either red, green or blue.  Each pixel then "borrows" the 2 other colors it doesn't have.  So if it is a red pixel, it take the green and blue color information from neighboring pixels to create a full 24bit color.  (BTW, they don't work with RGB but YUV, oh this stuff is so f'ing torturous!)  But, for explanation sake...   Let's say we're in a perfect world.  You have 3 color values, each from 1 to 16,000 (red, green or blue).  That means, from those, you can create a full color at 16k x 16k x 16k depth, or 4 trillion!  You can't discern 4 trillion colors.   So now you have more color information than you can physically see.  In the end, we always need to reduce to 16 million.   Here's the rub.  You can't see 4 trillion colors.  The camera can record the 16 million you can see in 8bit video.  So what's the problem?  The camera may not chose the 16 million color values you would chose from a palette of 4 trillion colors.  As the article shows, it is never smart enough to do that.   RAW allows you to  SELECT which colors to scale down to your 16 million painting.  As Andrew said, do you want to start with 4 shades of pink, or 255?  It's all about CHOICE in what you want your final 8bit channel image to be.   Are we getting there?

Hey, many thanks for answering, my question was more something like: As anyone, the actual display i'm looking at right now (99% of us are not on10bits Eizo or FSI displays I guess)  is 8 bits, How can i possibly, on an 8bits display, perceive 14 bits color gradation. I get that the video itself contains the information, but if the display is 8 bits... i only see 8 bits color right ? Just as if it were black and white, i wouldn't see color, no matter what. I know it's tricky and i guess there is something i'm misunderstanding... That's why i'm asking, so i can understand fully this, and maybe at some point give the answer to someone asking the same thing.     Or, were you saying that an 8 bits display is not the same thing actually more colors than 8 bits video ? it's alway 8 bits per channel no ?

  That tripped me up too.  When we speak of 8bits for monitors (255 integer) we mean, per color channel.  As you'll see when you set your display settings, you want 24bit (3 x 8 (byte)).  8bit video delivers about 16million color values--the range of human vision.   When your camera takes a photo/video frame, each sensor pixel is taking a 14bit reading, that is 1 to 16,383 (or something like that).Each pixel actually reads only a red, green or blue value.  Another complication.   Anyway, that number is ultimately converted to 0 to 255. So you're giving up a lot of accuracy about just how much color there was.   In RAW video, you get those 14bit values BEFORE the cameras converts them into 8bit equivalants.  Complex subject, hope this gets you on right track.

  Sorry guys - i had to! I promise i won´t put any videos of flowers nor cats into this forum with this lovely glass! (ok maybe cats) I am sure that my Leica-R taking lenses will fit perfectly with the Iscorama since these lenses were produced at approximately the same time.  

The AA filter / OLPF is a source of great confusion out there.   The truth of the matter is that it has ZERO affect on video.   It only affects the very high frequency patterns - i.e. stuff which occurs subtly over a 36MP still.   It has no affect at the 1080p level. It'd have to be a very strong filter to soften 36MP so much to affect 2MP! No camera has a filter in it this strong as it would impact on the sharpness of stills when viewed at 100%, giving the camera a disservice in photo-orientated reviews and on pixel peeping charts. The only filters this strong are the Mosaic Engineering ones for DSLRs.   Moire and aliasing is 100% down to the way the sensor is scaled - i.e. the way pixels are binned or skipped.   I found out the hard way when I removed the OLPF from my 5D Mark III. Aside from also removing the IR cut filter which made my image purple, it had no affect on sharpness in video mode. Though the IR contamination did give me more dynamic range :)   The Sony rep here is putting out bad info without having ever seen the video output from both cameras and compared. He may as well reel off the spec sheet.   http://vimeo.com/77758977

  so far this guy is an epic poster   thanks for letting us know that you find the topic of the thread youre posting in boring   clearly the rest of us dont. please desist

This technique is a kind of stop motion called pixilation.  You don't see a lot of it nowadays but it was a popular experimental technique in the '80s.  According to the wiki it's a visual effect that goes back at least as far as 1908.  The first time I'd ever heard the term used was Mike Jitlov's love letter to animation and effects in his The Wizard of Speed and Time.

