Leaderboard

Time to address the second most common question asked when it comes to anamorphics: "How wide can I go with this anamorphic?". Your problems are over! Here I introduce my hFOV calculator! Test it, break it, enjoy. Let me know. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615 You can input all your settings (camera/crop factor, taking lens, focal reducers, anamorphic stretch and sensor aspect ratio) to check if you'll get vignetting, the equivalent focal length of your horizontal field of view and your final aspect ratio. You can also discover which taking lenses will give you a specific horizontal field of view and what crop should you set on your camera to achieve a specific final aspect ratio.

A newscast is copyrighted content, nothing about it is public domain. In fact virtually nothing has entered the public domain in the U.S. in decades, you can thank the fuck-tards at Disney for that one because every 10 years when Mickeys copyright is about to expire they shovel truckloads of cash at lobbyists and get the copyright extended. Rant off. I just hate copyrights being extended in perpetuity for the sake of greed, that was never the intention of copyright protection.

Are they the SMC Pentax-M? If so, then yes I have used the 28mm and the 50mm. They are both excellent lenses and probably some of the cheapest, high quality vintage lenses you will find. The focus rings on those lenses are just buttery smooth. You can literally adjust focus with one finger. I have not used the zoom, in fact I've never seen one. Go to Pentax Forums, they have a lens database with User Reviews, and often times, photo samples. Just remember they are a dime a dozen, so be sure you are paying next to nothing because mint copies are regularly available for ridiculously cheap prices.

I think this thread is (yet another) example of yearning for times that won't ever return. The internet has permanently disrupted how art is funded, created, distributed, and consumed. Yes, it's a world where only superhero moves can make money the old way, but it's also one where the consumer can find entertainment without even being aware of the superhero movie, it's one where passion projects can be funded and not be beholden to whims of others, it's one where the creator can generate revenue directly from the consumer, etc. I worked on a film recently that was pirated even before it was released while the creator was still taking pre-orders. Instead of whining and letting it ruin him, he decided to take it as a positive- that people wanted to see his film, and those that were moved by it would be motivated to spend the money on his self-distributed Blu-Ray (or private streaming link) which contained hours and hours of extra features. He already made the choice not to go the traditional investor/distributor route as he had for previous films. The internet has changed a lot of things but it hasn't changed the principle that if you want to make money doing anything, you have to continually find new ways to provide value to the customer.

But they are. A FF f2.8 lens will capture the same amount of light over the image as a m43 f1.4 lens (both wide-open). That also means you get the same shot noise (which is most of the noise in the image). You need to increase the ISO on the FF camera by 2 stops to get the same exposure. However that doesn't affect the noise as (i) most of the noise is in the light and changing the ISO won't change that and (ii) the sensor read noise will usually fall a bit with increasing ISO, so the total noise will be lower if anything. (Think of it this way... at the same illumination level if a f1.4 lens puts 1M photons onto a m43 sensor then a f2.8 lens will put 1M photons onto a FF sensor. Of those photons on average 1,000 will be the shot noise, in both cases.) Increasing the ISO isn't a problem as the FF sensor will be able to capture around 4x the electrons of the m43 sensor due to its greater size. Increasing ISO by two stops knocks about a factor of 4 off that so it will be about the same as the m43 sensor and not saturate if the m43 sensor doesn't. Also remember a 50mm f2.8 lens has the same diameter entrance pupil as a 25mm f1.4 lens (17.86mm) so the DoF will be the same at the widest aperture. The FoV will also be the same. Diffraction softening will also occur at the same DoF (it goes with DoF, regardless of format). Hence the minimum and maximum amounts of available DoF are the same.

