Leaderboard

Sigma will enter the game of focal reducers for M43 and E-Mount. They will have an aspherical design, also using extra low dispersion glass to improve edge sharpness. The Sigma focal reducers will be 0.71x with 1 fstop increase in light. Will be available in main mounts: Canon FD, Canon EOS EF, Nikon F or G, M42, MC/MD, OM, PK, Leica R, Yashica/Contax Main problem of all focal reducers in market today is the edge blur, this is due to spherical lens design. Also some small amount of chromatic aberration is present. Sigma will solve these issues using aspherical lenses and extra low dispersion glass. This is a rumor.

Hello Everyone! I'm a huge fan of this forum and I'd really like what Andrew has done for the Indie Filmmaking community. Anyway, here is a video I'd like to share with you all about my trip to Yosemite with the GH4. It was raining, snowing, and sunny in one weekend so I was very fortunate to catch all of those elements in such a short span of time! As for the GH4, it was completely drenched in rain and snow and it still survived! I absolutely love this camera and I found it to be much more practical and enjoyable to shoot on than my BMCC and Pocket Cinema Camera. I can't wait to post my video review on this camera. I'll be comparing this to the 5D Mk. III Raw, BMCC, and Pocket Cinema Camera. I hope you enjoy the video as much as I enjoyed making it, and any questions and feedback is welcomed! Thanks!

Hopefully they will actually release an EF to MFT version, unlike Metabones.

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor. With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart. MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light. If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT? Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography. Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video. The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor. If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch. I agree. there is nothing "magical" about FF video. Quite the opposite. I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems. The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs. When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

I make 3-4 wedding videos each year. The couples I shoot choose their own music for very particular reasons, mostly some kind of emotional connection to a song. It might be the first song they danced to, or a song that was popular when they first met, ... What matters to them is that it's THAT song. NOT a song that sounds a bit like it, or has a similar vibe, or a cover version ... What I have been doing until now, is use that music in the wedding videos (including the online streaming versions), AND include proper credits and a direct iTunes link to the song(s). This is the best I can do right now, since publishers simply don't care about clearing songs for this kind of use. Believe me, I have tried, and have never ever received a reply, let alone a quote. I would be very happy with an easy, accessible online system where you can pay for sync for popular songs. For all my other work, I find plenty of material at themusicbed or even the Vimeo music store.

Yeah, just get one made. I think Tito has done it before. I actually have one cap here with me but I'd rather keep it for future use.

Have you seen this?   vimeo.com/blog/post:626   Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.   On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.   Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.   This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.   Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.   I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.   I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.   Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.   Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!

I would actually expect Sigma to be able to do an active version sooner than MetaBones. The holdup on the MB active SB seems like it's on the m4/3 side, as their EF-E version works fine. Sigma is a member of the m4/3 consortium, I'm assuming that means they have full documentation on the m4/3 electronic protocols. They also already make m4/3 lenses so they have direct experience with building for the system. Not to mention that their engineering and manufacturing capabilities are much larger than MetaBones'.

I bypassed the pretty leather cap by buying a diopter holder from RAF camera...enables a circular cap up front, as well as quick filter/ diopter changes: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Diopter-holder-for-LOMO-square-front-anamorphic-lens-or-attachment-93x1-5mm-v2-/141055364173?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20d78e0c4d - But yeah, I would also like to get a leather one made, preferably from an old Russian guy with a beard.

This is now sold, thanks!

Yes yes, yes, I thought we've established that and moved on at least a day and a page ago. I already agreed with you about that on the previous page, so your bringing it back again was a bit confusing. What we're talking about now is another matter, no longer related to your argument. There has been no argument about why Vimeo are doing what they're doing since page 1. Since then we've also established that their rudimentary efforts involving the online bots are harming the aspiring and pro filmmakers who don't use any copyrighted soundtracks. They get pestered by the bots and bureaucracy for no good reason. Adding insult to injury, getting a sync licence has been made almost impossible for mere mortals. No wonder people get frustrated. The system doesn't seem to work too well, however well intended originally, and that's the problem. The fact that some people copy and use other people's stuff without permission, anyway, no matter what, is another story.

