Leaderboard

Ok ladies and gangsters, the verdict is ready, anamorphic shop announced: EOSHD forums society will get 10% discount. Please inform your group that on the sale date which will be announced on FB page your members have to contact me personally and they will have an opportunity to buy an FM Lens first of all others with a 10% discount, having in mind that the first stock is limited. However we are interested by supporting your group with other Anamorphic Shop products in a future. Thanks to everyone.

firstly they dont shoot movies on full frame ..so you dont need to even think about the corners..... they shoot Super 35mm and this lens delivers great images in APSC and Micro 4/3 on a speedbooster Oliver Wood pioneered this lens on Bourne Ultimatum - since then - DPs Phil Meheux, Roberto Schaefer, Trent Opaloch, Newton Thomas Sigel and Barry Ackroyd all use these Nikons too on big feature films. the 28-70mm f2.8 Nikon breathes LESS than the 15k Carl Zeiss 28-80 CZ2 T 2.9 its light and has a 'pop' to it optically its has a very nice look to the glass in it - and it delivers nice blacks too I use them alot it is not as aspherically sharp 'harsh' as a Canon L Series lens is

Hey guys, I threw a sample video together for you... pass: jockjams It's a compilation of some paid work I've done with the A7s. I'm really against shooting s-log2 with this camera. I've never been able to get anything but weird results from it. Maybe I'm just not a good enough colorist, but I haven't seen many other people get good color from it, either. My current favorite shooting mode is the creative style Autumn Leaves with contrast -3, sat 0, sharpness -3. I set wb manually to compensate for a7s's tint problems. Then I grade in FCP X.

Now the thread just sounds sexual...

Hello all, I've been a DP most of my career, a situation where I shoot footage and then the manipulation of the footage is literally out of my hands. With movies, I sit in on the grades and supervise, but I don't actually work the tools. On commercials, the footage is completely out my control after wrap. Except with cutting and grading finished footage for my reels, my experience with hands on grading is moderate. Now, however, I'm originating many of my own personal projects: shooting, cutting and grading them. Much of this burst in personal creativity has been inspired by the A7s. Its size, sensitivity, etc has truly liberated much of my shooting. However, while I've for the most part have been able to get the tones I like, the A7s has been exceedingly difficult. I find getting a rich and accurate flesh tone difficult. I know it can be done because I've seen a few excellent examples. Most examples I've seen have been disappointing. So what I'm asking is for anyone who's unlocked the secret sauce to share their LUTs, CC settings and shooting protocol. Here's some footage I recently shot for B roll for project I'm shooting. S log 2. Exposures have plenty to play with. I boosted the saturation in camera by 10-13. I did a pass in FCPX CC. I can't get the grade right. And this is footage from a screen test for one of our talent. I was able to get considerably better colors on my 5d3 in the flesh tones. Also originated on Slog2, A7s, Sat +13. I'm considering purchasing Osiris. Any thoughts or alternatives I should consider. Please lets keep this on topic and constructive. Thanks, Tim

I believe it's the same. Looks like the same Chinese product is being sold with a dozen different brand names. Surely there can't be that many different manufacturers for those. I bet there's only one or two. I take it even that Camdiox one delivered in that fancy yellow box is pretty much the same thing... right? So I believe it's a matter of taste, price and logistics. Pick any one that suits you best, or pay more for the Metabones one. Or perhaps just a slight misintrepretation on your part. I said "out-resolving the sensor." Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing. No doubt the Nikon lens mentioned is sharp, too, but that's not quite what I was referring to. I used 'too sharp' between apostrophes just as a reference to Andy's 'harsh.' I thought "out-resolving the sensor" and "video-y and dull albeit tack sharp" was clear enough not to be confused with sharpness of a lens. But fair enough, suppose that sentence was a bit confusing, after all. My bad. What I meant was that the higher the resolving power of the lens, the more likely you'll start seeing aliasing and moire of the sensor at some point. That point being where the lens out-resolves the sensor. Perhaps aided by a good enough speed booster. A sharp lens is just a sharp lens, nothing wrong with that, as you pointed out. As long as that sharp lens won't out-resolve the sensor, you'll usually end up with a sharp but reasonably pleasant look. I've thought that ideally a given lens and the sensor should sort of make a nice 'match,' too. This may be an over-simplified version of the notion, but nevermind, just to clarify my point. I don't wish to derail the topic with any further nit-picking. Suppose the bottom line is that there are several different reasons why people like to use legacy film lenses for modern filmmaking. It may often come down to matters of taste, but there's more to it than that. All the nit-picking put aside, what Andy's been saying in this thread so far seems to make a lot of sense.

I think you should consider reversing the highlight in that sentence. Starting the bold text from the word if, not before it. The way it is now looks a bit daft. Yeah, well, consider yourself lucky with your other solution. Yours may just not be enough for some others. Other than that, Mac vs. Windows (or Linux) is as productive as Canon vs. Nikon (or Canikon vs. Olysonicsontaxleicafilm), so let's not even start, please.

If you read my original post - the one my comment you took against follows on from - I say "I can understand this sensor being used for scientific instruments, but what use is 36000fps for cinema". Not to get petty about it, but I was in fact the first person on this thread to suggest such high frame rates would actually only be useful for scientific applications. You certainly didn't do so in your review. You just said 36000fps doesn't make sense for smartphones. As if it does for cinema!!! You always take my posts as being antagonistic Andrew. If you have to do so and feel the need to comment on them, please at least make the effort to read them in the context in which they were written.

