Leaderboard

So, as mentioned a few weeks back, I've just completed the first episode of a webseries shot with anamorphic lenses and MagicLantern raw. For this one, we used a LOMO Foton-A, and there's only ONE Iscorama shot. Episode 2 was almost entirely Isco, except for the very beginning. As soon as it's ready, it'll show up here too. Don't forget to enable the english subtitles, as all dialogues are in portuguese. :P

Yeah the D5300 is definitely the best stills camera option. I watched that RX10 video you posted and I just felt that it's really a TV camera, not a film/art camera. If you were leaning toward the RX10, the G6 would be a good mid point between the two. But yeah I understand you wanting the 5300 for its stills ability too.

Hahaha, ok, I must admit, the one shot that everyone is talking about is my favorite one as well. hahahaha And, yes, it would've been awesome to have a split diopter there! Gábor, here's a couple frames for you! Original DNG, from the camera, and the final version, TIFF. https://www.dropbox.com/s/b7myl8fbts6jk7r/EP1-shot01-ORIGINAL.dng https://www.dropbox.com/s/ykujpup5sid5vq2/EP1-shot01-FINAL.tif https://www.dropbox.com/s/5cffzizzk344nyv/EP1-shot02-ORIGINAL.dng https://www.dropbox.com/s/rvfcvr6qr3xq7q2/EP1-shot02-FINAL.tif https://www.dropbox.com/s/uh3gkhnn6gmwr2y/EP1-shot03-ORIGINAL.dng https://www.dropbox.com/s/t0hnbn6sqqggoyl/EP1-shot03-FINAL.tif

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]

Aside from Blackmagic there's only one other company endeavouring to give us affordable cinema cameras at the moment and that's Kinefinity. The MINI is a smaller cut down version of their S35, shooting 2K uncompressed raw to SSD from a Super 35mm sensor. It has an option for 4K to an external record (Q1 2014) and it's a powerful piece of kit, though I have some reservations about usability. Is the KineRAW MINI the early stages of a new Arri? A Chinese cinema camera industry? Read the full article here

For your Photoshop grading pleasure here are some original Cinema DNG frames hot off the newly updated Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. "A raw video monster in your pocket". Read the full article here

Thought some of you might like to know that Samy's is selling GH3 bodies for $698. I could not believe my luck as I had one in my Amazon shopping cart for a couple of weeks. Then yesterday I saw that the price had gone down from $998 to about $800. So I opened another window to do a separate search for the GH3, it showed that it was even cheaper and that the source was Samy's. Is there something that I am missing here, is it too good to be true, or is Samy's just overstocked?

No doubt the GH3 is a very awesome camera, but it is considerably more expensive than the G6 and considerably bigger. The G6's image is very close to the GH3's and its file sizes are smaller. The G6 EVF is better, and it has focus peaking. Considering we're talking about someone who needs a small camera for travelling, has a certain budget in mind and isn't wanting to do much grading, it's hard to argue that the GH3 is the better option. Yes the GH3 has a headphone jack, but that's one expensive feature if it's the only reason you choose it over the G6. And you'd be sacrificing other features: the focus peaking and good EVF are extremely useful if you're using non-MFT lenses. The GH3 was within my budget but I went for the G6 for similar reasons. I use a small Sony audio recorder (SX1000) Velcro'ed to the side of the camera (and a Sennheiser MKE400) if I need audio monitoring and decent pre-amps with a small footprint. Also, the D5300 is smaller, much lighter and has a more robust body ('monocoque') than the D5200. So the GH3 would be the bigger, weightier option in either case. I'd also find it hard to pay the premium for the GH3 when it will probably be superseded in the GH line with some major spec upgrades in the not-too-distant future (GH5). It is obviously a brilliant camera, and actually at a very good price now, I just don't think it's a very pragmatic choice for certain people right now.

a frame from the t.v. series BOARDWALK EMPIRE…or movie BLACK SWAM…and bmpcc matches it..then I'll buy one

Way 2 go Tito !!! There is a perfect split dioptre shot at 4:13 ;)

Well, this weekend Samys had the GH3 for only $700 US and I decided the RX10 was a better deal for my needs. I have a big rig setup with C100 and want a small stealth portable that will match the C100s resolution from entire 4K sensor readout, and the RX10 does that. BTW I have MFT lenses so total cost was not the issue, total usability was.

I understand you, skiphunt! I'm in the same boat, although I don't need the camera for work, just for fun as I'm trekking in New Zealand coming year and I intend to make a small film of it, in the style of Brandon Li (rungunshoot.com). Having mostly filmed my travels with an ordinary videocamera, I really want the organic look, something like the BMPCC can provide (but unfortunately needs to much gear). What I really like about the RX10 are stabilization (although it's said to introduce moire; see slashcam reports), autofocus (even though I'm always falling for AF because it seems so handy, many pro's do it without. And I myself am in a constant battle with the AF of my regular cams so I think its time to skip it altogether... although something like focus peaking would be very welcome then, don't know if thats available on the D5300). So in the end, two important arguments for the RX10 seem to become less valid. And most importantly, until I see some graded real life footage softening the sterile RX10 look, I tend to go with the D5300... (I heard something about Panasonics upcoming organic sensor with an amazing DR, perhaps thats what the future GH4 and RX10's going to need).

