Leaderboard

I've just returned from hospital after having my eyeballs fixed after they were cut from the sharp images from mine.

On how the Foveon sensor works - you are both right. It does have multiple sensels for the different colors, but they are stacked on top of each other vertically. And it does have color filters, and it doesn't have color filters. Essentially, it uses the silicon as a filter - different frequencies of light penetrate to different depths, so end up in different sensels. On the new Sony sensor - we are all guessing, but if it is taking sequential pictures in different colors, then what you are doing is swapping spatial chroma aliasing for temporal chroma aliasing - if objects are moving, then a single object will exhibit weird uneven color smearing that would have to corrected in software, which will cost you resolution. That is why I think you are seeing the insane frame rates. If you were shooting 30p with 1/60 shutter, and it did 1/180 second red, then 1/180 green, then 1/180 blue, anything that has changed position in 1/180 second is going to cause real problems. But if, in 1/60 of a second, it shoots r-b-g-r-b-g-r-b-g-r-b-g... and combines the exposures, the problem goes away to a large extent. That would be really exciting. It would also allow you to do some really, really cool things to deal with temporal aliasing and to give more pleasing motion blur - you could assign lower weights to the exposures at the beginning and end of the broader exposure interval. see http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/cinema-temporal-aliasing

I have to agree, touch autofocus is one of the things you get used to almost instantaneously. I think this feature should become mandatory for a consumer photographic product, just like the autofocus did. It is not to be considered a premium feature - hey, you get that in a 100$ smartphone, that's what my consumer mind is telling me.

sounds like a good idea! we are all in the middle of a massive Digital Film making revoltion right now - film is dying - it's almost gone for good (Christoper Nolan will have to start hording film stock soon!!) - the Alexa has now made such in an inroad in mainstream Hollywood films this past 3 years that its accepted as the main camera now. The thing that has not changed is glass! and getting the right focal lengths for the right shot in your film is still exactly the same for Digital or Film. What has changed is that Indie film making on Canon and Panasonic cameras it is now possible to make a finished product that is almost 95% as good as the big boys in Hollywood - the difference is not that great if you know what you are doing and if you learn to exploit the 'pros' of what ever camera you are using and mask the 'cons '. The right lenses help you get the 'movie look' and it is all very acheivable very cheaply if you look around for lenses that have a certain 'look' similar to expensive movie lenses.

I honestly believe the 5dmk4 is going to be mega. That is all.

Hi Andrew, as you know, Sigma cameras take seemingly forever to write RAW data. I assume it's because, as Benjamin pointed out, there is a lot of heavy math going into the interpretation of color readings. More evidence of the difficult math is that Adobe has never created a RAW reader for these files and the Sigma software is notoriously slow and buggy processing these files. The newer Sigma cameras use a high resolution top (blue?) layer to make a better compromise between resolution and color. I tried one of the new camera, still very slow. So the question is, has Sony figured out an electronic or mathematical way around Foveon (vertical color sampling) problems. I somewhat doubt it. Or are they using high resolution, over-sampling and the less critical nature of video color to sacrifice color accuracy for aliasing free video at high frame rates? Like the A7S, which isn't anything new, but a chip made the way a low-light videographer would make it, my belief is that Sony hasn't developed a new technology here. They're just making chips that will do one thing well, along the lines of what Sunyata said, (as you know, as nice as thte a7S is, it loses dynamic range at low ISO). Thoughts?

This parody is spot on, I've noticed an influx of bearded hipsters at local production & rental houses in the past two years. Filmmaking as fashion, fuck that...

Oh great link, finally I understand why motion blur sucks so much on my camera, I thought I was making this up.

So I tested the LX100 on real business this days. It performs pretty well, the sharpness is extraordinary but the focus pumps a lot if objects moves... so it is better to go manual. If you set the picture stile to superflat and raise shadows, the pics are astonishing good in 4K, in my opinion far better than GH4... the LX100 gives more natural colors, skin tones are better... but im still not able to get any video out of this camera... I purchased the AV adpater, but nothing... has anyone of you been able to get a video out signal?

