Leaderboard

markm's recent forum topic about Philip Bloom's Digital Bolex review seems very skewed in favour of bigotry when compared to more objective and rational responses. I'm beginning to wonder if his topics are neutral. What do others think? ;)

2 x Red Epic Dragons 1 x Kowa anamorphic set Massively impractical, completely pointless and it will probably bankrupt you. Might be fun though. :) Or just keep the money, move to Cuba and change your name to Miguel.

This assumption comes up too often, but as Sean was saying, it's completely wrong. Wide angles have been used with great results on probably all genres, it's a matter of choice. You say wide lenses are rarely used in serious films when actually comedy might be the genre where they are used the least! The Harry Potter films got more serious towards the end and most shots were 21mm or even 18mm, and there's tons of other examples out there, it's a stylistic choice, not something imposed by the genre. Not all horror films look the same, not all action films look the same, not all comedies or dramas look the same... the genre has very little to do with which lenses you should use, the same way the lenses you use will not define a style alone. And please... don't feed Mark.

Yes. It's his ideas and his writing. His opinion. He's not entitled to do anything beyond that. If he has a favorable initial impression over one piece of gear to another, that's fine. He was enthusiastic for the C100 awhile back, but that isn't a viable camera for a lot of people. Big deal. He's not doing a "Consumer Reports" market study, he's writing His Thoughts about a camera. Welcome to the internet, BTW, hope you like it here.

because the Bokeh is so strong to not tell the difference :P Copyright Attila - see thread http://forum.mflenses.com/visionar-109mm-f1-6-cine-projector-lens-on-nex-t51470.html

Goto to the link at top to see how Attila controls iris, I think he uses EOS/Nex with inbuilt iris, a G6 equal is prob available as well

I'm sorry, I wish I could but some things still need addressing because I'm not fully convinced... If that was the only thing that he'd written, if that was a paragraph on its own or a single line reply you would be correct. But you're cherry picking and/or fixating on one line without placing it into the context of the paragraph it's in. You're going to continue to confuse yourself if you don't take context for the entire thought into account before trying to be a grammar nazi and throw discussions needlessly off track. Here we can agree and you shouldn't throw stones since you've done it yourself in this thread. Um, no, you're wrong again. Anamorphic is not printed on Super 35mm or a Super 35mm format. In fact it can be considered the antithesis to Super 35mm. Also, anamorphic would never be "printed" on Super 35mm but films shot Super 35mm were routinely printed to anamorphic release prints. Both Super 35 and anamorphic 35mm are 4-perf 35mm formats. Super 35mm is full silent aperture and spherical and an acquisition format. Anamorphic 35mm is both an acquisition and release format. In the case of what I was responding to my tone might have been a response to the mentioning of "perfs" which is an irrelevant component to FOV given the context of "anamorphic". By this time all hope for clarity for the OP had virtually been lost and the thread was a complete mess. Before you can champion standards and precise thinking you need to also be correct in your precise use of standards. Seriously, dude. I welcome anyone to point out when I'm wrong about anything. You're the one going on about "standards" and misuse and have been the most un-knowledgeable poster here. I would also like to point out that I'm likely in the 1% of this board that's actually worked extensively with 35mm material and in the context of my work I have to be precise. It's why I absolutely loathe the whole concept of "crop factor", because I consider them imprecise bullshit and often completely irrelevant when introduced into a motion picture conversation. I was paying you a compliment by originally not wanting to believe you were this wrong here, hence the "troll" comment. I fully admit aggression though. I'll own that. You better be capable of bringing it if you want to dispute or argue something with me. You better be able to actually argue, not simply state an opinion. I don't respect opinion I respect argument. If I'm wrong about something, I'm wrong and I'm not too proud to admit it. But you had better be able to prove it and back it up. Put me on ignore if you like.

cool do try the Schneiders as you already have them the bokeh is superb

the G6 produces a very very sharp image better then my hacked Driftwood GH2 at 170mb/s please take into consideration you are looking at highly compressed frootage on youtube/ vimeo and they do not state what lenses they are using , a soft lens on a Red Epic will produce a soft image I use Carl Zeiss lenses on my G6 and it is razar sharp and holds up well against Red Epic footage when in the edit suite

my favourite lens I use on all jobs is a 50mm Full Frame Equivilant lens so the Canon 5d it is 50mm on my apsc 550d it is 35mm (as I dont have a 32mm lens like Roger Deakins!) on my micro 4/3 Panansonic G6 its 25mm I find it gets used everytime as the main starting point for planning shots and the main master take I do first of each scene.

