Leaderboard

So I've received my RafCamera gear that I commissioned for my FM lens and I'm glad to report it fits perfectly. http://rafcamera.com/en/accessories/ff-gears/gear-fm-lens-88-107-32mm It is VERY tight fit to put on (which is good) - so if you buy one, be prepared to expect that. More pictures of it setup on my 5DmkIII https://www.flickr.com/photos/129041403@N06/sets/72157650417068585/

​Thanks Andrew, and all the other members who took the effort to give me advice..I decided to buy the Sony A7S and will start with my old (FD, 28, 35, 55) lenses. I have a good feeling that I made the right choice, maybe someday I will film in 4K, but for now I will use the 1080. Happy! ​

​ It's incredible how many people ignore the importance of lighting when making "filmic" images, or any images for that matter. Lighting is more important than the camera, it can make the image of a "sub-standard" camera look much better than "the best camera ever" that was used without additional lighting. Obviously. Sony A7S is the best choice IMO (for your needs). Regardless of its's high sensitivity, don't ignore a set of lights either

​Cosimo did a nice job by drilling the mounting tube - then inserting nylon screws to make it a clamp smaller anamorphics (again, info is in this thread a few pages back). I however can pack my Kowa B&H into the tube (after taking kowa's focus ring off) and simply tape it in centered to the FM mounting tube. I'll probably make a video on how that is done soon, as the principle is the same for any smaller anamorphic lens that people may want to use within the FM lens.

​The FM lens clamps itself to the cinelux type lenses via tiny grub screws - then the rear of the cinelux body is clamped to the large ring clamp. When not using a Cinelux - the tube acts as a proxy cinelux, allowing an alternative (smaller) anamorphic lens to take it's place. Here is a reminder of how it all fits together...imagine the cinelux is a hollow aluminium tube with a smaller anamorphic lens inside - then it should make sense: https://vimeo.com/105787520

​Not great to be honest - as the edelkrone only clamps to one 15mm rod, so the heavy torque of the FM focus helicoid tends to push the alignment off unless the Edelkrone is seriously cranked down on it's locking lever. A follow focus with regular duel rod clamp would work better - i'll dig out my other FF to give that a try soon. When not using a follow focus, having a solid chunky focus gear feels better in the hand anyway - allows smoother pulls and further range, having that larger diameter.

It acts as a proxy cinelux diameter to mount the FM to the ring clamp. Since it is a hollow tube, you can fit any smaller anamorphic inside to be use with the FM. If you jump back through this thread, you will see how Cosimo did exactly that for his Sankor and Animex s8 etc.

Looks like the EM5II will get 25p so how about an upgrade for the EM1?

​You are right of course, but it's all taken out of context. Having seen some threehundred big scale prints by Meyerowitz in two hours, I dare to divide them roughly in three completely different styles: 1. Portrait photography. Here is one of the most famous: 2. Landscapes and the like. Big enlargements, photos taken with an 8 x 10 camera, Ground Zero is a motif: 3. ... and, finally, his own specialty, 'street photography'. Snapshots of people on the street. To anticipate where they will be in the next blink of an eye to get exactly the composition he feels right at the given moment, he has to watch what's not yet in his frame. That's where the 'primitive' Leica comes in handy ... (looks staged, but isn't)

Sony A7s, Canon 5D III (RAW) or Canon C100 Mark II I would not settle for anything less......... Full Frame is Magical, I love it. Aps-C is the smallest sensor size I would use Peace

Here is a 2015 test comparing different strengths of Ultracon, low con etc... Some of the filters look drastic, but If you open multiple browser windows side x side and pause the test on Clean, Ultracon, lowcon etc.. you can make a better comparison. Keep in mind small vs large viewing screens and different focal lengths change the strength of a filters look. I use Schnieder Digicon a bit, as it lowers highlights by adding black specs in the filter. As you can see in the test, it is almost like an optical log. I also have used Hollywood Blackmagic to take the digital edge off, but it isn't included in the test. Curious how it compares to Glimmer Glass? http://vimeo.com/116316115

Why's that? Off topic? Look, y'all can moderate your site anyway you see fit, but here's my defense: The original poster is asking about what it takes to make "filmic" images and what's a good camera to do it. I say it's not that simple. What's the big deal? I know this is a tech-centric website, but since film making is an art created by the craft of technology, is it unhelpful to encourage people to explore other aspects of the craft, such as "painting with light," rather than the technology? After all, knowing how to naturalistically use light in a shot is going to be many more factors of importance than the camera body it's shot with. It's also hard to do. You do it wrong and whatever camera you use will not look great. How's that opinion "unhelpful?" So many new creatives are entering this world of film making through DSLR and mirror less, and I've unfortunately known a few people that believe solving the film-look issue is possible with one simple purchase of a camera body. I just disagree with that notion. Is that truly unhelpful or do you just not like reading my opinion? If it's the latter, just say so and I'll skidaddle.

Also check out this thread http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/7284-tiffen-ultra-low-contrast-filters/ The filter spreads light more evenly across the image and thus gives it more of a filmic feel.