That is quite a strange argument you have put forth, jcs. It is the same as saying there is no portability disadvantage in carrying camera A which is four times as big as camera B since you can put it in the hands of someone four times as big. The previous statement is mathematically correct but what are the odds of there being someone that huge? The keyword here is availability. The situation is the same with focal reducers. Mathematically, FF sensors can benefit from focal reducers too. But nobody consider this possibility an advantage of FF, why? Because the Medium Format or whatever type of lens big enough for FF focal reducers aren't easy to come by. So both the FF sensors' size advantage and the mirrorless crop sensors' focal reduction advantage all come down to availability.

Really great to watch - you captured some really nice footage there (it is a beautiful place which also helps!) I like the way the slomo scenes look from the few I have seen from the GH4 - it is a nice effect.

What I don't say is just as important as what I do.... aaaaaahhh :ph34r:

I can buy a nice zebra Zeiss Jena Tessar 2.8/50 for 10 quid off ebay. I can buy (indeed I own) a 1.4/24mm Nikon G for 1400 quid... do the math ;)

No disrespect to anyone, but I feel the notion that record labels are only now waking up to whats happening wrt to copyright infringement is lame. The owners are really smart street wise tough business types. Gordy, Branson, Blackwell, Geffen etc The truth is they have failed to address this issue in the past which started in the early seventies en masse with the introduction of the C90 audio cassette. Even the BBC were encouraging people to send in their mix tapes later in the 80s, The companies tried to get the Japanese to disable the record bias when a copyright signal was detected on the source - they failed Later with DVDs they tried to get the software burner people to prohibit copyrighted works from being duplicated.- they failed They even suggested a tax on blank recordable media - they failed. There have been test cases similar to the 'Bob Monkhouse video recordings' lawsuit which again have failed. My point is that if something cannot be policed then the universe is teaching you a valuable lesson. Woodstock and Isle of Wight festivals became free for a big reason - people power. Technology affects many people in this new world, why should record companies be exempt? Are they Gods?. Technology has devastated lives by making millions of typists, drafters, shops, businesses, checkout tills, banks ad infinitum... jobless. Sure a new business model is required or a pay per view of material containing copyright. But good luck if you can make that work. The notion that artists work is devalued is laughable. The record companies know all too well that any publicity is good publicity, smash your guitar on stage, get busted for substance abuse da da da. Regarding the value of old material which has long since passed its sell by date, you only have to pop into Charity shops to find CDs for a quid DVDs 2 quid Paperback novels 50p. I think this places the value of this stuff into real perspective.- this stuff is one step away from landfill. Anyway meet the new boss - same as the old boss da dummmmmm dat dat (oops how much do I owe ya Pete?)

And it's funny that even size advantage of m43 system is getting weaker.. Just look at A7 + 35mm/2.8 Zeiss :). Sony FF NEX is quite a revolution (at least in photography).

I appreciate the Yosemite link. It's good to see how the camera reacts to high info stuff like water as well as hi con like snow. That said, I mostly shoot dramas. Does anyone have links non - experimental narratives with a "natural" looking grade or even DR tests that focus on faces? My biggest concerns are natural full range flesh tones and a decent contrast range. Thanks

And just look at lenses: - FF 50mm/1.8 is 10x cheaper than Voigtlander 25mm/0.95.. - FF different primes from 20/1.8 to 100/1.8 are sooo cheap (m43 equiv. 10/1 to 50/1) compared to many even weaker m43 lenses.

The a6000 produces a lovely overall image, yes. But you really need to stop kidding yourself about the moire-lessness and the "clean" low-light. When he zooms in to the ISO 1600 image at 1:56 you can clearly see how dancy the noise is. And as far as im concerned, you can take DXO ratings with a pinch of salt because when you look on dpreview at the Canon 6d vs other sony sensor'd full frames, you can clearly see the Canon produces less noise. And yet it's rated lower.

