Leaderboard

I saw a film, swore to myself it was shot on 16mm nope it was shot on the red dragon. (Dayveon) Then I thought it was shot on zeiss ultraspeeds. Nope it was Canon K35s, which I think are similar to Canon FD glass. I saw another film, swore to myself it was shot on the alexa, nope it was shot on the c300 mark i (motherland) I was sitting 30 rows in the back, in the front, all over the place. I couldn't tell anything After all that, after everything we do, and say, at the end of the day, none of us can tell.

When this thing was announced it totally blew my mind. And I have been wanting one ever since the first time I read about it. If you don’t know what this is all about just think of it as a Speedbooster. But instead of turning an APS-C into Full Frame it turns a Full Frame into a Medium Format Camera. And as you may know, medium format in digital is pricy to say the least. I will have more info and go deeper into this later on, this is just my first impressions. Opened the box literally just a few hours ago. Its very sturdy and all metal. It balances well after putting on a hefty lens. The lens I tested tonight was a 80mm f4 Macro. I have others but wanted to see some closeups to check sharpness. Its much sharper than I expected. Sharp enough I guess... Also Ive seen no excessive vignette. Any vignette in the samples are added in post. I also added grain. Portrait of GP Closeup Selfie Closest Focus With vignette and grain. Without vignette, still grain.

I just want to share my experience with getting rid of the blocks artifacts especially on a sky, I've found out that it's all to do with ISO value! when using the gamma DR profile and a low iso this introduces very ugly blocks or artifacts on the blue channel so I tried with a high iso either 500 or 800 and turns out it reduced this by a large margin if not completely. however high iso means overexposure, so ND filter must be used, if you're shooting a talent then you'll need to reflect light on your subject too. The picture shows you the difference, look at top left corner, I've maximized the color grading to be able to see it. I also tried adding grain to the 100 iso image but that still didn't fix the blocky image. The blocks are due to the compressed 8bit only video quality and the nature of h265.

I'm always amazed when I see work projected in a kino environment, instead of on a monitor or a screen. Mushy, crap footage you thought looked bad can take on very natural qualities. Footage you thought looked great, now looks stunning.

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, 444 Log masters is the answer.

If you cant tell, I'll take your F65. Who wants that heavy, expensive old thing anyway. In trade, I'll take you out to Walmart and let ya pick out whatever camera ya want and then I'll buy ya dinner at Applebees.

Personally, I can't stand OS X. I've never understood why most creatives seem to prefer it as an operating system. Why?! Granted, I grew up using Windows and worked in IT for a couple years, so I'd venture to guess I'm probably more of a power-user than the average, everyday person, but still, just in things like ease-of-use, customization, more advanced program management and multi-tasking, I'd take windows every time, hands down. In fact, the only reason I can possibly think of using an apple computer or their OS -- ever -- is if you're a fcpx user, since hackintosh is such a pain to get reliably running. Maybe there is some special secret to loving OS X, but if there is, I certainly haven't discovered it yet.

Berlin is amazing! It feels like NYC from like 20 years ago. The people are great there. There is a renewed experience, to make the city something, after everything that went down in the 20th century. It's really something amazing to be apart of. Nice guys on all your comments. SAM, yes, you can have my F65. I will go back to shooting on a t2i

Make that 24-70 2.8 Sony mount (and not cost a leg) and im jumping in.

Your eye is not trained enough. To my ears, all fighter jet engines sound same, but there are people who can hear the difference. Does it matter? I don't know.

Agreed. Raw is great to have, but I've never really needed anything more than 10-bit, 4:4:4, flat and at a nice resolution. A lot of the time, even that is overkill.

Many people can, and do. Myself included.

Supposedly it is excellent. But at that price point your getting into URSA 4.6k territory. If you can afford it, that camera is incredible (though storage media/viewfinder can kill the "affordability")

Seriously, or not operating systems have gone far, OS X, or windows, are equally good, what problems you have with windows? I wonder..what? - Not a poem.

Many example videos using EOSHD Pro Color settings are either taken exclusively at night or mucked up with Luts that completely alter the color, so you cannot see what the Pro Color settings do. So here is a video shot using the Sony A7s ii in daylight with no Lut applied in post. The main subjects are flowers - nature's color palette (although there is also a cat). There are plenty of blues, greens, yellows, whites, reds, etc (though no human skin).

