Leaderboard

Here is a quick comparison between the anamorphic lenses I have. The goal is to compares the flares and sharpness. Hypergonar Hi-Fi 2 Dyaliscope Champion Singer/Sankor 16D (uncoated) Elmoscope 1 Isco Ultra-Star Schneider Cinelux. All shots with : BMMCC Mitakon Lens Turbo II Helios 44-2 Focused to infinity, using a +1 close up diopter (Hama) except for the cinelux which used the Rectilux Hardcore DNA (Sorry for the misaligned Cinelux shot, didn't see it until edit.) Shot in Raw 3:1, edited and graded in Resolve. Applied the same color correction to all the shots. I chose this lens, so that every anamorphic adapter would not show vignetting. Equivalent focal length is 58 (Helios 44-2) * 0.72 (Lens Turbo) * 2.88 (BMMCC) = 120mm (FF) The flares from the Hypergonar and Dyaliscope are just epic. I really like the subtle flares of the Elmo I The flares of the ultrastar and cinelux are very muted, as expected. The Singer (Sankor) 16D shot is just to show what happens if you want to uncoat your lens What do you think ?

Well hello there @Aussie Ash. Thanks very much. An actor friend of my created all the music for me from scratch, he's like Jimi Hendrix on guitar. I only used the Takumar's on the exterior shots since they're older lower resolution lenses and take the digital edge off things which I kinda like. Also I was going handheld, doing some lens whacking while walking backwards on greasy train tracks, 5D3 on fig rig, 5D3 suctioned to the roof of my car while driving 100kph etc. and since they're super small, light weight and CHEAP compared to Zeiss primes, if I dropped or smashed one which is possible as I'm kinda clumsy its easy to replace at $40-$80 compared to $950-$1500 ! If you get a chance to use some of them do so, I really love them with all their flaws. I'd love for you to check out the final teaser trailer below:

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing. I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images. How? Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC. In Photoshop: Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm! To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it. List terms explained: Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera No = doesn't cover the sensor Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example) Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list Primes Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof] Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof] Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof] Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof] Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof] Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof] Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)] Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof] SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD) Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof] Zooms Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

@jonpais ha, I was just about to reply about going into the inspector... if you have VLog, the inspector also has an option to process VLog clips as Rec709. I sometimes use it with ML Raw footage if I want a quick BMDFilm or Arri LogC to Rec709 conversion.

Yeah it does look nice - makes it smaller & the close focus sounds good, but for the price you could buy some high quality Diopters of differing strengths & still have some change from £2.5k (lots of change). The only thing i'd worry about is needing to see samples of the image it produces with the close focus - deal breaker if you're flying blind on that.

I am waiting for the next video! The 3 Cranes are very different in load weight and function it seems.

kidzrevil you did exceptionally good job in this thread. Your grades are awesome and filmic. However i have to point out some misunderstandings: There is no point to use Slog3 on 8 bit cameras why you lose color tonality with sgamut on 8 bit sony cameras In one of your post you said you could overexpose about +5 stops without clipping. In this case you used only a small percent of the available tonal range with slog3. But the grade looked very good. But if you film in Cine4 and use Filmconvert on it, it would look the same, but it would hold up much better if you have to grade it heavily with Power windows in Davinci Resolve. Don't underestimate Pro gamut, i think it's the most accurate of all but yes it can clip colors compared to s-gamut. I dont want to offend you and i think you did a great job, but if you read those threads above, maybe you reconsider some of your findings.

Used the Tamron 70-200/2.8 G2 for the first time today. Im very satisfied with everything accept the weight, but thats a trade for the amount of glass and new build.

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame. The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1. SPOILERS, BIG ONES! There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment. The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed. I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment. I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view. Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.

I have had mine for over a year now, and rented it back when it first came out for a documentary in haiti. I had to get insurance because it was so expensive at the time. Crazy how things change. I think there is a lot to talk about with it. The Super35 mode is great for when you just need quick and easy, and the 4k on it is better than any of the other 4k dslrs from canon.

+11 I am sick of it!! I go to watch a movie not to be blasted into submission. It's a form of punishment that only the sadistic and the moronic actually enjoy! Glad someone else spotted this mini-trailer for yet another sequel. With the crap box office, I hope they cancel it!!

