Leaderboard

Hi, I'm not really going to defend Nikon on the way they design the D5300, yes controls are real shit. But over all I'm going to point out that image quality is really nice and you can shot a feature with it if you want to. SHIT I'M SHOOTING MY LAST FILM ON A D7100 AND D5200!!! Here I share a TEASER of it (IM SORRY IT STILL DON'T HAVE ENGLISH SUBS), its still private, the password is: teaser. Enjoy ;)

This is the weirdest sentence. It's like a loopable logical fallacy. Change the word 'despite' to 'because of' and it'll make sense. :lol:

As I mentioned, nothing on the market is going to make amateur videos of your family look better than 5-axis stabilization. For the record, PP stabilization on extended clips is typically lousy, not to mention time consuming to accomplish.

Be sure to check out the GH4's new trick - internally recorded '1080p' 4:4:4 with 10bit luma, at EOSHD here One of the first to receive a Blackmagic Production Camera in the UK (hoping to get mine next week for a review, shipments allowing) is James Miller, Philip Bloom's friend and frequent shooting partner. As this impressive footage shows even though the camera is designed for general production rather than cinema, I am not missing that BMCC dynamic range here. The footage looks wonderfully cinematic and the camera appears to be a powerhouse of image quality, given the right handling, good light and material. Read the full article here

There were a lot of issues with that review, if I remember correctly, it came out just after the thing was released and was much discussed over on BMCuser. I have seen a lot of twitter people with their hands on the adapter about to test who suddenly go quiet or have posted nothing. There was one on the GH4 week before last. But no footage. Waiting for some of that before pulling the trigger.

I think that Cineform Studio free version (now called GoPro Studio 2.0) can do this. In step 1, convert your file to CFHD (in the same resolution). It is inflated to a 10-bit file. Step 2, select file. Step 3, export to custom settings, choose MOV container, scale down to 1080p, you can choose Film scan 2, which is the highest quality that can preserve the details of a 4:4:4 footage. Update: Just tried this with my Galaxy Note 3 which shoots 4K 4:2:0 8-bit at 50Mbps AVC. Looks a million times better than native 1080p. I also tried dropping the same 4K file into After Effects CC working in 16bpc. Created a sequence and exported to DNx 350X or 440X 4:4:4 10-bit...Looks different than Cineform (CFHD) workflow above. Not sure which is better to be honest.

It may not be as easy as one would think. When ML sets the EOS-M to 24fps to shoot RAW video, the display goes crazy in photo mode because the camera wants to show that at 30fps. IN other words, Olympus my run all the video out through a 30fps timer. It may be built into read only chips. Firmware can only do so much. It may be able to shoot in 24fps, but not display it, for example. A lot of what these cameras do is "hard-wired" into CODEC and sensor IO chips. Olympus has a further problem of corporate problems that probably don't help them in focusing in on their mirrorless cameras.

Wow really thank you guys!!! Nice u liked the teaser of "Black or White" (that is the english title) We are almost 70% of finishing shooting the film and I'm extremely happy with the overall results. Here a got a frame grab of what we shot this saturday: This Nikon are powerful, yes they have their flaws but is the same way when first canon appeared, just try a little bit and you can get something nice. PS: obviously next time I'll try the GH4 :)

I'm not that awe struck either, but I'm not judging that fast. That being said, I've never found many video's made with the BMCC 2.5k or BMPCC that I liked. 5D is a different story. This is, I think, the main difference: BMCC: Made to look like film 5D RAW: 25 frames of actual photographs (which is what the 5D was build for) It's just personal preference

You forgot the "Baby Photo Mode", I don't understand how he managed to work around that glaring flaw. Maybe if more people started posting movies like that and start to discuss what you actually CAN do with these kind of "dead" camera's that would certainly be better then staring at pixels and citing numbers.

I'm not overly impressed with James MIllers Blackmagic video. Thats not to say its a very capable camera, but minus the global shutter, I much prefer the more filmic image of the BMCC and BMPCC.

You deleted your poor example I see? and changed your username? Come on man, why are you here other than to try and play devils advocate? Your discussion was moot over at the cinematogray.com forums. If you're going to come onto a forum signing up specifically to try and belittle enthusiasts of anamorphics at least have something to back up your bold statements. Until we see you provide a direct comparison of your solution versus a well arranged anamorphic solution such as those i have mentioned, your debate is moot.

