Leaderboard

Just posted on Newsshooter.com: http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/06/05/metabones-announce-speed-booster-xl-0-64x-micro-43-mount-adapter/

​Apparently already here, and with accurate stops! (woop!): http://metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-m43-BM2

Hello everyone! I'm a french film school student (however we don't practice often it's just mainly theoretical courses and film analysis) and we had recently to create a short fiction (we were to do around 7 shots). We had the plan with my teammate to explore an old abandoned coal washing facility and decided to make something with it, so here it is! Sound is important so play it loud Now some explanation. I don't have a lot of money, and our school doesn't have any gear to loan, so we made it a 0$ budget short ahah (well the only thing we paid for was the gas mask). For the prep we had only a few days, so we thought of a story, and we only did the storyboard for the first half of the short (until he enters the factory), as we didn't know what it looked like inside, and we had to improvise on set. It was really run'n'gunning as we only had 9h on location, and some shots are quite rushed... I shot it with a sony a6000 in AVCHD, with for the most part in exterior the sony 18-105G F4, then in interior the Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS and a Leica Summicron 90mm F2 (pre-asph, which I found in my dad's old camera gear). For the lighting setup we used an outdoor LED floodlight (which is what the actor is holding inside the factory) and a 200*160 5in1 reflector to bounce some light back. I edited everything and made the soundtrack on Sony Vegas, then graded everything on DaVinci Resolve Lite. I'm kinda in a love-hate relationship with it haha, during the edit and post-prod there was some moment I just wanted to delete everything, and I was noticing every little mistake or imperfections, but considering the time limitation, budget the result is fairly ok, and initial feedback was good so I wanted to share it more with people working in this field! I'd love any advice or feedback from you!

Camera C in part 2 looked best to me. D looked good as well.

​Definitely its just that if I ask to much people wont write anything. But your right I also would love to hear why, what display was used or pretty much anything extra, thanks (and guesses of what cameras was used is always fun.)

Who will be the expert and name which camera is which?

Waiting to see how the Sigma 18-35 performs. Also waiting to see how long it takes Aputure to get a speedbooster version of their DEC wireless adapter. Lots of exciting things right now.

YES!!!! This is awesome! I had the M43/EF Speed Booster on my wishlist for a while, but 0,71x combined with 2,3x crop wasn't worth the premium price for me. Also for Photography this will be great, bringing the GH4 close fullframe. It would be perfect if it had fast autofocus like the new Kipon (non speedbooster) adapter... looks like there is no AF at all. But IS should work... Anyway. I want it, badly! Full product details: http://metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BM3

​No, it's the C60172 for PD150/VX200o Bayonet Mount Version with a glued on 58mm Thread for the taking Lens. I guess it's the sharpness of the Pani Lens that can't be hurt by the Centurys softness. Here is a Clip mostly shot with 2x Cinelux + FM and some 1,33x Century in the Mix: For example the second and third shots are Century, also the first flare in the Basement @ 1:08, stairway flare @ 1:58 and 2:07-2:22 with less grading:

TIGHT! This is a game changer for GH4 users!

YAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

​Thanks for posting Marco. Some lovely shots in there. Looking forward to seeing more! Any chance you could post something that has a more contemporary, brighter, grade, maybe with a standard REC-709 LUT? I've noticed that Kinecolor seems to give a very classical, slightly desaturated look to the image, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'm interested to see something different. P.s. You have a pet owl !!!!?

I actually have spent a lot of time with ultra "Elon Musk" types - and I'm reading the biography on him right now. My uncle help create arpanet which latter became email and was a professor at MIT and worked in the AI department. And my dad is a computer scientist. And I worked on a doc on Watson - the most advanced AI computer in the world, IBM's AI project. So I got to know Watson's team very well. So I've been around these types a lot in real life. And their brains move at a different speed and tempo than most people, certainly differently than the two male characters in the film. "Do you think I'm crazy" is the first sentence in the book about Elon Musk - said by him. I wish the screenwriter and director researched the AI scene a little more. It's pretty amazing/scary what is actually happening at google these days so much that Elon Musk is concerned about AI recently. Oh well - hopefully the next film will get it a little more accurately.

Anamorphic is not just about a wider aspect ratio. Characteristics like flare and oval bokeh are much more important in my opinion.

Shot with the f35 to Odyssey 7Q - lightweight and small and battery efficient. Shot to Pro Res HQ with Red 18-50 and 50-150 lenses. It's very possible to use this camera now to do doc-work. Now with variable ND options like with the Revar Cine-Tray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUeE7s4g5F8&feature=youtu.be

A test done quickly with Kinemax Certain shots are a little too red due to a filter and a bad white balance. The compression format is also a little bastard. The compression does not do justice to the image quality. The next move I'll try better compression. https://vimeo.com/12976005

They have demonstrated with a drone carrying the Samsung NX1 decoding and Encoding H.265 footage, which is one of their partners. The APU is the first chip with HEVC hardware decode.

It's actually a 9x11" sensor, so they say... http://largesense.com/products/8x10-large-format-digital-back-ls911/ But basically it is impossible to make a cmos sensor that size. Sensors are made out of round silicon wafers, the current (biggest) standard is 300mm (12"). 9x11" does not fit on a 12" wafer. Even if it would, it would be _extremely_ expensive, because a large part of the wafer would be 'waste'. On top of that, there is always a part of the wafer that has some fault. With small sensors, that's not a big problem, because you just have to throw away a small part (1 sensor) of the wafer. This is the reason fullframe is much more expensive than aps-c. If you'd make large format sensors this way you'd have to throw away the whole wafer for any error.

With the exception of the gun being fired down the phone (stolen from Danger 5, a much better low budget retro-genre inspired work about cheesy heroes fighting Hitler, and it has dinosaur-headed people too), all the best gags in Kung Fury fit in the initial 2 minute trailer. And they worked much better in that context. Kung Fury is nothing more than a technical showpiece. The script is built on the premise that gore, swearing and pop-cultural pastiche is endlessly amusing. If you told me this was written by Seth MacFarlane, I'd have believed it. I suppose Kung Fury could be thought to have a more realised world than Fury Road if by 'more realised' you mean, 'more locations', but that's about it. The attention to detail and art direction in that film brought a believable and genuinely original vision to the screen. Kung Fury is an amalgam of the last decade of 80s parodies, thrown into an ultra ironic 'anything can happen!' universe. There's no real narrative to ground the nonsense (unlike Danger 5), and genuine wit is almost entirely absent. Better characters? What characters? There is no humanity to anyone. The characters have so few distinguishing features that they aren't even clearly defined as comic archetypes. Kung Fury is lazy, coasting by on its concept. Fury Road is one of the most brilliant pieces of fantasy filmmaking to make it to the screen in the past decade. One is seeing a brief burst of viral interest, and the other is going to be talked about for many years to come.

​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.

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.