Leaderboard

iPhone filmmaking has made DOF adapters a thing again! I was just curious about this the other day and looked into it - Beastgrip seems to be the only company currently making them and they are sold out now. It's sort of a weird niche - use the phone as a super portable recording device... but then lose that portability by throwing on big cinema glass.

Going for today's small chip low-fi digital look, just as they did with the original 28 Days Later in the 90s. https://www.wired.com/story/28-years-later-danny-boyles-new-zombie-flick-was-shot-on-an-iphone-15/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_Years_Later https://theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html But then... what's with the huge cine lenses on the front?

I agree with this. If the primary purpose is to use with the animation software then I’d be led by that and Dragonframe do seem to recommend the Canon models above the rest for use with their software. Canon do charge an additional fee for the animation firmware upgrade but if it makes it more functional for your primary purpose then I guess that is a price worth paying ? Not sure what impact it has on the rest of the regular functionality in terms of this replacing it or just being additional functionality. https://www.canon.co.uk/support/consumer/products/cameras/eos-r/eos-r.html?type=important&detailId=tcm:14-1955953&productTcmUri=tcm:14-1723696

@maxJ4380 I know Canon was taken off the table early on in the discussion but since nobody inquired about the animation purpose of the camera, I figured I'd bring it back into the mix. The reason I mention it is because Canon has introduced animation versions of some of there cameras. I was always curious about those models, but since I do not do animation, my curiosity was fleeting.

I may check beastgrip - I’m looking for an ND filter for the iPhone 16 but easy to use.

Tim Daust is under an NDA with Nikon/RED, but he has hinted that RED and Nikon are actively working on camera projects together. My guess is that this involves getting a version of REDCODE into a Nikon camera or releasing a Komodo replacement with Z mount within the next 1-2 years. They have already released a RED LUT pack for Nikon cameras, so that is only the first step. By the time of the Z9 II, Nikon could probably include REDCODE RAW in the camera instead of licensing TicoRAW.

Here's one on the original Pocket with the new Laowa T1 18mm cine lens, shot handheld with a Zacuto Marauder Mini for stabilization.

From the perspective of using it with an ATEM, this camera is stupendously good. With the ATEM MINI ISO, you do your live stream with the cameras (and have full remote control over everything in it), and it saves your switching as a project file for Resolve. Afterwards you load the file into Resolve, get your full switcher performance back (which you can then tweak) and automatically replace all the video elements with the 4K BRAW files from the cameras. It is fantastic. Imagine then not adding a Bluetooth capability to let the camera be operated remotely without the ATEM. It’s not like you are then offering a free lunch as if you want all the extra capability that the ATEM offers then you need to buy an ATEM anyway.

We do. It was 85mil. Bargain.

+1 for CineMatch. I use it on every multicam shoot.

I'm embarrassed to say, once apon a time i had two.. almost maxed out. Taking a good long hard look at myself. i made the effort to pay them off one at a time and get rid of them both. After that i could afford some land after saving for a year. So bought some land paid it off in half the time the bank had allowed for the mortgage. I think some people can use credit wisely... i wasn't one of them 🙂. For me now, its better to get something when there's money in the bank and i think i appreciate it more or value it more highly perhaps. Getting back on topic, its turning into a bit of a rabbit warren, this buying a new camera business. Every time i look at something, if i spend a few $ more i could get this or that... I have watched a few youtubes. Leaning towards a g9 at the moment because as ac6000cw has said...will do all i think i need to do. but i'll watch a few more vids and if i can find a more interesting deal it might change lol

The S1H is really special, I got a photog friend uses it mostly for photo and some videos, he also had dab with Sony for a while but back to Pana S1H for everything he do.

https://www.wired.com/story/28-years-later-danny-boyles-new-zombie-flick-was-shot-on-an-iphone-15/ Unlike previous film shot on iPhone which was on limited budget, this one is proper budget and the whole setup for that iphone looks like 70k in total. But then 28 days later was shot on xl1, I guess they want to keep the consistency?

I'll be picking mine up tomorrow. Maybe at some point, I'll plug in an external drive and see how long it can record without overheating. 🙂

Some 8-bit stuff I shot a few months ago and finally got around to editing. Graded with one of the Fuji film-luts in Davinci Resolve. I got my white balance pretty close which helped a lot. I've found the 8-bit color to be pretty solid as long as my white balance is good and I'm not underexposed. Need to get better at nailing those things for run-and-gun stuff. Whenever I shoot 10 bit I get less strict with spot-on WB because I know I can tweak in post lol.

Osmo Pocket 3.

Echoing this. I have to be really excited to pay "new" prices for something (looks at GFX 100 II), but nearly every piece of gear that I have was purchased used or from sales that temporarily drove new prices below used prices. With hundreds of things purchased used over the years, I can't even remember a single thing that showed up from a reputable vendor in the wrong condition. Though do check that everything that should be included is - mpb have been bad about that for me and sometimes little things are missing - like the zoom lever for a Fujinon MK lens or an audio adapter for a camera, etc.

6th month warranty with used gear from MPB. Don't fear 'like new' or 'excellent' condition from reputable sources! I bought a used 'good' S5ii a few months back and to be honest, could have been 'excellent' as other than the tiniest signs of use that made it obvious it was not 'brand new', absolutely zero difference real world. Sincere well done. Most just slap it on a credit card or use direct debit. I haven't had the former for over 7 years but guilty of the latter, ie, I never 'save', - I either have the funds or I don't, but I appreciate a person who does or has to save for some/anything.

