Leaderboard

if you want to shoot some thing that looks like it has Hollywood movie 'field of views' just remember these 3 focal lengths 27mm for your wides 75mm for the close ups 40mm for the rest of the coverage all referanced to a 35mm motion picture camera or APSC or Micro 4/3 with a speedbooster you can shoot most of your movie on these 3 lenses - or use a 28-70mm zoom that covers almost them all (NIKON!!!) shoot at f2.8 - and off you go .......all else is irrelevant cross referancing to full frame and will just slow you down I ignore full frame totally as I just dont like the look of it.

More info with video of the firmware. http://www.newsshooter.com/2014/11/20/panasonic-gh4-v-log-picture-profile-spotted-in-the-wild/ quote from newsshoter " By technical editor Matt Allard: A GH4 on the Panasonic stand at the Inter BEE show in Tokyo today was running beta firmware with the V-Log picture profile. This Log profile is similar to the one in the much more expensive Varicam 35. This would be a very welcome enhancement for anyone trying to get the best possible image from the GH4, and a huge advantage for colourists trying to match the GH4 with other cameras. I spoke to a Panasonic representative who told me that the V-Log Picture Profile was only being tested at the moment and isn’t confirmed for the next firmware release. Interestingly enough though I did run into a Japanese shooter who had V-Log operational on his GH4. Lets hope that it is indeed scheduled to be included in Panasonic’s upcoming firmware update."

Nolan made an embarrassingly pretentious movie with Interstellar, which imo renders all his not-below-IMAX attitude ridiculous. The old films mentioned above may look outmoded in hindsight. But that wasn't the case at their time. It is my habit to try to relate to the contemporary audience's horizon and expectations. I am old enough to remember some of the first reactions to masterpieces first hand. And I think none of the nice and intelligent films of 2014 can claim to be in the same class. Sorry.

Ok so the Messiah will not come again.

I've been a film-nut since my teens and I'm in my 50s now. Nine times out of ten, I now exit the movie theater wondering why I still bother. In order to suspend my belief, the filmmaker can't dare me to ignore the incongruous. Like many of Tim Burton's movies, Interstellar came across as a movie made by a visually imaginative person with no interest in subtle character development and story-telling. Am I just too old to get it? What am I missing? To put it bluntly, though the film was watchable, I thought it immature. Inazuma, what about Interstallar did you find incredible? How is it a movie that defines moves? Have you see the original "Day the Earth Stood Still", or "2001 A Space Odyssey" or even "GATTACA" or "Contact", which are fairly recent? There was only one thing that Interstellar got right. The black character who waited 23 years, alone, in the ridiculous time warp remained cool, while the white one became a sociopath ;)

It also has XAVC-S and S-LOG2! http://www.sony.jp/ichigan/products/ILCE-7M2/speclist.html I guess this is the EM1 update that I was waiting for.

Drew Gupta (DrewNet) describes the 7-14 as having "distortion from hell itself!" And that's on the BMPCC :unsure: Also, I don't think you can screw an ND on it. Not a video lens really, if you want honesty. Anyone here watch DrewNetwork's videos on YT? I think he's awesome...

I'm still not convinced by the footage I've seen from this camera - still looking overly sharp, very brittle, crushed detail and quite artificial, didn't see this "filmic motion" others have spoke of here. That said, the features are not too far off ideal for my uses so I'd rather give it a go then set my opinion based on a few quick shots. I'd still like to see more.... ;)

Oh, just wait a few minutes...

I noticed Jupiter Ascending used Leica lenses. After a little research I found this: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2014/03/why-do-we-want-flat-glass/ The Cooke has distortion and less pleasing bokeh (only 5 blades), however it just looks better ("3D"). Testing cameras and lenses against each other is a useful exercise. I've been testing the GH4 against the A7S in studio lighting and the GH4 is looking better, especially in skintones. I had tweaked the A7S to look similar to the 5D3 and thought it looked pretty good until I did the same with the GH4. Under studio lighting, the GH4 produces nicer skintones and a cleaner image (+ 4K!). In December the Atomos Shogun will bring 4K to the A7S, however the GH4 will get 10-bit 422 4K at the same time (vs. 8-bit for the A7S).

Thank you for pointing that out to me.

The new norm of media, online and off, is copying, pasting and propagating rumours and memes. We are the Media of the 2010's. You will be force-fed with rumours. Anywhere you look. Resistance is futile.

