ipcmlr

True or not I just hope that nikon makes a good camera for video at par with the a7s, gh4s of this world. Just really want to ditch my speedboosters and simplify things.

My suggestion gh3 you can get one for less than $500 used. Has headphone jack. Nice 1080p. And 100% of your lenses will fit. Gh4 costs more than double. A7s even more. A7s needs fullframe lenses. If you need 4k - Gh4

How did you come up with the 5.6 depth of field?

Amen.

Backed. Good luck.

Sold!

You mean the $3000 canon 11-24mm f4? Has there been a lens on s35 that has the equivalent 11mmmm fov on full frame? You can get an olympus 7-14mm f2.8 for $1500.

​Well if just the GH4 body. You'll have to add cash since a new GH4 is $1500 an a new set of these is $3700. I'll trade these for a GH4 + around $1500

Just got these but it was more for fun than practicality. These are pretty much mint. 50mm and 35mm have not been taken out of the box yet. These lenses look awesome and are probably the best built lenses I have ever seen. Sharp even wide open. T2.2 is equivalent to F2.0 in my tests so not too shabby in low light. I do weddings... and the long 300 degree focus rotation isn't helping me out for live events like these (following those little kids dancing on the dancefloor is pretty hard to do with these) So have to let these go, bummer. I won't break up this set but would be willing to trade for some stuff. $2650 + shipping. Willing to trade for: GH4 body, a7s body, voigtlander m43 lenses, panasonic 12-35mm, olympus 75mm 1.8, Panasonic leica primes (15mm,25mm,42.5) GH4 in pic is not included. Just there to show how awesome these lenses look like. Lol.

As much as I want to root for the underdog and dislike canon's milking every dollar from the consumer the mark 3 seems to resolve way more detail to me in several of the shots. Some shots are equal but those with more detail ( wide of bricks and the wood grain on the chairs for example) the mark 3 was the clear winner for me. I guess if they weren't shot back to back I would not have noticed as much. But the shots of the bricks, and shot of statues in front of the door @1:28 show a wide gap in resolving detail from what I saw.

He has excellent adapters. Nice guy once he warms up to you.:D

[quote name="karoliina" post="24029" time="1356342323"]There is this easier option for Resolve: it also runs on Linux. Run Ubuntu on the fast machine with fast Geforce 680. Very easy to setup and very similar operating system to OSX. I have several Macs and then the biggest number crunchers run Linux. Blender is therefore ran on Linux natively (3d animation/compositing). Also I do not need to use 5dtorgb converter with my DSLR footage since 5dtorgb uses ffmpeg to do the conversion. I use ffmpeg directly from command line, it is fully scriptable, and my footage converts by itself after I run my script convert. Even better: add huge raid to this Linux machine and share the drive to network and mount it from your Macs to access it with FCPX. If gigabit ethernet is in between, the speed is reasonable. Macs and Ubuntus live very nicely together. They are almost cousins from technical perspective unlike OSX vs. Windows which have about nothing in common. I have been tempted to try Hackintosh though to run FCPX and Motion fast. [/quote] Nice idea karoliina. Have you installed resolve in Ubuntu? Saw from one of the forums that Linux install is a disk image or Linux installer is a disk from blackmagic ( http://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=49&start=20#p7852) Have you also found a Linux nle that is any good? Thanks!

[quote name="HurtinMinorKey" post="23990" time="1356273115"]I thought the whole reason to be on Mac was to avoid the "hassle" of windows.  This hackintosh stuff all sounds like a big hassle. Just suck it up and come back to windows. [/quote] That's what I was thinking too... If you accidentally do an OSX update aren't you screwed for another few days? Never tried hackintosh so don't really know.

