Leaderboard

​Wow. That was really uncalled for. Do you think insulting readers disagreeing with you is a good policy to attract new ones? Can't you simply reply in a civil way or ignore the critique completely?

Andrew, I have read EOSHD quite a while now, and I like it - especially since you usually do not use the over the top sensational titles like many sites today do. "Nikon hackers make progress with RAW video", "RAW video on Nikon cameras soon?" or something in the line of that would have been closer to what's going in the nikonhackers.org community. I used to read nofilmschool in the earlier days too, but I kinda grew tired of that site, a big part of that being their sensationalism/content-less articles. What I'd personally like to see here on EOSHD, is if you keep on doing reviews just the way you've been doing earlier. In general your headlines and articles are spot on - and it's interesting to read your findings and experiences with cameras, softwares, methods etc. Cheers!

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor. This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates? That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

​"Nikon Hacker discovers the possibility of RAW Video" might be more accurate at this point.

Yeah getting a single from the image buffer is the first step, but nowhere near full video out. I wish these guys the best though and hope they pull it off, love shooting my D800 with their hacked bitrate firmware. Getting RAW on that camera would be a dream.

I can assure you it is not. They have indeed enabled raw video. At what frame rate and at what maximum resolution for continuous recording has yet to be determined. What sort of headline would have satisfied you sir? "Nikon Hacker Enables Raw Video And Further Development Needed To Determine Final Usable Form It Takes Along With Resolution And Frame Rate And File Sizes And Whether It Will Arrive On the Nikon D750 Or The Soon To Be Rumoured D900 Please Wait To Find Out More" Is that specific enough for you? Headline writing lesson for Araucaria. A headline such as that above isn't a headline. It's a sentence. The purpose of a headline is to grab attention with as few words as possible. For example: Forum User Is Negative Wanker That's a brillaint headline.

​Then why shoot automatic at all if you are afraid of those dangers?! It's not like you can change those values in auto

​They are not tv spots. BMW hire out a race track in south Portugal to test soon to launch models. We shoot promo stuff that gets sent out to various big players in the industry to start wetting the appetite. We have used GoPros, then when we moved to GH4, people noticed the quality upgrade.... Pulling photos is also part of the process, so 12 stops would help. We have to shoot in some really harsh daytime sun. Maybe the XC10 can take it up yet another level? I look forward to testing it. Would I prefer a larger sensor, a nice F2.0 12-35mm lens,,,, hell yea,,, but I do see uses for this niche camera. The BM micro would be a dream for 1080p, for our needs though, 4K is a must

Another interesting article http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/facebooks-worst-nightmare-what-if-social A marketer I listen to once analogized social to a vast, vast ocean, one foot deep.

I'm going to go ahead and say that the average consumer actually doesn't really care. They buy based on numbers because in their mind higher megapixel = better. They have no understanding of why, or how - but that's the thought process. If you showed an average consumer a picture taken with a $100 kit lens, next to the same picture taken on the same body at the same focal length with a $1200 lens - they may or may not see much difference. But they're unlikely to go out and spend an extra $1100 on a lens. Most consumers are baffled when you tell them a single lens can cost $100,000. Professionals buy expensive lenses because they appreciate and understand the very reason they're expensive. Professionals (and even enthusiasts, I guess) care about the quality of all the components, because they know the difference it makes to the picture. Consumers don't get it. Realistically, someone who's just picked up a camera is unlikely to take amazing photos even if they have a $1200 lens on it.

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP". A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses. The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body. It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

This is a recent short that I did. My wife and I were originally making it to use as a sort of announcement that we were having a baby (only our immediate family knew about it) but I also wanted it to stand alone as a fun little short. After shooting the bulk of the footage my wife went into labor the next day so we had to do all of the quick zoom/close-up shots weeks after. Better late than never! Since I was unfortunately in the video, I had to rely on my wife for shooting most of it and when we couldn't operate the camera ourselves, we called over my Dad and a friend in the middle of the night to help us shoot. All three of them had absolutely zero experience shooting anything and as a testament to the NX1, they all learned the basics of the camera reasonably quickly.

