Leaderboard

What this guy said. Read it. Believe it. Comprehend it. Out of all the variables needed to make good motion pictures, gear is such a small part of the equation. I wish there was less fretting about equipment. With all this modern technology it's all good enough to allow incredible creations...so create. Or, collect, I guess. I know I'm guilty of just wanting some new "thing" just because it's cool. I have a weakness for collecting gadgets. But the fact is we all have better imaging power in our hands than most film makers did in the 60's and 70's. The bigger question is, what am I going to do with it?

36mpx full frame still from the Sony A7R with a sonnar 85mm and Iscorama 36:- http://www.dropbox.com/s/fz1paa2uj1w5avo/A7R_Sonnar85mm_Iscorama36_f11.tif The Iscorama is optically clear. Clearer than air. It's like nothing was put in front of the taking lens. Unreal. it would be really cool if we built up a database of high quality tif's of anamorphic setups for reference.

Is that aimed at me? I guess not because I never made that strange assumption. ^

To me that sounds like it might be just an internal reflection rather than an actual bug software/hardware bug. A kind of a glare reflection which appears only during very specific circumstances; when bright enough a spot light source is shining straight into the sensor from a specific (low) angle, and then the shiny surface of the sensor gets reflected back to the lens, and then some of the lens surfaces or a filter surface (or some other reflective surface) will produce this ghost glare. I've seen something (kinda) similar happen before, under certain circumstances. The easiest way to minimise it was to use a lens hood. I'd try reproducing that scenario with different bright lights straight into the lens from varying angles, trying to create various glares on purpose, and then experiment with different lenses, filters and perhaps even the Speed Booster, if possible. Chances are the stripes will only appear with certain lens and light angle (and colour) combinations. It it really is what I believe it is, I believe it will make no difference if it's a still photo or video. The reflection may just be easier to spot and reproduce in a video clip. Well, just a thought, might be worth investigating.

Shot a short video with the Lomo Anamorphic 35mm Square Front on the GH3. It's true that the OCT18 version is difficult to work with, so I managed to make it work. The close-ups were shot with hand-held Hoya diopters. The simple rig that I used. ( )

While there is no doubt that the 4K codec brings many advantages, it's just plain wrong to say 4K is better when many factors (mainly the sensor) contribute to the image properties. So will the Sony 4K handycam have better DR over Alexa because it is 4k and Alexa is not? I can see where your coming from but stating that 4k has better DR just because it's 4k is plain wrong. Now while the 4K codec is impressive on paper, the same qualities could have been given to a 1080p codec at much lower data rates with similar results (other than resolution obviously). Why would they now create a killer 1080p codec when they are trying to force 4K down our throats? Business men in suits have given the massed 4K, 99% if consumers and professionals alike have not requested it.

My first trial with slow motion at the pier, going for a hyper-real technicolor grade. Continuous recording at 1600x500. Also shot some regular 24p stuff.

Interesting post Kays. I think this camera actually sounds really nice. While there certainly seem to be some shortcomings, it sounds far better thought out than the Blackmagic CC/PCC in a number of ways. The ability to see how much storage space and battery power is remaining, and the choice to use an internal four hour battery (rather than necessitating the use of a lot of small swappable batteries) make it seem far more usable, especially for shooting without a rig. The Pocket is very cool tech but in a number of ways it's a bit of a muddle design wise - what's the point of a pocket camera that's not really usable without a rig? Yes, it's cool that it can be rigged up in any way you choose, or go stealth with it, but I would prefer a consistent design vision and a commitment to a workable form factor. I would say though, these cameras sound like they could compliment each other really nicely. Why just use one body or film stock all the time? Different shooting situations call for different tools, and after the passive M43 mount for DB is released, these two cameras could make a great raw shooting kit for use with a single set of lenses.

I bought a GX7 with 20mm lens for £600 and thanks to it, I decided not to sell my Kowa 8Z. With focus peaking and smaller body form, compared to D7100, the whole setup is now way usable than I'd ever asked for.

  Interesting suggestion, will give it a go if it becomes a problem again!

Today I bought a Nikon D5300 for review, and a bit of shooting, but mainly for the blog with intention of sending it back after.   Well, so far it is surprising me.   The dynamic range with the flat picture profile is really quite something. Head to toe with ProRes on the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. I'd put it at 12 stops. Very good colour and good shadows, and again good low light performance. The codec in 1080/60p seems ok so far too. The main drawback seems to be the cheap-mid-range Nikon ergonomics (not enough buttons and dials). Wish they had put this video mode (and articulated screen) in the D7100 instead.   But so far so good peeps!