All the confusion comes from the crop factor terminology, which only makes sense if you take a lens calculated for a different sensor size. And even there, focal length stays focal length. The only siginficant and not relative number that changes is the FOV angle. 50mm fullframe seem to equal 46,8° (for 3:2! - source: Wikipedia). Somewhere on blackmagicuser.net there is a large table, where someone has applied the formula to a bunch of lenses popular for the BMCC. Perhaps we should learn to estimate this to avoid misunderstanding. You got me wrong. Everywhere you read people are desperate to find a lens with a FOV > 80°, without which they consider themselves under-equipped. I just said everything over 70° is suitable for an action cam and really is not very sensible for narrative filmmaking (exceptions prove the rule). Sure enough: My favourite director, Stanley Kubrick, used extreme wide angles very often. For two reasons: 1. He liked to show the actors from head to feet. 2. He actually liked the distortion of perspective, when he moved the camera (I think he cited Welles). If there was a standardization in 'the industry', I wouldn't care.

Nobody said Alexa did full frame. Nobody put the "full frame" label on a Super 35mm film. You have been confused this whole time it seems though I should also point out that you should not put the Super 35mm label on a digital film shot on Alexa. It would be acceptable to apply the Super 35mm label to a particular sensor, regarding its size. It is not acceptable to apply the label Super 35mm to any motion picture shot on Alexa (or any other digital camera). VistaVision is the common brand of "full frame" 35mm for motion pictures and the only reason it was even brought into this discussion was due to what seemed like odd confusion in your contribution to the thread. If you're talking motion pictures and "full frame" you're talking about VistaVision because that's what there is. This should clear things up for you: First, you misread Andy's post regarding the photography of Skyfall. Andy was agreeing with Axl's erroneous theory that there's a preference and/or standardization in motion picture photography on an FOV equivalency to a 50mm lens shot on a "full frame" camera. Andy was not saying Skyfall was shot "full frame" (which would mean shot VistaVision (or on a 1D or a 5D)). He stated that the 32mm lens favored on that production was close to the FOV of a 50mm on a "full frame" camera. Go back and re-read it. He then re-iterated to you that he wasn't saying the film was shot "full frame" but on Alexa. You then asked whether the Alexa shoots "full frame". You then got multiple replies that it did not including info relevant to the OP's thrust for this thread, confusion over 35mm film and "full frame" 35mm as it relates to motion pictures. For all intents and purposes, VistaVision is how "full frame" relates to 35mm motion pictures, end of story. A brief anomaly and mildly interesting historical footnote. You then stated the redundant, obvious fact to Andy that the Alexa doesn't do VistaVision. At this point I was just giving you the benefit of the doubt in offering that you were trolling us. Sorry to seem mean. I really hope you get it now.

if you are desperate and want a quality original over china copy i will have some more achromatic close up lens in 2 weeks. +1 doublet 82mm +0.25 doublet 82mm +1 is older more classic design single coated slight yellow tint match iscorama well as it is classical recipe it is heavy ish. the + 0.25 the glass has been made super thin to cut down on weight. both have been designed to offer achromatic correction covering 5d size sensor. end of feb i will also have some +0.65 76mm new doublets new original designs price alas is gonna be at least £350 sterling. each batch is only 8 pieces

It varies depending on how much needs doing - but mine cost US$225+postage and there was also a tax charge. It's definitely worth it!!!

downscale shite 4k to 1080p and you have great 1080p. hence the popularity of the 1DC

The "sharper" aspect has to do with the shutter speed, not the frame rate. When you increase the frame rate you're also increasing the shutter speed. Shooting with a high shutter speed at 24fps produces the same spatial crispness just without the temporal fluidity that the higher frame rate would have given it. In the 48-60fps range your brain chemistry changes how it interprets visual stimulus. At these speeds it's treating it as something happening live and now. That doesn't mean that you consciously accept what you're seeing as real, because you don't suddenly forget you're watching a movie and sitting in a theater but your brain is interpreting the imagery as something that you're witnessing in realtime. This can create certain involuntary reactions to what you see (good for novelty/theme park films). All of the research into this phenomenon was done a long time ago by Douglas Trumbull. As a measured scientific fact this is something that Peter Jackson needlessly screwed up on, either because he failed to research previous HFR for narrative attempts or because he failed to properly interpret the data (as well as appreciate the absolute flop that ShowScan was). He likely thought that the very real changes in brain chemistry that happen when a viewer is stimulated this way would aid the audience's suspension of disbelief but it works in the opposite way as well. HFR allows the audience to see through the veil of pseudo-realism that works for narrative films (that used to also count on the impressionistic recording of light and color by celluloid which added 50-75% more production value to what was being photographed in the case of miniatures, mattes and make-up) and perceive what's actually happening before their eyes: people playing dress-up, with heavy make-up on, carrying props that look like expensive items from a Halloween Store.