Leaderboard

Quick test. Ungraded. Sony A6000 at the end to compare. Sorry about the light. I have no mastery over winter... You can download the original ProRes LT file from Vimeo. (.SO = ISO. FCPX title problem...)

Just for fun, I'm gonna guess he's keeping the: A7S II because it's the hottest camera right now and it is the leader in low light capabilities. GH4 because of its reliability and how it has become a standard in the industry. NX1 because you never know what update may come that changes the game 5D3 because of Canon lenses and EOSHD heritage.

Quick play shows this to be a winner. Works good on my GH4. Even the 50/1.0L autofocuses. Can hardly wait to test the 200/1.8L. Accuracy seems good too.

I did a bunch of grading - checking out Impulz vs Filmconvert Overall filmconvert feels more forced, retains less detail. Impulz luts gives a better starting point - more image detail retained in ut - to play with - to shape it and move. I also just did a rec 709 conversion and graded - and it's a lot harder to work with to get to where I want to go. So if you don't like luts, good for you. For me, it gets me there faster. And then I tweak and tweak and tweak. The overall image, then skin, then lips, everything. Also now being able to shoot pro res 444 12-bit from the sony f35 to the odyssey 7q is really, really nice. Mixed lighting test - sony f35 to convergent design pro res 4444 - with overhead crappy 4000k fluorescents - shooting s-gamut then with p3-dci gamut the lighting is all over the place - crappy overhead flourescents - 4000k mixed with more crappy flourescents and in some scenes led glow from macbook the p3-dci definitely falls apart faster. s-gamut - with pro res 4444 - very clean secondary color correcting and stress to push pro res as far as it needs to go. shot underexposed 1 stop. amazing how clean can make - used neatvideo on impulz footage

I think you made the right call. Both are great cameras, but the G7 is an amazing value and it'll take your minoltas and Canon fds.

It's a shame. They are on to somithing with this camera. They just don't quite have the expertise in video to pull it off. I think the em1 mark 2 will probably have 4K but by the time that comes out I think I may have moved on to Sony

Haha yea... After the long holy grail search for the cinematic look, we are finally reaching the moment people will go "ahh, it was good lighting all along".

True story: new A7S user says: "I don't need to get any lighting gear now I have the A7S"... The world's best cinematographers will make a much better film with a smartphone than the average joe would with a Red Dragon and Cooke primes. Now with the accessible price of the URSA Mini, there will be volumes of negative comments blaming the camera for poorer than expected quality.

This was inevitable... We are at/past the point of clear, definable quality increases... Now it is going to be more and more down to lighting, composition, grading etc to create that wow factor in image quality.

Exactly. Hook's original 4.6K footage was outstanding. 2 of the shooters on the new stuff admitted they added too much sharpening, or diffusion etc which is causing strange highlight blooming.

Right dude? I get a camera with a 5" 1080 folding monitor, 4.6k sensor able to capture 15 stops of light, slo-mo, and an internal 10-bit or RAW recorder. It doesn't use proprietary media and the accessories are reasonably price. All for less than $5000. Oh wait, hold on, I get the lack of enthusiasm: it doesn't shoot over ISO 9000, hasn't got triple-pixel laser auto focus, no 8-axis stabilization, and, it doesn't even make my bed for me! I mean, shit, Red Raven has TWO fans, Ursa doesn't even have one. Blackmagic, Grant Petty, epic fail.

Out of focus areas are a dream with the Meyer's, so for morph they are ideal - round/oval bokeh all the way! And its tiny!

Well its a lot smaller than the 135mm, that's for sure. I really use it for photography & haven't really gone morph with it much. Just looking at it now, the coating is a faint purple. I just bunged on my Kowa B&H & shone the iPhone light at it - it does flare, but not crazy mad stuff (you get the 2 horizontal, which looked a bit muted colour-wise - green & gold). The good thing is that it has loads of markings in ft, due to the long focus through, so it matches up to the markings on the Kowa B&H really well - no guess work or struggling to get perfect focus. I really like the lens & am not that crazy about flares anymore (unless they are internal) - what you will get is really nice bokeh & a lovely vintage creamy image. Hope that helps?

here's the answer from another thread https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1005361 I need to put in a color chart again to see what captures color the most accurately. I think playing with both, FC and Visioncolor and seeing what works for what you need is a good idea. I go back and forth a lot.

All the Meyer-Optik lenses produce great round/soap bokeh - the Troplan is the king. Its a bit like the Helios 40-2 is the king of swirly bokeh for the Russain lenses, but the Helios 44-2 also produces swirly bokeh. I got some really good soapy Bokeh from the Lydith 30mm f3.5 recently & the Orestor 100mm f2.8 is an amazing lens - the 135mm Orestor is known as the Bokeh Monster!

Got a Helios 40-2 coming! Seen these - but what exactly are these cheap chinese helicoid things? I guess to mount the lens, because the Diaplan is a projector lens indeed.

