Leaderboard

The only thing we can expect from the Canon Cinema line is a price way above what the specs are worth. C200 - 8 grand, C400 - 15 grand. Awesome. Cannot wait to not buy any of these.

Cheap CFL bulbs are convenient, efficient and economical - but they typically have a lower Colour rendering index compared to Tungsten based lights and other more expensive lighting systems. Just how much of a difference is there? You decide (additional images/stills on my website: http://www.tommajerski.com/critest.html ) Shot on the BMCC 2.5k in Raw mode. Samyang 35mm 1.4 lens with no ND or filters. White balanced perfectly before the same colour grade was applied in Davinci Resolve 10. Debayered to UHD for better youtube viewing quality. For best results, set it to 4k quality and video on a HD monitor. White balanced exactly to the same point before applying a simple Contrast + Saturation grade. Debayered to 4k for best youtube viewing quality: Select 4k Streaming

A C200 with a prores codec would be a beautiful thing indeed. Will the price will be that "entry level" though? I expect it will be similarly priced to the current C100 if not slightly more. Of course, entry level is all relative isn't it? It looks as though Canon is really going to try to move dslr video shooters over into buying something from the C series. Can't say I blame them, they've got the dslr market pretty well covered as far as dominating sales.

I really hope you've scooped Canonrumors on this one. They've been getting lazy .

Thanks, I used Sony Movie Studio Platinum with no post processing except adding music and trimming. As long as the camera is not moving and there is not too much movement, the image quality is excellent.

I subscribed to Metabones' waiting list for the Speed Booster FD to M4/3, but since I had no idea when it would become available again, I ordered a Focal Reducer from RJ/jinfinance on ebay. Received it today and shot a few tests with a Canon FD 24 2.8 (supposedly one of Canon's best and sharpest FD lenses) on my Pana G6, mainly to check how the Focal Reducer would perform in corner sharpness and chromatic aberration. I can confirm that corners are less sharp and there's a very light purple fringing in the extreme corners, BUT it is only really visible when zooming in to 1600%. There's no vignetting whatsoever and I didn't see the dreaded blue/purple center spot. I can imagine that for professional still photographers and pixel peepers this Focal Reducer is a waste of money. For HD video however : - it performs adequately with no noticeable side effects, - it makes your lenses wider (important with the 2x crop on Panasonic M43's) comparable to the field of view of APS-C sensors, - and improves low light performance (compared to my regular FD>M4/3 adapter I had to close down 2 extra stops with the Focal Reducer to keep the highlights from crushing). I will see how the Focal Reducer performs on the GH4 once I have it. For now, all I can say is that it's an essential piece of kit for anyone shooting with FD lenses on a M4/3 body in low-light. The adapter's construction is solid (all metal) and costs 25% of Metabones' version. For the work I do (doc, weddings and music videos) this is more than sufficient.

A 10/12-bit 422/444 long GOP codec similar to Sony's XAVC would be excellent for these cameras (part of the H.264 spec). After spending long hours dealing with RAW, I only use RAW when I have no other choice. The 24Mbps FS700 codec still outperforms 5D3 14-bit RAW in resolution and actual dynamic range (due to the better sensor in the FS700). 5D3 RAW wins in color fidelity and post latitude: 10/12-bit 422/444 efficiently compressed is the best of both worlds.

Use handheld only when you have a very good reason to. And don't compare handheld shots to static, compare them to slides, pans, tilts, ..etc.

Sorry, fixed :D

Oh I cant wait for another 8bit miracles from Canon.

auto white balance is useless you are letting the camera control one of the most important parts of filming .....the color temperature you are filmimg at - this dictates so much of the look of the clip you are filmimg - is it cool blue cold or warm rich orange or any combination in between all this can be set manually I personlly set the Kelvin to fit the shot by dialing it in manually until I like the look of the scene , dont use presets as even these can look odd under certain lighting conditions I shoot interiors with practicals at 4000k rather than 3200k (tungsten) as this gives a warmer look to skin tones. I shoot outside in City streets at night 2500k as this gives a cool blue /green look that reminds me of Bourne films etc If you have a Panasonic camera gh2 gh3 g6 gf3 gx7 etc you can dial in the Kelvin manually - between 2500k and 10,000k this function is invaluable

Yeah, @procter not sure it's about seeing a blade-runner II so much as seeing something like what Sean just posted for the SLR Magic...5-10 minutes of footage in differing situations focusing on the fly, moving around, etc. Letus has been quiet about answering questions and most clips are short. If you want to sell it, maybe you should shoot some more hahah :)

I am not going to say awesome. Ooops just said it :P

Come on now, how hard is it to use a proper white or grey card before posting these kind of tests ? The only thing this test tells us is that you don't know how to white balance properly.

