Leaderboard

Here's a 1st entry of my liking: BTW for the geek inside you, that was shot on 4K DJI Osmo X5R & Red Weapon 6K. I am all curious on yours...

Honestly what I watch the most is The Great British Bake Off. Every season multiple times. Favorite dramatic series I've seen this year is Chernobyl. That is absolutely incredible.

I've posted about them several times on this forum, but I have a full set of Voightlander SL lenses. 20mm 3.5, 28mm 2.8, 40mm f2, and 90mm 3.5. I've shot a entire short film on them. I had the 58mm 1.4 but never used it because the rendering on it was very different than the rest. This was shot entirely with them on an NX1: Shot with the 40mm on a D750 Some recent stills: 40mm 40mm 20mm 28mm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Congress_(2013_film)

I frequently use the Oly 12-100 on my GH5s, where I use it most of the time and really like this combo. I put it on one of my P4Ks with a shoulder rig today and was surprised at the difference. The Oly 12-100 shows visible distortion on straight lines (think door frames) both in the middle and on the edges of the lens. I will have to use this combo more to decide for sure, but at the moment, I am leaning toward saying this is not a good combination.

Homecoming on Amazon Prime has some incredible cinematography, makes use of a 2:1 and a 1:1 frame.

Still have to go through that one myself, believe it or not (complete watching it, that is!). ? Always caught little chunks of it, but never actually saw the whole trilogy. That's the thing if you were young and brought up with television. Usually these things started at say 20:30 and I either didn't know it was on and would perhaps channel hop and come across it only to join-in like half an hour in or it went on so long that it ended past bedtime with school the next day. It's been only a few years ago that I finally saw all Star Wars movies too for example. Or... The Godfather. Currently landed on Rocky. Want to watch the original Top Gun (from my year of birth!) as well. Think the last movie I actually saw in theaters was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. Dunno, wasn't really feeling it. That whilst The Hateful Eight has been one of the better masterpieces I've seen in the last couple of years. But that might be because it was the 70mm Ultra Panavision Roadshow version. Just gorgeous. But yeah, still a lot of catching up to do... in meanwhile there's so much new content to consume, it's a never ending battle trying to catch 'em all, much like Pokémon. xD Consume a lot of series. I'm not too much into too intellectual or artsy stuff, I'm pretty much a basic bitch, I like the popular stuff. In my freetime I like to relax my mind with some easy to watch entertainment. I randomly started watching The Blacklist. Really enjoyable first couple of seasons, still finishing up the latest few. Now I've started The Dark Crystal: Age of Resistance. Tbh, hadn't heard of the original, but it's cool to see this kind of practical filmmaking is still alive, gave me a real Gremlins/Robot Chicken-vibe up front. Thought the series would be a little darker and adults-focused, but it feels more like a (Snow White-esque) fairytale for kids.

Always heard nice things about the Age of Ultron 40mm f/2 (EOS EF/Nikon F). Here's uncle Ken on the subject: https://www.kenrockwell.com/voigtlander/40mm-f2.htm There are also the Voigtländer SL-II N Color Skopar 28mm f/2.8 and SL-II APO-Lanthar 90mm f/3.5 (APS-C) in EOS EF-mount, but I don't think you should really bother (but you might want to look into the Nikon F mount's Voigtländer SL-II Nokton 58mm f/1.4 AI-s).

Minor improvements. Mostly boring.

West Wing. Shot on film, with early episodes in 4:3 and only going wide-screen in later seasons. Content is king and West Wing is one of the rare shows that doesn't dumb down the content for the sake of the lowest IQ in the audience

thank you, i loved this movie too. I watched it in the cinemas, and the ending is quite brilliant. I did notice when they switched between the osmo and the red, so did my friends who are not camera experts, but it did not take away from the movie at all.

Large leaps in Dynamic range will be a game changer. If you have a camera that shoots 20 stops of DR, you could pretty much get away with not lighting your scenes. That said you still have to light if you want any kind of style. Tough we've been at the point for years, now more than ever where cameras are really cheap and really good. Yet still a lot of indie filmmakers would rather use 80% of their budget renting a RED camera.