Yep, those Impulz LUTs sure look good! However, I'm not a sharpness freak, so I take all talk of that with a huge grain of salt - just does nothing for me, a bit like 8bit 4K. Really liked VisionColor for their Canon Picture Profiles - still use them for stills, as they are just the best. So no surprise that their LUTs are amazing. I only bought FilmConvert because at the time FCPX had no way of loading in LUTs. I think the mistake most people make with FC is leaving the sliders at 100% & the grain for Web upload has to be 150% or over for it to actually show up in any meaningful way (best grain out there, as kidz has said). And Ed was a life saver recommending the ARRI profiles, as the BM ones just annoyed me no end.

With more time and care, the image from this camera will be outstanding. The test clips look very, very rushed and those testing haven't had much time with the camera yet. At first, the A7S was throwing out an awful image almost everywhere online. Cut to 18 months later, and I'm seeing fantastic looking footage shot with the camera, now users have got round the grading challenge.

A quick shot from this morning's school run. Grey, rainy day - 25fps, 1/50, f3.5 with Olympus 17.5/1.8. Dropbox - original file I still get the menu that pops up on the right of the screen and my dials don't operate shutter or aperture directly as they do before starting to record?

Thx Kidzrevil, my NX500 arrived yesterday. I will test it this weekend wtih your settings.

Slow motion tongue lady supersedes any negative critiques of iq.

hi kaylee, i watched it thru the Vimeo app on an Apple TV. so it was playing in 1080p. and yeah, just referring to light, filtration, lenses, production design, post color, etc. meaning, what a camera is capable of shines in the right hands and looks like mud in the hand of another. here's a sample frame from Friends With Kids... everyone who has released URSA Mini 4.6K footage has been in a race to be amongst the first crop of footage out there, which is why each of them has had the same caveat: don't judge by the grade.

If only someone married the ergonomics and design of the E-M5 II with the sensor and video capabilities of the A7R II.

so sharp. maybe too sharp. on my 4k television, the rocks on the beach almost appear to vibrate. I bet the URSA Mini 4.6k would look great with vintage glass. whenever I see a camera that looks a little too much like video, I try to remind myself that both Drive and Friends with Kids were shot with the same camera in the same year and one looks like a proper movie while the other nearly looks like a sit-com.

I'm not set yet since I haven't tested the others yet, but the Rectilux didn't let me down on anything I tried so far. Talking to John about the f-stop value, as long as the lens is wide open, the math is simply dividing the focal length by the anamorphic's rear element diameter, so the 50mm is still at f/1.2 (50/43 = 1.16), and the 85 is actually (85/43 = 1.97) around f/2. Once you start closing the iris, the math is different and I didn't get to that yet. I don't think that affects the sharpness of the resulting image, though, but definitely affects vignetting. I had some issues with the Isco Pre36 paired with Contax Zeiss 85/1.4, which has a huge front element. These issues aren't noticeable when I pair it to the Jupiter 9, which is f/2 and has a much much smaller front element (65mm vs 45mm). There's also a way to determine the fastest f-stop of any given focal length based on the front element diameter - which is why these super fast lenses tend to have much larger front elements.

That's the way I thought 30 years ago. After years and years or watching movies and TV and reading books I've flipped the other way. Just as there is a technical side to depth of field, or resolution say, there is a technical side to story-telling, how much is focused on one character, what is shown with dialogue. For example, a filmmaker could be sold on the low dynamic range of a RAW camera. But if he used it on a comedy it would probably fall flat. Comedy is always sharp and bright. Or it could be the other way around, a filmmaker looking to tell the story of a Syrian refugee for example, and shoot with bright camera that can't get a thoughtful mood. I know many people will read what I'm saying and think 'what about this exception, or that exception'. It's not about rules. It's about what works, and has been working for centuries, though the technology and cultural styles may change. Creativity, to me, isn't this "personal" thing that is unique to an individual, it is personal to that person in his/her PLACE IN TIME. An artist serves their generation. They seldom come up with anything new. Of course, when you're young you feel omnipotent, powerful, creative, immortal. I can only say from my experience that young artists who try too many things that haven't worked in the past end up with the same result. So it is important that one understand the basic technical aspects of story telling before they choose camera A or B. There's a big difference between shooting people in a comedy, a drama, a documentary, or random scenes of buildings and fountains. The technology of the camera should fit the technique of the story.

Dibs on your Centavision! hahahahahahahaha. I know you said you would be buried with it in your coffin, so I suggest you arrange for a two man coffin, I'll be buried alive with your corpse, so I can spend a few hours with the lens (before the air runs out)

Hi all, Inspired by Tito and Bold and their anamorphic Lens-cyclopedia, I decided to try and make a list of low power diopters useful for anamorphic video. Using the info in this thread and searching on the web, I compiled a list which may be useful for anyone looking for suitable diopters. I've attached the list as PDF. Feel free to comment and/or correct. The list may (hopefully) end up as an add-on to the online Lens-cyclopedia. Diopters.pdf