Though question since I don't agree with your assessment of the advantages of Medium Format. I still shoot film, both medium format and full frame (small picture). And I definitely don't use medium format to get faster films. If anything I use the opposite. Thats why I kickstarter backed the modified Kodak Vison 50D from Cinestill. A 56mm is till going to be a 56mm and nothing else. And if one likes the look of a 100mm one needs to use a 100mm. The DOF is identical on all formats but on the medium format you get more in the frame. A good example is when I use a 17mm on APS-C. Its great for street photography with the deep DOF of a 17mm (on any format). But I can fill the frame with a person without going as close as I would have had to do with FF. More like the distance of a 35mm on FF. The problem is if I try to shoot a closeup of someone, then I dont get a look of a 35mm at all. The person is all distorted with a huge head. This is why medium and large format is nice and can't be simulated with equivalent lenses. But I will test all this and this discussion is a never ending story so lets leave it for now. If one only care about SDOF and firmly believe that a focal length can be changed with different sensor sizes. Then he/she can just settle with a 1" sensor like the RX100. Because with the "equivalent" theory thats just as good as FF, MF or large format. No difference at all. But if one can see a difference between for example m4/3 and FF. Then he/she will see the same advantages and disadvantages between FF and MF. And of course MF and LF.

One chapter at a time, I'm translating to english my graduation work which is 90% focused on anamorphics. I hope it brings some light onto common questions as well as works as a good follow-up read after the original EOSHD Anamorphic's Shooter Guide. I'll keep updating the links to each chapter on this post, please feel free to comment and correct me along the way. There are 22 chapters/topics and roughly a hundred pages. WHO AM I AND WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7166 INTRODUCTIONhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7174 LENS RESEARCHhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7195 a ) FOCUS THROUGH (1.33x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7204b ) ISCORAMAS (1.5x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7225c ) DOUBLE FOCUS (2x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7235d ) CINE LENSES (2x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7260e ) DAMAGE AND SERVICINGhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7278f ) DIOPTERS AND CLOSE UPShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7282g ) LENS-YCLOPEDIAhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7280h ) FAKING THE LOOKhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7283 MAGICLANTERN RAWhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7304 a ) CUSTOM CROPMARKShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7305 ZONA SSPhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7310 a ) LOMO: EPISODE 01http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7311b ) ISCORAMAS: EPISODE 02http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7317 THE PROCESShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7318 a ) CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7319b ) ON SET PREVIEW http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7320c ) WORKFLOW CONCLUSIONBIBLIOGRAPHY

I wish I didn't have to say this, but I have to. I just can't get into Windows. I hate Apple - I hate their overpriced policy - their attitude, their upper-middle class snootiness. But I can't live anymore without OS X. It just works well. It has less weird mistakes and less moments of "Oh my god, is this computer dead?" And that's the last thing I need in the field - for a computer to not be reliable. I'm not bringing 2 laptops on trips. So farewell to you, Razer Blade and your NVIDIA 4tb 1060 gfx card and 3 usb ports and thunderbolt 3 port. I wish I could have kept you, but I can't.

This is all to try, I'm sure you will differrent performance with different lenses. The focus speed depend on the glass quality and the weight of the lens. I must say I'm surprised by anything other 30mm f.2 who initially had given for losing. I repeated the test with day light, the result was that on three shots he took in the 16-50 S 0,45 sec. 0.30 sec. and 0.36 sec. but on three shots only once he take the target. The 30mm took the shot in 0.96 and 0.83, but always perfectly centered focus. My conclusions are that the 30mm is a lens with excellent optical quality and decent quality focus, the engine is a little noisy but accurate. The 16-50 S is a lens all do great, it has an excellent quality and an ultrasonic motor, fast and quiet, however this speed pays worth less accuracy. This is only my opinion, based on practical and not scientific tests.

I agree with you Ed. I had a music video nominated for a Metal Hammer award, they played it on the big screen for a bit. I was blown away by the quality. It was shot in a GH3. Sat back, I also saw a test clip on Vimeo I thought was the Alexa. No, it was actually the 8-bit A6300 in Slog3. I'm also gobsmacked how much better my videos look on an iPad or iPhone. Noise is gone. Images I thought were soft actually resolve brilliantly. Most is low bitrate footage. We all know that content is most important. With cameras, they're all good enough to realise that content. The skill is choosing the correct characteristics for that content and maximising a cameras capabilities. I've got little interest in the "camera race" at the moment, it's extremely minor in the scheme of things.

People who can't adapt are dinosaurs. Your skills should be platform agnostic. I still remember using iMovie on a Bondi Blue Mac. Anyone remember lusting over the XL-1s? <3 MiniDV and so many CCDs! Now I couldn't give a shit if I'm using FinalCut, have a rig with RAID SSD scratch discs, or use MS Paint to quickly build a matte for tracking. Fuck it, I'll cut a video on my phone.

Honestly, I would love to see what you could do with a t2i or a D5500.