No, not in DIY film making, that's for sure. But I've mired myself in the tech for decades. I do enjoy it and don't find it daunting. It's just that, for me, digital imaging has finally gotten to the point where it's so technically democratized that I feel I absolutely have to focus on the more important aspects of the craft. I've too often ignored the art to play with the newest buttons and switches. I'm now feeling that such propensity is not going to serve me well in a DIY film making career moving forward. Those switches and buttons are not as expensive and exclusive as they used to be. Anyone can afford them. I just saw a 5DII for sale on craigslist for $350. Put that camera and a cheap 50mm prime lens in the hands of a talented artistic kid and there's no limit to what she/he could do. And the gear is so good, even if it's not "the best", it will support and even improve their creativity...as you allude to. Sorry. I'm hijacking the thread. I know gear talk is the prevue of this forum and sensor stuff is the main part of it. Have at it and I'll shut up.

A pretty extensive review

To be fair, this is two completely different angle setups at two completely different focal lengths, probably using two completely different lenses at completely different focus points. Not very scientific of a test. I could make a GH1 look like it has better resolution than a RED if asked. Image sharpness, lighting, focus, lens quality, etc. can all make or break an image regardless of resolution.

I wish we could have some sort of global network in which Letus could share video tests of its products with the people.

single focus, yellow flare, 1.75 or 2x , for my Full Frame and adapted on a 50mm without vignetting like crazy? a person can dream alright? 600- 700 euros for me

It would be great if someone with access to a Canon 1D C tested this.

come on guys. the image below is shot with what looks like a lens that is twice the focal length. obviously the framework on that derelict pier is going to ping more on the image below - it fills twice the amount of imaging area!. and the image on the bottom appears to me to have seen less subtle sharpening in post. Finally, depending on the lens and the light source the edges of the framework are going to bleed differently due to the contrast differences between sky and framework. Those grabs are less than worthless in the debate

fuzzynormal, think about what you're saying. Why do you set the aperture to be 2.8 vs f8. Why might you not use f22 if you want everything in focus? Why would use use 25fps in Europe, but not the U.S.? Why would you turn sharpness down in the camera? Why wouldn't you expect to use your pancake lens with an adapter on a camera not designed for it? Why might you use a Blackmagic camera for stuff you plan on showing at your local theater, but would use a GH3, say, for an on-line video series? You think more like an engineer that you realize ;) Andrew has argued this before. You can't separate the technical from the artistic. Yes, you DO NOT have to be a technical expert to create great art. That's why movie-making is the most collaborate of efforts. No one can know/do it all. You have to have multiple experts. However, if you are doing this yourself, YOU want to know as much as possible. For the guy-and-a-dog filmmaker, this site is an oasis. Most people here are not learning the tech to be "curious and cool". They're learning it to be better artists. This is how I got here. I've never liked skin tones in compressed video. I come from a film background. I tried all kinds of things, but nothing worked. Then I read a blog post here by Andrew on the 50D and how it was shooting RAW video (which I had no idea about). So I bought his 50D guide, a camera, and tried it. I just followed Andrews step-by-step instructions. The first clip changed my life. And I've been here every since, learning and sharing my knowledge and clips with others. I admit that I get lost in the weeds in the technology, which becomes counter-productive artistically. We all do. I think that's why Andrew shot his latest video in the dark with a non-RAW camera using internal stabilization. That's a real video, a real work of art, for a real client. Andrew has amazing cameras. He could have shot with RED. But he shot with the Olympus because his technical knowledge told him what would be THE BEST EQUIPMENT TO REALIZE HIS ARTISTIC VISION. You can get into the technology and still use a super-8 film camera! One does not preclude the other.

Not tryin to be a troll here but my first reaction was the same as JHines, I felt that the BMPC 4k wasn't as sharp and detailed as a 4K footage is suppose to look like. And am not talking about the grading or time of day it was shot. The "Genesis" video from the 5D3 ML RAW does look sharper and more detailed than this BMPC 4K.

i would say it's because of it's price. A new anamorphic adaptor for roughly 1500/2000$ it's a little pricey.. And with so little test footage from it it's hard to make the jump and buy it

Maybe it's just the grading but maybe that extra stop of DR could have delivered more details, even more in the shadows, it looks cinematic but it ended up a bit too contrasty for me.

This really is NOT the same as "truncating" to 8 bit and then re-inventing data to get 10 bit. More data really is there to begin with! David lays the math out neatly: 4, 8-bit values combine to make one 10 bit. Easy math isn't it? (256+256+256+256=1024). In other words you have 4 pixels each with a value between 0 and 255, which gives you 1024 possible combined values. I asked David Newman the same general question about downsampling earlier in the week and got this reply: "Very nicely, overkill even. 4:2:0 maps to an effective 4:4:4 with root-2 the image size. So 2.7k 4:2:0, is a nice 1920x1080 4:4:4 -- notice 2.7K is one of GoPro video modes partly for this reason." For those who don't know, David Newman is not just "some software guy from Gopro" - He invented the Cineform Codec and is clearly technically/mathematically gifted. I don't think the workflow needs to be complicated either. Set up your NLE with cineform codec installed (free from GOPRO) and then render an intermediate file with the correct resolution/luminance bits/colour sampling specified in the codec dialogue box. Looks to be a really good camera!