I was (still I'm) considering it, specially for the bigger sensor, but the bandwidth @ 50/60p is about half of the one on the RX series, and I suppose that might be noticeable. Also I'd appreciate the 120 fps, which might take me to FZ1000, but I believe the RX10 better construction and 2.8 lens might be better compared to it.

Now the thread just sounds sexual...

Damn...that is not cool. I once shipped a lens as regular airmail overseas and did not declare full value at request of buyer (to avoid high import tax). Turned out to be bad idea that I will never do again. The tracking number I had was only valid was up to when it left my country (UK) and nothing more...not even if it simply reached it's destination (Chile). Both me and the buyer were panicking but after 2 Months or so - the package finally arrived. So it may simply take a long time to arrive...I think 'regular airmail' these days also can mean 'short plane journey to a very slow boat' Good luck

Don't think many disputed the quality of these lens types, but I suspect many had issues with having to deal with often heavy and long-sighted lumps 'o' gold. However your Tecnoir mounts do look like they address this mounting issue very nicely for dual focus. The FM lens being optimized for the cinelux/ ultra-star types leads me to believe it was chosen in recognition of Schneider/ isco optics as well as capitalize on the flooded market of disused (therefore cheap) projection lenses for the reasons you mentioned. I'd even go as far to say that because of 'Avatar' leading the real push that George Lucas started for worldwide digital projection, we now are in the position to buy $3-5k optics for stupidly low prices now. Some of these lenses are probably still warm from being torn out of a lovely family run 80 year old cinema to make way for upgraded digital projection for the next Pocahontas In Space movie.

No that's a thing called an iPhone. You may have already heard of it. Failing that you could look into what are known as 'camcorders' - they are sometimes quite well designed for shooting video with. And you're much less likely to phone somebody by accident with one of those. But if you're wanting to replicate Shoah your best bet is probably to strap a GoPro to your head and stick it up your own backside for several hours.

First the Messiah and now the Holocaust. And I thought cameras were a bit boring ...

I got mine through Vitaliy: http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/9086/rj-lens-turbo-m43-adapters/p1?Sort=newest Me three. That's a great idea. Would make for a good and valuable read I'm sure. I already have quite a bit of vintage/legacy glass and now got the RMC coming my way as well. What Andy said about the 28-70mm f/2.8 putting on a speedbooster basically covering three basic f/2 hollywood-look primes really got me intrigued too...

Impressive. I watched it in 1080p and it was extremely sharp. I can't understand why some folks still say that the advantages in detail when downsampling from 4K is a gimmick.

I'm going to change the annoying name of this thread. Bit fed up of seeing the word Messiah now :)

tbh i never really saw any point in the process on the iscorama since i find one of it's key selling points the protruding rear optic and its light weight plastic body. the van diemen mod does away with these two golden attributes by adding weight and shrouding that rear optic meaning it can no longer be seated as deep into the taking lens. I'm not saying it's an easy job, but assuming it takes me a few hours to do the close focus mod and a compete relube, it would take 10 mins longer to slip 3 pieces of aluminium over the internal cell and diopter rather than refitting the plastic shell. That said, I couldnt find the time to service my own iscorama, let alone start a service undercutting van diemen just to prove a point. Maybe I just undervalue my own time and should be charging more, but when you get a guy handing over large quantities of money (way more than i;d have the bottle to charge for such a job) to a guy who seems to not value how important the lens is to the owner, I do start to question the reasons why this service seems so popular.

My first week with the LX100: http://www.mirrorlessjourney.com/blog/2014/11/my-first-week-with-the-panasonic-dmc-lx100-1 :D

yes I might make you spend ..but Im getting you to spend on the right stuff , instead of just buying the latest flyby wire lens with no apperture ! haha! and all my lens recomendations are cheap and very usable ....not insanely expensive brand new and apperture less!! my fave Helios is the 1979 version I have 3 of them I use one on a dumb adapter = 58mm one on a speedbooster - so its wider =40mm and one on a speedbooster with a Century Optics x0.65 wide angle adapter on the front = 27mm 3 very usable focal lengths all with the same glass and 'Helios' look you could shoot 90% of a movie on those 3 focal lengths!! edit - this does make a very very good cheap lens 'set' with a consistant glass 'look' throught the focal lengths used - which is the trick really - glass parity is essential when you edit in my book - thats why when they shoot big budget movies they use a 'set' of lenses all by the same maker and same series usually so they have a uniform 'look' to the film. ie a set of all Cooke S4's or all Arri Ziess Master Primes or all Leica Summilux etc etc They tend not to mix up sets too much as it messes with the 'look' Start thinking in terms of 'sets' of lens that look good together across a range of focal lengths.