If the stabilization is Software I don't think it will be Applied to undebayered Data because normally it implies rotation,etc. Maybe they could write the Data from the giroscope to a file and use that for a Software stabilizer on the Computer. But those are many Maybes.

at 120mbps I didnt have my fast card at the time. will try again tomorrow 180mbps

I thought it looked about right except for shots with people in them. Then it lost too much sharpness. Maybe at 75 to 80 percent could work? But Mattias had this in a topic he replied to you awhile ago. This IS the look you are looking for, just do it LoL.

Yeah if the ML team has the inclination, and it's possible, the 77D could be a great option for low cost, handheld ML Raw. The software based IS in the XC10 is the best IS I have ever used. It's better than the IBIS in the a6500 and the GX85... no question. Other than a strap I was pulling taut, there was no other physical stabilization. During this shot(s) I walked forward backward and shuffled sideways... try and do that with a Panny...

Hi guy i have set o yahical ml 2.8 lenses what do you think about De-Clicking lenses is it something you would do. I just did it to my 135mm its simple but i ind iris to be really smooth and now i can get really good control of the iris i mean like milliliter movements of iris.

Some of these vintage lenses look so great wide open and take away some of the harshness of ooc 4K, that a lot of the times, the variable ND can act as a clickless aperture.

De-clicking is definitely be beneficial if one shoots documentaries/events that often require the aperture to be ramped up/down during the shot (especially when using an on-camera mic). I have a few vintage Nikkors, but I rarely ramp the aperture while rolling, so I haven't really needed to de-click.

Yeah, a C100 minus the top handle with the Sigma 17-50mm could be a cool combo. I briefly had that lens for my Nikon and it was almost as steady as a tripod for static shots... or light movements.

Shame I was out of town when you were in town Ed. A friend had a film in the festival, and I also missed that! He shot it on the 5D Mark II with Magic Lantern RAW... apparently looked just like film on the big screen. If anything, the small screen is more critical as you're sat so close to every pixel. What did you think to Berlin? Weird isn't it?

I think the speed difference comes down to the fact that the motor in the 30mm has only a fixed focal length to move while the 16-50mm is a zoom and zoom lenses are ALWAYS slower than quality prime lenses, and yes Luca is right the zoom is slower at 50mm than it is on 16mm because the motor must move the zoom more at the longer ranges than it will have to in the wider ones. It be interesting to see how it acts as an adapter though.

I was a Windows user for 10 years. Mid-20's, I just wanted to start getting on with what I use a computer for, rather than nurturing and babysitting a powerful OS and set of customisable options, custom hardware, etc. So far last 10 years I have been on OS X. The simplicity of Mac OS doesn't mean it's any less powerful than Windows, quite the opposite - much better memory management, less legacy code, better optimisation, better drivers and newer architecture all-round. The UX is more consistent and the presentation is less flakey. Across all apps, the user interface is familiar, similar and refined. Across all apps in Windows - BAM different every time. Windows slows down and starts getting unreliable after 6 months and you need to Google constant issues. Eventually it needs a re-install every year, whereas Mac OS will run for 5 years and be as fast at the end of it as it was at the start. The UNIX OS is it is based on is a fundamentally more optimised, minimalist piece of code than bloated Windows. You see it in Windows 10 - you have the new control panel interface, but the old one is still there under the hood and you can open that too. Also I fail to see what extra features Windows 10 actually offers over Mac OS to make it compelling... Aside from the Surface Pro tablets, which I've tried too and ended up returning eventually because touch on a desktop OS isn't all the way there yet in terms of how useful it is long-term for serious work... It is quicker for some things but holding a finger to the screen for hours of creative work is actually much more tiring than using a plain old mouse and keyboard.

At the end I went to try both Panasonic 14mm and 15mm and the 15mm was great. I sold my 12-40 and took 2 Pana-Leica 15mm and 25mm, the lengths I used most of the time on 12-40. In the next future I'll took a 42.5 (the cheap Panasonic one or the Pana-Leica), but for the moment I can go 40mm with the 40-150 f/2.8 from Olympus, that is very good. Ciao

I love Windows (used 3.1, 95, 98, NT, XP, Vista, 7 and 10; some better than others), build my own desktop systems, had a bunch of laptops. And my systems always run, they have no kinks, no hickups. My girlfriend is stuck knee deep in the Apple environment, every time I use her MacBook Pro I want to scream but she really doesn't enjoy my windows systems. I feel like Apple is getting a bit too deep into "form over function" territory and too expensive, but I think both products can be fitting. Kinda sad though how the professional line gets left behind. On the other hand when my gf's iPhone 6s Plus broke she used my old Samsung Note 3 and she felt it's a superior phone. At the same time I enjoy my company's iPhone 6s workphone more than my private Android since a while. You say tomato, I say tomato.

