Leaderboard

For a 150mm or greater tele-photo, I wouldn't use a speed booster like the NXL. The wider field of view would be counter productive to getting longer reach... and at that focal length shallow DOF isn't a problem. If you REALLY want the NXL on a long tele-photo with vignetting, medium format lenses would be a sweet solution. To learn more about those, check out this old blog post by Frank Glencairn: https://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/vintage-zeiss-glass-on-modern-cameras/

I'd go with framing, camera motion, lighting and color grade. With theses techniques cinematic looks can be achieved with a smartphone... https://***URL not allowed***/shooting-cinematic-iphone-footage-filmic-pro/

I'm a big fan of the A/B test. Meaning put on your favorite scene from your favorite director (Scorsese, Coppola, Spike Lee, whoever)... and then put on the last thing that you've shot. What are the differences? The low-hanging fruit are things like sensor size and resolution, followed by dynamic range, bit depth, and motion cadence. Then you move on to lenses, lighting, and camera motion. Then there's color-correction. Followed by production design, locations, and costume choices. And, finally, talent. The "look" of your project results from a confluence of all of these things. As you start out, almost none of these will be comparable to your favorite films. But you can pick them off one-by-one. Start noticing things. Get better. Over time you'll inch closer to your idols. Stu Maschwitz, one of the minds behind Red Giant Software, has been writing about getting a film look out of digital tech since the MiniDV era, then designing products to help you achieve it. Lots of insights in his archive.

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating: Film v Alexa: http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/ Background: https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin Philosophical implications: http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Apart from the technical aspects that let you MIMIC film (24p, DR, Filmconvert) and make your video a travesty of an extinct medium, I think it's mostly the quality of the recording that helps, the film arts if you will, a.k.a. production value. Don't record the banal reality, make an image bursting with emotion and sensation. rec_2020 describes HFR and true HDR as the new standards. Though considered uncinematic now, these will actually help to enhance a truly great film. Be ahead of time.

I tried to use a HDR script that switches iso. I only tried to change it 1 times per second and still it stops/crashes the recording very quickly. I was planning to try switching with a gap of 0.04 but didn't since the slow one crashed immediately. I measured how much an ISO change usually takes and it linux tool time gave a sys reading of 0.02 sec to 0.06 sec. My skills aren't enough to diagnose why it crashed the recording.

I also noticed more cinematic motion cadence with the BMPCC and GH4 shooting at true 24.00p with 180 degree shutter opposed to 23.976 and 1/50th shutter, especially using All-I.

Do you try to shot in 640x480 in vga or mjpeg to see if the problem is the bitrate?

Organic is completely different from cinematic I think. I'm alright with us calling House of Cards cinematic, but organic it is not. "Organic" can be shot poorly, in bad lighting, with insufficient dynamic range and resolution, at f8, on a one inch sensor. the important element would be the camera or grade, maybe a nice grain, proper highlight and shadow rolloff, maybe cadence.. "Cinematic" is the production quality argument, with HDR and high res, good lighting, and apparently doesn't need good colors these days (having just watched Sneaky Pete on Amazon)

I can see only 2 dark spots regarding this camera till now. One is the auto focus performance, as mentioned above, and the other is what panasonic calls Three-Dimensional Color Control. If AF is indeed 2 times faster than gh4 and 3DCC actually helps the user to get rid off that ugly orange skintones, even with tweaking, this will be a dream video camera. Again, fingers crossed....

If they managed to get even close to what Canon, Sony or even Fujifilm have achieved when it comes to continuous autofocus they would have shown us because that would have been a big deal, I expect some minor improvements but nothing worth talking about, time will tell.

I was super happy to read you. Then I watched and the guy actually says it works just as well as the GH4. So I think we should be more worried about what he says actually