While I'm no fan of the Sigma 18-35, it can be (with careful consideration) the basis for a nice look. I'd suggest: Diffusion filters (as others have suggested) but be aware there are lots of them and all have different looks so that's worth doing some research into - most brands will provide comparisons of their various products so you can narrow down and then look at real-world reviews Some of the characteristics of vintage lenses can be added in post, including: Softening of the edges (use a mask like a vignette but use a blur effect - experiment with different types of blurs here too - radial vs pinch(?) vs "lens" vs directional blurs etc Chromatic aberrations can be added, either to the whole frame or to the edges using a mask Vintage lenses often vignette Vintage lenses often have pincushion distortion - where objects on the edges get curved like a slight fish-eye effect - this can often be introduced with a "lens correction" slider which are common You can even put an oval shape over the front of the lens which will make your bokeh oval-shaped (at least when you have the lens wide-open) but bear in mind it will lower the light coming through the lens and depend DoF slightly With the BM S16 cameras they tend to be on the softer side due to 1080p sensors and lock of sharpening so having a tack-sharp lens isn't a bad thing per-se, it's just on the bland side. It used to make me mad too, but now I realise that it's all a scam. They say the biggest lies are the most successful and I think it's true here too. Have a look at this: and I don't mean "see how large the budget is" - I mean go shot by shot, pause each one, and actually look at the image. If I can take a small liberty for educational purposes, have a look at the frame at 14s, it includes the main star of the whole movie looking like this: and then imagine what DXOMark would say if they tested this lens: This single frame reveals the truth about the cinematic look: The video is uploaded in 2K - because the film is projected in 2K in cinemas The frame has edges that are blurry, even in 2K (see above snippets) The frame has significant pincushion distortion (look at the "straight" lines on the edges of frame) It has quite deep DoF It has spectacular colour Checkmate YouTubers! Of course, I say that sarcastically because the reality is that they've checkmated all of us years ago when they started talking about sharp lenses and 4K and we didn't just laugh and skip the video and watched something remotely sensible instead. I mean, that single frame is so optically poor from a technical perspective that most forum nerds would recommend throwing that lens away, and yet it was used in a key scene in a $250M movie that has grossed $700M+ worldwide. Turns out we didn't need MORE pixels, we needed BETTER pixels. The proof was in the movie theatre the whole time and we never called their bluff. Or even been to a movie theatre in the last 30 years..... Why? The DoF is a function of focal length, so if I take my 12-35/2.8 lens, set it to 12mm f2.8 and focus on an object it will have a different DoF than if I set it to 35mm f2.8 and focus on the same object from the same camera position. DoF is variable, even with constant aperture zoom lenses. In fact, it's probably less variable on a variable aperture zoom. You said you don't really zoom while filming, so constant exposure isn't really an issue from that point of view. If you've zoomed and want to match exposure then just adjust your ND - you've adjusted your composition already so a twist of an ND isn't a big deal. If you're shooting with variable apertures and matching exposure with ISO and wanting to match the noise profile then just get familiar with NR - most cinema cameras have noise (even at their native ISOs) that would make any videographer CRY. Professional colourists know about NR and how to use it, and it will be used on almost every professional movie or TV show you have ever seen. Videographers complain about noise in their images and it just shows they literally don't know the first thing about high-end productions (and I mean first thing, because NR is usually the first node of a professional colourists workflow). Not sure what specific post you're referring to, but most kit lenses are ~24-70, most secondary zooms are 70-200, and most systems have a 16-35 equivalent. The numbers all look different between brands and mounts etc, but they mostly boil down to those ranges. I'd say from just that statement alone you're doing far better than most forum peeps, because: You seem to know what kind of shooter you are You seem to actually shoot (armchair critics aren't a fan of the 12-32mm lens) You seem to understand how the equipment you have relates to what your requirements are ("nice and portable" isn't a think armchair critics who don't shoot say) Sadly, this makes you far ahead of the curve. Most of camera internet discussions are about specs, with people recommending you change what and how you shoot in order to match the latest equipment rather than the other way around, and TBH mostly it's just the blind leading the stupid, or these days the shills leading the gullible to part with their money!

Yes, this post was deliberately tongue-in-cheek, but it's also completely true and not joking in any way either. @Emanuel told me I'm allowed to disagree with myself and it makes me a poet instead of less credible, plus I can just randomly tag people in brand new threads, so I'm doing that too. You're welcome internet. Now you have no excuse for not getting out there and making something wonderful. (You never really had any excuses, so maybe you have a negative number of excuses now? There I am, being poetic again..) Enjoy.

So, turns out that hitting Command-Return instead of Shift-Return submits the post. Who knew? anyway, Part Two. They have smaller apertures. This might seem to be a disadvantage, but maybe not as much as you'd imagine. Firstly, smaller apertures are easy to focus, so less shots with missed focus. BOOM. You're welcome. Tell Panasonic (or whoever) I just upgraded their AF. See if you can tell the difference in DoF between these? No? Well, F2.8 to F3.5 isn't much difference. OK, let's get less fair.. What about these? Sure, it's a small difference, but that's a two whole stops. It's also many many hundreds of dollars. Low light is definitely a difference here, that's true, so the kit zoom isn't really a low-light monster, but these lenses are practically free so you can't have everything!

So reading between the lines, Nikon were being sued and rather than paying 85+ mil, they spent 85 mil on buying out RED and have spun it as a buy out for the tech. Or the media have spun it out as a buy out for the tech. And we have all been assuming some juicy RED Nikon stuff is imminent. The likelihood is nothing is imminent and may never happen at all as these things do tend to take a few years to develop. Ah well, I wasn't getting too excited anyway because as I have been saying lately, I have actually reached the point where I am passed the point of 'needs' now and any future purchases will be based on no other factor than I fancy it. And then, only if I can afford it.