Leaderboard

Here is confirmation that the Kowa for Bell &Howell (after partial dis-assembly) will fit inside the ORIGINAL FM lens mounting tube ( not the new FM Collar 24 which has a smaller 55mm internal diameter). The aluminium tube pictured is the basic version of the mounting collar that came with the first batch of FM lenses, I cannot 100% confirm if other kowa models such as Kowa 16H/8Z will fit exactly the same, as I do not currently own that lens type, but the dis-assembly process will be identical to my previous video:https://vimeo.com/115331343 If you are a new FM lens customer and do not receive the original/ larger mounting tube and want to mount this kowa type, you could ask Anamorphic Shop for advice...or simply cut the correct sized tube yourself: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-75-70mm-0-5metre-500mm-Long-T304-Stainless-Steel-Exhaust-Repair-Tube-Pipe/251270459252?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D256b0a78fb8149c69fcf994f2410a88c%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D280769110571&rt=nc

Why your AF fan boyism relevant to video, I will never know. This is a filmmaking site, not a Canon arse licking site. Be thankful you have people working hard to give you the facts about the 5Ds for video so you can say things in blocked capitals simply repeating what I said on the blog.

Was the making of 'The tree of life' or 'The new world' all planned by Lubezki and Malick? Was the butterfly landing on Jessica Chastaing's hand planned? Does the Joker really looks like a guy with a plan? Was '2001' emotionaly warm or scientificaly and cold as space movie. Are the actual movies (Avengers like..) artistic and unplanned like 'Dancer In the dark' thanks to digital? Nolan is known to keep the filming way all within the budget, with a relatively small crew, and 'Interstellar' was finished weeks before the original schedule, thanks to Nolan organisation. I was deep into that one and the only question that comes to my mind was that i liked watching it, and luckly on Imax screen, thanks to the 4K digital projector next to my home. You make the point for a lot of things in your article, but for the cold vs warm(?) - plan vs unplanned - superior vs inferior - more dynamique range vs less parts, this was an heartbreaking article i've just read.

If they pack towers, they'll want the performance and power from a tower. This little box uses laptop components, with 15-25W TDP. Full-sized computers have CPUs that can go as high as 150W TDP. I think Haswell-E's TDP is about 140W on average. I haven't even started on the GPUs!

Crop factor is dependent on sensor size. There's a long thread in DVX about it: www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?330675-Micro-Gimbal-for-GH4-BMPCC-A7s-699-USD/ The manufacturer is a little defensive though, and it does seem the product could use a little more polish.

​Incredibly well. http://vimeo.com/115516762

First of all, please honorably accept this month's Victim Award, just wonderful talent for whining and conflating sarcasm with hate there. Short answer to your rant, - if you're gonna use the word "cinema" in your professional title, it better be related to the art of storytelling, not just filming an event. That's what a wedding is. A live event. That you are covering. It is basically a fucking local news report with shallow DOF, no light and a bit more angles. It lacks both the art of storytelling and the craft of lighting. Yes, it sure feels creative. Making a tuna sandwich in the morning makes me feel creative too. But it isn't cinema. So don't call it that. That's all.

​"Boum chicka waa waa" But no. Nothing sexy about it, really. Just working with colleagues on our free time to realize a short script we wrote.

I started on film ages ago. The last time I shot it was three years ago (See: "Besides Still Waters" in last month's American Cinematographer). We had issues that I rather not revisit. For one, shooting on a remote location, our dailies were not daily. So dirty gate and static issues reared their ugly heads. Also, focus. Today's younger AC's are brought up more with focusing off monitor instead of tape. Problem is, with film camera monitors it's hard to judge critical focus. The more experienced AC's with a film background are older and hence much harder to afford for low budget indies. Should I ever shoot an indie again on film, I'll ask that the focus puller's scale be doubled. In short, I don't miss medium, but I do miss the efficiency. Andrew, you talk about how shooting on digital is faster and more spontaneous. Perhaps for the lone indie as yourself shooting off the cuff. Unfortunately, that's not the look everyone's looking to pay for in the theaters or watch on TV most the time. Professional shoots are still a multi headed beast. Perhaps the biggest complaint those of us who started in film and now shoot digital have is the endless rolling rehearsals, re-sets and innumerable takes plus the amount of playback that we never experienced with film. It's worse now with commercials as the video village has now become a small country of too many cooks. I defy anyone who works on features, commercials or episodic to say digital has made work days shorter or more efficient. And now that everyone thinks they need a DIT it's done nothing for labour costs. Then with the amount of footage that now has to be reviewed, transcribed, and noted, compared to film, I wonder if the difference between film / video production is that huge. The best part of digital has not been with the way I make a living (episodic / commercials) but mostly for my personal projects. For people who already know how to make a film, they know if they literally can grab and go and then make a film for next to nothing. There are a few directors who've taken the immediacy of digital and exploited it. Fincher comes to mind. Several of my colleagues work on House of Cards. It's mostly available light, they work very fast, and have no DIT. I wish everyone else would catch on. As far as IQ goes, for nights I much prefer digital. For days its a toss up. As a DP for work, the best part I like is being able to see a close to finished image on set. You actually take greater risks when you can see your mediums threshold right there on set instead of waiting for it to return from the lab. Regarding storage, anyone with anything worth storing will back up to new digital storage tech as the need comes. I still have scripts that were originated on floppy but living now on SSD. And when you die, it won't matter. You're dead.

Nah it's no longer the case. Digital has superseded it for skin-tones and even dynamic range. What's the magic to having a film camera on set? It's just a tool. The magic happens in the image quality, the feel, the talent on the set.