Because of their methodology; They do the noise measurements from prints (if I remember correctly it's around 8-12 Megapixel prints). Downsize ANY noisy image in Photoshop - and you'll reduce the perceived noise of the image - especially with such a hefty downsizing as 30 MP -> 10 MP. High resolution sensors with fine-grained noise will gain the most in DXO's test. DXOmarks sensor testing is very well done in an unbiased way. But you need to understand their testing methodology and how it applies to what you do with your photography to understand how the sensor will perform for your use case - or if the use case is covered enough by the DXOmark testing. You shouldn't spend much on the single numbers they present either, but rather look at the graphs! And when you do, always always keep in mind that it isn't a measurement done directly from sensor data, but that it has gone the route through downsizing and printing. If you know how those processes function, you also know how that will impact the test outcome. If you care about using the full 30 MP images and how the noise pattern from a camera looks like at 100%, DXOmark is definitely NOT the place to look. It's a good estimation of noise performance at print-sized photos in a magazine - or for photos downsized to fit screens / websites. If you want very large size prints or like to export 100% crops of photos, the noise characteristics can't be extrapolated from the DXOmark data - you'll have to find other tests than theirs. A short summary on how to make use of DXOmark when you're going to buy cameras: 1) Realise that it is only the sensor & processing performance of raw files that get tested 2) Make sure to read and understand the methodology 3) Look at the graphs and compare the cameras that interest you! 4) Due to the downsizing methodology - check elsewhere for sensor and processing performance at different ISOs to get a more complete picture. 5) Now you know a bit about the sensor performance for still photography, which shouldn't really be the main reason for camera choice. Handling, lens choice, video performance etc will have to be tried & tested and read and learnt about elsewhere.

I do agree that DXO's rankings are a bit questionable, but not too far off. There are generally valid explanations of the issues you cited: NX500 over 5DS and NX1: I've personally handled 5DSR files, and can say that the IQ is terrible. Even Canon stated not to expect much more than their old APS-C cameras in the IQ department. I've read a few times that the NX500 is considered to have higher IQ than the NX1. By how much, I don't know. But viewing test RAWs of the NX1, I'd say DR and high ISO are around 1/2 stop behind the Nikon D7200. DXO One: Its Super RAW literally is super. It takes 4 RAW files, stacks them, and averages out the noise. The difference is dramatic. While the detail level isn't the best at high ISO, the lack of noise is well beyond FF capability. This is similar to Olympus' high res RAW mode, but instead of increasing resolution, it reduces noise and increases detail at the same output size. D3X over D5: The D5 is a bomb below ISO 1600, nearly matching the 5D III. Even crop sensors beat it. The sensor is tuned for mid/high ISO performance, though current technology only goes so far. The gains, while there (+1/2 stop vs 1DX II), really aren't worth the trade off for the flexibility in low ISO RAW. Worthy of note is that the D3X has a Sony sensor, while the D5 is Nikon's own creation. D600 over 1DX II and P40+: It's true. The D600 kills the 1DX II in DR at base ISO, and at worst, ties it the rest of the way up. the 1DX II literally has years-old crop sensor performance in that area, despite Canon's massive gain in their new generation of sensors. High ISO is also neck and neck. Vs the P40+, the sensor in the MF camera is quite old. Despite having the resolution advantage, it loses out in DR and high ISO by quite a big margin. By ISO 1600, colors turn to mush, which doesn't really happen on the D600 at any ISO. D3s and D700: I've also worked with files from a D700 multiple times, and can say that yes, its sensor is outdated at this point. It's competitive with today's crop sensor cameras (minus Canon's) at best. The A7S/II sensor has been compared to current medium format in its DR and ability to reproduce color. Once again, the D3s/D700's sensor is Nikon's own. Nikon isn't very competitive when it comes to sensors, and probably had its best attempt at competing with Sony in the D4/s/f. All of the rest of their sensors just don't stand out, though aren't as bad as Canon's. I have a feeling that resolution plays a big part in DXO's rankings. If you downscale the A7R II's files to A7S II size, they will certainly have an advantage in their "Sports" rating. It might also be why the A7R II beats the D810, when the D810 clearly has about 1/3 stop advantage at high ISO. My friend tested 2x A7R IIs before returning them and keeping his D810. #IQsnob. For DR and high ISO, they test noise up to a certain amount. How they get to that amount, who knows, but it's a cutoff point they chose that represents the transition from "OK" noise to offensive noise. So while sensors may have DR response up to a certain amount of stops, after a point, it becomes wiser to turn things back a bit in software. Where that happens is up to the user, as it's a more subjective choice. And "Color" is more about correctly reproducing color in RAW than how the final JPG is rendered. Color in the Canon sense is highly subjective. Color against a known testing scene/chart isn't.