No, a 50mm f/2.8 will be two stops darker than a 25mm f/1.4. Same depth of field, but that's it. The lens size advantage is indisputable. And it's not just sensor size; it's aspect ratio. Designing a lens with good edges and corners becomes much easier with a squarer aspect ratio, and requires a much smaller image circle. The G7 has already improved 1-1.5 stops in noise performance from the GH4. If the GH5 sensor offers any noise improvement at all over the G7, we're looking at a usable ISO 3200, which is more than enough for me. I don't understand how you can argue that m4/3 isn't a standard. Of course it is. We have 6 different manufacturers making lenses for it. And with a simple speed booster, you increase your low light performance by 1 stop and gain a s35 sensor with Canon or Nikon mount. Sounds plenty standard to me. M4/3 offers lots of advantages. Smaller, better-corrected lenses, faster fps, lower rolling shutter, broader dof, less overheating, better battery life, a 4:3 aspect ratio for anamorphic shooting, easier to process higher bit depths, etc. And if its performance in stills isn't enough for you, nothing made before 2006 must've been either. It's only a half stop behind APS-C in every metric. And though their sensor tech has stalled a bit, m4/3 will perform as well in 3 years as APS-C does now; at that point, I'd target have the reduced size and weight than a fractional bump in IQ. Also, keep in mind that we have no idea what we want. I mean none at all. After the GH2, what did everyone ask for? Better low-light, DR, color science, build quality, bitrate/codec, and menus. What did the GH3 deliver? Every single one of those improvements...yet everyone panned it as a minor step forward because the spec sheet didn't wow them. Here's what I want. -1 stop increase in noise from the G7. - reduce the crop factor to the native 2x, or bring back the multi-aspect sensor for 1.86x (APS-H with the speed booster) -1 stop increase in DR -V-LOG, with view assist and the green/magenta blocking issue fixed - anamorphic de-squeeze -10-bit internal recording, and a 200mbps 8-bit option - dual card slots (It'd be cool if you could record to both slots simultaneously, or your big files to one slot and 1080p proxies to the other, but that's dreaming) -A full sized HDMI port. There's room, and it would make external recording much easier and more reliable. -a better implemented YAGH brick than can run on 2 GH4 batteries I feel like that's an attainable wish list and a compelling enough tool to keep people on board until the next big leap. I'd buy one.

They are so desperate to start selling LS300s at CVP that they are giving you a free Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 PRO and £500 off any accessory of your choice. All for £2977 inc VAT (£2481 + VAT) http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/jvc_gy-ls300e At B&H it is $1000 off at $3k One thing is for sure, doesn't look like sales have been too hot and people aren't hot for the JVC brand. In fact I'd tape it up to avoid being laughed at. I agree on paper the spec is great and the image in that YouTube review looks very very clean in 2K 4:2:2. Nice to have LOG but the prime zoom I'd rather do in post after shooting in 4K. How's the codec in 4K on this thing? What's the bitrate? The main concern I'd have over this camera are the ergonomics, speed of use, snappiness and logic of the menus and quality of the sensor. Will be surprised if it looks nicer than an A7R II in Super 35mm mode at high ISOs or a NX1 at low ISOs. But yeah, definitely a curious beast to try out. Just get it from somewhere with a good return policy. Why? Because it's a JVC

Was driving passed my old neighborhood today, where the "Building of Moire" lays. I had the NX500 in my bag and the R1 buckled in the back seat. I also had some Magic Lantern shots at home. So I stopped. The Cameras are: Sony NEX5t Sony a6000 Sony FS100 Sony AX100 Sony A7 Sony A7ii Panasonic LX100 Panasonic HMC151 Panasonic GM1 Canon XC10 Canon EOS-M Raw Canon EOS-M Crop Blackmagic Pocket Blackmagic 4K Production Digital Bolex Samsung NX1 Samsung NX500 HD Samsung NX500 4K Crop LG G Flex 2 at 200mbps Red One MX

From a youtuber / journalism / film making perspective I think the following features would yield the most IQ progress: - Global shutter, - 4k 60p - 4k 10bit 422, 200Mbit recording - Full sensor read out downscaled to 4k - NX1 level of focussing + tracking. - Auto iso in manual mode - + 1 stop in DR and iso. - 5x IBIS would be nice too. I like the idea of an oversized and/or multi aspect sensor. A cinema lens set would be cool too. Great to see so many responses here. I wonder if Panasonic employees actually read along.

Film Piracy. The two dreaded words to filmmakers. Is it even worth it these days? Look at this shocking information. http://www.culturalweekly.com/sundance-infographic-2016-ample-distribution-paltry-deals-and-the-cost-of-piracy/ Imagine plunking down $100k - 500k for your film. Piracy happens. Your film is all over the Internet for FREE before you even leave the festival you got into. Careers ruined. Money and time gone forever. How do you stop it? Hope for a big buy out from a major distributor? (Not likely) Pray the piracy doesent happen to you (not likely) Keep the budget so far down for your feature film (50k or less) that it doesent matter? (Possibility) Listen to this interview with a fairly known horror director whose life was ruined: http://tinyurl.com/hfxuwqt Another post that questions is it worth shooting a feature film? http://tinyurl.com/jolx4wh And another: http://tinyurl.com/h7p72yq Scary and grim facts for independent filmmaker working today.