    Porn just took the leap.  I was apprehensive until that happened.  lol.

You don't need to guess. Just count how many different still frames you see.     All you do is place the still image on the timeline and stretch it for however long you want. Frame rate has nothing to do with it.     No worries. Everyone starts somewhere. Open up Windows Movie Maker or something on your computer if you have one. Import a bunch of image files. Place them on a timeline and experiment with making a slideshow. That's basically what's being done here. 

  Sounds like you definitely need to check out the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera then.

SOLD to ch_d! thanks to everyone. 

Why not make it $999 since we're dreaming.

  hello friend, you seem lost.   this is a thread about nuances in cinematography: its an "In Depth Test" of Camera A vs Camera B vs Camera C vs Camera D

I had a chance to play with a near final version of the new SLR Magic 1.33x Anamorphic Adapter today with Andrew Chan.     This adapter is a completely new design from other anamorphic adapters I've used. It has unique focusing abilities which give it the strengths of single focus designs like the Panasonic LA7200 with the added capabilities of what you'd find in dual focus anamorphic adapters like those from Bolex or Kowa.    In its normal focus mode, with the SLR Magic 35mm T1.4 CINE II lens, you get a picture that can focus from 2.8m to infinity.   The lens also has a NEAR mode that works as a variable built in diopter. This works by rotating the ring on the anamorphic adapter towards the "near" marker on the adapter barrel when an object is closer than 2m and it moves the rear element of the adapter changing the focus capabilities of the lens. It's easy just to think of it as a macro mode, and something I'll cover more in depth on video when we get a copy of our own.                  You might be wondering, how does this differ from an LA7200? It is a completely different type of adapter.    First, this lens is best pared with the SLR Magic 35mm T1.4 CINE II, which has been beefed up to not have lens slop while the anamorphic adapter is attached to the taking lens. Use the LA7200 enough and it will make even the most robust metal slr lens start to slop from all the weight hanging off the end of the filter threads.   Second, the LA7200 does not work at 35mm, not even close. You can fudge it with diopters, but the edges of the image will be an unfocused mess.    Lastly, this is a brand new lens with a warranty, not something you have to get lucky on an eBay auction. Every lens will work and look the same. If you have a problem, it will be simple enough to get actual support.       Image Quality. I look forward to having more time to shoot with the SLR Magic anamorphic adapter in the upcoming months, but in the few hours I tested it I can give you some of my opinions. First of those being that this adapter is in no way a copy of any anamorphic adapter that has come before it. Testing the lens at infinity gives this away quickly as none of the other adapters can do 35mm without some degree of edge blurring.    When the lens enters it's "NEAR" mode that works as a variable diopter, you can get some fantastically sharp images as well as exaggerated bokeh. The lens appeared to be out resolving my BMCC, which is something my LA7200 could never do, so I'd like to see what it does at even higher resolutions.    The closest new and available 1.33x option that you could compare would be a Hawk V-lite 35mm at somewhere over $40,000. For a fraction of the price I think SLR Magic adapter+SLR Magic 35mm T1.4 CINE II lens will be a steal.        Let me just say that I love the way this lens flares now. I know it might change before the final version ships, but the coloring reminds me of the coating on our Isco 36 and Bolex Anamorphot 8/19. Blue is nice too, but those can be faked with VANTAGE Blue-Vision® Flare Filters.     Finally, I'd like to think this will be a great product that should serve as a new starting point for getting into anamorphic lenses. It should greatly decrease all the unhappiness that comes with spending hours searching and bidding on lenses on ebay just to find out an anamorphic lens is broken or out of alignment. When this releases you can focus your time on learning how to shoot with anamorphic lenses, rather than focusing on the mechanics of just trying to get the lens to work with a bunch of adapters and wasting hours on forums and searching vimeo and youtube for answers. 

Shhhhiiiit.... If you pack these specs in a Gh body I can walk around with for $3k, let's do it. This whole 8 bit thing needs to just go away Though. Seriously. The technology is there. Just, be done with it already. I hope by the end of next year i never see that spec on an announcement again, because to me, what's the sense in packing a camera with a 4k, 200+ Mbps codec and bottle necking it with 8-bit? So you can see all of that banding in pristine quality? (1-DC?).