Leaderboard

Here is another Promo we recently shot with a set of Kowas (40, 50, 75, 100mm) that I though some people might like to see. Any thoughts or feedback welcome.

A7s ​(1.1 crop) Helios 58mm f2 Hypergonar Anamorphic Anamorphic Shop's FM Lens

I just saw this one yesterday - GH4 / Resolve / FCPX - very nice: https://vimeo.com/groups/gh4/videos/119679358

That looks so gorgeous and I would love to own such a great camera and play around with it. But this ratrace for tech and gear is exhausting and these permanent comparisons between video and film are unnecesssary. Video is video and film is film. What's wrong with that?

​Interesting thought, but what makes the Voigt so perfect for me is - next to your mentioned things - also the ability of having a relatively short focus throw (for 0.3 - infinity), the added macro mode as well as the short focus distance. Given, short focus throw and close distance is nothing what everybody needs, but for me as a run&gun guy this is quite essential. Anyways, i will have a look into the canon 50 f1.4, thanks! Does the commlite adapter has any drawbacks when compared to the metabones adapter?

If only magic lantern ppl started to work on a nx1....they could even unlock the rumored 6.5k video...great for taking stills from it, or the 240fps at 1080p.

Clayton, not really trying to brag, but I just finished an anamorphic test on a GH4 of snowfall here in Colorado which looks pretty damn filmic. Bear in mind I'm just testing focus, aperture, DOF etc. It's here: https://vimeo.com/user1649981/review/119725793/6c119e45f5

Here is a NX-1 test including 1080 vs 4k, Isotest, rolling shutter, 120fps and autofocus-test (at the end). In my opinion, the NX-1 outruns its competitors (A7s & GH4) with its cinematic rendering of colors and details. pneus-online.c

I always copy the files into a folder with a descriptive name and date, then I wrote a simple python script that goes through all folders and renames the clips with the folder name + the original name of the clip. This has worked well enough for having unique names and takes very little time. As for deleting them all, just delete them all at once from the folder on a computer.

I have to opt-in for the Voigtländers. I worked a little bit over a year just with the 25mm and it is absolutely gorgeous - in fact, i am still busy finding an adequate counterpart now that i switched to the a7s...

​I'm not editing it. I was just one of the shooters on the team (of four) covering the wedding. The first day I was shooting only on a tripod, the second day I needed to pick up a number of detail/artistic shots in the dining room. Ouch, then it really hit me how bloody heavy the C300 is. If you get a C300 you'll absolutely need to upgrade all your support gear to cope with the extra weight. And it isn't easy to use handheld (certainly not with a 70-200mm lens on it like I had yesterday). In the end I did a few shots with it, but then gave up as it is too cumbersome, and did the rest of my Sony A5100 and my lightweight monopod. Then of course there is the factor of its price..... absolutely insane I reckon. I'll happily use it if somebody else is providing it, but spend my own money on it? Nope!! Not unless you have clients *specifically* requesting this particular camera model (C300) then I wouldn't be buying it. Though for some people that is the reality, as it is what their clients know and trust. So they'll be requesting this specifically and not a NX1. Thus a C300 will earn you money, and a NX1 will not. However I'm not in that situation (yet?) and neither are the vast majority of the forum users here either I bet, so this point in favour of the C300 is largely irrelevant. As for low light, get yourself a T0.95 lens (I've got the SLR Magic 25mm which I use on my BMPCC) or a Nikon 50mm f/1.2 and a focal reducer. Or get yourself an A7s? Plus of course get lights. We had a bunch of lights at our disposable, with Dedolights being the ones we used the most for the wedding yesterday. Though we really had to scramble to get them moved from the speeches area to outside for the cake cutting and first dance, having an extra set already set up there would've helped immensely. Though these lights were used for the look they created (as the venue's lighting sucked) rather than because it simply was too dark, but if you're needing help in that area then these will benefit you in that way too.

​Great, we will be in Reykjavik for a day before hitting the south coast. This is my 3rd visit now, I love the country like it is my home! We even spent a month there for our honeymoon, camping... (-2C in a tent was not very romantic, haha)

I found this video yesterday and it made me think of this thread. It's kind of related to this subject, especially on the matter of archival and how today's digital footage will hold up in time. And it actually is also wonderful and kinda magical. Watch it, you're in for a very cool (digital video about lost, and refound film...

