Leaderboard

In Cinema 4D I set up 2 cams. A FullFrame Camera driving a Crop camera. I used releas 13 which is from around 2010, way before the whole Northrup discussion The Xpresso above is based on Crop x Focal Lenght, Crop x Aperture and (crop)squared x Iso. Resulting in for instance the properties below. Three different points of view. 2 x a 50mm f1.4 and 1x 105 mm f2.8 lens in FF You can check them in Photoshop, or better render them out yourself (file attached, Download the demo) but I'm pretty sure they are to the pixel precise. Let me know how to contact you so I can give you my Paypal info. CinemaFile.zip

So I got like the cheapest lens I could, and now it’s the only one I like. “Character” or crap, I love it. Just a non-ai 50mm with a $10 wide angle adapter. I have a telephoto adapter too, which definitely still has character, but not always my favorite. I like this even more than the 50 by itself. Didn’t know if there were just terrible cheap lenses anywhere that could be worth fiddling with. usually the budget lenses are still somewhat high for me. Kinda curious about fungus filled lenses, I’ve seen those do cool things Ps, i know that those Dog Optiks are nice n Schidtty, and I appreciate the hell out of them, but maybe mostly interested from the cheapskate side of things, so /:

Oh dear, the karma:

FF can look like APS-C if stopped down. Crop sensors can look like full frame if the DOF+FOV equivalent is possible. Its all about the DOF at a given effective focal length. FF starts to become impossible to emulate with combinations like a 24mm at f/2 or 35mm at f/2 or 2.8 on FF. Those are magic.

both, I'm practical man, not daydream, what I did is already available today. all other projects take a long time, and Samsung nx1 / 500 needs adapters today. a speed booster adapter and an adapter Aputure are very effective for those who need it and reduce the gap with the competition.

Any connection you make will be valuable. I just filmed a short for a great director. I had no idea he used to make movies as a director in L.A. and had taken a break to raise his sons by owning a restaurant, where my wife happened to work. We met, chatted, he saw one of my shorts and loved my camera work. I fell into a great working relationship, hopefully shooting a feature with him next year. Don't scoff at what you see on display there. If you see someone's else's work that you enjoy chat with them, you never know what might come from it.

I made my last doc for basically free. Just my wife and I doing everything. Paid for flights to and from Japan, that was pretty much it. As for the current film festival circuit: They're a legacy thing. Back in the day festivals had clout simply because they were a bigger deal. Now-a-days they exist to prop up the purveyors on the things and, maybe, actual filmmakers every now-and-again. BTW, I'm a film festival producer for our local shin-dig here in SoCal, and I also helped (years ago) to launch one of the current premiere film fests in the mid-south, such as it is. Ultimately, fests are like everything else these days. Everybody's doing it since digital made it easy. It's not a problem to get into some sort of a film festival. However, it's not easy getting into a good one. I just got back with my film from a rather lousy fest, that had no serious networking, horrible screenings, poor attendance...yet it was a lot of fun. My wife and I even gleaned a great nugget of financial info from one of the panels that was wildly invaluable, so you never know... We have our last one in Toronto coming up, and it's gonna be the most "legit" festival we got into. Still, that might be a lesser experience than our goofy no-budget fest we just attended. We enjoyed our time at the goofy fest. We made some new friends. If you can do that, that's the main thing. Just be gracious, try to get on the same wavelength as the interesting people you'll meet, and you'll be fine. At the middle rung and lower rung of festivals, these things are just glorified parties -- if you're lucky! (Some aren't even that) That's the best you can hope from it. Having fun and meeting some good folks. There's really only two or three festivals where industry stuff actually happens and films get "launched." Because of that, there's only industry films represented. Unless you're a creative wunderkind that made something uniquely awesome (and entertainingly so) you're probably not going to get into any serious festivals on your own. Actually, in spite of making something awesome and new, that actually would probably get you rejected from most film festivals. The reality is that most selection committees are community regular-joe/jane types. They're not savvy about film. If subject matter floats in front of their eyes that they can relate to, they'll ignore all the shortcomings of the flick and give it a big old bear hug, filmmaking craft be damned. Arguably, this happens with "savvy" festivals as well. Three actors and three crew. Make something with that situation. Learn how to be smart with your time and talent. It WILL pay off; creatively and professionally.