  So what's your point Matt, is it that 36000fps is useless?   I can tell you it isn't. In science it has tons of applications. And it isn't "inert" if you have an exploding missile shell in front of the lens.   It will capture motion so fast that it would otherwise be invisible to the naked eye.   That's why I think the sensor has two markets. Cinema at 6k, 240fps, 20 stop DR and the scientific market in a high speed camera. And who knows the 1" sensor might even enable clear low light pictures on a smartphone one day.   Good job Sony is pushing the boundaries, because Canon are not.

  It probably won't be outside of a scientific device but I expect Sony will sell this sensor to the science market as well. Anyway, the number is just a measurement. The take-away is that its a damned fast sensor. Let's not get caught up in the exact figures. 240fps in 6K is much more usable and a sensor this fast can do that....great.   Also it might be that at the very high speed modes, they are black and white & designed for science. It is the active pixel color sampling modes that are of most interest to me.

They are pushing the boundaries of what's possible creatively with this sensor. Look beyond the specs, impressive though they are, to what they will enable.   Completely agree with Rich... its going to be wild.

I only use 2 wide lenses with the Nikons the Panny 14mm and the Olympus 17mm ....both m4/3

Nice work comurit!

Isn't that indeed one of the key elements that makes it such a usable lens for cinema-like digital video? In the sense that it's not 'too sharp,' and it doesn't out-resolve the sensor it's being used with. What I mean is that if a lens is 'too sharp' and capable of out-resolving the sensor, it'll amplify the digital artefacts like jaggies and moire, and make the footage look 'video-y' and dull, albeit tack sharp. Which is one reason why many of the legacy lenses made for 35mm film work so nicely for video. I don't have any Nikon lenses currently, but I just thought that this lens together with the Metabones first Speed Booster for BMPCC might be a nice, simple combo. The Nikon version of the Speed Booster for MBPCC is cheaper than the Canon one, albeit much more limiting in lens choice. Another niggle is that the wide end would be slightly less wide, too, because of the ~1.7x crop factor. I wonder if someone is using such a combo, and if yes, what might be a matching lens (character-wise, as described by Andy above) (prime, perhaps) for the wider end?

Interesting. I can't help but wondering if this new tech will become the one to replace the Bayer one eventually, though. I'm no expert, but my gut feeling tells me that the next 'industry standard' tech, should there ever be one in the future, should be something simpler, electronic or not. I bet there will soon be other rivalling technologies out later on, at least on paper. I also wonder if this will just replace one set of digital artefacts (rolling shutter, interpolation artefacts) with all new ones. Oh well, s'pose we'll see, eventually. Anyway, getting a global shutter as a bonus sounds good to me. Meanwhile, what a nice 'leak,' whether it was deliberate or not. It'll be an abundant source for nerdytainment, and it'll keep the hardcore geeks busy for weeks, way before any actual device with the actual tech hits the shelves. As soon as someone introduces the obligatory and inevitable N-word and C-word into the debate, this thread will no doubt have 17+ pages by the time CES and CP+ take place in early 2015. I'm not bashing no-nonsense comments like those by AndrewM here, they are interesting reading per se. Just predicting the likely near future before we see the actual sensor in an actual camera, in a not too serious fashion. Carry on. ;)

Interesting, Panasonic should lower the 12-35mm price now.

I can't stand those wankers with bush beards and fricken wayfearers ponsing around in a flanolette shirt!! There's hundreds of them here in Sydney, I can't believe believe they actually have to wear all that shit to get noticed, it's embarassing!!

I think the Foveon/Sigma problem is probably a mix of (1) silicon being a pretty lousy (and probabilistic) color filter, thus providing "information" that requires an awful lot of massaging to make "real" color, (2) trying to pull information from three distinct layers of a chip and (3) Sigma being a small company and not really an electronics company. So they probably don't have cutting-edge processing hardware, or custom hardware, or optimized code and algorithms. And there are just differences in the details of everybody's solutions that don't seem intrinsic to basic technology - Panasonic, for instance, seems to have lower power/lower heat 4K processing than Sony right now, for whatever reason. I am a little puzzled why the Sigmas aren't better. I think, if we are understanding the Sony imager right, the first issue is how good and how quick the electronically-changing color filter is. If it is good (quick and color accurate), then all you have to do theoretically is pull the numbers from each sensor and sum them individually for each color pass. You could do that locally for each pixel with very simple hardware in essentially no time - you just have an add-buffer. Then you have to get all the numbers off the sensor into the rest of the chip, but that only has to happen once a frame. And you don't have to do that quickly, or worry about rolling shutter, because the moment of exposure is controlled at the pixel. Global shutter is free. The other issue is sensitivity. If we are right, then each frame is a lot of exposures in each color added up. Short exposure means less light, even if the pixels are three times the size because no Bayer. My guess is that there will be a trade-off. At low light, you can have low noise/good sensitivity (by having long individual color exposures and summing fewer of them) but then you will have problems with temporal aliasing of color (which you might be able to deal with in processing but at a loss of resolution). Or you can have good temporal resolution by having more, shorter exposures, at the cost of greater noise/lesser sensitivity. Low light with lots of motion is going to be the worst case for this technology, if I am understanding it right.

funny you asked while we are negotiating, yes , they are launching FM Lens sales next week and all information will be provided on the FB page.

Don't talk to me about having a beard and yet not being cool. I am the uncool beard MASTER!!!

this is the RJ Canon FD to micro 4/3 focal reducer Im using http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-speed-booster-turbo-adapter-to-m4-3-mft-GH3-GF6-GX1-EM5-EM1-GH4-BMPCC-/360845797671?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item540415e927 its also looks exactly like this one which is most likely exactly the same just a different reseller and its cheaper http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Optical-Focal-Reducer-Speed-Booster-adapter-Canon-FD-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-/271381867830?pt=UK_Photography_CameraLenses_Lens_caps_hoods_adaptors_ET&hash=item3f2f9ead36

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.