Here it is! We recorded hdmi 8-bit 4:2:2 out of it and went to the odyssey skin tones overall are nice! and stabilization is amazing. The camera was interesting to use - especially considering that it's a 200 ASA camera and has moire and dynamic range challenges - sometimes this is interesting to have to maximize something with limitations. It's difficult, but I guess it disciplines you.

This would also be cool: - a tiny (300g) body - medium format sensor - global and rolling shutter - record internally 8k pro res 14 bit 4.4.4 from 1 fps to 480 fps (to sd card) - built in ronin - 600 euros price

original files from Andrew still available here, right? - https://vimeo.com/album/3613956

They might go up in price when the new pentax fullframe is released ^^¡

What a great job! Thanks!

Definitely go for it. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the KY-27 I used early on in my career. Fully competent piece of gear, but it didn't stop me from coveting the Sony stuff.

Canon's 40mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8 cover full-frame, and are STM lenses.

there's the disconnect. i'm in a rare place where the file-sharing of my movie helped raise its profile. i think my piracy issues were a benefit in some ways and the loss of potential revenue was negligible. i'm not unhappy that my last film was torrented. but i'm worried about the next one. and the one after that. we're talking about how i make a living after all.

Completely OT, but nothing published after 1923 has entered the public domain in the U.S., Disney is one of the largest media conglomerates in the world, they don't care about anyone's families, including their own employees given some of the massive layoffs from some of their most profitable divisions simply to make them more profitable - see ESPN. Disney only cares about making their shareholders happy as demonstrated by that lame remake of Episode IV by the great Xerox director they call The Force Awakens. Society as a whole benefits from unrestricted access to science and the arts, we're already at authors life + 70 years or 95 for a corporation. This comes up again soon, expect to see the same BS as before - "we have to keep Mickey away from the porn industry" while Disney shovels loads of cash into the coffers of those voting for another extension. Continually extending copyrights only benefits a select few - the publishers - plain and simple its nothing more than corporate welfare. Hopefully our next president vetoes the bill and puts an end to this nonsense.

Good luck, that actually sounds like a nice story. I still don't see how piracy affected your movie, specially when paramount passes these kind of movies on their free or flatrate channels. But even if piracy really were a big problem for indie film makers, there is no way to stop piracy unless you implement some draconian measures that are way worse then loosing some entertainment.

As interesting as everyone's half-baked lens rhetoric is, can we get back on topic?

So did I. Alot of us talked about it. And still do. But thats all we do. No one is actually trying it I would love some footage to play with.

Great find, Mattias! Don't know if you've seen it, but here is the 4K version. I like the LOG images from both cameras, but wish they had applied the same LUT to both.

Thanks Tito!

35 1.8, 45 2, 58 1.4. The 85 1.7, 21 2.8, 28 2.8, and 35-70 are next, and samples I've seen show relatively low breathing on those as well.

that piece I don't know what Paul did. In general I use gorilla grain, low level and about 60 percent opacity. I have started to upload to vimeo with pro res LT so it's not h.264 getting recompressed as h.264. seems to work better.

Thanks for doing this Tito! This is next level! Cheers!

kaylee is officially my favorite person.

I searched. Pro video quality was added with fw 1.2.

Sandro, I took a few hours to work mine out. Javascript and wordpress plugins. If you wanna check it out: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615

The Nikon zooms and Zeiss primes are very similar in sharpness both makes are very very good the way they differ slightly is the zeiss are warmer have more saturation and more contrast -the classic Zeiss look with strong deep blacks , the Nikon's are less contrast not as solid crushed blacks and less saturation , so both do a great job just slightly different ways they render light , now I don't think one is better than the other just use full tools to get the job done , the Nikon zooms on set are quicker to use as there is no changing lenses to change focal length , the Zeiss do have a 'pop' look to them that I like , both are worth buying and will last forever what ever camera you use . just adapt them If you just want to buy Two lenses that cover a huge range of shots get the Nikon's , you will need to make rigs for them they are big heavy lenses that need supporting , if you like using small primes that don't need lens supports get the Zeiss

good night, brave troll. and it's spelled "genius", genius. The movie was distributed by paramount internationally. that included both those countries and whatever rock you just crawled back under.

around the time of the release of the movie, the total seeds for all the torrents i could find was just over 10,000. i don't know how high it got. The Turkish YouTube upload had just crossed 100,000 views when i discovered it (it had been up for more than a month). A torrent was also likely used to make bootleg Blu-rays that one of my actors found in Hong Kong. ps - fuck you, you belittling asshole.

