Leaderboard

What a bunch of overgeneralizing statements, just to try to proove a point that you already decided on. Photography has never been this alive. People said the exact same thing about painting when photography came up. People said the exact same thing about music when MIDI was invented. This is lazy arguing at best.

A static shot should not flicker like that, period. This has nothing to do if he used a nd or high shutter or just closed down the iris to compensate, that flicker is not normal IF all settings in the camera are manual and if they are not changed during the shot, none of my camera's I ever had display this issue and I have shot at the beach right into the sun as well.

I agree with Richard's letter and don't agree that Motion Six should be private correspondence against someone's wishes, it's borderline illegal. Also I don't agree with Pete Winkle whoever the fuck he is... for bringing it to our attention here, on a forum known to support Rich's work at Dog Schidt Optiks and as a mod. Thread closed.

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this! It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0. http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/ I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

Very professional to publish emails like that. No opinion on the matter. Let them figure it out between themselves.

Well, I'm withdrawing from the discussion, this is getting too wild for me. ND Filters? C'mon, sure I know about filters, this has nothing to do with filters. Enjoy the camcorder.

I've got mine from Vid-Atlantic as well. Alternatively you could opt for Redstan.

IMHO it would not, no. Every half-decent camera should be able to handle this. At least everything else I've used before can.

Ok, exporting the HEVC to TIFF directly, skipping the ProRes. 1) All channels DO show 0-65535 range. So ProRes is making it worse. 2) The flicker is visible on source HEVC as well. Here are the median values L/R/G/B (i'm skipping the standard deviation) TIFF A 48059 / 44461 / 46260 / 47545 ProRz A 48059 / 44718 / 46517 / 47545 TIFF B 48059 / 44461 / 46260 / 47545 ProRz B 48059 / 44718 / 46517 / 47545 (overall brightness is the same, but it is slightly higher on ProRes. Would be one tick in 8-bit 0-255 scale) TIFF C 47288 / 43690 / 45489 / 46774 ProRz C 47288 / 43497 / 45746 / 47031 TIFF D 47288 / 43690 / 45489 / 46744 ProRz D 47288 / 43974 / 45746 / 47031 So compared to ProRes, the overall brightness drops the same 1.18%. However compared the ProRes is a bit brighter in green/blue and darker in red. I compared the frames and then did an stretched the histogram. So there you go.

Its very hard to say without seeing the true / original image, but for sure the 1.4x looks better but she might have just had a round face! I grade a lot of music promos and its not uncommon for the Label to ask to give a 5-10% squeeze on the footage horizontally to make the artist look slimmer. Happens and awful lot, especially with female artist.

​I see your point. When shooting faces I sometimes 'under squeeze' a bit (sometimes too much). I guess it a subjective thing. I think sometimes we get a distorted view of our images because we have seen the original. Plus i think it depends on different factors, focal length, subject distance, talking lens. It can make your workflow tricky. If I saw the x1.5 version of your shot in something, I don't think it would leap out as 'wrong'. But maybe the x1.4 looks more natural. its a weird one, but it makes shooting anamorphic more fun.

I prefer the 1.4x version. Thoughts?

Ah. Another philosophical thread. Actually, photography is very much alive, making it accessible to more and more people. The digital age does make it easier to get nice pictures without even knowing what you're doing, in that regard it's a pity that everything is so high tech and easy to get into... but then again. We used to have phonenumbers stored in our brains, now we have 'em in our phones... does that makes us dumber? Well, perhaps, lol, but now we can relocate our resources and be able to focus on other stuff (like the creative side of things). So a photographer can in fact embrace it and use it for the good of taking greater pictures. Not each single individual is as talented as the next though, but overall there's much more quality stuff out there, which makes it harder to get noticed. So unless you fear that others are worlds better than you, I'd say you have nothing to worry about in terms of being a relevant photographer.

Having just seen "Selma" (Alexa and Hawk V anamorphic), I'm extremely pleased with the FM, Hypergonar, Russian M42 glass and A7s combo is immensely filmic. Organic glass and great sensor response. Character and color science trumps resolution, IMO.

Seriously? Not being able to move a camera is the shooters problem? Does that mean you would have to buy a second camera if you want to introduce movement? If you want to tell a story you don't need a 2K+ nx1 either then, just grab the cheapest camera you can get, preferably one that doesn't change exposure all by itself. The NX1 looks like a great camera but a shifting exposure in manual mode, based on the examples I have seen, is something that cannot be accepted if you are serious about shooting any type of film, hopefully Samsung will be able to fix it though but it is not something anyone should accept as being normal or even try to find ways to work around it.

color me interested. any support for the Bolex 16/32?

Hi Guys. For those of you that are interested. If you change the clip attributes to DVCProHD pixel aspect ratio in resolve. You het a perfect desqueeze without having to scale or warp. Vey handy. Thanks to Chris Elkerterton for the heads up.

I think the low light capabilities of the GH4 have been a bit misunderstood by many. Extreme low light with the A7s is a very cool artistic tool, but in no way is the GH4 unusable in low light. Just don't try to see in the dark with the GH4 and let shadows be shadows. To that extent, it is a low light camera if treated well. Our latest short travel film has bunches of low light shots: A Postcard from Jamaica

Hi everybody, Just pulled the trigger on 3FF-W for Kowa 8-Z!!!

The Grand Budapest Hotel had so much excellent camera work that I purchased it to study. Great story, acting, pacing, art direction, music too! Haven't seen Birdman- heard it was great, will watch it soon.

By far the most enjoyable and fun flare/bokeh test I've ever seen.

I'm curious about it. I like this kind of thing, made of bits and pieces from other things.

Hey Cosimo, you should definitely get into gear and make music again! Great stuff!!! Just listening to "For Marcel"... beautiful - reminds me when I've been on a Kraftwerk concert woohoo