Hi everybody. Quite hot discussion here now, so let me explain couple things myself. V2 adapter tweak referring to is discontinued. It was made by personal order once when I thought Redstan is out of business, but it seems that I was wrong. So, we will not continue to make such adapters with retaining ring (that is really great idea, and it is sad that it wasn't mine :-) ) Our adapters are more simple and more risky. bzpop is correct - there is a chance of dropping anamorphic attachment with our adapters, so you need much more care using them. Positive side is lower price for those who using not too expensive equipment. Flat spring bzpop referring to is not poor design. Purpose of the spring is protection of the lens body from damage by adapter screws. I tested this feature on many attachments already, and results are following: if you tight the screws just by you fingers, an attachment will not fall accidentally, but can be pulled out with not too much force. After you positioned it correctly, you need to tight screws bit harder using allen key. After this, you'll not be able to pull it out. So, this design is secure enough when used properly. Thanks. Raf.

This is controversial-ish, but I feel after looking at Premiere that in comparison to FCPX it's pretty "old-school". Not that old school is bad. FCPX is clearly a lot more modern with the way it's constructed and performs. More of the critical non-users are bashing it again. Ridiculous really. It's an ace editor, and in my opinion, the best.

A Zeiss Otus plus Speed Booster XL has pretty amazing IQ wide-open at f/0.90 on m43.

Ed if you want to get a new laptop for video editing, I suggest you bite the bullet and either spend the extra cash for the new MBP if you really want the mac experience or you use FCPX, or use Windows. Hackintosh on laptops rarely works well and at the end you will have a worse experience than switching to new OS altogether. If you are using Premiere/Resolve then you would not notice that many changes. Native proxies work on all programs now, so fluidity of editing should be the same. Windows laptops that offer similar build quality/aesthetics with better specs than the MBP: 1. XPS 15 / Precision 5510 2. Razer blade / Razer blade Pro

There you go. If you want to run the maths with this stuff, fine. Obviously the photo world is full up with these sorts of folks, this is a technical and artistic medium, but ...dang y'all... Just LOOK at the images a camera/lens produces. If it works good 'nuff for you, get to it. Go make something. Don't worry a wit if anyone says what they do is better or worse. Just do your own thing.

blah blah blah blah blah. If you're truly worrying about this kind of stuff, chances are you're not really MAKING anything worthwhile with any of it.

Yeah, but at the time, the Brothers Duplass were using the best Mini DV they could get. And I think that's the lesson, use the best you can get, but use it to its strengths. Hell, you could probably go get a DVX100 for less than 500 bucks and shoot an awesome movie with it... You may even be revered for doing so. Look how much street cred Ed gets for doing his hipster video tests. To add, I personally wouldn't mess with mini DV tape now because it literally takes forever to ingest into the computer, but there are definitely some other options that would give a similar look, using SD cards. Just look for a cam with 3 CCDs instead of a CMOS sensor, I'm contemplating buying a point and shoot and making a short with one just to take all of the technical headaches away... I will probably call it Point & Shoot as well. Lol. But I'm serious. I may look to one of the old Panasonic P&S cameras like the LX7... That little camera made some cool ass video in the mjpeg codec.

@mercer The answer to the first question is: those are the most significant differences, as well as the fact that larger sensors generally have less noise. The answer to the second question is: if the focal lengths and apertures are equivalent then the field of view and depth of field will match and the aps-c will not stand out. But the lens that will match the desired focal length and depth of field may not exist for aps-c or it may be more expensive than you'd like. The take home message is: Use the laws of equivalence to decide if a given format's lens selection will meet your desires and budget for: Angle of view - how wide or how telephoto you need to go Depth of field - how little or much of the image do you want to be in focus Light gathering ability - your preferences for depth of field in a given lighting situation with regard to the sensor's noise performance This will allow you to choose the best format for you, or to match one format to another within the limits of available hardware.