5D has option for lower resolution "RAW" (it is not exactly the RAW becuase of resolution, but bit depth is same as original RAW). That is someting that NX1 does not have. Moreover - NX1 would need also electronic shutter to achieve "video RAW in photo mode". It would be complicated even for Samsung engineers... Let's focus on bitrate first... (...crop mode, lower sharpness or noise reduction)

A 25mm 1.4 m43 lens is equivalent to a 50mm 2.8 lens on fullframe, both will give the same image and boh are tiny lenses. If you think otherwise I can't/want help you.

New short film from Macgregor shot on Sony F35 is simply mouthwatering. I dare to say that I haven't seen anything better imagewise in digital camera world, but I have to admit that great grading also helps in this case.

I don't give a fuck about your jobs, I want to keep my privacy.

Looks like Epic to me,as it is grabbing a decent chunk from the imaging circle of that s35 lomo (edge vignette due to optimised aspect crop) and has a familiar rendering of detail... but Amira/ Alexa/ Ursa would all look the same with a distinctive anamorphic up front like that. It was nice not think about what camera or lens was present when watching first time, the content was captivating enough...it could have been shot on VHS and still been a strong piece.

nicely done any guesses on the camera? i definitely have one but i am not going first on this lol RIP Eric Garner indeed. ny cops have been *completely* out of control for a looong time

Brilliant! Thanks for explanation.

This is pretty much exactly how it worked with the GH2 hacks. Vitaliy got a hold of the firmware obviously when they released the first update. Then he created a GUI called "PTool" that loads in the firmware and has windows for you to enter in new values for just the relevant fields. Then the "PTool" GUI saves your changes in a file identical to the actual Panasonic firmware which then gets loaded into the camera in exactly the same way one would normally update the firmware. You never "see" your new values displayed anywhere on the GH2. You just see the results and you can see the bit-rates associated with your new footage. So this is considerably different from how Magic Lantern works, but everything we've learned so far points to the NX1 firmware functioning at least somewhat similarly to the Panasonic. So that's encouraging. The easiest things to change will be the bit-rates (they've already provided for several ranges so we know it will work) and the removal of the 29-minute limit ... which is probably nothing more than a flag which can simply be removed like it was on the GH2.

I'd rather see first a 3 set of cine zooms from Tokina covering wide angle, mid range, and tele. You could then have just three lenses which cover entirely comfortably a production's entire needs.

Hardware. No hack will improve RS. The 1080p mode is pretty good in that regard, though.

talking of great cine zooms - I have been having talks with Tokina's distributors about the Tokina CINEMA ATX 50-135mm T3 cine zoom they make . http://www.tokinacinema.com/50-135mmT3.html this looks great as I'm a big fan of long lenses , Imagine this paired with Metbones XL making a T2/f1.8 zoom , I'm going to see if I can borrow one to test.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer. I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released. So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem. Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can. Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay. So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended. I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content. Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

Thanks for giving the lut/grading info you had. I have yet to see any films shot on digital cameras replicate the look from some of the classic mid 80's to late 90's films. Extremely smooth highlights, pinkish Caucasian skintones, neutral, well lit look with natural looking saturated colors, plenty of detail/texture, yet soft/smooth, with beautiful grain to top it off. Also, have you watched your cult leaders new release?

It has sony colors, I will stick to my eos rebel t1.

I use mine with the rx1004 (using a Kirk to Arca QR to add weight). It balances perfectly. And it functions as it should - you can't adjust the pan speed or anything but that's not an issue if you predict movement. But my unit also has moments when it goes beserk - vibrates furiously and needs to be switched off. Hideous when it happens. Possibly caused by moving the handle off vertical too much? Unfortunately cannot be used inverted (I wanted close to ground shots). Tim

Panning seems to do it. Worst still, when this happens it makes the footage useless. Don't get me wrong, when it's smooth, it's very smooth. But it just seems hard to get shot of more than a few seconds before it all goes to pot.

So here is the long and short of it. The Beholder DS1 is heavy. It can get some very smooth shots, but you will be challenged to keep the shot on target for more than a very short while due to the weight. Additionally, I noticed something unexpected, certain movements can cause the unit to freak out. This results in a type of fast micro-jitters, that will appear as jerky image artifacting. I wanted this unit to work smoothly. I do not know if this behavior is normal or if the unit is defective. But I can tell you normal handheld seems more pleasing to my eyes, despite being less smooth. Normal handheld just seems more organic.