Leaderboard

Here's my video to share. Had some trouble nailing focus shooting T2.8 on some crap BMPC LCD screen, but here you go! EXPERIENCE I enjoyed using this. This is a final production prototype that I am testing. What makes it great is that the setup was really light, pretty well-built, and the learning curve is pretty easy. It can resolve sharp images, especially with the achromats. On the small LCD of the pocket camera though, getting focus can be a crapshoot. Focus peaking does not always work and I had to guess a lot. I did have to tell Ying to slow down a couple times because there was no way I could pull focus, especially on a fairly fast aperture of T2.8 and pretty much 100mm equivalent lens. Really should have a large monitor. But then it's not really a run and gun lens like I was using here though. I don't feel like anamorphic in general is normally for documentary style work. Neither is the pocket camera. Hope this helps you. Erik

Red Epic (M642) w/ Ti Canon Mount 16-35mm & 50mm L-Series Lens

The f2.8+SB becomes faster & you don't get the problems you find with the faster versions. But as BR says, on a s16 sized sensor the f1.4 might be fine. Conversely, i'm thinking of continuing my Russian obsession & getting a "Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 M42" to go with my 54 (which were made to be compatable with zoom lenses), but i've no idea if a 36 will behave well with a zoom. They're cheap & have a lever to change focal length, which seems to produce a smooth zoom (see p.10 of the BMPCC c-mount thread for pics of the lens & pics taken with it).

I can concur having seen this in my own 35mm Nikkor copy. It's slightly less of an issue on MFT but I've shot film with it and its issues fully open are easy enough to see if you look. I still love the lens a stop or so off the floor though on my GH2. I fully entertain the notion that I might like it less paired with a Speedbooster because its issues are more pronounced as you get further from center.

The speed might be multiple of 50 but the readout is continuous with every line offset a very small fraction of a second. At 50 cycles per second with 1/50 you will always catch one whole wavelength even if you don't catch it at the same place the sum will be the same, from that point flickering will start because you just catch fractions of the wavelength and each line advances X seconds into the harmonic function and will have a different lightvalue. At 1/100 it might not be too visible but when you start goin up you see it more and more, you actually can see how it grows and how the flicker gradiant shows perfectly the harmonic function. You can see something similar at slomo soccer game replays, the readouts on these cameras are very fast and instead of variations on the same frame you get variations between frames.

Shows I shouldn't talk about things I know nothing about! I've never seen one IRL. Having googled a few images of people holding them I can see you're right. Surely the C100 is going to have to drop in price quite soon ...

I've been using the Nikon ai-s 24mm f2.8 with my Iscorama 54 (no speedbooster) & it works really well! Think i could go wider to the 20mm or even 18mm at a pinch, but am considering the speedbooster & getting the 28mm, 35mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.8. My only problem is the ton of complaints about badly fitting Speedboosters on the BM Pocket. I've got the same problem with my Russian lenses too - such a pain that the Speedbooster mount options don't include M42, but hoping that EF version comes out v.soon.

i used a shoulder mount with two grips - it's really the best. i was also using the kinotehnik, so at least four points of contact. gunstock-style are okay, but on long shoots, you're really spending time continually contracting your back muscle, and you're going to introduce shake with them. so i think two-handed shoulder mounts are best. Lee - had a variable ND on there. even though i like the variable, putting the ND on and taking it off with the diopters was a hassle because it kept screwing up my alignment. going to use a mattebox next time. shot at 2.8 the entire time just adjusting iso (800 and under) and the fader. exposed to the right. tony- cool, will try that when i can get my hands on one of those.

Fundamentally not much. What's different than most of the LUTs that get passed around is that their transformation is based on real film. They do this by studying and sampling the results of control images passed through both digital cameras and these same control images photographed on various film stocks. Calculating the difference between reference value and color lets you push one towards the other. Of course it has limits but what you get as a result is an approximation of the result from doing a telecine of negative or scanned negative on a Datacine, where the resulting digital file is an inter-positive. The quality and accuracy of your "scan" will be directly proportional to the quality of your digital footage, in terms of dynamic range, color gamut and (and here's an important part) its exposure. Some critics don't seem to understand the "inter" part and assume this is, is designed to be or should be your "grade". It can be, the same way you can shoot film, send it to the lab and get a print back. This won't be graded it will be at a baseline such that if you were to have shot the film properly exposed you get a proper, representational image back. If you're on a budget and can't afford to pay for a colorist then there you go, that's your film. Otherwise, based on seeing this baseline you can now decide if it needs modification to match surrounding footage and you can decide how and how much you would like to change the photography to achieve a different look for artistic effect, etc. Similarly, once you've applied Film Convert you can either decide you like the basic transform or you can then grade and modify further. Some have claimed doing Film Convert somehow limits further modification but that's absolute nonsense.

One simple but intricate metaphor and 10 minutes of excellent movie making. Love films that are true cinema and are not overwritten.

I think that's from an interview about INLAND EMPIRE, when he was talking about shooting it on consumer SD camcorders. I think he compared the low resolution and macroblocking (which he liked) to the softness of grainy 16mm.