100% agree with you! 5D MkII and MkIII look is so "videoish"! Hollywood has a shallow depth of field, but not an extreme, unusable depth of field! And a lot of movies just haven't!

If the stabilization works well in video, then there are all sorts a flow-on benefits. Compression will work better (vertical and horizontal movements "suit" the algorithms, but roll really screws with it, and fewer small changes to deal with means more data going to things that matter) and rolling shutter effects that delay and spread out camera movements and make things swirl will be reduced. Frankly, the second is really big for me - I can't watch go pro footage most of the time because of the combination of rolling shutter and lots of camera movement is completely disorienting.

I am selling my M5 with 3 batteries and battery grip. 500EUR Speedbooster EF/MFT 70EUR condition: perfect.

I watched a lot of things on planes this year. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes was great, and also enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow more than I thought I would (in Japan they stuck to the original, and way better title, All You Need is Kill). I missed A Most Wanted Man, I really wanted to see that. I enjoyed just how imperfect and photographic Interstellar looked when most films of that ilk are super sharp CG. There was some serious blurriness at the edge of the image (in IMAX anyway), even in the ensemble, medium-long dialogue shots, so that Casey Affleck is delivering a line, and his head is a blurry blob. Take that, corner-to-corner sharpness junkies!

A 24MP sensor can't beat a 12MP sensor in low light.

Kinda looks like they tried to cut down on the leaks/rumors. Seems lik no websites have had the camera or even the press release under NDA. Even local Sony sites didnt have the info / website content. Worked out pretty well, nobody suspected this camera untill yesterday. And even then the leak was from Japan (digicame-info)... It is a global release though. Press release is online now at Sony EU. Available in europe in January. Price will be €1800 body / €2100 kit (28-70mm OSS) - says Sony Netherlands.

Here's the video showing it.

Buying a new camera these days seems like the worst deal possible (unless it permits you to make more money). The A7 is selling for less than 800€ on ebay and it was released only one year ago, that's a 50% price fall in one year...

I believe you can compare all films. Agreed, Hollywood films and independents have different audiences, but they use the same material and devices and have the same goal of getting the viewer to say, "I trusted this person to entertain me and they did." I don't get a lot of enjoyment from Wes Anderson's films. I enjoyed Rushmore because I felt it was my life on screen, even my name! :) However, I understand what he's trying to do and respect the film-making decisions he makes because they work great for my wife and kids. They love his films, many of my friends do. If Hmcindie enjoyed Interstellar then who am I to knock it. I'm glad he did. Anyway, I can only criticize Wes Anderson about what I don't like, not about his fundamental film-making which is excellent. Or put another way, I really appreciate Anderson as an artist even if it isn't my cup of tea. The problem with Interstellar is that the director doesn't seem to make choices based on style, but on wrong-headed concepts of what makes a story emotional. It isn't extremely shallow DOF, or a 3-hour running length, or a father who goes into space without a proper goodbye from his daughter. As Bioskop said above, Nolan should have focused on what he's good at--the crazy science-fiction time travel stuff. I wouldn't know how to write a better script than Nolan, but I know there are people out there who do know. I do know enough about science to have improved the movie, but at my age this isn't bragging or ego. I WANT to be blown away by mass-market science fiction movies. My guess is that, despite all his fame and money, Nolan is too insecure to hire people more talented than him in their respective areas. If the spacecraft in Interstellar are going to be able to land and take off from planets with 2-times Earth's gravity then DO NOT show them being put into space by an Apollo era rocket ship. It's NOT necessary to anything in the movie. Again, with Anderson, I might not like an effect, but I can't argue that the effect fits into his style. In the end, I enjoyed Grand Budapest, a type of film I don't normally like, a lot more than Interstellar which is a film I naturally enjoy (so I enjoyed Pacific Rim and didn't care how corny it was).

according to this , it will have IBIS for all lenses.... http://av.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20141120_676968.html

More news from Rectilux... Rectilux 3FF will be available in two versions, the 3FF-S version (S for stealth) is the smallest and lightest of all Rectilux, designed specifically for Run n Gun operation and discreet shooting. Rectilux 3FF-S AnaFocus attachment features Floating Zone Focus as standard and supports 72mm filters. Coupled with fast, responsive smooth and slick single focus, you will never miss a shot. The pocket size Rectilux 3FF-S is the perfect entry level model for the world of CinemaScope shooting on a budget. Rectilux 3FF-S is guaranteed to fit 1 Möller 32/2X CinemaScope Anamorphot** type 2 Kowa Prominar Anamorphic 16-S 2X type 3 Sankor 16-C 2X type 4 Prima 16-CS 2X type 5 ISCO S8 2X (with infinity modification) more will follow Specification is at the website: http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/rectilux-3ff-s.html VR product view is at http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/rectilux-3ff-s-vr.html