That's why I don't really care all that much. I'm the type that would just rather use the dang things to make something interesting and call it good. I mean, it's curious and cool to know the tech, but hardly a priority for making something artistic. Good for you if you want to delve in though. Lord knows I'm not inclined to be an engineer.

I guess we just have to wait and see... going to run a bunch of tests tomorrow and see how close I can get. At the end of the day it's all about experimentation and having fun.

Maybe I'm not alone here being an owner of the Bmcc, but does it seem that nearly everything these (black magic) cams crank out is tinted blue?

Out of curiosity i searched for some test footage of the cinemorph in partnership wit ha wide angle adaptor just to check to see if I was maybe being a bit harsh on the setup you propose. This video seems to back up what I mean :- http://youtube.com/watch?v=fbiNdfHTtfU Yes, the defocus distortion is there like anamorphic - almost, but damn it looks forced. Even at 1080p you can see how both the cinemorph and the wide angle adaptor are degrading the image quality to the point where discussion about resolution are null and void. Now, maybe you have a higher quality wide angle adaptor and a better taking lens combination than what this test was shot on, but if we now go to something shot on a 5dmk3, helios 44 and iscorama 36 you will see a stark difference in the overall image - expose differences aside, even in then sun, the setup in the link above will never, and i mean never compete in resolution, cinematic aesthetic , or in overall beauty terms.

If a pixel in the camera reads 14 bits of data you CANNOT get all of it back once you truncate to 8 bits of data. Certainly, there will probably be modest color/luma improvements by downsampling fomr 4K, but only within its 8bit dynamic range. That is to say, IN PRACTICE, if you shoot a scene that falls within the CODEC's dynamic range output you may get better color nuance through average of neighboring pixels. But if the neighboring pixels are choppy then you're just going to create artifacts. However, you cannot get values from those RAW pixels that were out of the 8bit range they took from the 14bits. I don't mean to be rude, but you're confusing color bits with compression bits. People who read this thread who think the GH4 is going to do what the Blackmagic cameras, ML RAW, or high end RAW based cameras do should understand this.

Raw is a different thing entirely to 10bit 4:2:2.   Raw is just the 1s and 0s from the sensor. Everything else like bit depth, sampling, debayering, compression, encoding, comes later.   So 10bit 4:2:2 does not have mailability close to a raw photo actually.   The advantages of recording to a high bitrate is that the image doesn't break up when the movement or scene gets too complex for the codec. Also a finer more film-like noise grain is maintained.   However the stuff you can do with raw like changing the white balance entirely in post as if doing it in camera with no side effects, you cannot do with even the best RGB / YUV codec in 10bit 4:2:2, like ProRes.

let's make this even simpler, and use a dynamic range to show why you can't always resurrect higher bit depth (even with error diffusion): Assume there are two types of A/D conversion: 1 bit (taking on the value of 0 or 1) 2 choices 2 bit (taking on the values of 0 1 2 3) Let's assume that analog values are: (0.1) (1.2) (2.0) (2.1) (3.0) (4.1) and that A/D conversion assigns the closes possible digital value. 1 bit A/D conversion becomes: (0) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) 2 bit A/D conversion becomes (0) (1) (2) (2) (3) (3) at half resolution you get either: (0) (2) (3) or (1) (2) (3) either one represents 3 levels of light , which you cannot represent in just 1 bit. Is this a contrived example, yes. But the point is to try and show they are not mathematically equivalent.

Really didn't think this looked all that great, especially compared to his work here -

What camera does real acquired 4:4:4 though? Not many, especially not at $1999.   Let's see the end results and compare to 10bit 1080p 4:2:2 on other cameras and then judge it.   The theory holds tight mathematically.

The BM pocket aint consumer level. It's nearly impossible to use for anything pro, let alone for consumer use... The average consumer doesnt spend £300-£400 on media to get an hours worth of recording time, a decent evf, rigging, and lenses to fulfil consumer purposes. The gh4 will deliver everything a consumer needs while also servicing the enthusiast, professional and semi pro sectors.

Well, for me the biggest pro of G6 is the viewfinder. I'd suggest to go to a nearest camera shop and take your memory card and try them out. Not only the quality, but the handling as well. Good luck.

I wonder if Panasonic and Olympus came to an agreement when m43 was created. In order to not step on each others toes, Panasonic went for more video-focused cameras, whilst Olympus aimed at the pure photography market.