Romance with past is gone... WTH is that?! Everyone got the point, I guess, but... ...that is past you don't see anyone to mimic or then show me who is going in the same boat: I think one of these days someone should open a thread with the fav screenings of each one these current days. Done:

YUMMY

Specifically for the iPhone 11 Pro, Phil Schiller previewed an upcoming Deep Fusion feature that analyzes 9 photos (including one long-exposure shot) taken in sequence. The device’s neural engine then analyzes the collection to create an optimal end photo that borrows the best elements of each image. Schiller said it was “computational photography mad science.” Deep Fusion is coming in the fall. https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/10/20850694/apple-iphone-11-pro-max-camera-specs-features-triple-three-slofies Since iPhone 7 Plus by Apple... How game changer is such contribution? I find it pretty revolutionary to be quite straightforward (E : -)

If there's one for nonsense... Why not for every other ones too? ; ) : -)

The 360 Max is the right direction for action cams.

Could you share frames at various points of the lens so we can see the distortion? I’d like to see : 12mm 30mm 50mm 100mm

) : Sorry to hear it, as I quite enjoyed the first one, too! EXACTLY. To be honest, my serious movie watching started only after moving out of family home and breaking the 'bedtime' chains, hahahaha. In 4 years time I managed to get through (and really enjoy) some of the most important/memorable moving pictures and somehow develop a taste of mine. But, as you can see, there are still some titles I haven't watched yet. ( :

If you check the end of this video there's a statement this organic sensor will be used in Lumix series too, starting with the end of Olympics 2020. We are talking about built in ND, higher dynamic range and global shutter sensor. This is revolution!!!

lol, my favourite thing on right now is Channel4's Treasure Island with Bear Grylls. xD

Those films always came off as too pretentious to me. That said the first film is a great action movie. Pretty much a masterpiece as long as you don't take it too seriously.

Succession on HBO. Shot on film

Matrix Trilogy. I've never really got a grip on the story (no surprise; when it was first released I was 8 years old, hahaha), so I decided to watch and understand it for the first time. ( :

I'd have loved a Sony RX with a 1" sensor and a prime lens such as the CM1 has. (I don't even mind if it was a smartphone or not) Would have made for an even more compact and more robust camera than the already small RX100 by putting a prime lens on it.

Yep it's super useful. What I did is setup a scene, take a picture, put on the filter and then flip between image preview and shooting mode and try to match them more or less After that you just remember the values and it's fast to put them back on later

Thats what I meant by style but I see your point.

Interesting combo I just finished this series on Netflix, quite good

When someone no longer has anything rational to say as part of a discussion it is common to make the conversation personal instead of keeping on topic. I used to think that you were above these kinds of petty contributions, but obviously not. I'll be around here on the forums if you guys want to talk about cameras but I'm not interested in being part of a discussion that you're no longer willing to speak rationally about.

It's going to be a lot easier to find someone who'll lend you a DSLR or mirrorless camera, or possibly even a Red, than to find someone who'll lend you their phone for an hour, let alone for the weeks or months it takes you to shoot. Plenty of people have cameras, even really good ones, which sit there for months at a time not being used. Some of those people are happy to lend it out to friends (And if you're into filmmaking, you or someone you're shooting with has probably got a few friends that own some of this gear). However people are much more attached to their phones (especially the Apple fanboys who rush out to get the latest, greatest iphone) and you're never going to get someones uncle to lend you there phone for however many hours/weeks/months it takes you to shoot your project. The only phone you'll be using to shoot a film will be one that belongs to a crew member that is already going to be there for every single scene - ie the director or dop. And as I pointed out in my previous post, you can get other proper cameras cheaper than the cost of the new iphone. And regarding the better IQ/benefits of the newer phones - that will have much less impact overall than people's skills & creativity. Nobody is pixel peeping 4K footage when watching a $0 film. But if it's not well lit, or the sounds sucks, or the acting is terrible, or the story is non-existent, nobody will watch past the first 30 seconds. Also you mentioned IQ on the big screen, but lets be honest - a $0 film is not going to be seen on a big screen no matter how good. Even festivals have entry fees, assuming your final film is even good enough to make the cut (which - if you're a bunch of total amatuers who between you do not know a single person you can borrow an old DSLR from, is very unlikely).

On low/no budget everyone is doing multiple jobs. Maybe it's the director, or maybe it's the DP, but SOMEBODY needs to be looking at the location and saying "lets move that table over there because it looks too modern" or "lets put a cheap rug on the floor to make it look more like grandmas dingy living room" or "he's the bad guy so he's going to wear the black hoodie". My point was more that people thinking creatively and doing there jobs well are going to have a lot more impact on the final product than whether you shoot on the newest iPhone or on my crappy Huawei or on an old DVX100 you borrowed from your school. Oh and by the way, it's the 1st AC that pull focus.