​Current best matches for you are the Sony A7S, Nikon D750 or 5D Mark III ML. Depending on your definition of easy workflow ML raw on the 5D3 might not work out for you. The D750 is really easy to work with. The Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera does have a nice image but it's a very different look to full frame, you might not get on with it. Depends on the lenses you already own or what you plan to buy for it. The lens is half the look of the camera. Consider the GH4 as well because the 4K files make for great 1080p in post, the workflow is as simple as banging in 50% size reductions for the clips.

I think you are right on this, Ed: This is not a beauty clip for cosmetic stuff but for, hm, controversial energy. Any retouch could impeach the credilibity. I think it works as it is.

You could peek around the corner at Zacuto, see what they're doing on the Fast Draw: http://store.zacuto.com/images/products/secondary/z-dfd-4.jpg . So, to mimic that to a certain degree you could get the FOTGA / NEEWER DP3000 shoulder pad for example. Then get a second rod and a counterweight. For parts check Jag35, Kamerar, Tarion, Bandc, Fotga, Neewer, et cetera. But a 2 rail offset (not straight to back) setup imho is king. I know you have your solution because it probably kinda works and was cheap. But there's pretty affordable stuff from the likes of ProAIM/Filmcity and Ginirigs for example, that would be much nicer to work with I feel like, also without breaking the bank (I mean, who doesn't want a rig from Vocas/Lanparte/Redrockmicro/Letus/Trusmt/Zacuto/Cinevate/Kinomatik/ARRI... but you know #topdollahdollahyall$$).

​Interesting, because his name is often involved as an example what you achieve with this or that cam, no matter which brand or forum. :-) Just saying (and keep the good stuff comin', Brandon)

The best counterweight for any rig (and I'm not going to get into particulars here) is a solid V-mount battery and some kind of cheese plate and rail clamp to mount it to your rig. A cheap D-tap cable, a soldering iron and some heat-shrink, and a few radio shack plugs (and of course a converter if your rig is sensitive to voltages - most are not) and you have a huge battery that will keep your gear running for hours plus less weight up front (no batteries needed anymore except for the one in the back!) which gives you both a lighter overall setup, a longer battery time, and a more balanced rig in general. It's worth the few hundred it costs because you save it in diverse batteries and fewer charge rounds and less overall lost time on set. Also you only have one battery to change when power gets low rather than two, three, four (camera, EVF, recorder if you have one, lights, etc.).

​That's so funny Ivar, I know you sent you're NX1 back, so did I.. and we are looking at the same footage from the A7s, I also like a lot what he does. Did you already decide? Thanks, ​5D3 raw.I think not an easy workflow, and that's what I need..The BMCC could be interesting, I think it's also available with a M43 mount (2.3 crop factor?) But the media it writes on.. .mmm I don't know. Battery life, screen refelections..although I will use it most inside. But you do not mention the A7S, why? Thanks.

My biggest peeve with this sort of question (and it's a legitimate question, I'm not bashing the OP) is the phrase "filmic." You can make just about any camera look "videoish" or look "filmic." It's not really the camera that does it. You see my little user icon there? It's a GM1 with a old Pentax a110 25mm lens on it. I shot a short film on it. In a film festival in which it was screened a lot of the positive comments were how the short looked very "filmic" compared to other entires. I did a pretty aggressive color grade too. (considering how flimsy the narrative was, the aesthetics were the only positive reviews I got!) The other cameras used in the same screening block were the Canon 1Dc, a RED, and a FS100. All great cameras. Point is, it's what you do with your camera and how you apply your knowledge, skills, and craft (aka: how it's lit) that ultimately makes the difference. You can't just buy a piece of gear and think "okay, that tick box is checked, my stuff will look like a movie now." That said, BM. Best dynamic range. DOF is over rated and over used nowadays.

It's unfortunate not to see any mention of Final Cut Pro X in this article. The release of the new design troubled many Final Cut Pro 7 users, but the majority who were annoyed at the drastic changes seem not to have experienced what it is like today. You should definitely try FCPX as it's grown into an incredible program that is very intuitive, easy and fast to use, has top notch pulgin support and most of all - makes editing fun and leaves more time to be more creative. I've also heard several editors mention that the quality of the exported files from FCPX are much better than those from Premiere. I know that Noam Kroll did a blog post about it. I recommend that you get into FCPX Andrew, as it sounds like you are not satisfied with Premiere. The bad press it got on release is irrelevant now. It is absolutely fantastic now. More editors need to wake up!!

Hi guys....been away with work recently so not many posts from me recently. After a discussion with richg101 I decided to test the theory that introducing more optical faces into the Cinelux would result in nicer contrast and flares. So I mounted a 72mm cheap UV filter to the rear of the Cinelux and as you can see...it helps considerably by introducing internal reflection. It Should also help intensify other similar lenses (ultrastar etc) - although I don't have mine anymore to test. Very useful for those who are disappointed by the lackluster flares often found with these MC optics.