It's a combination of an unsmooth pan and judder from panning too fast for the distance to your subject. Explanation here: http://kb2.adobe.com/community/publishing/908/cpsid_90843.html See the "seven second rule"

I used to see a lot of such trash when I was 16. Rutger Hauer as van Helsing looks like the B-version of Anthony Hopkins in Coppolas Dracula. My, what a fine film that is! See the DVD/BD and turn on Coppolas comments. They were advised to use greenscreen instead of old school matte paintings, multiple in-camera exposures through matte boxes (the original purpose, hence the name), on-set light effects, stop motion, reverse time and many other Méliès-like tricks, but Coppola had it his way. Watch this scene: The extremely artificial colors, daring. Carefully, almost lovingly composed. What powerful performances of all! Note, how at 3:07 Reeves' face is distorted by short focal length. Note, how sparingly and appropriately sDoF is used. Just for fun compare the Argento trailer to this scene. Two years ago, I helped a friend of mine to dress a set for a student film (big budgeted for a student film, but we weren't paid). It featured a canary, the pet of a lonesome old man, who kills all his 'birds' in despair when the solitude becomes unbearable. The rooms were supposed to reflect the sentimental hell of this character, dark oak furniture like coffins, light from outside (fat HMIs on a scaffold), much bibelot. When finally the vet arrived with the canary in the (of course) golden cage, we immediately felt pity for it. A professional TV DoP (actually less than a DoP, in german Kamera means more or less operator of main camera) filmed with a Red. During the shoot I mused if with all these high contrasts I could have done anything with my then new GH2, and decided, no, there would be banding and videoish clipping most of the time. Some months later, we were invited to the premiere, but I was there anyway, because I was the projectionist. Big letdown. Nothing of the depressing atmosphere we created was in the final film. I know I'm a lousy photographer, but now I'm convinced that without the fancy HMIs I could have done better with my GH2. Looked as videoish as the Argento trailer above. Therefore: Yes, the HDSLR-look is somewhat more pleasing at first glance compared to ordinary small-chip camcorders. But in the end, this makes less than 10% of the overall production value.

It's Chinese New Years! Got my SLR Magic Anamorphot just in time to get all the celebrations: Food, festivals, and Lion Dances! I walked around getting footage with my Canon 5D mkIII using Magic Lantern's RAW Hack. The SLR Magic Anamorphot is very sharp and it is easy to use. There is slight vignette on the footage because my Vari-ND fader is 72mm, the front of the SLR Magic Anamorphot is 77mm. I'll have to get a new one at 77mm to solve this. Most shots were at F2.8 on a cloudy day, F4 for the Jupiter 9. Details: SLR Magic Anamorphot Canon 5D mkIII w Magic Lantern RAW Hack Canon EF 50mm 1.8 (majority of shots) Helios 58mm (near end) Jupiter 9 85mm (near end) Lightcraft Vari-ND Fader

I just got back from 10 days shooting in Los Angeles - all done stealing shots using 2 Panasonic g6s on small custom made shoulder rigs I made up - and amazingly nobody said anything to us, we had a crew of 4 and blended in as tourists!! The G6 is small enough not to attact attention at all..... and we had superb weather too 28 degrees C , its bloody freezing back here in the UK now.

Hey all, So I've finally gotten my hands on an Anamorphic lens (Sankor 16C), and made my first quick video with it, testing it out. I absolutely love using it, I'm surprised how sharp it is when shooting wide open. Focusing hasn't been an issue yet, it's pretty simple and straight forward. I'm also impressed with how the image shoots at 50mm, 85mm is the recommended focal length for no vignetting on APS-C, but a few of the time lapses in my video are with the 50mm, and while the vignetting is visible, it is so slight. I shot a lot of time lapse, and anamorphic time lapse isn't something I've seen on here before so I thought I'd share it. Critiques are welcome, but I already know the handheld footage is shaky, hard to shoot handheld with a 85mm lens.

I would start calculating from a different point but the end results are the same: target aspect / squeeze x vertical resolution = horizontal resolution 2.35 / 1.5 x 1080 = 1692 (1692x1080) 2.35 / 1.5 x 720 = 1128 (1128x720) 2.39 / 1.5 x 1080 = 1720.8 (1720x1080) 2.39 / 1.5 x 720 = 1147.2 (1148x720) This way you have the least amount of rounding errors.

progress :D   http://instagram.com/p/b358s3o8HB/     my prototype MFT mount works GREAT :) its like no other on the market not pressed by springs its pressed by mechanics :D   big thx to my machinst without him this would not be possible.   one pity it the the c-mount to mft adapter i got from ebay dont works :-( the problem is that i cant screw the lens far enough in :-/     but my mft to ef mount works flawless also my backfocus adjustment :-)    guess my buddy and me need to machine an own c-mount to mft adapter ;-) cheers janosch