Leaderboard

So happy to find out about this. It also added autofocus to existing adapters. Here it is on my Speed Booster S (Canon to Micro four thirds). Canon 17-55mm F/2.8 on a Panasonic GH4.

Probably 50% of the cinematic look is movement and sound design. Look at Bloom's C300 mk II shot in London.... No cinematic movement, no interesting sound design... everyone cried "Video". You could shoot that on film and people would still scream "Video"... because the subject matter, movement and sound were more like what we expect from a video camera shooting stock footage. The more technical 50% of the cinematic look, for me... DR, colour, highlight rolloff, shadows into perfect blacks, 2K+ resolution. I look forward to the day that everyone has a 4K, 15 stop, perfect colour camera and the focus can be on movement and sound again.

Hi Julian: The 0.71x SB ULTRA is intended as a true general-purpose Speed Booster for m43. The 0.64x XL is a more specialized item tailored for the GH4 and a few other cameras, particularly for the higher crop factor in 4k. The ULTRA has incredible optical performance all the way across the field, as you can see from the MTF curves. BTW, the Speed Booster XL and all other m43 Speed Boosters for the Canon-EF lens mount can be upgraded to autofocus by means of a firmware download. So if you like the XL and want autofocus you can have it. Brian

Hollywood wanted a 4K DSLR so Canon saw an opportunity and enabled 1.3x 4K crop video mode on their 1D X. The 1D C was born and the £12,000 price tag made sure nobody bought it. With the Samsung NX1, the consumer didn't want 4K H.265 but is getting it anyway, because Samsung wants them to buy that lovely 4K TV to view the footage with. This is called technological progress, where more powerful machines are thrust upon an unexpected public and everyone gets excited. Now the two world collide in this shoutout. Expect fireworks! The Samsung NX1 is currently on special offer for $1299 at B&H Read the full article

While I was also rather skeptical about the XC10, I ordered it and I am definitely going to keep it. While it is definitely true that the lens performance in regards to shifting aperture is annoying, there are enough positives about this little camera that make it a keeper for me. • Image quality: Absolutely stunning and in all regards a "baby C300". At 1080p, I don't like the 35 mbps 25p too much, but the 50 mbps / 50p looks absolutely gorgeous. I own a 4K-upgraded F5 and a GH4 (speedbooster / Canon glass and the inevitable 12-35). Looks definitely much nicer "out of the box" than my GH4. • Lens: Only wide open gives you f2.8, the higher the focal length the less the f-stop up to f5.6. That is a bummer, but else the optical performance of the lens is excellent. No focus breathing and it's parfocal. Other than most the Canon L-glass I use, the T-stop is also the same at any focal length. Also worth mentioning: The lens will maintain the (higher) aperture if you set it, meaning if you set it to f5.6 it will also stay on the same f-stop at wider zoom stages. The camera electronics maintain this constant f-stop in a pretty quickly, only a full crash-zoom will shortly lead to a slightly brighter image (nothing like the flashy Panasonic 12-35). Manual focus is fly-by-wire, the camera offers three different modes for that (slow / normal / fast). The lens only closes to f11, but a built-in ND filters makes up for that. • IS: Optical & digital (only at HD recording) image stabilization is pretty effective and makes handheld shooting without adding additional weight a breeze. • Sensor crop: In case you're still fine with recording HD, sensor crop mode can also be activated in 2 different ways: First off, you can select a 2x crop mode that is not quite as sharp as the downsampled, but hey, you at least get 50mm focal length @ f2.8. Second way to crop in is to use the dynamic digital image stabilization which crops into the image by about 13,5%. • Body, controls and loupe: The design of the body with the rotating hand-grip is very smart and well-balanced, much easier for handheld operation in comparison to a regular still image camera. Only three user-assignable buttons mean that a number of functions (like ISO, audio gain etc.) have to be assigned from the menu via the (very precise) joystick, but at least for me it was easy to get used to this. Imho still better than the tight layout of the C300 (where you can accidentally touch a couple of buttons by just picking up the body). The included loupe solution that you just stick on the viewfinder is a very good idea. It distorts a little bit, but I prefer this solution any day when shooting outside on the GH4 (without an additional EVF unit). It tilts really easily and is very comfortable. Personal Usage: Working with heavier camera setups (PDW700 ENG, F5/55 etc.) makes me often wish for something lightweight and versatile, especially for news / report / documentary B-roll shots. That's what I got the GH4 for, but I never really liked the image (and I experimented a lot with different settings). Now that I bought the XC10, the GH4 will stay in the storage more often. Even though it has some drawbacks and might not appeal to some users, the form factor, zoom range, image quality etc. is ideal for my applications. I could even imagine shooting documentaries and reports purely on the XC10. Price: Here in Europe the XC10 sells for a little bit less than 2K €. What you get for the money is an interesting design of a "DSLR-like" fixed-lens camera. If you don't need 4K and want to use expensive Cfast media, choose the cheap SD alternative and work in HD. The 1" sensor still gives you sufficient bokeh even at f5.6. While the XC10 might not be the best solution for many users, it does not deserve the bashing it gets on the web. And just a reminder: One of the most practical lenses in the "affordable" range for DSLRs is the Canon L 24-105, which has a constant f4 (definitely not a constant T), is not parfocal, has focus breathing, much inferior IS, is less sharp and still costs about 860 €. The XC10 stays on f4 until about 70mm.