Developer "leegong" of Nikon Hacker has made enormous progress in getting raw video from the live view function of the Nikon D5100. Early builds of the patch output raw frames to the card and A1ex of Magic Lantern has written a prototype / test DNG converter. Read the full article

higher frame rate = better motion lower frame fate = problems in motion Higher sensor redout speed or global shutter = better motion Some old people may prefer old film era motion look. (stuttering, flickering and softness)

Hey Jimmy. If you feel this camera is right for you, then I'd ignore anything anyone says on this forum. Prove everybody wrong that it might be in fact a great drone cam. I personally wouldn't buy it due to the cost, but that's me. I have no purpose for it where others will. Like everything really. I dislike stating the obvious, but obvious in filmmaking is quite a complicated thing.

Whatever man... I have been following it for 2 years and I know where the problems are, enabling raw video sounds like they are taking videos which is not the case. Btw, this hack will eventually work on the d5100/d7000/d800, the newer cameras are totally different and they haven't worked on them at all.

​Got it. The image quality out of this adapter is the best I've personally seen for a 1.33x. It benefits from a built in diopter wheel that allows for near and far sharp focus even at around F2.0. That's pretty impressive considering most anamorphic adapters struggle in the F4.0-5.6 range. Look at it this way, in the UK a used LA7200 goes for around $1k (Plus cost of diopters). It's a bargain in comparison! Hope that helps.

​Says who? Let's hear more from the devs first before you write it off.

This is a big step but there is still a long way to "enable raw video" if its possible at all (because there could be some problems with speed,and many other things...)

I do drone work for BMW mate... Not excatly enthusiast level. In the real world, DR and image quality counts. GoPro will not be enough for clients like BMW, but the nnature of the work doesn't allow for RED/Octo level budget. GH4 is good, we use it often... Why not try something that could be better though?

​ Thousands of professional videos done with GoPro, GH4, Dji cameras, thousands of Professional videos........... *With all due respect, enthusiasts seem to do too much talking and have no idea how things work in the "real" world

To me it still works like a 'free social-media website for film lovers'. I do have a paid plus account though so I can upload higher quality. Not that I upload a lot, but I don't mind supporting the website in this way. I've never paid to watch anything on Vimeo and I don't feel like I'm being pushed to. Still plenty of good stuff available for free. It's still the decision of the content creator to ask money for it or not. I don't see a problem with that.

This would be near useless for me and most folks I work with. Any modern production lens will resolve enough detail to keep you from getting a pink slip. I wouldn't project some lenses 40' tall but for youtube or even broadcast I would rank a lens' resolution numbers near the lowest of important characteristics for my uses as a cinematographer. The overall aesthetic performance of a lens is what matters, followed closely by ergonomics. The former is not something a lens review will tell you much about. You might be able to spot some bokeh and vignetting characteristics, but short of renting it and pointing it at a person and looking at them in a few sizes you won't know much about a lens. The only reviewer I see doing any work like this is Lloyd Chambers of Diglloyd.com: his in-depth reviews, aperture series, and expert commentary are worth every penny of his subscription costs. When the Sigma art 35mm 1.4 came out I rented it for a comparison to my beloved Zeiss ZE 35mm 1.4, and yes the Sigma could have an edge in resolution in some scenarios, but the Zeiss trounced it in terms of pure image harmony. Switching blind A/B on the monitor my crew all settled on the Zeiss. Just goes to show you DxO mark resolution numbers should not be a huge consideration in your purchases unless you are in the business of photographing and making reproductions of test charts.

​iMac will retain value over ANY Pc you can build for years to come..... iMac Retina is no slouch at 4.0GHZ i7 (4.4GHZ Turbo Boost) , Fusion or Flash Storage and basically one of the fastest 4Gb Mobile graphic cards to push the AMAZING 5120 x 2880 res screen. I mean even any monitor remotely close to the iMac quality will easily cost you close to $2000 alone....... The ONLY reason I would not buy the iMac Retina is because we should be seeing a revision update later this summer, but even still it's a near perfection of a computer that will last many years to come.....

