Leaderboard

Hi Tito, I have the idea to sell before, but i can't.... The image is just beautiful...   Samples... https://vimeo.com/76351311 Password: North

The 2x producing a 3.66 aspect is very wide as you have stated, personally I was surprised that this super wide aspect didn't bother me as much as I thought it would. Interestingly once you go past 2.35 wider aspects become less and less noticeable. That said I always crop my videos to at most a 2.66 aspect when I am not shooting raw. For me the 2x squeeze factor is worth having because you will have more of anamorphic character in your footage compared to a 1.33x squeeze. There are some adapters that have 1.33x squeeze and these produce images with a 2.35 aspect but having to crop is a good thing. Regardless which adapter you choose you will have to post process the footage to un-squeeze it having extra width gives you some flexibility to re-frame your shots. This can be quite handy depending on how you are monitoring your shots. Unless you have the budget you are going to find that dual focus is something you are going to have to live with. Your shots don't have to be locked down, hand held is fine as long as you can maintain the same distance from the subject. A while back I did a shoot of my kid in a play class all hand held with lots of movement. I shot at f2 and was kicking myself thinking that most of the footage was going to be out of focus. So much so that I didn't even bother to look at it for a month or two. Recently I decided to check it out and see what I could salvage and the vast majority of it was good. Anamorphics are restricting and extra work but you don't have to be completely locked down either. Of course things get more and more forgiving as you stop down. I have only been using my anamorphic for a few months so I am by no means an expert. I still need a lot of practice and make mistakes from time to time. Not properly aligning the adapter and getting slanted footage for example. I have found that once you get used to not being able pull focus and have adapted your shooting style accordingly that it is not all that different.

I assume you didn't live through the years before that... Lugging around s35mm adapters and HUGE rigs to try and get something even close to filmic? Paying through the nose for 1/3" sensors and about 7 stops of DR? Seems like it all came a little too fast, too cheap for you and you are now left wondering why that initial rush has slowed down. Alot of us are still kind of amazed that we can get really nice quality, full frame cameras like the 5DIII shooting footage that blows clients away (yes, even without a hack).

I've skipped through the couple articles about this camera and I feel you are wrongly judging this camera Andrew.   I feel you are acting and over analyzing this as if it is the latest and best camera from Nikon and represents the future or direction the brand wants to go in.   But it is not.   It is a specialized camera targeted at a specific nostalgic type of consumers that can afford it.  A side "cool" "retro" camera so to speak.   And it is a retro camera, so obviously it will be retro in terms of features and by definition does not represent the future.  

I would be happy if Nikon resume the production of their perfect COOLSCAN film scanners instead of trying to make digital - look like analogue. There are so many people shooting film now. Nikon is doing everything wrong. That's speaking about photography.

  Then the only other answers we have left is that Nikon is insane. It makes no sense otherwise. They can't be that daft.    EOSHD, yes the GH3 has a Sony sensor... which isn't in the same universe as the sensors going into the high end Nikons. Plus, it's not like the gh3 has raw output either. It's got a decent codec, but nothing that's good enough to be perceived as a threat to Sony's high end cinema Cameras. 

  This video is a commercial for the 5D3, you'll notice the advert link right below the video.  It basically shows someone who doesn't know (or intentionally) f***s-up the BMCC in post.      This is comparing the BMCC to 5D3 h264, not 5D3 raw.  H264 makes the 5D3 look soooo much worse than it actually is. 

I know it is not raw, but have you looked into a 2nd hand Sony F3? I've seen some amazingly cheap prices, kits for $5k or so.... couple it with a BM recorder and you are shooting 10bit S-log at 13 stops DR with alot of nice video features and quality audio.

Indeed, but as Andrew said, like with the D800, they can tell you all they want that it's clean 4:2:2 10 bits from the HDMI, but if it's just 4:2:0 8bits, "rewrapped" in a 4:2:2 10 bits signal, it doesn't matter, it's just the same "crappy" signal in a beautiful box ;) but they get to tell you that it's great, cause they're not actually lying...