Test 35NAP 2-3M. Not bad for old soviet projector lens p.s. no program sharp

Hi all I use NX-1 exclusively and have been using premiere 2017 with out of camera files with no transcoding. It works pretty well. I've been studying CC and all the books keep harpin on resolve I been messing with it it's great I just started transcoding a single hero shot to resolve to make a lut. And take to premere. Im thinking of buying a dongle to unlock it and use it for everything. I'd gain 4k export and H265 support. Anybody have experence using h265 in resolve? Is it fast as premere? I really hate the transcoding process and want to use it raw out of NX1. If you could enlighten me on the plus and minuses of resolve it would be a big help... Plan to buy soon

Sure, I concur. I just don't think the opposite is not possible to coexist as much as a few people want the proof of it à la Saint Thomas. But, if faith can be subjective, 'the big concept' cinematic goes beyond because can be quantifiable by numbers. The evaluation of them is its subjective part. “The opposite of a great truth is also true.” ~ Niels Bohr

I think when the original question was asked with the word quantifiable used in the question, Viet was looking for a link to proof, and I'm not sure that exists. Not to mention what I or you or Luke thinks is cinematic or what constitutes cinematic motion cadence is ultimately subjective because somebody else could comment that they believe VHS footage from a 1986 JVC camcorder is cinematic and the question then becomes... are they wrong? I believe so, but cinematic is an unquantifiable word that could mean one thing to you, another to me and yet another to Viet.

I cannot agree more I have a bunch of these lenses and most of them are great ! Just too bad they can't be adapted to Canon EOS mount. I'll can't stop using them on µ4/3 w/ and w/o a speedbooster

Also, compression artifacts will affect our perception of motion.

They're fine but would love some full res photos to be able to judge better. thank you, i saw some ridiclously high priced ones on eBay

But it does, its the EOS-M line and its not that great

For sure, still a bit unexpected. And yeah, Go Olympus! Always had high hopes for them.

I had posted somewhere an English version a little while ago (it could be a different forum though!), anyway, the numbers spoke. If you see the detailed analysis, the bulk of the sales are entry level, or discounted older models, cameras that we never discussed, or like here. You can all see that our needs are vastly different than the mainstream, and Canon knows what the people want! Also, Canon must sell in developing countries huge amounts of cheap dSLR, M3 (or whatever number their cheap mirrorless have) and a few 80D. China/India are 1/3 of the population on the planet, I do not see too many people from there investing in 10bit equipment or anything exotic. They want something that works reliably, and sufficiently for their needs.

The pinch of salt comes in handy because the Japanese market is so different to the rest of the world. Nice to see Olympus doing well back at home though!

This statement will always be the issue with this discussion. Motion cadence is a feeling a viewer or creator gets by watching the motion in the film. Unfortunately feelings are often indescribable. Just because motion cadence is not quantifiable doesn't mean it does not exist.

Hi Guys, thanks very much for your input and suggestions, my career in video production is very much in its early stages, but I'm very aware the poor audio can make a big difference to the overall quality of something. I have sent quite a lot of time watching and learning how to remove echo, which is useful, but still not as good as having better audio in the firest place, so I would rather try and capture the best audio I can in the first place. The mic I was using is a Sennheiser ME66. @Stanley Your right about over advice, especally when your starting out and trying to do everything yourself. I think thats the trouble with the internet sometimes so many views! and I'm sure people will appreciate the footage was shoot in a gym, so some echo is to be expected, but I still want to try and reduce it as much as possible. @Kisaha Thanks for your input too, I am always trying to improve the production value of what i do and learning from my mistakes all the time, which is good. But realising how much time it can take to improve bad audio and still end up with something which isn't that grea, t I would rather invest in better equipment and technique which should pay off in the long run. But I'm sure as with everyone money is still and issue. But it sounds like investing money in a good quailty mic would save lots of time in post production, but I have to be realistic as I don;t have 1000's to spend, but I can see the logic in higher quailty. The sound blankets also sound like a good idea too. Its just figuring out using all this stuff together. Thanks for these suggestions, Realistically the Audix is the one within my price range and I assume it is similar to the Audio Technica AT4053b, I have watched many of Curtis's videos and seem to rate the Audio Technica, I guess I just want to be sure that one of these mics would make a big enough difference in these situations to be worth investing in over the shotgun mic, but it sounds like it properly will.

