Leaderboard

A Day at the Zoo with a Kowa Prominar 16-D in front of a Nikon (e) 50mm f/1.8 using the Redstan clamp.

The GH4 is available for preorder in the Benelux (Belgium & Netherlands). It's 1499 EUR for body only.

And remember, "story" doesn't have to be a whole complex narrative. It could be something of a theme explored or imagery related to a mood the music produces or some interpretation of the lyrics, literal or otherwise. Here are some of my favorite examples of this where there's a story but not anything resembling a typical short film: ...these guys mix your typical shoot-the-band-playing-the-song type of music video with images that could be right out of a longer piece. There's a "story" there but not one you need to really explain or explore beyond how the imagery fits the mood of the piece. ...here you don't even have lyrics, just mood and themes, but there is a "story" to be interpreted. If you decide to forgo story, going with the seemingly "simpler" approach of shooting the artist performing, I've been terribly impressed over this last year by how creative and busy a fellow GH2 shooter has been, the young DeShon Dixon. Armed only with his GH2 and a fast 35mm prime he's constantly doing videos for new artists in LA. He has no lights and rides the bus to location. His story is rather incredible and even though most of the videos have nothing approaching "story" he's often able to create something that keeps me watching, even though the music itself isn't to my taste: http://vimeo.com/80451208 ...he's fairly masterful at finding natural lighting scenarios and positioning the talent relative to what's just there, even at night. Check out his VIMEO channel for other examples.

It would conform fine to a 25p timeline

It will work fine! 1 frame of 96fps will still equal 1 frame in your 25fps project giving you a speed thats 3.86x slower than the original.. (if thats what youre trying to do) The clip just needs to be conformed to your sequence framerate..

The word hipster really has no point or basis in this discussion, and hurling it around in an attempt to insult really only derides the user. I completely agree with woopax, none of the new anamorphics capture any of what I enjoy. Seb's footage was nice but I would use a dual focus kowa over that if I'm gonna go to the pain of shooting anamorphic. I think 1.5x is the minimum to bring any character. It is great however, that prices do seem to be lowering or at least plateauing.

mandyleigh.com I'm here researching what camera to buy for video's and came across the thread. Mandyleigh is my wife. She recorded the album live in the studio in London, with the producer of Frank Zappa/Van Morrison etc and muso's from Frank Zappa/Van Morrison and Steeleye Span. Personally, 'Let it Go' is my favourite song, though 'Winters Day' is a close second as I love early 70's rock. Many of the songs are about her dealing with her suicidal depression that she had many years ago. I wrote 'Grey' about her (bring your razorblades for that one! :) ). Believe it or not but the dancey happy sounding 'Keep The Silence' was also about her depression (as she felt she couldn't speak about it to anyone and no-one wanted to hear how she felt... inc her own family). Have fun if you use any song.

Can be that the reason is the SLR. But for me their anamorphot seems like nothing more than an improved model of the century 16:9. That's not a compliment. People that know to appreciate the organic look and sharpness will go for the classics. I wish there was a relevant competitor but there is nothing out there yet. Give me new anamorphic glass that can compete with the brilliant optics of the Bolex anamorphot...Same for the Lomos, Kowas and the Iscoramas (and well...for most of those things that smells like the 60's :-) I'm not talking only about sharpness here. It's also distortion, Chromatic aberration(!!!), organic flares and...oh...character! I believe it would take some time to see something really good around, definitely not in single focus soon for a decent price. I'm also generally not a fan of those focus through adapters. They always seem like the easy way to do it and it's just never really sharp and / or too much diopter oriented. Even the Letus is not really sharp (but still expensive, especially with all the extras you want to have) Besides X1.33 is not really that cool. We need a bit more spice than that. If you have a sharp camera, or you're a lucky 4k owner, you can blow it up a bit and nobody will say anything. That's just my opinion. And regarding the new lenses it's all impressions i got from links online, Iv'e never tried them myself. Conclusion: I prefer to focus two rings and get a lovely classic anamorphic image there. Or of course to go for a single focus Lomo / Isco if my wallet stands the pain...

If you were paying for features then you would have a better spec than the C100 for your $5k.   You are paying for the fact the C100 is perfectly suited to commercial work. The people it is for can all afford it and justify the investment. There's no point being upset about that either. We have some nice options now for cheaper.   Let's not pretend we are paying $5000 for a built in ND filter though.

Not to hijack the thread, but that is an erroneous statement. A better way of putting it would be, the gh4 does a lot of things better then the c100, however it also DOESN'T do a lot of things better than the c100. For instance, Light an interview properly, setup both cameras and the end result will give the nod to the c100. Better yet, set the gh4 to 4k mode for that interview and transcode the full image to 1080(because that is what you will need to match the detail level of the non de-bayered canon) and after changing the memory card about 10 times and going through the headaches of backing up, transferring, transcoding that kind of data, I would still say the C100 would result in a more pleasing final image. Just so folks know, I'm not talking about data rates, dynamic range or actual resolution when I refer to image detail. Unlike what most other cameras are doing, Canon's cinema line does not de-bayer the raw image stream the same way most dslr, gh3, gh4, 5d, fs700, bmcc, bmpc does. The c100 also gets a nod when examining the efficiency overall (built in xlr, neutral density, battery life, s35 sensor) and let's not forget some pretty spiffy low light performance :) For a portable 4k aquisition tool, and cost, huge thumbs up for the GH4! For interviews, documentary work, events, weddings, large volume broll shooting. Big thumbs down. Not that it couldn't work for those demographics, but I see the c100 as an efficient tool that really does make life a lot easier for a lot of filmmakers. 2 different tools meant for different things I guess

I really think that the stretch figures x1.5 or x2 on these adaptors isn't an exact science & maybe best seen as a guideline. But yes, focal range can affect the image in some cases & a good compromise is to conform it to 2.66:1 (no need to get too anal about it). Also, after shooting a lot looking at 16:9 squashed footage, I find that my eyes play tricks on me & objects just start to look odd when unsqueezed if i don't walk away before reviewing the footage.