Leaderboard

​Patents pertaining to these lenses would have expired when Richard Nixon was still in office, and are now in the public domain. The Auto-Panatars date back to 1958, but Panavision switched from selling stuff to its current rental model back in the mid-1960's. That means that there should be quite a few of these in private non-Panavision hands.

​I have heard that one so many times. It was the Red Epic. then the red dragon. then the blackmagic cinema camera. once a camera is announced, then it takes about 12 months for the firmware to get the camera up to to speed - so it's about a 2 year process. so why not just own an older camera that has all its problems figured out. and then get that brand new camera one year later, used, for cheaper, with its problems figured out. Not just be a beta tester for something that isn't perfect.

Thank you very much, glad you liked it

Getting involved in a film vs. digital argument is a waste of time. They're both good for specific needs. A year ago I built a wet darkroom. It's freaking magic in there. Photoshop and AE are pretty magical as well. Film is far from dead - Ilford stuck with it with their fingers crossed - they've been seeing sales growth and predict a healthy (though smaller than the past) market. A good friend on mine said "it's like Vinyl vs. MP3 - and Vinyls' suddenly cool again..."

There are dimensions other than resolution to be explored. The C300 will be viable for delivery to 95% of clients for a very very long time, but when it becomes dated, it won't be because of its lack of resolution. The 1080p out of that thing looks sharper than the Alexa's 2.8k, which is already sharper than 35mm film, which is already sharp enough. Of course the ability to reframe that 4k provides is pretty nice. 2k is already sharper than the human eye can see on any tv screen less than 80" (at normal viewing distances) and any seat not in the first third of a theater. There's a reason the leap from SD to HD was huge but not from HD to 4k except when you look closely at the screen as you do with an iPhone or laptop. We've already gone about as far as we can go toward matching the human eye's spatial resolution. Retina screens caught on because of how close you hold them but for theatrical exhibition and televisions, 2k is good enough. Completely. Not for IMAX or whatever, though, or for massive home projectors or 80''+ tvs. There's a market for which 4k matters, it's just not big. Ironically, if it catches on anywhere it will be on computers phones. Small screens held close. Not big. Spatially, the eye can see about 60fps before it all blurs together and everything looks equally smooth. 24fps has caught on aesthetically, but slow motion is quite popular and HFR may catch on after Avatar 2. This is a dimension that might be explored further and that the C300, for instance, can't really push far into. We can see gobs more DR than any camera or tv currently produces or captures. This is somewhere more worthy of exploration than the jump from HD to 4k. FF/Vistavision isn't just great for using cheap vintage still lenses and cheap still lenses in general. It also provides a large enough sensor to shoot proper anamorphic, something currently only the higher-specced Alexas and A7S can do properly. rec709 is a very tiny gamut. This is another dimension that is worthy of being expanded upon. rec2020 is coming. Low light will just improve more and more. Skew decrease more and more. There are much more exciting things than the jump from 1080p to 4k on the horizon. And closer than most realize... Again, I'm just saying if your finger is hovering over that F5 or FS7 buy button and you don't need it for a project in the next month... ...hold off a little longer. It's worth it.

​I am the king of off topic! Just f35, v mount adapter in the back, d tap to 4 pix xlr to hook up to interface box and the odyssey 7q - and you are good to go 2 hd-sdi cables into the odyssey 7q and boom you are done. so it's about 10 lbs - you have an amazing monitor and recorder and just a top handle on it if you are serious email me at ed.david@gmail.com I can help you find the camera on ebay and boom go for it.

Having used both now, for a while, I have to say it came down to two thing for my preferred shooter. And that is reliability, and that damned 30 minute limit. A lot of paid gigs I take on are live events, where I often need a longer recording time for speeches, theatre, music sets, etc. and the Nx1 just doesn't cut it for that. Add to that I have already gone through 2 NX1 bodies for two separate hardware issues, and I can't really speak highly of it's reliability in the field. My Gh4, on the other hand, will run until I'm out of card space, and I have never had to worry about it crapping out. The iq on the NX1 is spectacular. For photography, personal projects, and short film work I love my NX1. For actual paying client videography? I go Gh4. If some one is able to "hack" that limit on the NX1, similar to what was done with Magic Lantern on the canons, I'll be stupid happy.