One of the most crucial skills when doing VFX is creating a good clean plate from your shot. This can be very tricky if you only have one hand held shot and you simply cannot recreate the exact camera movement without the actor(s). This is how you do it! Like? Please subscribe!

They have a variable power diopter in front of normal anamorphic elements that are fixed set at infinity focus. The variable diopter consists of a Plano-concave lens all the way towards the front then a Plano-convex lens then the anamorphics. The focus ring moves the the two Plano lenses closer and further apart varying there power. When the two Plano lenses are touching they have a 0 power when at their max they have a .5 power in the case of the iscos. The design and concept is simple but finding lenses large enough to work on anamorphic adapters is not easy. I have tested and seen this first hand on an isco and with some cheap demostration lenses and was able to make it work with a Kowa. It worked in concept but the quality was not so good. Also in theory the lenses I used should have had a 0 power when together but they didn't so it lost infinity focus.

Part 2! All the night parts were done using m42 russian glass, iscorama and a 5D3 shooting raw. Lighting was mainly practical with flames, a couple flashlights and one "Kick" led panel (from kickstarter). we're currently moving towards an 8-episode first season, to be shot during May, using BMPCC and anamorphic lenses (Iscorama and Foton-A). :)

I guess it's a balance of performance, size and price. Letus has two of them - big price and big size - literally. But performance - haven't seen enough footage to justify it. SLR Magic has done a great job and they really balanced it out well. The look is personal preference of course. There is a difference in look for 1.5x-2x anamorphics no doubt. But the practical side is hard - affording very expensive optics - whether it be Iscorama or Panavisions or Hawks; and also the physical size as well. For small personal projects or indie films, you can't go wrong with a small 1.33x adapter that you can handhold. Letus just seems way too large to handhold. In any case, I wish you luck finding the right adapter.

Been waiting for your video! Glad to see you got some great results! I wish I kept my Nikon 24mm F2, but oh well. The taking lens is so important for the look. I think you're right about anything over 50mm (100mm FF) not working well. I hope you can upgrade your camera soon. So many great options coming out in the next month. I loved my hacked GH2 too. But with 4K, RAW and better codec options, it's about time for a switch. BTW your brother's kids are adorable!

I agree with Maxonics. I will also add, that if you look at camera tests, every 1080 camera I have seen actually outputs a "measured" resolution somewhat below the 1080 supported by the file type, usually 750 to 850 lines. If you shoot in 4K, you should easily be able to get the full 1080 after downsampling. Michael

I depends on what you are shooting and what lenses you are using. what style of filming you are doing Dirctors like Paul Greengrass , Kathryn Bigelow shoot their films mostly hand held (Bourne, Captain Philips, Hurtlocker Zero Dark Thirty etc) and it has a look and feel that is very real documently style , you are in there with the Actors. Directors like David Fincher and the great Alfred Hitchcock always shoot locked off on tripods (legs) and they have a more formal approch to film making and you can see that style in House of Cards (Netflix) Girl With the Dragon Tattoo , The Game , Fight Club etc Vertigo , North by Northwest etc etc The camera does not move much and the action is framed alot of the time around a 'standard lens' if you are shooting hand held get a shoulder mount rig to stabalise out your shots as actually holding the camera in you hand induces rolling shutter skew as your hand gitters about , so I awlays shoot on a shoulder rig for my hand held shots. (even with IS lenses)

Hi Andrew, This is an awesome idea!! I have a musician for you, his name is Khaled Hamdy. We are both based out of Dubai and he left his engineering job last year and started a one man operation for audio production. He is also my jaming buddy and a jack of all trades when it comes to music: anything from heavy metal, to jazz, to epic orchestral music....not to mention middle eastern music. I used his original music before on some of my promo videos for aerial cinematography and he's great to work with. Check out http://www.khaledhamdy.net/music/ Regards, Ihab