Here's what I tried. It changes the iso from 100 to 800 after one sec. Correct value should be the 1/framerate, I think. But even with 1 sec it crashes when recording video. #!/bin/bash while true do /usr/bin/st cap capdtm setusr 5 0x50001 sleep 1 /usr/bin/st cap capdtm setusr 5 0x5000a sleep 1 done

" To re-invent cinema " doesn't necessarily mean to ignore the past as a bygone aesthetic. Take Europa (Zentropa in US) by Lars von Trier for example. E :-)

We have been discussing these things since many years now. The method of analysing the differences is very effective. Since a few years, the obvious technical differences vanished one by one. The famous cinematic look became famous with the affordability of camcorders for no/low budget storytelling (late 1980's, early 1990's). What the owners noticed first were the characteristics of their video, not those of Hollywoods movies. Video look let them invent the cinematic look: a bundle of obvious differences. I suppose everybody here knows Maschwitz' DV Rebel as well as the Zacuto 2012 shootout. If an inept and unambitious guy shot your cats lying on your mundane living room sofa with an Arriflex, would you expect the image to look cinematic? In contrast to that, if you - ambitious and experienced - were on the set of The Godfather, lit by Gordon Willis, and have the intense eyes of Al Pacino staring at you in a reaction shot just with, say, a GH4 ... I used to say that 24p were obligatory. They are as well a viewing habit as a signal for 'narrated time', whereas HFR (and of course interlace) signalled present tense and real time. But these are not rules of nature, they are just conventions. Ang Lee shot Billy Lynn @120 fps. He explained the experience. For every take of the film, he said, he had to remind himself that he was no longer in Movieland. The sets, the costumes, the camera movements, the acting, the editing, in short: everything had to be more precise. I would have liked to see an HFR version. Unfortunately, the producers decided to process it to 24p for a more *natural* look after unfavourable reviews following a test screening. One critic wrote it was "a fucking crime against cinema". The world is changed. We can feel it. Fake news everywhere, many of them easily debunked. Some say we are now living in a "post factual era". We don't believe in blatant lies. But it's particularly the mendaciousness of the common sense and political correctness we despise. We desperately needed fresh approaches. This may sound OT for you. But right now cinema (audio-visual storytelling) still has the greatest power over our morals and ways of thinking and feeling. Do we like to live in Movieland? Or force our minds to stay open, to dare new ways, to re-invent cinema? We decide.

Latitude to begin with, for pixel peepers we all are. But, also resolution in the past old days, motion, progressive versus interlaced was determinant to arrive where digital has placed the motion pictures to pair with a cinematic feeling marked for over more than a century of 35mm format experience. When there is the absence of artifacts, of course. Even though, rolling shutter, as for instance, can be acceptable within certain limits. Color sampling for vivid imaging, DOF (not necessarily shallow DOF all the time), framing where perspective, composition and accurate movement of camera are mandatory for creating the idea of POV as primary aesthetic requirement of filmmaking. Last but not least, production design for sure. In two words, it means space and time. Reason why when we talk about motion, slow motion is much appreciated by the film audiences comprehending an effective way of going towards the suspension of disbelief. E :-)

Hi to all, dear friends! More quick answers in my group https://www.facebook.com/groups/verbascope/ or https://www.instagram.com/verbascope/ Thank you for your interest to my rework of 35NAP family

Hahaha. Could you say where he says it (in mins). One of the few noticeable limitations in the Panasonic cameras (compared to Canon and Sony) is the disappointedin auto-focus. I was hoping they address some of that with the GH5.

They also offer "screen" results for the pixel peepers.

You don't need a cardiod, but a different, more directional version, some of them already mentioned by jcs. The Sennheiser MKH-50 is excellent, but as you seem to search for a very low budget solution, I could suggest something like this, http://www.oktava-shop.com/Small-and-medium-diaphragm-condenser-mics/Oktava-MK-012-01-movie.html or this http://www.oktava-shop.com/Small-and-medium-diaphragm-condenser-mics/Oktava-MK-012-02.html if you need the extra capsules (or you know what they do). It is a bit tricky though, and if you want to move this mic, you would need the best protection from air, best shock mount system, and on top of that extra-super-special-ninja boom op ability, which is very difficult to find (or achieve) these low budgeted production days. If you have it stable on a stand, it will be just fine. The Audix seems like the best of both worlds.