The funny thing is... That video looks really good. I've always felt some of the small sensor point and shoots have some kind of unquantifiable soul to their IQ. For your first video, you should be proud of that. I had a Q7 for a little while last year. It was my first test of using D-mount and c-mount lenses in the digital world. Unfortunately, there are some issues with Pentax video, namely rolling shutter that seems to affect the entire frame and not just vertical straight lines on trees or buildings, but the Q cameras are a bunch of fun.

First owner of Verbascope . My congratulations!

Cute Baby Girl Liam !!!

The difference between a 3 to 7 minute short film and an 80 minute feature is **HUGE** in terms of the amount of work it takes to get finished. However I do agree about those 20 to 40 minute "shorts" some people make, I find it strange they didn't just go all out and make a feature film instead.

Oh yeah, most definitely. Self distribution is the new (only) way to go for filmmakers like myself. Sundance gets a ridiculous amount of submissions (tens of thousands) from earnest people unable to be self-critical. I'm working with a producer now that shipped off a proof-of-concept video I did with her to Sundance. It was ridiculous. I wouldn't even think of putting it into my own festival --and I made the thing! I thought it was decent...for a corporate video, but that was the extent of it. So, yeah, knowing the inherent value of your work and being self-critical seems to be a tricky skill for a lot of people. Trust me when I say that exploiting such naivete is the financial backbone of many a film fest. Those submission fees add up.

Yeah, there is a certain overlap in what you can achieve with different sized sensors. As shown, this goes for composition, but to an extent also for technical picture quality. Example: with a 25mm f1.4 on MFT you get the same FOV/DOF as a 50mm f2.8 on fullframe, but you also (partially) negate the smaller, noisier sensor because you have a faster lens. But there are limits as to what is practically possible. There is no MFT equivalent lens for the famous 50mm f1.0 on fullframe. On the other hand, you won't find a compact drone with a fullframe sensor (for now, ha!).

Okay, you boys are bad, i mean bad! Because off you I bought a GX85. Though one of its biggest supporters is now in awe of the beautiful canon xc10. Talking about you here, merce!:) Well, that Canon beauty is too expensive for me, will have to rent that one, but couldn´t resist that GX85. So done it and will test it. Maybe I should have waited longer. But couldn´t resist it like i said. So for all you G6 lovers out here, a screenshot of the most recent footage I did with my G6. @John Matthews, Hey John, i think I remember that you tested HDMI out and stated that internal recording and at the same time Liveview with an external monitor was possible. Do I remember that right? Anybody else to chime in on that? cheers and regards and hoping the GX will be a worthy addition to my G6! Woulndt dare to say successor:) G6 has mic in

i guess i will ill let you know how goes, also ill be selling my diopters for my 1.33x 50 .33 and 1.3 to offset the cost

You didin't ...

Yes, but those characteristics/ differences are due more to sensor/ camera tech than anything else. You can match them if you choose your shots correctly, if the sensors produce a similar image it shouldn't be hard. Look up definition of "Aesthetics". It does exist, just not in the realm you're focusing on, which is perfect world equivalent focal length/ bokeh. It's also possible it doesn't exist to the degree you consider worth noting, it does however exist as long as FF sensors aren't M 4/3 sensors, or any other sensor for that matter.

If it is hardware, they should be able to fix it by replacing the faulty components. It would be nice if it were a hardware problem that only affects our units. But we've yet to see output from a unit that doesn't have it. Otherwise I would've sent mine in last week .

Nah, just dealing with the adapter in general and extra rear lens caps lying around, one more piece of glass you have to keep clean and protect. If I want FF, I want a camera that shoots it natively. For the price of an a6300 plus lens plus speedbooster, you are almost near the price of a FF Sony... At least a used one. For the price of an a6300 or equivalent aps-c mirrorless plus speed booster you can get a D750 and be done with it. Jmo. Ymmv.

