Leaderboard

just as a point of note on lenses for films : David Fincher shoots most of the time with the same lens focal lengths even when he changes his DOP so even if it is Jeff Cronenwerth, Harris Savides or Darius Khondji on camera for him he is still using a 27mm 40mm most of the time and a 75mm for the close ups , at f2.8 with nds and at f2 at night , thats about it , most of the film is shot on those 3 lenses thats all he needs (page 162 of the book 'New Cinematographers' gives you a look at Harris Savides note book for the film 'The Game' he lists scene by scene what lens he uses and its f stop ....its mainly all 27mm 40mm 75mm at f2.8 or f2.... The late great Gordon Willis shot 90% of The Godfather series for Francis Ford Copolla on a 40mm f2.8 lens - if you get this months American Cinematographer magazine OCT 2014 its a special edition all on Gordon Willis - The Prince of Darkness and it reveals all on how he shot these great films . Then you have Paul Greengrass who uses long zooms all the time and the late Tony Scott who shot almost always on long lenses and used x2 extenders too, thats his 'look ' And then the great Sergio Leone shot all those Clint Eastwood 'Dollar' series films on a single Angenieux 25-250mm f3.5 zoom So my point is you dont always need very wide lens to make great films ..... as long as you have in Super 35 field of view a 28mm. 40mm and 70mm which the Nikon zoom gives you ,you can make a film.....what camera you use to get those lengths is upto you , you may need speedboosters or adapters but those are the numbers that work for me most of the time.

Aouch. On the lighter side, it's probably a great offering to Neptune!

Hey guys Just stopping in to show you my latest short. GH4 anamorphic a lack of color film shot and directed by me. "spring. a time of phenomenal renewal; she re-awakens from the depths of her winter slumber, dripping the essence of new life in an untouched world. a closer look into the new spring/summer 2015 collection by lack of color hats" www.lackofcolor.com.au

we have 2 G6's out there so we where down to one for a day after it's swimming lesson .

Definitely interesting. There does seem to be a synergy between my APS-C Nikons and the 28-70 for video. The image just looks right. I don't get that when I look at footage from my MFT camera (without speed booster) - it just doesn't seem as pleasing to my eye, and I struggle to explain why. The aesthetics of the APS-C frame mean that I don't feel the need to move up to a full frame camera, at least for video, which is great news for my bank account!

they dont float haha!!

thats for that will buy new one tomorrow !! big thanks

As long as we're piling on filmic clips... these are GH2... but as soon as there's 4:3 24fps I'll try out ana lenses on my GH4...

It depends. Trading the 5d3 is probably a good idea in the long run but meanwhile, if the work you get done with those is good enough, why bother for the sake of swapping cameras? If you fancy the Sony A7s with a full frame sensor and just want to have one, that's another story. Go with whatever fancies you. That's not crazy, that's just normal. Our decisions are 90% emotional, anyway. You could put any brand instead of Sony in that sentence, and it would still be one of the not so good reasons to swap gear, aka on the crazy side of the scale. I for one wouldn't rely on any AF alone. For the time being. Especially in scenarios like live weddings where you can't have retakes. Although the native lenses of each system are always the best option for the most reliable AF in general. Yes, Canon really is uncool, but that's another story altogether. :P Whether you're crazy or not depends on your reasons for buying new gear. People can make great looking footage with both Sony and Canon gear. I've met some with C100/300 and some others with Sony gear, and I can't really say the gear dictates the quality of their work. So pick whatever you fancy the most, and stop deluding yourself with all the wrong excuses. ;)

Oh yes it can look filmic in the right hands

The answer is: Thanks. We will post some tests in a few days.