Fury is my favourite film in the cinema at the moment. Intsteller? Quite bad. I was certainly slightly underwhelmed by it all. I thought the focus on Dad-Daughter relationship was misguided and took the edge of the thrills and also "sci-fi" aspects. If you're going to focus on human relationships in those sort of "strange" environments, much better to focus on the interactions between the crew (which is what makes Band of Brothers so good). Also, bringing "love" into the cod-science was slightly embarassing. If I were making the film I would have focused on the dystopian elements a lot more in the beginning (rather than the previously mentioned Dad-daughter trype) and, at the end, would also have abandoned all that tosh. Fundamentally, if you're going to pose "big questions" you either need to go b*t sh*t crazy in answering them (a la 2001: A Space Odyssey) or provide some big answers (although that is neigh on impossible to do - look at the second and third Matrix films). They could have come up with some crazy world beyond the wormhole, or simply implied it was up to Ann Hathaway to save the human race (and I would have bene happy to ignore the huge issues with that). It was also strangely predictable. As soon as they landed on the first planet I thought "that's a giant wave in the background", as soon as they found Mann and the robot was broken up I thought "he's gone crazy" but it wasn't done in a good enough way to ratchet up the tension, I sort of knew Matt Damon would try to kill Cooper. Also not annoucning Matt Damon in the cast etc is a big mistake. As soon as he woke up I spent 15 seconds going "is that Matt Damon"? If you're going to have a "star" uncredited, it pulls people out of the film. It only works when they are cast hugely against type and have a suitable entrance (think Once Upon a Time in the West although, of course, Henry Fonda was credited) or, perhaps, when it is revealed that Arnie is the good guy in Terminator 2 (perhaps lost on us who weren't exposed to the advertising and potentially "knew" about the T1000 anyway).

Hi JCS, I can accept any fictional time-space theory. It was the blatant small-science sloppiness that got to me. When Flash Gordon became a hit, a long, long time ago, you knew it was inaccurate that rocket exhaust would flame upwards in level flight, but you also knew there was no other way for them to get the effect. They created a model and put a Roman candle in it and filmed. In Star Trek you knew it made no sense that the ship's phasers would each go at an angle to the target, but you also knew it would look stupid on your tiny little TV if they showed it as a straight line (unless it was a little blip of photon torpedo). I'm sure you get my point. Historically, the problem with special effects was they often just couldn't film what would be more believable (from a science point of view) in a visual fashion. The tech just wasn't there. But the filmmakers KNEW what they would have done if they could have. Today we have F-35s with vertical thrusters, which were used in Harrier Jump jets beginning in the 1960s, and pretty much common knowledge by the 1990s. Yet the design of the space-ships in Interstellar are 1930s. If the water wasn't 1-foot deep on that planet, what would have happened then? The whole movie I felt the director was saying "f-you I'll make my spaceships any way I want because I'm THE genius here. I know that because my last movie made a billion dollars" The problem is rampant in movies, maybe always has been. Like Redford's "All is Lost". I'm no sailing expert but even I noticed all the unrealistic shots. For example, if there is one thing marine electronics is, it is WATERPROOF. Yet we're to believe they all short circuited. It's the audience's vanity that they want to be part of something special so badly they can't say the emperor has no clothes. My daughter says most of her friends would look at her as a freak if she said what she really thought about Nolan's movies. As for Interstellar's cinematography. Again, I don't see anything special there. The b-movie "Moon" was 100x more evocative of space and interstellar psychology. There was one scene, in Interstellar, where the organ music is building and building and building and then they run out of fuel and it stops and the character says something like "we ran out of fuel" and I so badly wanted to turn to my movie companion and say, "no, they ran out of organ music". It was SO obvious. I almost laughed out loud. An actor should have said what Bette Davis said in "Dark Victory". "Max (Steiner), only one of us is going up those stairs."

The great thing about Gone Girl is that he made a pretty average novel into a really good film. The Grand Budapest Hotel out shines both & as a quasi Doc, 20,000 Days on Earth was pretty spot on.

Why? Makes no sense whatsoever. 1kg isn't really that heavy & the extra weight really helps with getting steady shots.