I've ran a hackintosh (desktop) since 2012. It's been one of the most stable systems I've ever used. The only real drawback is that you always need to reserve space for a bootable backup of the previous version of OS X that you were using. This way, if something goes really wrong, you can go back. Personally, I would just buy the MacBook if you absolutely need a mobile mac. For real power and value, go to https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/october/2016 I'm waiting and hoping for nvidea 1050, 1060, 1070, and 1080 support. Those cards are big jumps in performance over the previous generation.

Don't be... : ) https://www.peauproductions.com/collections/gopro-camera-lenses Hero 5 will come :-)

The Sony Vx1000 is still extremely popular in the skate community. The 4:3 aspect fisheye is wider and the model built for that is a better than any other camera ever. Really nice audio and the color has a filmy kind of highlight roll. Nice looking warm colors. Here's a piece I did, mixed with S8 and 16mm.

Right, I never thought it was some magical unicorn that made the images look like it was shot on a different medium altogether. I think there are two schools of thought with this crap... There are people like me that use terms like organic and filmic and look and there are other people that need those phrases to be quantifiable. I used the wrong word with aesthetic, when I should have just asked the pros and cons of FF. Yup, this is what I am unsure of. It helps that the D750 has a DX crop mode, so in some ways you can get double duty out of one lens, but in the end, the aps-c only camera may be enough for me. The Nikons usually go on sale a lot around the holidays so I just want to be prepared and decided, if the 750 goes on some crazy lightning sale or Black Friday sale.

Full-frame isn't shallower depth of field. It is and increased possibility of obtaining shallower depth of field, which is not the same thing. That and the possibility of having less noise in some circumstances due to larger pixels.

More, surely? Smaller sensor, more depth (=deeper, = wider zone of acceptable focus).

But you are also never going to get the wide angle equivalence with a crop sensor that you do with a full frame, so it's more than just shallow depth of field, that is definitely part of the equation, but the separation, and FOV will not be the same.

Most things are, unfortunately.

Just premiumbeat - there are (according to my taste) around five good tracks on there for weddings. I have bought them all and can use them as much as I like. I have twenty other tracks for various moods but no good for weddings - unless the couple are into weird music. The production values are nowhere near as good as musicbed's, mind.

This is going to run for thousands of posts. All I know is that the first time I took a picture with the a7sii and 55 f1.8 it blew the fz200 I'd been using for the previous two years clean out of the water. That's all that mattered.

I'm out of "Likes" for the day, so consider this reply as me liking your comment. Honestly, I used to have fun shooting video. I just got the shot the scene required and I moved on. Now I am so worried about this technical element and that technical element that every creative element I used to prioritize I am now, instead, resting on my laurels. I only recently started enjoying it again when I got my D5500. I think I went into it not expecting much and I was pleasantly surprised with what I ended up with. To address your comment though, I had the FS or FX something... It was the model under the LX5 and I loved the video out of it. The b&w footage was beautiful, that step zoom function was great and you could take it anywhere and shoot a scene or get b-roll. Does the LX7 have 24p? Would love to see that... I love old Corman movies. Is it online anywhere?

Same. I'm wrapping up a big project now and getting ready to sell off the PC gear I built up for it. My wife and I are going to live 2017 on the road in an RV, so a laptop is in order. We were considering a brand new PC or Mac laptop, but have realized that our workflow for post is actually leaning on proxy-editing more than we would have first imagined. Proxy editing is NOT demanding on a computer. This reality informs us that buying a used laptop, like you did on eBay, would be more than adequate --and save us thousands of dollars. (...and if anyone wants to buy a loaded PC for 4K editing in February of 2017, just let me know)

I hate Mac OSX but everytime I touch a a non-mac laptop I have to puke, I don't think there are any real alternatives (I used to have one with bootcamp because of this).