Good idea valid, I 've asked, let's wait and see. Thank you

  That's utter crap talk and you know it.

lafilm you keep saying that: this was just published on vimeo - looks filmic...i'm so confused by that word

Hey comurit - next time you speak to the anamorphicshop guy, could you please ask him for a test video with a fast focus pull? All the tests he has so far are 20-30 seconds to focus from close to infinity. Could he do it in 4-5 seconds or something? Thanks! (and not just fast-forwarding the existing ones ;-) ) I want to see how the lens breathes, etc - I hope he's not avoiding the fast focus pulls for a reason

Some various shots using the awesome FF58 and other with a Voigt 50 1.5 (@2.8) together with the SLR Anamorphot. Yes the low light ability is pretty insane on the camera, I wish I brought my Ninja Blade to record the footage though. Hard to pack everything while on vacation since, you're supposed to be on vacation lol. I hope there will be a 4:3 mode for 2X anamorphic on this camera one day...we can wish :)

if you want lenses you can keep long term then dont buy micro 4/3 Rokininons I would get a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 IF D , it is a steller lens as used on THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLICE etcetc no focus breathing , very sharp and covers the range of 4 primes , 28, 35, 50 and 70mm plus if you put it on a speedbooster it becomes a 20-50mm f2 monsters lens !! very fast for night shooting and even sharper and wider . I have 2 of these and they are now my main go to lenses !! you can shoot wide open at f2.8 all day long an it is pin sharp with a superb bokeh and very very filmic look this lens is the closest you can get to a £15,000 Carl Zeiss 28-80mm f2.8 cinema PL mount lens http://***URL removed***/articles/4439044609/carl-zeiss-presents-28-28mm-t2-9-cinema-zoom-lens AND it has less focus breathing than the Carl Zeiss.....it is an amazing lens get one it will last a lifetime. its sister lens is the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 IF D also used on Bourne Ultimatum - this the is killer!! with these 2 lenses and a speedbooter you can shoot 90% of a feature film! all with a constistant glass look and matched colours so no issues in post as its all the same great Nikon glass !! it works !

I understand what you're saying but using Magic Lantern as an example of what could go wrong with an open source project is probably misplaced. The first thing is that ML does have many problems, but ML is not the problem. The problem is the nature of the project - basically ML is a Hack, not really a development project. But why is that? Because the software/Hardware that they are deloping for is closed and Canon just will not/have not given them an ounce of help. Therefore, they have to reverse engineer everything. Most of what the ML team does is guess work and trial and error to figure out how the software/hardware works. Even so, ML has been wildly successful. So much so that AXIOM had to resort to ML's thriving community to reach their funding goals. They said that much themselves. That's what I call success. Rental houses, pro shooters as well as enthusiasts - if you own a Canon body you probably have ML running on it (Who shoots h.264 anymore?). If you want to use an open source project as an example, then try referencing projects such as Mysql, Mozilla and there are many more! It seems to me that you missed the point completely - the reason for an open source cinema camera is so that you take the guess work out of programming! . . . No guess work, no faulty software. If the hardware fails every now and then, well, Black Magic will probably understand (if you know what I mean) - that's why we have AXIOM! You are right about not many amateurs being able to afford it, but then again if ML was not around you couldn't afford a real cinema camera that shoots 14-bit RAW anyways. BTW, who's to say they will not make a sub-$1,000 camera - in fact I'd be willing to bet that's in the works.

Going back to the op and the title of the post - I think 4k will be important to you if it's going to bring you a benefit. These guys are all working in specific genres and within that they work within specific constraints. Stuff like maybe having big budgets, lots of crew, loads of experience, expensive and powerful talent etc etc. The reasons they gave about not wanting or needing 4k don't necessarily apply to somebody else (e.g. me and the stuff I shoot). I can see that 4k might be very useful to me - especially things like being able to crop an HD frame out of a 4k frame and simulate pans and zooms etc. Working with a very small crew (mostly just me) being able to introduce those elements into shots without needing to handle the camera during the shoot could be a huge positive. For those guys they maybe don't see the benefit of that as they can just say 'get an extra camera crew in and shoot the pan for real'. Maybe 4k is initially going to be another creative tool that low budget shooters can get the most out of.

From what grant petty has said recently it seems very likely there is no bmpcc2 on the immediate horizon. They are putting their resources into their higher end stuff. That's why they had the summer sale - to clear their production line. The bmpcc with EF speed booster would be a superb combo for fiction shorts. If you want the speed booster to be an investment,consider buying the gh4 version. You'll have a narrower fov but you can use it on any mft mount camera.