Ciao,there are even cheaper ones if you search on ebay, but my advice is to have a look on the Mercatino dell'usato website and search for lenses or cameras, you can find some really good bargains there. You might be lucky and get a good deal, I once found a Pentax Spotmatic with an Asahi super takumar 50mm F1.4 in good condition for 45 euros. This lens is worth 200 euro. Last time I was on the mercatino dell'usato website there were loads of helios. ;) Buona fortuna!!!

I'm always amazed how many people have gone for this modification. It's a huge amount of money for what equates to about 5hrs work and around £150 worth of machined aluminium. I've worked on 5 iscorama's this year. Making some which were unusable lumps of ruined glass or non moving focus helicoids back to full working order and have probably charged less than what he charges for a single job! Granted I'm not rehousing them, but some have been close focus modded which is a couple of hours of very careful work. He must be absolutely raking it in from Iscorama mods alone. Personally I'd not invest this much money on adding weight to the iscorama unless it provided non rotating front upgrade as the group buy offered. Scary amounts of money being thrown for a rather basic job IMO

the whole Carl Zeiss Distagon 'Hollywood' look is all referanced to Super 35mm film field of view (in dslr terms thats APSC or micro 4/3 WITH a speedbooster to give a Super 35mm Field of view) The Carl Zeiss Distagon f2 28mm lens has this reputation and the nick name 'Hollywood' in referance to it giving a similar look to a 27mm Carl Zeiss Master Prime Cinema Lens or a Zeiss Ultra prime 28mm The Zeiss Master Primes is in fact a 27mm lens not a 28mm like the Distagon. It's is David Fincher's favourite lens and used alot on all of his films plus DOPs like Roger Deakins use Zeiss Master Primes alot and large postions of the James Bond film Skyfall where shot on a Zeiss 27mm Master Prime. To get the 'Hollywood' look with the Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2 you need to shoot with it WIDE OPEN at f2 Its a very good expensive lens because it is sharp wide open at f2 - it is very very usable there! If you shoot with this lens at f5.6 it just looks like any other 28mm lens - BUT VERY SHARP! The 'look' is wide open at f2. The other month I was fliming with a 2 camera set up and I wanted the same lens on both cameras. I only have one Zeiss 28mm lens I was using on camera 1 on a Lens Turbo speesbooster on a g6 so I came up with a very good alternative for camera 2 that looks practically the same as the Zeiss. Here is how I did it- poor mans Distagon 28mm f2 you take a Canon new FD (nFD) 28mm f2.8 and put it on an RJ canon fd - micro 4/3 speed booster - this gives you the Super 35mm field of view like you need and makes the lens f2 which gives you that look - the speed booster also sharpens the lens so its now of similar sharpness to the Zeiss . When I cut between camera 1 and camera 2 in the edit it worked great both looked the same! The Canon fd lens has the same warm look and great blacks like the Zeiss and its now f2!! So there you have it Hollywood 28mm f2 lens look on the cheap !! If you are serious about getting a Hollywood look on all your footage the three focal lengths you need to be using they are 28mm , 40mm and 70mm all shot at f2 all the time in a Suoer 35mm field of view (so APSC or Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster) 28mm for the wides 70mm for all the close up head shots and 40mm for all the rest the coverage shots (use a 50mm lens if you don't have a 40mm lens and take 3 steps backwards!! haha that ususally gives the same look) and for all of you that read about me harping on about the Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 'Bourne' zoom lens will see it covers all those focal lengths I have mentioned above in just one lens - instant Hollywood in one lens !! stick it on a speed booster and that makes it the all magic f2 you need to get the 'look'

Superb little GH4 video, shot with a rather interesting C-mount TV zoom (Ampex Vidicon 22.5-90mm 1:1.5 C-Mount):