Film doesn't look like real life. And that's the point imo. It looks good, dreamy, exciting, magical, "enter any random word". And it's the same with everything in films. Even if they are shot digitally it doesn't look like real life. It doesn't sound like real life. People don't talk or act like real life. Physics don't apply. People don't die when they should. Etc etc etc. All I know is that I sit in forums like this and peep at everything from Sony 4K to H.265. I mainly shoot Raw but also avchd. I watch modern movies shot with the absolute latest in video technology. And then the other day when I rewatched the old "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" I was once again just blown away of how good real film looks. Even if it's over 50 years old and kinda Vintage. The skin tones, highlights, shadows, everything just straight out kills any video footage I've seen.

SLR Magic Rangefinder video stills from movie upcoming at the end of the day

What exactly does this mean? I used to think that it meant that the image lacked depth. Or perhaps the image looked somehow artificial. But anymore what I think it really means is that the image is clean. The truth is many modern cameras produce clean images, and frankly that's okay. My eyes don't see film grain when I look around at my surroundings. So why do we expect cameras to show this when it's not really there? The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. This whole "video look" thing reminds me a lot of when CD first came out. Many audiophiles complained that CDs sounded too digital, too clean... Sterile. Some producers even went as far as to add noise and hiss to their digital recordings in an attempt to make them sound more organic. I think that many filmmakers are following in these same footsteps. Trying to make the new digital format appear more like the old noisie, distorted, soft format that they are accustomed to. I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't. The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us.

Yeah I also wonder why people so often dismiss stuff they don't understand with "living in the past", or "amateur" or even "hipster". I don't get why someone likes video, enjoy the movie "Lord of the Rings" or playing Soccer. But it's clear to me that many do, and that's all good. I don't think It's because they don't know better. It's just their thing. The look of film is my thing.

Look into the work of Dogme 95, some of the early pioneers of digital filmmaking. Lars Von Trier's The Idiots was one of the first films to be shot entirely on digital. It doesn't look like film, and it's certainly not clean like digital today, but it has a distinct flavor of rawness that works really well for these films. Lars Von Trier now shoots on Alexa and other high-end systems, but I still see filmmakers using old-school digital and tape cameras to get this look.

I have a test unit with me and it will be interesting to see how good AF is for stills

Suddenly clipped highlights, over sharpened, moire and aliasing, 60i and high compression. That is the video look Video look is not: deep depth of field, small sensor (super 16mm is a film look after all), though a crap DP can certainly make anything look like video if they try

one thing i know for sure is there will be no witness marks on the budget version. not sure what else might be stripped away. here's some more clips I shot a couple hours ago.

I heard an interview recently with Vince Gilligan (WTF podcast) and it gets entertainingly tech wonky for a few minutes about 20 minutes in. He basically explains his pipeline for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Bottom line, they did blind pre-pro tests with a bunch of digital and film cameras and they couldn't pick out which was which. But, he said he still wanted to shoot on film. And he had his own reasons for it. If I'm gong to listen to anyone talk with authority about making cinema, it's going to be from a guy like that. In the meantime, my analogy is that you're choosing a tool. A paint brush. You can use one made from the finest horse hair or one from nylon; still gotta know how to paint, right? ...And finally, there's a crazy wildcard in all of this. Watching film PROJECTED is a whole 'nother experience. Any of you actually remember what that's like? Or gone to see an old movie house spool up a classic film for a screening? If not, you should. When the entire pipeline is non-digital, the details accumulate in a unique way that you can only get from analog. Sure, it's quaint, but it's also very charming; like listening to Duke Ellington on a lacquer 78. It may not be the highest quality, but maybe that's not always the point.

Give it to me, I'll try a few things out, and give you a detailed report 4th quarter of 2016.

Check also this one out: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/External-Drive/OWC/ThunderBay-4-RAID5 Europe reseller: http://macupgrade.eu/catalog/external-hd-thunderbay-raid-edition-c-3_288.html Reviews: https://larryjordan.com/articles/product-review-owc-thunderbay-4-raid/ http://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/6616/owc-thunderbay-iv-raid-5-edition-external-storage-drive-review/index.html

I have a couple of Scorpion lights in the mail. Can't wait to try them out.

The 1DC renders better color than the C300 mark I. Check out this side by side and notice the 1DC displaying warm and cool, while the C300 is mostly warm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6s5VDABzj0

The problem is in the "not yet as good as film" part. The point is: that is not a fact, but an opinion. Perhaps shared by many, but clearly not everyone. In any case, every time a discussion comes up about digital cameras and the film look, why do we go off on extraneous stuff like movement, and lighting? Obviously we're talking CETERIS PARIBUS. I'm really looking forward to Mattias' comparison since he'll be holding everything else constant.