At this stage there is no way I could attempt manual focus I'm afraid!!... plus it all happens so quickly I'm lucky if I can frame the birds up in time. Her's a shot of my best effort so far, its beak is focused (sort of) but the legs aren't, and that's just one of the things that I need to improve, And yeah I used to own a Minolta SRT-101, and still have a couple of Rokkor lenses...they are awesome.

Dynamic range, motion cadence.

You are correct; it has been said in this thread before. Yet it is not corrected by the original person who made that false claim. In fact, there are a lot of false claims about H265 in this thread (only better at low bitrates). Panasonic has not been forthcoming either about why it chose to use only the old, inefficient H264 for intra or 4K long.

Hi Have both cameras. The sharpness is more or less equal, maybe an edge in S35 mode on A7R2. Obviously both cameras have their strength and weaknesses. I run some test : Resolution : For me the colours are nice on the 1dx2 : handheld with the 70-200 lense.

One more lens test for this week - BMPCC with Holga lens (Super 8 emulation):

I don't bother looking at charts. Just try out a few cameras, see what looks best, and shoot with it.

I wondered what others thought of combining EOS-HD C-Log with Highlight Tone Priority (D+) on the 1DX Mark ii? I have been testing it in very low light (with highlights in the scene) and the Highlight Tone Priority (D+) recovers a considerable amount in the highlights, that are overexposed with the D+ turned off. There is a little more noise in the shadows, but not a huge amount.

One more for the new year :-) Wondering if B&H will stock these soon...

Some useful links, parts of construction: Camera accessories Fotomate LP-02 high quality 200mm Range 2-Way Macro Focusing Rail Slider Plate 1/4 Screw for DSLR Camera http://bit.ly/2cxUkuH Photo Studio Accessories aluminium alloy Rail System 15mm Rod Rig Grundplatte Mount for DSLR Follow Focus Rig 5D2 5D3 http://bit.ly/2cxVqqi 2pcs 40cm Length 15mm Diameter Black Aluminum Alloy Rod Rail Mount for Canon Nikon DSLR Camera Camcorder DV Rig Cage http://bit.ly/2deflc7 FOTGA DP3000 M1 Steady Shoulder Support Pad For DSLR Rod System 15mm Rig NI5L http://bit.ly/2dogf9s Drawings by Alexey Bravo AlexKubrak85@gmail.com. All questions to him. Necessary before printing checks all sizes to fit your lens and mount

little upgrade of 35nap 2-3m. lighter weight, 3D-printed mount lens. test shots exact proportions only, no sharping. single focus in search. sony a6300, helios 44-2 f:2 (open aperture)

Love the bokeh.

transformers like

Some footage right now from 35nap 2-4. This lens almost identical to 35nap 2-3m, little smaller, little difference with light streaks. Minimum focusing distance I have 50 cm

Im not going to read the pages and pages of wining going on here from people who have not owned a camera from kinefinity so please forgive me if I say something thats already been covered. Kinefinity is totally a reliable company. I actually get great access to support online and they have been very open to suggestions. They added an anamorphic mode within 2 versions of the firmware. Kinestation is great, their codecs are great KRW is a lossless format that can be converted directly back to DNG (if its not shot in highspeed mode which is 4:4:4 not raw. I would say they push their cameras way further then any other company because they have no top end to gouge so why not make the cameras the best they can be. Now for the cameras. Ive owned the Kinemini when it first came out and then upgraded my body to the Kinemini4k. I was about to upgrade to the kinemax but then the Terra got announced. Who doesnt want this camera??? You are crazy, just go and spend more money on a Red Camera then. I personally dont have $40k+ to spend on a cinema camera. The image on the kinemini4k is already lovely. A good mix or the red and Alexa honestly. The noise pattern is organic and the range is there.The kinemax 16fstops in Golden 3k, this sold me along with the highspeed options. Now with the Terra comes global shutter and 15/13 stops in a smaller body. I want one so I really hope none of you do so I get one faster. I got Rich off the forumn here to modify a speedbooster for my Kinemini and then Kinefinity made one shortly after. They are a company who does listen I feel. The mount is awesome, its a sub PL mount with many options. The sensor is Super 35..... I dont know what else to say really, its a sweet vcamera and Im glad I didnt go with the black magic cameras in the end or other cameras. If you really want to know more then just speculation you can join us users over at Kinecommunity and the Kinfinity User group on facebook. Rob