Hi Dan, Didn't notice the Rode was 44khz. Still, Why is that a problem?. Placing 44khz audio in a 48khz timeline will not speed your audio. Sampling rate has more to do with the quality of the audio (many conversions/interpretations are done automatically), and supposedly anything above 50khz is "wasted quality" to our limited human hearing. 44.1khz is CD-audio quality, pretty much the same as 48Khz, and IMHO should be enough if properly recorded. Keep in mind that you are capturing voice, a monoarural sound with a very specific and limited frequency bandwith. I suspect many of the other sounds you will be mixing with (foley, effects, music, etc.) may have different sampling frequencies (48khz, for example) but as far as I know you can mix them together -they maintain their pitch and speed- and encode the final mix to whatever you want. Besides, if your mics are going to the ZoomH6, their sound would be recorded at 48khz. And even if you should deem it necessary, any 44.1Khz sources could be easily converted to 48Khz.

As a really old Eoshd reader, i'm excited about the possibilities that we have with the Samsung cameras using the Tizen O.S. If Vitaly, Magic Lantern or somebody else decides to mess with this system giving us RAW, Prores, diferents aspect ratios, higher bit rates... Nx1/nx500 would be the gh2/gh3 of 2015.

It's perhaps more fair to say the FS700 at $8600 (with lens) was a compelling rival to the C300 ($15k no lens). The C300 wins in absolute detail (slightly), better skin tones out of camera, better usability, and a smaller package. The FS700 wins in slomo (up to 240fps 1080p-ish (up to 480 and 960fps at lower resolutions/cropping)), full frame support and superb low light with a Speedbooster. For fast turn-around, the C300's colors were (and still are) a major selling point. The FS700 can look great, but takes more work in post. If we add an Odyssey 7Q to the FS700 (bringing the price up to around $11K), this combo provides superior 10-bit ProRes, continuous 2K 240fps 12-bit raw, 120fps 4K (including raw bursts), 4K ProRes, and along with Slog2 puts it well past the C300 in terms of final image quality possible (including skin tones with post work). The new FS7 brings 4K 10-bit 422, up to 180fps 1080p internally, and along with improved color science, isn't just a rival for the C300, it far surpasses it. The FS7 is even doing well matched up with the ARRI Alexa/Amira! I'd hold off on the FS7 until Sony does at least one firmware update, however Sony is on the right track- giving us what we're asking for (as they have with the A7S). Samsung (NX1), Panasonic (GH4), and Sony are eager for our business- let's keep giving it to them. The most challenging aspect of a modern digital camera is skin tones: we notice right away when they aren't good. Resolution, moire, dynamic range, highlights/shadows- most people don't notice so much. When skin tones are off, everyone notices. When skin tones look great- everyone loves the image. That's why the 5D3, even with H.264 is still popular with a relatively soft image. I can understand there's a lot more work for camera tests shooting models/actors, however a camera test without skin tones, the most important test for the viewing public, doesn't really show how most people, both pros and consumers, will use the cameras (cats & dogs not included). To minimize the workload, setting the cameras to the best in-camera settings possible (or even selecting the best stock options- no tweaks), setting correct WB and exposure, and shooting in the same conditions makes a great camera test when comparing two or more cameras (no color work in post other than matching levels on the scopes, and converting all cameras to Rec709).

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it.

I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

​No doubt. But like any obstructions, actual ones are harder to overcome than the virtual ones. You always have that safety net of knowing you can ignore a self-imposed constraint. If you're on a diet, you tend not to put a box of doughnuts on your dining room table after all. Discipline to not to break the easily avoided virtual obstruction is great --if you can control that discipline! Most of us would reach for the doughnut when things get difficult. Then again, if there's no way to avoid an obstruction you're forced unconditionally to figure out a way around it. For sure I'm getting esoteric now! Philosophical reductionist navel gazing. But I do believe all this digital production is a double edged sword. Weirdly, the ease of digital production can potentially diminish the quality of a film. If for no other reason than it requires less production effort to attain similar IQ and less concentration/skill from the crew. (normally - most of the time - that's freakin' awesome, actually; more for less) Surely making things harder to do would seem counter intuitive, but depending on one's creative desires... well, it just might not be. I haven't shot a production on film for at least 3 years, but my colleague and I are doing s16 for a new documentary with various mixed media. Why? For all of the reasons listed in this thread.

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.