My comments were about the Noam Kroll article, which pertains specifically to the new iPhone. A new iPhone is not exactly cheap either. I just had a quick look, for a "cheap" plan here in AUS it's $70/month over 2 years (on top of the base plan) for the iPhone 11 Pro (for a total of $1680). I think if I had a look around I'd be able to find a DVX100 or similar for $70 (one months payment), or for the total cost of upgrading the phone, I could get a pretty decent camera setup, with a couple of lights too. Of course, you can shoot on a phone already. You don't need the newest iphone. But if current/older phones have not yet revolutionised filmmaking, why do you think anything has changed?

Production designers on a no budget/micro budget film? I think that article was meant for someone else. This isn’t directed entirely at your statement but I am surprised how the Hollywood establishment has usurped the digital revolution. For the first time since the beginning of Hollywood filmmaking and union crews, any person could truly go out and make a film with the bare minimum. Companies like Zoom and Rode created sound solutions to give a filmmaker proper sound on a shoestring budget. Chinese companies made LED lighting affordable. There are even apps that will tell you where the sun is at any location in the world but instead of going out and making a movie with what they have cheaply available to them, they were told they needed a boom operator, an art director and a 2nd ac to pull focus. Now I’m not saying that people shouldn’t strive for the best work they can do, I just find it amazing that there hasn’t been an influx of great indie films shot with next to nothing. Instead, I am finding an influx of bad films shot by people trying to make a movie like Hollywood would make one. I can only imagine what Kubrick or Truffaut could have made if they had access to these tools. Hell, could you imagine if Hitchcock had a drone for North by Northwest?

Who will shoot on a phone and not the BM Pocket? Someone who owns a phone but doesn't own a BM Pocket. I know film-making is complicated, but I wouldn't have thought this part of it was particularly difficult to understand! They won't. But they might revolutionise who gets to shoot films because they didn't previously have enough money for a "proper camera".

Actually Yuneec is throwing in a 7inch controller with the thing, which I am guessing they are charging a few hundred dollars for (along with the leica name and the 6 rotors). I downloaded the photos from the site (from the link below) and they seem quite impressive. I am looking forward to a comparison with the Mavic 2 Pro, since both are 20MP and have similar feature sets (if not necessarily price). http://files.yuneec.de/Typhoon-H3/ION L1 Pro Picture Modes.zip

For that sample I used a manual 7Artisans lens which has vintage characteristics. Except the Sigma 18-35 and some Tokina zooms for their versatility, I avoid modern lens designs (like the ultra sharp Panasonic/Leicas, for example). Regarding GFX 100's sharpness btw, here's a test I did yesterday comparing it to the BMPCC4k (more information on its youtube page, not via the video itself): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efx6i5LMPK4&t=2s

This. Agreed again. This sentence is probably the only point I disagree with you in your entire post. Even if a person's volume is going to be all over the place, it is better to conservatively set your gain (ideally set to dual levels, like can be done in the Zoom F series and most Tascams) and only end up having a small part of your audio ruined than to use AG and get it mostly ruined anyway. The only time I ever ever use AG is when I'm rushed and I just want to quickly set up the scratch mic on a camera, and I know this (the on camera audio) is audio which will never ever ever be used in the final edit.

I should also add that colour is purely subjective, so there's no such thing as "too saturated", only "too saturated for my personal tastes". Yes, lots of people will agree on such things, but lots of people think chocolate is better than strawberry for icecream but that doesn't make it a fact.

i tell the truth.But I encourage to continue try. I haven't even mentioned the colors. The way of shooting it's the main problem.

You are on a gear head/ Nerd forum, what did you expect. The only things working here is the latest 6k, raw or whatever camera. Talk art, cinematography etc and you get 3 response at best. I never ever saw one person complain about 2k on the big screen, they will complain about the story, acting, special effect eventually, but never ever if the movie was in 2k.

i for one, like your putrid images, more substance than the say the girls on film thread. but each to their own i guess. by all means people should post a few images from new lenses that are acquired, but maybe start a thread if its to be an ongoing exercise. its nice too hear about a nice lens somebody has used but proof of the pudding is in the seeing i think.