Like i said... i seriously don't care if there is a small crop, as long as it works. It's an s35 sensor... a small crop is hardly life changing. A small crop on the xc10 is much more serious due to the small sensor... yet i still dont care... because it works! The g85 cant have magic lantern... so no point thinking about it in terms of my original post

There's a trick to panning with 5 axis IBIS cameras - you have to learn how the device behaves under different kinds of movement, ie. you can't just pan any old way and expect it to work. This is because, among other things, the IBIS is trying to keep the image still, while you're trying to move it. Plus some lenses are better at it than others. So a super slow or fast pan might not work as well as one that gets the speed just right for the camera to work out that it should release and re-grab at the right points. I think of it like stuttering. If you know what you're going to say before you say it you decrease stuttering a lot. As for the pistol grip, I keep seeing them put out improved models. Great advances in that area at the moment.

I've spent the last year hoping back and forth between Premiere 2015.3 on Windows10 and Premier on OSX. I can't tell you the number of times I've clicked the mouse on the Windows machine within Premiere, have it do nothing, click it again, and have it finally work. Endless Windows quirks like that. Maddening. Never an issue on the 9 year old iMac that opens and edits the same project. Just sayin' Of course, hitting the render button on the Windows machine is fun. So, my next step is Hackintosh all the way. The joys of cheap swappable PC hardware and the Apple OS combined together...I'll go that route since I'm more of a power user with OSX anyway. Agreed. The trashcan machine is an insult to professionals. That said, I bought a "cube" once back in the day. Of course, the cube never claimed it was a high performance pro rig.

What about a sony f3 with external recorder? I've been experimenting with mine a lot lately and the image is really nice, great color and dynamic range. The 10bit pro res files are very easy to work with. It also has good audio and internal ND filters.

Yup. As a doc filmmaker, I could work with that. ;-) 10KISO and a f.095 lens? That's handy for dark scenes. I might actually be able to make a film or something now!

Yeah 5 pounds is a ton of weight on a Gimbal. Ronin is best for that.

Yes definitely the result of grading. You can see the difference at 11:42 with the LUT applied. It was by choice, but I also believe the should ease a bit the contrast on the shadows. Pretty funny that he went in all the trouble not to crush the blacks and then they used an LUT that crushed everything up to midtones Yes but still very good. Maybe one of the best skintones out of GH5 that I have seen.

I think this scene has too much added contrast. I hope TCS can make the raw footage available, so we can actually see what the camera can do / has done.

Very impressive. The acting was so good that I forgot to look for any issues with the camera. I guess that if the story is good enough, the vast majority of people will not care one jot for anything else.

I wish the old boss comes back with vengeance! NX-F, full frame with crop mode for NX lenses and super 35 videography, and with two of those and two fish eyes you get 360 2xfull frame alright! And buys Nikon, and sells everything Nikon to Canon, because he doesn't care. These are the last glimpses of this system, this time next year only a couple of us will be still here. Or not, because they would delete the sub forum.

Buy a used 1DC. Has the best image of any camera in that price range I've ever used. https://www.ebay.com/itm/142284537672

"5 axis stabilisation" is bullshit, its a software only thing that you have with every normal Video editing software.

In my opinion there are a lot of cinematic, organic lenses in the analog world: try a Zeiss, a Canon FD, an old Helios 44... and see if it is the same as a Panasonic 14-140... They all have their characteristics (or defects) that could be bad for still and nice for video. Of course someone search just a clean, sharp, perfect lens, so a new one could be better then an old one... and in some situations (i.e. documentary or shooting outdoor at lunch time) every lens could work and makes no real difference... Anyway I always try to use analog lenses for shooting (music videos and narrative) and only use the digital Olympus 12-40 f/2.8 PRO (and 40-150 f/2.8 PRO) for wide shots where an analog 25 or a 28 is too narrow (or for quick gigs where I can't switch lenses and the 2 zooms give me all the focal lengths I need). But I certainly see some substantial differences between the "modern", more or less "perfect", "videoish" digital lenses and the old CY Zeiss (or Canon FD) and I try to use old lenses as much as I can if I can choose. In my opinion 20mm is too narrow for 90% of steadicam-like shots, it is too similar to 24/25mm and for the Flycam (a Glidecam-like stabilizer) I need a light lens as wide as possible without becoming funny or noticeable. I'd like to have a lens that gives me a Birdman-like (or La La Land-like) field of view. My Olympus 12-40 is a really good lens, but at 12 is good for landscape, not for humans. Going from 12mm to 14mm makes a huge difference: it become usable for humans, but it is quite heavy and I plan to shoot some long takes, so I need a lighter lens. Today I'll try both 14 f/2.5 and 15 f/1.7...

to get the "film look" over video, try to use less grading and more in camera capturing of the light and color, so as your footage can look beautiful without hours of grading. Never say ill fix it in post...as for all these luts and things i think they tend to look all the same, you should try to create your own coloring look, and i think less is more, if the end footage looks ungraded for me its a win