Quirky its very evident from reading all these posts that people are using other peoples copyrighted work/music for free with out permission - many have mentioned it in this thread . There is a feeling that if you paid for the cd or download you own it and can use it anyhow . Or if its is too complicated to get a syncronisation license - to just use it anyhow . That is why Vimeo and Youtube are having to clamp down as they are finally being pressured by the Music Industry to get their house in order. And rightly so !

Yashica 50mm f/1.7 is 99.999% practically identical to the Carl Zeiss 50mm f1.7 Planar which is king of 50mm in my book. they are made in the same factory in Japan - I have both and there is nothing in it. identical ! side by side tests here http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1045758 The Yashiac 50mm f1.4 is slighly softer wide open PS: we have started a new thread just for lenses please post and look in it,

This is so true. Even if you work for a big company (BBC) like i did, the whole understanding & getting rights for stuff is a complete nightmare. In fact, so much of a nightmare that they have a department just for it & they are the most grumpy people on planet earth - due to the fact that their job is/must be so frustrating because no one but them understands all the ins and outs. I remember being asked to draw up an internal guide for film & music rights - worst week of my life! The last time i tried to pay for some music, it took so long that i ended up writing a piece myself - the band did enventually say no, because they thought it might affect their sales & they no longer exist! I don't blame people for just using something if its "Not for Profit" - its probably those that do make money that are probably to blame for all of this. Here's an [easy - LOL] guide to getting rights to music: http://www.bbc.co.uk/filmnetwork/filmmaking/guide/before-you-start/music-rights

Very useful videos for people just starting out with a GH4. Best tutorials I've seen so far for shooting flat.

This is some of the best and most useful footage for evaluating the quality of this camera that I've seen so far. Any possibility of a download option? I'd love to test the source ungraded footage, but I certainly understand if you want to keep it private. Basically, if I got your 4k files that were recorded internally, converted them to HD float and could push them in lustre or Resolve w/o seeing heavy artifacts, especially in the shots that seem to have a full range of luma, from the long black shadows in those trees, to the white snow, I'm gonna put this camera back in the queue and you've erased my concerns. Thanks!

Read my post, I didn't say crap work, music lifts up any type of work, good or bad. It's a huge part of the cinematic experience and of equal value. And checkout the history of David Lynch- whom you mentioned, and his composer Angelo Badalamentii, they started working together on blue velvet when Angelo was essentially an unknown. That collaboration has produced some of the greatest and most original cinematic moments ever. Likewise Clint Mansell had never written a score when he first began working with Arronfkski, they've been together ever since. Maybe I worded it poorly, but working with people who are accessible to you isn't a derogatory suggestion, just because Angelo was fairly unknown, doesn't diminish his amazing talents! Somewhere on soundcloud there is the next Badalamenti looking for his/her lynch to partner up with and make something new, hope I find him/her first :)

  Erm that is kind of how art works isn't it? Appropriation, borrowing ideas, images and sounds from others, mixing stuff together to create something new.   Also I don't think that 'lifting crap work on the free or cheap' is really the idea most filmmakers on Vimeo have in mind when they mix their cinematography sensitively and thoughtfully with a piece of music that inspired the shots in the first place.   Good job The Beatles didn't have to pay licensing fees to the musicians who influenced their sound... they'd have never have made it out the door.

http://pro.sony-asia.com/pressrelease/asset/570730/section/broadcastreleases (states 8-bit XAVC-S is 420; 10-bit is 422). http://***URL removed***/news/2014/04/06/sony-announces-alpha-7-series-full-frame-mirrorless-with-4-2-2-4k-video-output (420 for internal 8-bit 1080p recording)

A7S does 420 internally: 422 externally.