Still the same answers as above. There have been no real new adapters, so the ones listed above are what you have to choose from. Mine is still working great.

DPR wasn't paid by Samsung in anyway Says so very clearly in more than one video look at the description on youtube This is a DPReview production made possible with the support of Samsung and Amazon. For more: dpreview.com/sponsored <---- Some of the comments were ok.... "Still the best camera I've ever owned..." "Hurts a bit. Should have bought during the firesale for $1000. Now they go for $2k used." (not sure if this is true) Some good but there is alot of toxic comments tho... CTB Approved?

Most of the replies on DPR just arrogant and insulting. DPR wasn't paid by Samsung in anyway, until recently people speculated about being paid by Sony, but their last reviews of Sony are very fair, I would say. NX1 was just cool, everyone with a right mind could see all the potential through the specs, the innovation, traditional ergonomics, a modern hybrid that together with the S lenses was just unbeatable at the time, I do not see why someone had to pay money for someone to see that. GH5 is not even 6 months old in my country, and I see product cycles on higher end cameras to increase. I wouldn't expect a new GH before 2019, and that is when I expect to change system. I have all the lenses I need, I have 4 cameras with all form factors, I have 28 BSI photos and 4K from from 6.5K downsampling, no overheating, best battery in mirrorless, best menu system, a great EVF, good Super AMOLED touch screens, still best wireless implementation (GH5s is very good too), great color, ergonomics. what it doesn't have is great ISO performance, IBIS and 10 bit. The first is the most important for me, we have fast primes and the 2f S zoom, but 3200 and 6400 would be just brilliant, IBIS I do not care, and Crane V2 is cheap these days and 10 bit is very specialized and one has to have the total workflow to do anything with it.

SF is my favorite genre, and perhaps not surprisingly, Blade Runner my favorite movie, but this one never connected with me. That said, my hopes weren't high to begin with. Of the director's previous work, I much prefer Prisoners over The Arrival, the latter which--unlike apparently most critics on rottentomatos--I felt insulted by. Not Elysium insulted, and certainly not Signs violated, but the air of condescension was a bit thick as the credits rolled. But back to this new work. First off, however, I need to send out a message to the film mixers and/or theater owners in this country: PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BLOW OUR F*CKING EARDRUMS OUT!!! What's the thinking here? Rattle our bones with Zimmer horns every 20 minutes just to wake us up? Film scores are supposed to help guide us emotionally through scenes, not jar our goddamned teeth loose. My wife was measuring the decibels (from inside her bag--no ambient light a-holes here) in the back row and it was averaging over 126 dBs whenever there was a scene transition. She had earplugs and still had to sit the last 45 minutes in the lobby of the theater. Such a gentleman she's got, I know... Actually, that's really all I had to say for now. In my youth, I could talk all night about a new movie, but these last few years consuming Diet Coke, I have to watch it at least a second time before I can even approach forming a concise and fair opinion worth the time it takes to listen/read. I do, however, agree with at least one other contributor before me saying the plot was pretty convoluted. To be fair, I think half the plot was already lost on me, because despite the volume set to "sphincter-puckering," all the women not named Robin Wright mumbled their way through half their lines. Not that it would have mattered, because I think the main point for now is that after watching the original at least 200 times, the entire point of the movie was never intended to be that complex: A robot hunts other robots and discovers what it means to be human. Ridley, God bless his heart, was just old school enough to let you figure that last part out for yourself. Wasn't even a twist by then, really. Too subtle for some, never accepted by others, painfully clear to the ones that would go on to subject themselves to a 2nd viewing...and maybe a few more after. The reason I love the original was actually because the story was thin, the theme was heavy, but the visuals made me feel like I was looking into a window into the future. Dystopianland. Yeah, screw it, I'd go. Anyway, one last detail before I sign off: This film, for all its visual competence, fell sadly short on one movie staple that really would have gone a long way: who exactly is the baddie? Rutger Hauer might not have been a traditional villain, but he was a perfectly compelling foil to Ford, particularly when Ford wasn't onscreen. Luv was a tool, Leto was embarrassingly lame, and as bad as his acting is, I would have preferred keeping Bautista around for at least some degree of physical menace on the hunt. Also, the android physics were wildly inconsistent. Like stupid inconsistent. But nothing that a little Zimmer-induced aneurysm shouldn't be able to take care of. Despite my critique of the movie, I really don't hate it--I just don't feel much for it. Oh, my God, was that the intent all along..?