Thanks - sorry been working getting an edit done late for the last few nights and my brain is a bit mushed - by combo do you mean kit? It's very simple - a 550d with magic lantern and a range of helios lenses. Occasionally I held bits of plastic in front of the lens - can't remember if that's in this film or another one!.

@Danyyyel, the reason I'm considering the RX10 is because the first project I want to shoot will likely be while traveling with a backpack in Mexico. Ideally, I'd prefer to have someone very talented shoot it for me and let them carry all the gear and play with all the raw/prores conversions, storage, extra gear, etc. However, the reality is... that the subject matter and project are of high-risk, ie. the content may be completely uninteresting to all but a few. This means, it's not likely I'd be able to raise the funds for a larger production with hired crew. I think I have an idea of an alternate, hybrid way to go about it and creatively use some style that doesn't require the dynamic range of a raw/prores system. It may be that I can at least get a couple extra people to help, but I'm preparing for the worse case scenario, ie. that I have to do all the shooting and pay for it myself. This is the most likely scenario by the way. ;) So, keep in mind that I'll be working solo and carrying everything I need on my back including clothes, batteries, storage, etc. for at least a months time. Keep in mind also that I don't want to have to many variables that can go wrong. I want to know for sure I've got what I need without having to grade it first on location, before I move on to the next location. Also, I don't want to attract too much attention. I want to look as much like some tourist making a home video to avoid the usual questions regarding permits or looking so "professional" that it attracts thieves. I've narrowed it down to the D5300 and the RX10 for the following reasons. The RX10 is small, has a headphone jack and audio level monitoring so that I wouldn't necessarily have to use a separate audio recorder. Sony has long made small recorders with excellent low-noise preamps. I don't know if the RX10 incorporates excellent preamps or not. The RX10 also has a nice lens range for most uses. I've used a small sensor Nikon P7700 compact camera while traveling, and it's range of 28-200 was just about right across the board. Used on this recent moto trip: http://skiphuntphoto.com/moto-southwest-2013 With the RX10, I wouldn't need to bring extra lenses, it's got a click less aperture ring built-in, the image stabilization and auto-focus appear to be very good and accurate on the tests I've seen so far. On paper, this camera meets all of my needs. I practice, from what I've seen so far... the footage looks like it was shot with a video camera and does not have a cinematic, organic look at all. It's definitely sharp and pristine, and the stills look good up to about ISO1600, but the video stuff looks sterile and flat. It may be a talented colorist could pull more out of it though, but I'm guessing that smaller sensor is to blame. Still, it would make producing my project on my own so much more easy than doing it with the D5300 that would require a dual sound system, tripod for stabilization, and relying solely on manual focussing since it's AF appears to be nearly useless. The D5300 is attractive to me because it's only $800... I already have other Nikon glass and SB strobes... so far, it appears that the D5300 is capable of producing a very impressive detailed image in very low light, even beyond iso 6400. This means I'll be able to utilize natural light and reflectors more often than not. The D5300 also appears to be cable of producing an organic/cinematic image with the right lenses. And, it is certainly capable of producing very fine still images that I plan to incorporate into the project as well. Neither of these cameras will require I buy tons of more storage, a faster computer to process raw/prores files, or spend loads of time tweaking grades. Ultimately, I want to have the best possible image with the least amount of light, and have the freedom to stylize the look with a variety of glass. And have a kit that requires the least amount of extra computing power and storage. If I see proof that the RX10 can produce an organic/cinematic image that doesn't look like a very sharp digital video camera... then I'd have to seriously consider the RX10. My guess is that when it comes to the pure image in low light with detail and low non-distracting noise, with my stated constraints.... the D5300 will likely serve me better. I don't know the right answer to be honest. All I know is that I don't want to get distracted by all the extra variable that go into a current raw/prores work flow. I'm posting stuff here because I'm interested in those who pay attention to the pixel minutia, etc. all the time, to tell me I'm wrong, why I'm wrong, and what would be a better solution. So far, going by my own parameters and budget... it looks like either the RX10 or D5300 could work just fine. Which is great, because I'm looking forward to getting my head out of the pixel-peeping pool and out into the shooting world with whichever camera I pull the trigger on. :)

Keep on posting more of these as they become available, I'd love to see more :) I loved the composition of that shot where she walks down the stairs while he hides behind the pillar - great composition with the wide aspect ratio. Also very cool environment, those are some crazy abandoned buildings! Are those to be found in Sao Paulo?

Looks great, Tito. I haven't seen the Foton used in a modern narrative piece before and it really shines. What a wonderful location you have there. I am curious to see what happens next!

  This makes me extremely scared to keep using it :)

I got an Audio Technica 4047 mic and an Audio Technica 4053B mic. One is much longer than the other one but they cost about the same. I set both up to record dialogue between two people for a video I was shooting and the 4053B sounded MUCH better than the 4047. The 4047 sounded like I was in a soundproof studio and nothing else was around. When playing the video with the 4047 audio, it didn't fit right at all. But the 4053B sounded so natural and made me feel like I was actually there. It didn't sound closed off and isolated like the 4047. Why such a big difference?

Half the things I try with RAW end up no-where--just can't figure it out. Then one day it clicks. Last night I was finally able to create a video that shows the bayer pattern recorded in RAW, before debayering. I hope to do more in the future. I wish I had seen a video like this early on, so I would have visually grasped the importance of what de-bayering algorithm is used. Also, would see why one dead sensor pixel is insignificant. https://vimeo.com/79857693

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