Interstellar was Nolan's first ever digital intermediate !! he's awayes done photochemical colour timing before......what next... Nolan shoot on an Arri Alexa......heaven forbid!!

Neither too... Nightcrawler is awesome.

http://dogschidtoptiks.co.uk/ Sidles off, hoping no-one saw me leaving that there....

The Nikon and Zeiss are very similar lenses optically both are warm and have strong blacks but the Zeiss 35-70mm is a push pull lens not as wide and slower too so you don't need it if you have a Nikon also I Prefer the Zeiss 28-70mm in c/y mount as its smaller wider and a two touch zoom but again the Nikon is better as its faster .at f5.6 both lenses have the same pop but at f2.8 the Nikon is king its great wide open and that's where I use it - on micro 4/3 on a lens turbo speed booster - that makes a big difference making it an f2 lens giving you a great look on micro 4/3 cameras that's very hard to beat in my book

Just a short fashion film I shot during a photoshoot the other day. Its pretty much the first real thing I have shot with my anamorphic lens, mainly due to its lack of run and gun ability, but I found with the 35-70 things worked out pretty smoothly. Never had to swap out lenses and it performs very well. I did not use the new firmware update photo mode. Mostly 48 & 60 fps Let me know what you think?! (Ive got a 15second version on my page too)

fixed Tiffen Nds are the best - thats all I ever use buy an ND 2 4 8 AND 16 and stack them to get the exposure you need Vari NDs produce horrid artifacts on your footage and colour shifts as they are in all just 2 polorisers working against each other..avoid!

Yep pretty much nailed it. I might suggest having two reels. One promoting your artsy personality and projects. The other promoting yourself as a videography business, satisfying that need to excite people to work with you.

The golden ratio is a low contrast but with resolving power and no CA. In order to get this you need to go for top quality lenses from an era before multi coatings became popular. Old Zeisses, Schachts Munchens, and some ULMS (designed by an ex zeiss guy), Old Sankor lenses, rodenstock m42's, old tokinas etc. A magical little 35mm lens in T Mount meaning it can be adapted to anything.:- http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sankor-2-8-35-mm-Exa-Exakta-mount-287573E-lk044-/361114539012?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Objektive&hash=item54141a9404

I was wondering why some of those shots looked so muddy. Turns out they were done with a Canon rebel :)

Looks pretty cool Matt ,first run through I felt it would be more effective editing it down to perhaps three minutes Glad that you are open to doing community shoots ,they are a great way to extend your video /audio skills and try different shots and mic placement etc.Our suburb has a custom car and motorcycle show in the park each year which is good fun to film.

I want to say that the Sankor adapter out performs most projector lenses. It can focus closer, it's smaller and lighter, it doesn't cost that much more compare to other adapters, and the image quality is good for the price you are paying. I don't have any experience using the projector lenses so I can't speak for them myself personally, but just based on what I've read they're more suitable for experienced people that want to experiment and have a rig setup already that can support large lens adapter and front-heavy setup.

Quality video is never coming back to the DSLR line.   That is precisely what the Cinema EOS line is for.   And you must pay the asking price for it, or get a Sony.

Anybody still keeping this up? I have what I think is a Tokina 0.5 diopter. Not sure, its a No 0.05 i believe ill have to check it but ive heard the 0.25 is better for clearing up CA on the LA7200. Not finding much on ebay these days.

Moot point? Apart from you mathematical DOF equivalence -which sounds accurate- the look and feel of a larger sensor is very different. Try to shoot outside on a sunny day and get shallow depth of field with a M43 sensor. On full frame you would need ND filters to be able to open up to f5.6. On APS-C you probably need a stronger ND filter to open to f3.5. Can you imagine the kind of filtration you need to shoot under a summer sun at f1.8? Unless you are using good expensive filters, you'd need to correct IR and color shifts. The "character" of the lens would probably be lost under layers of filters, and the rig would not be so convenient. No matter how you look at it, a bigger sensor has a different -IMHO more cinematic- feel that cannot be so easily compensated. It helps both in bright and darker environments. Wether you consider it fundamental or not is a matter of taste or the specific look you aim for, but the difference between APS-C and M43 is an important factor, just like perceived resolution, dynamic range and color science. And by the way, there are wider aperture zooms that you can use on E-mount. That's one of the particular strengths of the system, that you can easily adapt lenses from many other mounts, or even use native primes, which is the ideal way to go if circumstances allow it.