I supported both (iblazr 2 & instamic, also the ImagineVision E1 Z cam btw), so I'm guessing I will find out. (Damn, those new smileys are really something else)

I have a suggestion for everyone... watch Blue-ray version of "High Plains Drifter" with Clint Eastwood and tell me what you think about the image and colors. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068699/ To me personally, one of the best movie images/looks I have ever seen until this day, just plain oldschool filmic image with fantastic colors. http://thesupernaughts.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/highplainsdrifter.jpg

@Nick Hughes - Dogme95 I agree. It works fine for this Film! Also "Festen" from Thomas Vinterberg! But I am glad, that not too many films done with this technique:).

With the 1DC you be able to shoot a feature film on the highest aesthetic level! Congratulatios and thanks for sharing!:)

Speedbooster S took the update well. Works fine on the Sigma 18-35 and Canon 24-105 on the GH4 and the GX7. Not lightning fast and sometimes it misses the mark completely, but it's one step closer to being able to comfortably ditch my Canon body for stills.

Totally agree. I see some of these "characteristics" an issue in a lot of these new consumer 4k cameras. Images so brittle and oversharpened that they look hyper-real and thin. A lot of electronic lenses are the same. You see a huge difference when shooting raw where images have color depth, tonality, organic motion cadence, and high dynamic range. Nearly every single camera out right now has a "video look". The best way around it is to shoot raw and use cinema lenses. Then become bankrupt.

the taking lens (LINOS MeVis-C 35mm f1.6 C-mount) is good with this combo from f5.6. The video was taken between f1.6 to f8. The baby Hypergonar is not the highest sharpest lens in the world Apparently I'm happy with the Rangefinder, despite the results are a little under with duet diopters.

Looks good guys. I have mine set up now with the Kowa 8Z 2x anamorphic and Helios 44M, the infamous russian 58mm F2.0. It is tack sharp at F5.6 and plenty of lovely anamorphic bokeh going on. Shooting 4:3 on the GH4.

Ahhhh...just got my Rokinon 12mm in the mail and used this feature. Works flawlessly! Much happier (though a bit heavier than I'd like to be). Thanks for the help all!

Is everyone here really gonna switch to the a7rii if vlog isn't here for the gh4 in 20 minutes? That price difference is pretty huge. It's weird It's taking so long and will be a huge step up, but it was considered by many to be a great camera just a little while ago. On a budget, the gh4 is great and 4k, with with multiple great, even cheaper 4k options from panasonic which can match with it really well with cine-v and d as B cameras (to a super cinematic 15 hundred dollar A camera with improvements over its brothers for photography, great build quality, anamorphic shooting and more). That's a low end, high quality package not really comparable to any other setup. Vlog could be (will be) awesome (I've been hearing better than slog2 - by the way, no slog3 on the a7rii, is it coming to the a7sii? Does this not piss us off?), but.. The nx1 isn't exactly better in terms of log profile either.. Rx10ii - no interchangeable lens, other panasonics, and then you're up into a drastically different price range. Correct me if I'm missing something. Could be worth a not so unpleasant wait

My friend took delivery of his RX10mk2 today. I played with it for about an hour. The image quality is superb. Sony has really fixed almost all my issues with the first version. Namely the zoom speed while recording is variable based on how much you toggle the switch- and it can be quite fast if needed. There is a full Picture Profile menu, but with only Cine1 and Cine2 from the cine-gammas. Not a big issue but I will miss Cine4. As for people saying you can't get bokeh with this camera- you can definitely get bokeh and good focus is actually quite critical even on wider shots. I kept the lens at f2.8 the entire time, and it is softer there than say f5.6. The internal ND is helpful but you'll need additional ND 0.6 to hold wide open in direct sunlight at ISO 100, do the math out if you want to shoot Slog2 at 400/800. These are frame grabs from resolve. I shot 1080/24p, f2.8 at ISO100/200, Cine1/Pro, added filmconvert. It is a solid camera and I wouldn't hesitate to take it anywhere. I can see it being a great option for Doc 1-man band shooters, it is quite manageable once you have it programmed. The intelligent-active steadishot was very impressive too. I think paired with a tight little cage to hold the xlr audio adapter and the SmallHD 502/Sidefinder you could really work quite hard with this thing.

a few more clips. forgive the camera bounce on the focus pulls, I hadn't had my coffee yet.

Hear that sound? It is sound of Iscorama owners rushing to sell their lenses on eBay.

Hah, I hadn't really realized until you said it but, I guess Tasmania does have a lot of trees.

Now we're talking! that is an affordable price

Not sure... Too busy looking in the mirror, with my cock in hand, to keep an accurate track of time.

This isn't a very good idea if you want good audio for interviews. You need to get that mic in close even if it's a directional mic. Griffin on Indy Mogul had a smart solution with an arm coming of his shoulder rig with a shotgun. Best way is to tripod the camera and have the zoom in your hand, text book reporter setup. Sugest watching this,

​The 120fps is 720p... but then the Canon C100 doesn't do that either. Product segmentation. Have you seen this? ...Great short!! (nice footage too). https://www.youtube.com/embed/mhw_LGfvigc