The NX1 generally struggles like mad in conditions like these if you try to fuck around with too fancy colours, I speak from experience although that was before the hack so 80mbps it could be different with twice the bitrate on that for all I know I never fully tested it. I would suggest these settings, I only use in camera colours these days because they are too damn good not to be used even the normal one is a beast. Alternatively you can try these I suggest you avoid Vivid or Gamma C indoor because these are way too contrasty unless you got some serious speedy glass on there

Someone tested the Rode VideoMic Pro. In short, it reduces it but doesn't eliminate it completely. And in the video, the mic is placed much further away from the body than placed on a hotshoe so maybe it's not even a solution at all. Adobe Audition, in an update they released a few months ago lets you remove this type of background noise with a click of a button in the multitrack, which seems to work really well and most of the times better than editing the individual track, taking a noise print, etc.

Haha... Now I'm obsessed with Nikon but I still love the XC10. So you shot that screengrab? IT LOOKS AMAZING!!! Seriously, I hope you are writing a screenplay, because you need to shoot a narrative if you're getting that image from a G6!!!

Exactly what option do give me when calling me a troll besides telling you to fuck off? Im all up for debate, specially on this subject where so many are confused. And you could have tryed to understand, tryed to explain your view in a different way to get your point across, find other facts. Instead you resorted to name calling and just dissmissing people as trolls.... sigh. I will ad another smily incase someone thinks I would let a non issue such as an internet discussion put me in a bad mood on this sunny and gorgeous sunday morning Im out of the discussion but will make a video instead that explanes what different sensor sizes mean and does to images. I didnt think it was necessary since guys like Daniel Levine has prooven this a long time ago in a very excellent video. And since its simple Photography 1.0. Better ad another smily Have a great day, Im of to Stockholm for some street shooting. Better start calculating my equivalents...

Luca's adapter it's interesting. But the prospect of working with a wireless gadget it's not. I just wished he worked on a smart adapter that enables us to change aperture (only) on EF lenses (no autofocus, no IS as those are less important for video) , changing iris trough the camera (or adapter itself) it's crucial for nx1 future use. THAT is the most important thing to videomakers.

But you can never use a small sensor and achieve the same pictures as a large sensor. Thats why they are so popular. Taking a portrait with 100mm looks so much better (to most) than with a 50mm. Only problem is that on a MFT that 100mm has you backing out of the studion ruining the ascetics regarding background compression. The only difference between sensor sizes is the workable distance to fill the frame on a certain focal length. And that can be replaced with math and equivalent lenses. If you want the ascetics of FF you need to use FF. Here you see it clearly. The shooter has used an equivalent focal length and aperture. But look at the background. A smaller sensor can't give the same frame as the larger at a given distance no matter what. Even if the larger aperture makes the bokeh looking the same the windows have changed size. So again, Yes, the full frame gives the lenses an ascetic that crop sensors can't replicate and vice versa. Trying to use equivalent focal length and apertures does not help.

There have been some updates after that version. 3x3 Grid (thick lines): with camera-ui not freezing (turn on/off from the menu) note: overlay.png is still available as an option, just add your file and it will work (but the rest of the ui will freeze until you unload), if you want to use the non-freezing 3x3, simply remove the overlay.png from your sdcard. 2.35 filmgate: with camera-ui not freezing ( turn on/off with EV+OK) note: if you are on NX1 you need to sacrifice another shortcut to use this one, and simply rename EV_OK.sh to the one you like to use, before installing. note2: it is possible to adjust the filmgate, just add the desired proportion as a parameter, but you need to modify the bash command. ex (for 16/9): /opt/usr/nx-ks/onscreen_235 1.77

Switching to FCPX is the best decision I've ever taken as an editor. It makes my life so much easier and frees up a noticeable amount of time.

OMG! It's going to be a proper rectilinear lens instead of that weird half-fisheye I've seen in some many action cameras? This alone is a big win for me.