Andrew your response has nothing to do with what I was saying. I wasn't criticising any cliche'd hipster desire to look retro etc. I was saying that it is very common, when discussing digital cinema online, for a certain contingent to be very interested in comparing how this-or-that digital camera looks compared to film. As I said, cinema has a history and the vast majority of that history is Super 35mm. Cinema is also a language that the audience 'reads' and if filmmakers want to stray from what an audience has come to understand, they have to be careful. It can deteriorate the 4th wall. I wasn't saying everyone here is nuts about Film Convert and whisker-thin DOF. I know stirring-it in the forums is good for your page hits, but if you have to do it please be a bit more subtle about it.

True, be inspired by great works of art in painting. How many of them rely on high resolution? In cinema, high resolution (comparable to 4k) existed since at least six decades. The true masterpieces can be counted with the hands (you don't need fingers). BTW: I found a good use for LUT utility for FCP X with my pocket. I can apply a Rec709 LUT (it's in the standard version) with the adjustment layer. It's a Motion title, that can be connected, easily prolonged or trimmed and filled with all filters you want to apply to a whole sequence or single clips that you can toggle on or off in their entirety by choosing the layer and hitting "v". Also available from Alex4D. I recommend that you try this template when you experiment with Osiris. It's extremely useful (of course the name derives from Adobe).

It's never worked with video on any Nikon. Pretty sure that's still the case with the D5300. You can still view a histogram even when using a lens that doesn't give you metering. Just take a test still or video, then in playback mode, press the up arrow to cycle through the information views you have enabled. By default the histogram view isn't enabled, so you have to change the settings under MENU->PLAYBACK MENU->Playback display options. I have it set up like this: ☠None (image only) ☑ Highlights ☑ RGB histogram ☠Shooting data ☑ Overview This will give you histogram, RGB histogram and blinkies views in playback. The histogram is calculated after the picture style and white balance settings are applied even when shooting a raw still, so keep that in mind.

You're suggesting that supersampling introduces aliasing. Mmm-kay, dubious but playing devil's advocate perhaps bad downscaling can introduce aliasing. Yeah. So do it well. Do it right. Use quality software. Work at a high bit depth and use high quality scaling. Folks wanting to cut corners and finish in their editing software, yeah, they might have some issues. Not only does it not introduce aliasing it contributes to noise reduction as well as artifact reduction in the case of AVCHD footage. That's not theory, that's experience. Finishing in something like After Effects from a 32bit linear light workspace does not introduce the artifacts you're describing during down sampling. Nothing negative is introduced. I would hope that something like Resolve would be as capable. Upsampling horizontally also is very forgiving. Even at SD resolutions. This is the defining exploit in our visual system that made the 16:9 anamorphic DVD the highest quality home release you could get of any film until BD. It's what's behind the color sub-sampling present in all broadcast video formats past, present and, looks like, future. With full-sample in the vertical field Sony was able to pull off their amazing con of 2001 convincing certain filmmakers that the original HDCAM was somehow the death-blow for film, with all of its 3:1:1 135Mbit 8-bit codec glory. I will agree that optical does a better job, especially if all you're doing is a naive digital scale by comparison. Saying what you're doing is a viable alternative for folks with 36mm sensors is all fine and good. I've suggested the same, given that, besides a few of the available adapters, large format cameras tend to have more caveats associated with compatible lenses, etc. But the provocative title of this thread and several other statements within the thread go above and beyond claims of having a viable alternative.

It was lucky camera. http://lucky-camera.com This us a pretty good list. http://www.japancamerahunter.com/2012/04/camera-shopping-in-tokyo-pt-1-shinjuku/

True skill. Such informed use of wide angle too. Very impressed. Need a PA anytime soon?

Yeah, once you go sufficiently stopped down you get fewer cues that funky optics are involved, in the sense of a still image. I still think you get a different sense of perspective and spatial relationships between objects that's different than that of a spherical lens though, revealed through Z-axis movement. I think the cues end up "feeling" different even if you were to match horizontal FOV with an equivalent spherical lens. I haven't tested this theory out though. Yet. I think to do it right you would have to use something like a 5D with spherical lens compared to a smaller format camera with an anamorphic lens, matching FOV and comparing both the still composition as well as depth cues from the camera dollying forward. But, yeah, anamorphic and spherical are mixed in big motion pictures. You have a better than 50/50 chance that any film with heavy visual effects the photography containing the effects will be spherical, either shot on Super-35 or VistaVision. Most facilities don't like working with anamorphic plates when adding visual effects, unless a filmmaker mandates that no spherical photography is used even for effects plates. This goes back to Star Wars at least. One of the first things Luc Besson was convinced to do at the beginning of The Fifth Element was to shoot spherical. Unfortunately. Nowadays with disc and RAM and CPU like we have there is less of a worry because working with the higher resolution imagery isn't a big deal and you can do optics compensation for tracking. The Dark Knight Rises is another example of mixed photography, with anamorphic 35mm for most of the regular narrative parts of the film and 65mm for the big action set pieces.