@sqm that's one of my favourite things about the GH4, to be honest. The clean HDMI out and 4K downscale allows me to capture in-camera 4K as well as external 1080p 4:2:2 and both of them make excellent footage. I can use the 1080p immediately and if I really want to take the time to transcode the 4K later (for, e.g. better final quality or some fiddly tweak or what-have-you) it's still there. Or if I want to do a 1:1 punch-in or something. The reported lack of HDMI features on the NX1 is one of the main reasons I'm not even considering that camera for anything serious right now. The GH4's workflow just beats the pants off anything else, for me, at least, and it's image is just fine as far as I'm concerned, although more/better/etc. is always a tradeoff between cost, weight, size, rigging requirements, extra shit necessary, etc. etc. etc. Edit: Just saw your Q about transcoding before editing. No, I never need to transcode the H.264 4K I just drop it into a timeline in FCPX and start working (a 1080p timeline or a 4K one or anything, doesn't matter). The transcoding happens behind the scenes if I want to render, otherwise it just happens on export, same as anything else.

It's sad times when the most exposure people see of the Kodak brand is just selling cheap AA batteries at Poundland. Walking around the Pinewood lot, at least Spectre and Star Wars are being shot on Kodak film still. Makes me wonder if they were as innovative at making better digital cameras or collaborating with companies like Nikon or Arri may have turned a better route...

​Wait, you think that me saying "and they just have again, with your blessing, it seems!" was polemic? A ferocious verbal attack? Firstly, it was by text, and I know in some circumstances in the internet age it is appropriate to converge the two, but in this case, with this word, absolutely not, it is purely for verbal, aggressive shouting, the kind of shouting where you would have been sprayed with crumbs from things I ate earlier. What Clarkson did in fact. You have not been subject to that, not even close, and hilariously, by misusing such a loaded word, you have insulted the poor people who have had to face down such a thing. People like Oisin, for example, who I'm sure would be delighted that you have so trivialised this thing that has turned his life upside down. As for the indefensible, I am not defending anyone or anything, I am attacking the BBC. I agree, the way they have managed their staff in this case is indefensible, so instead of trying to deflect to a week old conversation in which you threw out ALL of your toys and took your ball home, why don't you answer the question I actually raised in this thread. By all means, if you wish to continue the conversation in which I "defended" Clarksons actions (By which you mean, I asked people to stop making assumptions as to what actually happened and stop flinging around loaded terms before we knew all the facts because idiots like you act like little clingons to Phillip Bloom - who by the way, was not impressed in the slightest by you), reply in that thread, where that was the topic of conversation. But in this thread, I am posing the questions about the BBC and why they did not act in accordance to the law, why they allowed this situation to happen and how they should have acted, many years ago. If you have a comment to make about that, feel free to, otherwise, back over to the other thread, troll. EDIT: My bad, polemic can be about written words in modern english - in my native tongue we have a word, near identical from the same etymological root which means as I have described it, so apologies about that. In english, it basically has been weakened to the point it means "disagreed with" but I still don't think I was directly disagreeing with you, merely making the point that what you are accusing Clarkson of not getting away with, I am also accusing the BBC of actually getting away with. I don't think that's polemic, by any definition of the word.

It's curious isn't it, since I suggested that I believe the BBC shirked their duty of care towards their employees, just how many people have taken the time to try, in their own ways to shut down the conversation. I could understand it if they were forced to read this thread, or browse this website, but to take the time to come here and post their displeasure at the conversation and make various plees or threats to stop talking, it's like they don't want this line of thinking to be talked about. Like you want to apply your own ineffectual brand of censorship to an argument that you have no legitimate response to. If you genuinely don't want to browse this website or read about this subject, you wouldn't have. You did, which tells us all one thing, you care, you want to voice your opinion, but mine has proven you wrong. You don't have the strength of character, unlike Lammy, who I respect a great deal for his intelligence and nuanced responses, to challenge your own assumptions, you would rather try to censor the opinion instead.

Arri was in the same mess - they made film cameras and lenses. And now look at them - they adapted and I think are thriving. Kodak had the first digital camera patent - if they knew what they were doing, they would have be at the forefront of the digital photography movement. It was their game to lose and they lost big. So did Sony and Panasonic and Microsoft. Microsoft was number one for so long, Apple was about to go out of business. Then the iphone revolution happened. And now look at Apple. It's sad to watch film die, but it was inevitable. Whatever is cheapest and most convenient always wins. And shooting film for stills - you just don't get that much of an advantage for the cost - film is clearly better, but how much is it worth it?