@Cinegain you make some valid points, but with all due respect, it seems like you’re still dictating what is, or isn’t, acceptable in an open lens thread. Don’t get me wrong, I’m interested in almost anything lens related. For instance, Kye’s video link is sending me down a spiral of Canon FD lenses. Speaking of FD lenses, Zach’s contributions with his Canon FD 35-105mm f/3.5 lens, on a t2i, is actually very interesting since we already know that FD lenses don’t easily adapt to EF, so he must have had the mount modified. Your normal lens search would yield little results if searching for images or reviews of that lens on an older model Canon camera. And as a former t2i owner, I can easily ascertain how that lens would translate to other cameras. With my lens tests, I purposefully use the same actor, in similar locations so I can weed out which lenses I want to keep or sell. I post a couple images from those tests hoping to get some insight from other members or perhaps supply some info to other people that may be wondering how that lens renders with ML Raw. I’m sorry if it isn’t your cup of tea, but it doesn’t mean it’s invaluable to someone else. Hell, without samples, I think a lot of us might not know about the Nikon Bourne Identity lens and how it looked on a G7 or how the Tokina Angenieux Zoom renders on the P4K. But again, I look forward to your posts regarding topics you find interesting, even if I don’t find them as telling or useful to my work. But I agree with the sentiment of your comment. It’s given me some food for thought on other ways to tackle my personal lens tests and if I do share any of them, I will try to include a little more pertinent information in future posts.

To be honest it's not even average. You have to study a lot and most important see great videos and search the way they did those. Catching a camera that is capable of decent to great image doesn't mean you are capable too. Don't give up and keep going.

not sure thats a valid statement for you to make, kaylee will gut you like a fish if your not careful. i have heard...... if you have to ask the price, its too expensive. they say there are two certainties in life, death and taxes. But i believe there are two other constants as well... If it has wheels or it wears a dress, it will cost you money ?

I am used to get outstanding results blurring the oversharpened outcome when necessary : -)

This bird is able to the worst and pretty decent under control -- here's a sample, hence forget all the rest and take only the first shot : -)

Both lines are equally exceptional - just matter of taste and actual task which to prefer: milky and smoother Leica R's, or touch sharper and cotrastier Contax's. (And what is more interesting, their color characteristic are so deeply inner, that no matter how long I tried, for me it is impossible to achieve exactly the same character in grading process.) When I say "exceptional", I mean mostly mechanic quality and manual focusing precision. After 20 or so year, there's no rule which is better in that regard. When they were both young, I'd say that in general Leica's are tad better. But, contrary, I'd see more Contax's in well shape than Leica's. Also Contax has 60mm 1:1 macro, Leica R not, but Leica R has beautiful and not so expensive 28-70, while Contax has those exceptional and bulky push-pull zooms. Ah, indeed not to much lucky with zooms for m43 users! But, Vogitlanders for m43 IMO have traits of both character at different f values. (Some sort of m43 Cooks I'd even say.) Voigts rendering is also bit or two cleaner than Leica R and Contax which I had (you always have to calculate and age). In fact, as FF Voigtlanders are competitive both to Leica M and modern Zeiss lenses, it seems that these m43 variants have extremely successful combination of both know-how origin of competitiveness - besides it that actually the same factory Cosina products them and modern Zeiss. Of course, It's easy to understand question and worry about reselling value - but, once I understood that I'm working now, and that nothing better with tasks that I may encounter in near future doesn't need anything "better' or, to be truth, "more impressive to client" ... I choose to invest and keep those wonderful Voigts as best tools for me now. You know, lenses are more as human with character - when you find real one friend, than it's not so nice to think how to resell them later Their 0.95 for movies are better than Leicas and Zeiss 1.4 or 2 with speedbooster. People who point to 0.95 softness just don't use them correctly: there are always curvature to which have to pay attention. Their construction is well thought to achieve completely effective image at one zone of focusing. Better is impossible. Actually they are better than Leica Noctilux. I also conceived that, actually, I didn't like more optics and more complication with adapters. What people maybe often tend to forget is that - f0.95 is really T1.1 in the light gathering, but in depth of field it is not THAT uncontrolled shallow for video. So, having lenses that gather T1 and has depth of field of FF 1.8 value is fantastic and simple not existing in FF lenses world. Sigma Art's with speedbooster and some Milvus may be close - but I had also 18-35 twice and resell them because of sterile-and-oversharpening-undersmoothness in character (although unbeatable as run/gun tools), and Milvus have double price of Voigts. Furthermore, Voigts with, say, GH5 (especially with Sage's lut), mostly diminished importance of GH5s for low light, still keeping stabilization. Shortly - maybe the main point is mine decision: living in afraid and permament recalculation of reselling and re-usage regarding money values, or learn inside-out best tools for my tasks. And I think there's no dilema: Voigts and Pocket and GHx series and probably Olympus or JVC etc. - at the moment produce image so competent that approach maximum level that human eyes can perceive, nothing to say about even more importancy of content, of inner beauty and aesthetic of respectable works. The same goes with Fuji or Sony - but for reason that is needless to repeat, my choice is m43 and Voigtlanders as lenses that IMO squeeze every drop of know-how and a la cameleon exchangeable artistic qualities