It is a good film, but so what? Technically perfect but cold and soulless movies abound these days (see also; Arrival, Alien:Covenant, the new Planet of the Apes trilogy). Proper descriptors: clinical, cold, respectable, lifeless. Gosling is bland, and as in The Force Awakens, Harrison Ford is effortlessly the best thing in the movie. It's not about how someone looks, it's about charisma and Ford has it, Gosling doesn't. I think it will be remembered about as well as 2010, the sequel to 2001. It too is a perfectly good movie, but like I said, so what?

A lot of current screenwriting suffers from too much exposition and not enough spectacle. It was exactly the case again here. Which is perhaps why I feel so cold emotionally to it. SPOILER ALERT... - When your replicant lover is recreated, it's never going to be the same as the original. - Yes, they did try a different look and cinematic language this time out, but like in Arrival which has a very similar tone, I'm sorry but it leaves me cold. - Tarkovsky did a similar slowly paced style far better with more spectacle and less talky talky - It's not a bad film, it's a very good one but it's highly hyped and overrated by the critics and not a patch on the original in any area apart from Roger Deakins

"Shown vs Told" They SHOWED us a lot of graphics. Ok. But plot wise, we were TOLD more than SHOWN. SPOILERS!!!!!!!!! "This breaks the world" they TOLD us. No it doesn't. Didn't really SHOW anything close to that. "You bought a war" thanks for TELLING us. Where? Didn't SHOW us. "You've never seen a miracle" thanks for TELLING us. We didn't SEE it either, but HEARD about it. "You do not know pain", they TELL us, then SHOW us a scene with almost no connection. So? "I'm the bad guy, but my story falls away completely, and nothing will happen to me until the sequel's sequel" Ok, I adlibbed here, but why even watch this??? I enjoyed the 3D too. But it is not for everyone. Just disappointed they kept TELLING us how "important" everything was, but not SHOWING us. I felt nothing for most of it.

I would go for the 1D C. It's a better stills camera not just a better video camera. The low-light is better as well, compared to the 5D Mark IV. Battery life, hugely better. Weather sealing, and build quality is better. Burst rates... up to 14fps! Massive buffer. Better AF. Manual focus in video mode is the only drawback... Except it's not really. Manual focus is just fine.

Freeman Dyson is a giant in the world of math and physics. As for myself, I'm not Freeman Dyson, but I know a little about it from my science degree in mathematics (with almost a 2nd major in physics, plus I taught mathematical modeling to undergraduates at university for many years). Thus I know more than enough to be highly skeptical about mathematical models being pushed for a political purpose! I suppose many of heard of the famous saying: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics!"" Well mathematical models can be misused and abused even worse than statistics can be! However, I loved mathematical modeling, and it is an extremely important area of study, that has many very useful applications. Just don't be ever taking them immediately at face value! Especially not in highly politically charged situations.

the wild places i grew up exploring have burnt. Some of the loveliest places in american wine country are burning and people are dying. Puerto Rico has been destroyed. New Orleans is half the size it was. Climate change is entirely real. People in my country are living it and dying it. There is no debate about it. I don't need a lecture from some ancient austrian economist in a dumb suit to know that the glacier i can see from my house is shrinking. i don't need a fucking documentary liberal or conservative to tell me what i can feel when i step outside, what 99% of scientists agree upon. this doc can go twist for all i care. and so can all these "debaters" enjoy your doom, you made it.

If I were Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji and Olympus, I would join up to destroy Panasonic for disrupting the entire prosumer market with 10bit video. Now every other videographer, no matter their discipline or experience, believes they're getting ripped off if they don't get 10bit, even if they don't really need it.

Thank you so much for those kind words. Really means a lot! I'm happy to have helped you! Isn't the internet amazing? Haha I believe you have read me well. A 1DX II really would suit me well since that form factor is what I prefer. I'm wanting to rent them both soon! May be doing some tests with the C200 in a few weeks

I have posted PDF twice by mistake. Here's a video with features