Could not disagree more. It would be the second coming of the Megapixel race in pocket cameras for dumb consumers. I give you an example as to why. Say you have a lens thats listed it as 40 mp on it. Yea it may resolve that, but hows the image? Bokeh? Chromatic Aberration? When sharpness becomes the main concern for manufacturers (more than it is now) then we all suffer creatively for it. As someone that uses Cinema glass on his GH4 you know that resolution is not the most important aspect of an image :)

I'm sorry to say, but i think it's a terrible idea. We know how the consumer operates, people would then only look at the this megapixel count, as they already do with cameras. It's already not a good thing with cameras but it can make sense i guess sometimes, because it can be important. A lens is sooooo much more than its megapixel resolving power. Besides, most people actually don't care enough to really mind if it has a high resolving power or not. Like you said, a lot use the kit lens and they're very happy with it, it's good enough for them and the may not want to spend any more money on it. The few others who know enough about lenses, optic, and photography in general to really be interested in this matter, also know enough to go look for reviews, test, advice, photos on flickr etc... Plus, people would always ask "how many megapixels does that lens resolve" without know anything else about the lens, only focalizing on this, when everything else about a lens is so interesting and important. And to conclude, i guess MTF charts are there solely for that purpose.

​MTF charts published by lens producers are already greatly reduced in complexity, in that in general they only show contrast for two spatial frequencies (usually 10 and 40 lp/mm) and two aperture values (usually wide open and f/8) and two image plane orientations (sagital and tangential). The "full" MTF is a four dimensional quantity which is difficult to represent in 2 dimensions. I put "full" in quotes because it also depends on focal length for a zoom lens, and, to an extent, on the focus distance thus it can be a six-dimensional object. I hope you can appreciate why it's impossible to boil a six-dimensional function down to a single number. You could simplify it further and measure the MTF at a few distances from the image centre (centre, top/bottom edge, left/right edge and extreme corner), but it's been heavily simplified already and that would cut a lot out. You could try averaging the figures but the range you average over would be fairly arbitrary and subject to differences between manufacturers. And the idea that manufacturers attach a resolution figure to the lens in order to sell them would just open the flood gates to clever ways to inflate the score by carefully choosing what to include/exclude.

Nikon has golden rings, canon has L letters, sigma has the art series... I would prefer instead for the average user to use their brain a bit better than have a company find better ways to "advertise" their products.

I would skip on such a device for the GH4... The price vs performance is not there.

i´ve send a mail to BM and asked whether its only uhd monitoring or 4k downscale recording too, that was the answer: Hi Christoph, Thanks for getting in touch. The information that is available about the video Assist at the moment indicates that it will only offer UHD monitoring, not recording. this may change between now and when the product gets released, however information is limited about this at the moment. Many thanks. Regards, Paul Wilson Technical Sales Assistant Blackmagic Design EMEA

Here is some footage that I shot with a 16mm Bell & Howell anamorphic just like the ones on offer here:

Thanks, Rich. My unit functions so well -- it effectively ended my anamorphic search that had spanned over a dozen or so different lenses, and the B&H is now the only anamorphic lens that I own. I'm definitely hanging on to it!

wish your project had come to fruition Nick. Would have been great - particularly as a single focus bmpcc anamorphic! Make sure you keep one for yourself, if i ever get some time i might make a few replacement front cells with courser threads since i really want my own b+h to be more usable.

Price drop: I - $150 (includes shipping in the continental U.S.) II - $125 (includes shipping in the continental U.S.) III - $75 (includes shipping in the continental U.S.) IV - $25 (includes shipping in the continental U.S.) V - $25 (includes shipping in the continental U.S.) This is significantly below what you'll pay on eBay (where you will probably not find any test footage either), and the most cost-effective path to single-focus anamorphic. If you already have an electronic or wireless follow focus system, you could order a seamless focus gear from Sean McCurry (http://www.ebay.com/usr/helicoptersean) for faster focus pulls. Prices are firm.

I've got to ask... Is there any meaning to the numbers at the end of some of your posts? I've been noticing this for a while now and got me intrigued. Are they referring to passages from the Andy Lee's Bible of Filmmaking? If so, where can I get one? 404

The problem is in the speed booster. Almost certain of it. The adjustment screw on the back (which allows adjustment if infinity is not able to be achieved), actually knocks the focal reduction optic off-centre when tightened. - untighten the screw and sure enough the optical cell will wobble - meaning there is play. as you retighten you'll see the lens cell move to one side. the way to fix this is to use the speed booster without the screw tightened. (so the optical cell can rotate freely). in order to keep the optic from rotating you can do a number of things, such as use 3 small blobs of blu-tack. - im unsure what it's called in different countries, but it's made by bostik. a bit like chewing gum, but blue and for attaching posters to the wall. using 3 small blobs evenly spaced will prevent the optic rotating freely. and will come off easily if you ever want to adjust it.