This is going off topic, but from the online discussions I've seen, what some folks don't seem to fathom about the whole resolution debate, when talking in the context of a film like The Hobbit, is the characteristics of perceived resolution when the frame rate increases. The faster the frame rate, the more that particular series of still pictures are viewed as more RESOLVED and lifelike...even if the pixel resolution is IDENTICAL and shot from the SAME camera. Everyone seems to focus their discuss pixel resolution, when it (I think) is about the aesthetic issue of slower frame rates. This is an overlooked cinematic effect that shouldn't be ignored on-line, but too often is. (Professionals get it though) Look, here's a straw man for ya: "Oh, I like films shot on the Alexa!" people argue, "It's so much better than everything else. So organic and "pure." Well, yeah. It kinda is, but are you enamored with the cinematic look of the frame rate or the actual image resolution? I suggest it's both. If you shot 60p on an Alexa I guarantee you a film purist would take one look at the result and be horrified at the "videoness" of the image. Shoot the same exact scene at 24p on the Alexa, play it back, and the film purist would instantly feel more comfortable. Aside from all that, just watching a film shot in 48p, then played back and displayed at 24p will certainly alter the perceived cinematic aesthetic of the film. It will present different visual characteristic. At 24p you'd be watching every other frame of a 48p shoot and that's all it takes. Watch the footage at it's initially shot 48p and it starts to look more "video/electronic" (and thus less cinematic) to the human eye. You got a camera and monitor that does both 25p and 50p? Shoot 50p and put the clip on a 50p timeline and then on a 25p time line. Watch the difference. Or, shoot a horse race at 50p then shoot another at 25p and go look at the perceived change of the image. You'll see in a hurry it's not an issue about resolution that's altering your idea of what it means for an image to be "cinematic." ...and I'm not even getting into motion blur and shutter speeds, which also greatly alter the perception of moving pictures. Long rant short: It's not just about the resolution.

Got there around 3pm yesterday and hung out for about an hour. These are just my personal impressions from a very limited interaction with the camera and brief conversations with Joe and some of the other attendees. Please keep in mind that these are personal opinions and they might not be entirely accurate or reflect the final camera's functionality. Ok, here goes: First let me say that Joe seems like a very passionate and super nice guy, there is a lot to be said about someone who pursued an idea a saw it through realization, kudos to him and his team! I also want to say that the image quality that I saw on the computer (the camera records CDNG files with Aiff audio) was very pleasant and detailed with low noise and good shadows and highlights. Having said that, unfortunately this camera appears to have a classic case of a solution-looking-for-a-problem, starting from the form factor which doesn't lend itself either to traditional mounting solutions nor to newer DSLR rigs. Sure you can mount it on a tripod, but trying to attach it to a rail system with a follow focus gear is going to be...challenging. I was also surprised at the lack of some screw holes in the body which would come in really handy to attach an external monitor or other gadgets. It does have a hot-shoe flash mount, but I personally avoid those with larger and heavier attachments. The pistol grip is a cool idea, but the camera is fairly heavy (heavier than a 5D with a hefty lens) One's arm would likely become sore after about 20 minutes of holding it. The decision was made to be true to the original and make the record trigger on the handle not latch when pressed to record. While this is the way the original Bolex operated, it would have been nice if a latch option would have been provided. The camera does have a record button on the top which works as expected, but makes one wonder if the pistol grip button will largely be ignored by most operators. The camera features two CF card slots, however all the video is recorded to a non-removable internal SSD 500Gb drive. Why not write directly to easily removable CF cards instead? Methinks if the Blackmagic Pocket Camera can do it, why not the Digital Bolex? The internal drive can hold about an hour-ish and then some worth of video, and the data can then be transferred to the CF cards, or to a computer through a USB 3 slot. Transfer time through USB 3 for about 500Gb worth of data....about an hour. Lens mount is a C-type. This was another bit of odd choice to me, while once again this mount is true to the original Bolex, why require the end user to buy into yet another type of adapter, particularly one which is not used by anyone else? No removable battery...grrrrr. 2K -- The sensor is a super-16mm sized one, shooting at 2K uses the entire sensor, while shooting in 1080p mode crops the sensor down to what Joe described as regular 16mm size. In my opinion, 2K offers neither high enough resolution for re-cropping and enlargement in post, nor is particularly useful as a delivery format for web, festivals, and DVD/Blu Ray where this camera's output is likely going to end up. So why not either stick to 1080 and use the full sensor, or go all the way up to 4K? Last but not least, the price. At over $3k (actually $3600 after the drive upgrade to 500Gb) I am not quite sure how this camera will fare against the Blackmagic Cinema Camera which features a larger sensor, EF or m4/3 mount, higher resolution, swappable media, and already a thriving accessories ecosystem. Will no-rolling shutter and a cool vintage vibe be enough? In closing, I did like the image that I saw quite a bit, and I feel that some of my concerns could be fixed with a firmware update (most notably the gun trigger function and maybe the ability for the camera to write directly to fast CF cards). I'm not quite sure how this camera will do against Blackmagic and whatever else is announced in April, but I wish Joe and his team the best of luck and a great deal of success nonetheless. I applaud Joe for pursuing a dream, and I think this world needs more, and not less guys like him. Despite the potential shortcomings of this camera, I am happy that it exists, and I am happy that people like Joe are able to realize their visions. Once again, these are just my opinions based on a very brief encounter with the Digital Bolex, please take everything I just typed with a huge grain of salt and try to test drive this camera for yourself before you come to a decision on whether you want to buy one or not.

All the parts of my new GH3 with 14-140 lens came yesterday. I used it this morning to record my bowling practice. As a stand alone unit for over 10 minutes of Video I find it unbeatable. These are my impressions that may change after I dial in both cameras. Things I like more about the GH3 1. Unlimited recording 2. Much better AFF 3. More depth of field Things I like more about the D5300. 1. Much better image quality 2. Much better color 3. Much Higher usable ISO

I'm never selling mine. I want to be buried with it. Rich: All the more reason to make a superior cine-mod !

goes to show, the iscorama is ready for whatever new resolution marketing the technology companies throw at us in the next 10 years!