Just saw the 3d hfr. The first few scenes inside the house just brought back memories of old Masterpiece theater reruns... A lot of scenes looked like dioramas/miniatures/popup story books. The crashing wood and stone looked like styrofoam bouncing off thier heads. The cg was very well made actually. The character rigging/movements were pretty much awesome. The 48fps did make the 3d fast action scenes watchable. The worst part though is I lost 3 hours of my life just to watch close to nothing happen!!! Nothing frickin happens in 3 looooong hours!!! If you thought schindlers list(possibly my favorite movie) was long at 186 minutes try watching dwarves walk/run/eat/camp/kill for 174 minutes!!!! Argh!!!!

Uhhhh... whats not comparable is the GoPro is at 800 iso and the 2 other cameras are at 1600 iso. They are getting 1 full stop of light less in already lowlight conditions. For a tiny camera though it is impressive.

  Yes. The helios + anamorphic adapter usually works well. I've used it on my gh2.  

Wow! Excellent footage!

  As a former skater (my wife has basically banned me from skating when I went crashing down a hill :( ) I too would have wanted to see more of the skaters.   We're interested in skating. We want people pulling off stuff, not pics of people in the air or cheesy slomos.   But that's just us.   The video is about the skatepark, the people behind it and what its done for the community. In that regard it was pretty good.

[quote name="JohnBarlow" post="22906" time="1354576365"]Hello all, Like to say hello as I am a new member here. My first post is explained in the title.I have seen some suggestions that shooting 4:3 is best for 2.66:1 with a 2x Ana, because it does not waste pixels, compared with shooting 16:9 which 'wastes' a third of the horizontal for 2.35:1 I am puzzled by this since 1080p 4:3 format would be 1440 horizontal pixels, which is 480 less than 1920. Seems like no matter which way, expect some losses.[/quote]You are correct. 4:3 is 1440 x 1080 = 1.5 megapixels vs 1920 x 1080= 2MP.After 2x stretch it will be the same 1.5mp image. You still lose some resolution vs 16:9 1080p.You also get more noise.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1354130601' post='22558'] After the first 8 shots it is less of a mixture of cropped and anamorphic so there isn't that reference point to compare the squeezed footage to. Maybe that is why you accepted it more later in the video. The summer sequences involve a lot of vertical planes shot from quite far back and nearly 60% of the first 25 seconds are aspherical cropped. Again this test has been useful for me to see how far you can intercut and break the rules without it becoming a problem. [/quote] Yep. I guess it was the first 8 shots. They are mixed anamorphic and just plain cropped. Looking at it now it looks like 1st shot - anamorphic 2nd shot - cropped 3rd shot - anamorphic 4th shot - anamorphic 5th shot - anamorphic 6th shot - anamorphic 7th shot - cropped 8th shot - cropped 5/8 looked anamorphic to me and 3 plain crops. I could be wrong but thats what it looked like to me. So it was quite jarring. But after that it was less jarring :D EDIT: I guess I was wrong since you said 60% of the first shots were just crops!/>

I did find the first "summer scenes" changing squeeze distracting. I think it was because at first I didn't know that it was not completely unsqueezed to 2x so I kept on thinking "why is some of it unsqueezed 2x and some of it not unsqueezed fully?" After those first 8 or so shots I was fine with it guess. Thanks for the video.

[quote name='QuickHitRecord' timestamp='1354115482' post='22533'] Actually, I find that the breathing during a slow rack focus to be kind of neat-looking, at least on my OCT-18s. I know that I've seen it in some older films. I wouldn't do it on a corporate gig but for art films, why not? [/quote] Thanks for pointing out this lomo "feature" which drives me nuts!!!!

@brucker sent you a pm about wide angle adapter. You might be interested. Of course it's a huge chunk of glass. But might be worth a shot.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353729285' post='22223'] Funny yes. Useful or educational no. But the colour IS nice :)/> [/quote] Yup. Color is nice. He also has an outdoor test which shows some smearing. A bit more useful but still not educational. Looking forward to your test though. Thanks in advance.

I was checking out the ikonoskop a few months ago but did see it used expensive media. I also saw this from Jonathan Yi a few months ago comparing the RED vs Ikonoskop http://vimeo.com/40504149 Funny stuff.