  Very true.   And this is a big opportunity for the music industry to get their house in order.   It costs a musician something like 50 quid to licence a famous photo for their album cover. That is a one off fee I believe, not dependant on number of album covers printed? Correct me if I'm wrong, this is second hand knowledge and I haven't researched it myself.   The synchronisation fees for music - it is obscure and inaccessible - the system needs to go mass market. To license a famous Radiohead song it should be as easy as going to a website and clicking, paying, then getting a license by email.   A system like that needs to be cheap so it goes mass market, it is better than the mass market piracy and copyright infringement that we have now. Imagine all the amateur video producers using this for their many many cat videos :) It would make the record label and artists a nice little earning.   It is much better than the current system... which in the eyes of those uploading tracks to their artistic Vimeo clips... is non existant!   Of course I agree musicians should be paid. It is so obvious. It goes without saying. I know musicians in Berlin. One of my closest friends here is one. I have seen their money struggles first hand because of the industry implosion and shift in technology. As a content producer myself I have seen the impact piracy has (on my books). I hate that people have come to expect art, music, knowledge - all for free - and expect us to invest money back into quality material. That does not work! I have been both a consumer and an artist, and the perspective is very different, but somewhere there is a system that works for both of us.   I'll be damned if the current 'suits' at big companies will find the right one any time soon.

Collaboration with up and coming talents, local musicians, I am all for it, I do it. Right now I am collaborating with two bands and a singer.   The subject at hand here is rather different.   Should those collaborators have tracks in the Deep Dark Database that Vimeo is using for their Copyright Match system, your Vimeo upload will be at the mercy of their appeals process and the onus will be on you to prove that you have permission to use the track... not always easy, and an extra bureaucratic headache one really should not have to deal with in all fairness.   There's so many more bad things about this development...   - It severely limits freedom of artistic expression on non-commercial personal or experimental work - It harms music sales because tracks will get less airplay and a smaller audience. I hear music first on Vimeo or YouTube then I go off to buy it on iTunes so I can play it on my iPhone. I don't walk around with a playlist of videos on Vimeo playing on my phone. Vimeo is not an iTunes rival so having commercial tracks on there doesn't compete with the music industry. - It is impractical to get a license or permission for most music, especially the best cinematic stuff (Radiohead, Pink Floyd, for example) - It is cost prohibitive to get a license in many cases   Really if I could pay something, easily and quickly to a major record label for artistic fair use of a track, I would, but there's absolutely no way of doing so. They are missing out on a huge business opportunity here.   By all means for wedding videographers who just got paid $20k for a video and they are ripping off a band by using copyright music in that commercial project without permission, these people should pay for a license.   For fair use, artistic stuff, with no commercial earnings behind the video, this stuff is all so very wrong.   All the best music is copyrighted material and it is virtually impractical to get the proper permissions to use, say, Pink Floyd, whilst fair use has no hard and fast rules and leaves you at the mercy of a judge. Copyright law needs reform big time.   As for Music Bed... Not satisfied with the vast majority of stuff in their library. It's too bland and boring on the whole. Very hard to find something that really inspires.

if you want to start from something, start from some good books on lighting. 1. 2. 3. 3.

if you are starting out get a set of 4 Red Heads and a bunch of LEE gels / diffusion for them , and bulldog clips to hold the gels on the lights. you will also need some Lee diffusion too so you can control the intensity of the lights better dont be affraid of layering up your diffusion too , then adding the coloured gels ontop of the diffusion. You can buy gels / Lee diffusion off ebay cheap get a whole bunch of colours and try different set ups to see what you like. ie try Teal and Amber that is used in alot of films now , amber on the face - teal on the back wall etc or vice versa ! I always back light and have a kicker too to help get edge separation. How much key and fill you use from the front is all down to personal taste and how dark or bight you want the subject. there are loads of youtube vids on this and 3 point and 4 point lighting you will end up having lights around until you are happy with the look so dont think you can just bash up some lights and hey presto ! you use your eye to get a desirable look.