MattH

Ah, sorry about the tone of my reply, It's just it sounded like a righty saying "just use your right eye" and not getting it. Yeah, I prefer to keep both eyes open for the peripheral awareness it gives, even though the right eye is usualy blocked by the camera. But mostly because when I open the closed eye, the vision in that eye for some reason is blurred for several minutes, which is kind of distracting to the work prosess hoping that it comes back.

Thanks, but I know all that Shit. If it downscales from the 16 by 9 crop used for stills (4480 * 2520) then you are correct although it actualy workes out to 2.13 crop giving 23.24 - 72.52mm equivalent. My coment asked whether it used a NATIVE crop of 3840 by 2160 for 4K (which the GH4 does and this will probably too). This will give a 2.49 crop giving 27.1 - 84.6mm equivalent. Thanks for the picture styles info though. I actually didn't know that.

What is your source for this? If it is native 3840 by 2160, then it has a 2.49 crop factor and gives a 27.1 - 84.6mm equivalent field of view. Source: Dpreview specs on GX7 sensor and mathematics. If it downscales the 16 by 9 stills crop of 4480 * 2520 (source: dpreview first impresions review of LX100) then it will have a crop factor of 2.13 and give a 23.24 - 72.52mm equivalent field of view.

If he's left eye dominant then he wont be able to do this, if he is right then he is already, so this is a redundant sugestion. I'm left eye dominant and can literaly not se with my right eye through a veiwfinder unless i completely close my left eye. Which I dont do because my vision is blured for about 5 mins after I open it again.

Shame about the highlights, though did look a bit over exposed. Hopefully there will be profiles to help that as the footage even through vimeo is very clean and detailed. THe stabilisation looks good and I couldn't notice any rolling shutter jelly. Some questions I have: Does It take 4k from a native crop? I assume like the gh4 it does. If so the lens becomes 27mm to 85mm equivalent. Not perfect for wide angle but still pretty cool. Does it have similar roling shutter to the GH4 when pushed or is it actually better like your vid sugests? Does it have the cinelike profiles or profile adjustment? How is the sound? (pretty relevant since it doesn't have a mic socket).

No need to test, I can tell by the pictures that the front of the glass in the speed booster is flush with the contacts. No EF-S lens will work. Which is a shame because they would otherwise have been well suited for this. The 10-18mm IS particularly.

Unfortunately for the consumer, companies can do what they want. They will charge as much as people will pay. If you take into account all of the money spent on development, marketing and all other aspects of the company, the cost to produce the physical product probably isn't that large of a percentage. it may cost the same to produce a £200 camera as it does a £30,000 camera. But if they have different features (even if features are removed) they have different value and so they can charge different prices for them)

Yes. EF-S lenses have an EF mount. As far as the mount, the connection and the protocol there is no difference whatsoever. The only difference is that ef-s zoom lenses rear element extends back past the mount when in its widest position and therfore the lens has a black thing that pokes out even further to protect it. This isn't an issue in apsc dslrs because of the smaller mirror. Third party apsc lenses are not ef-s so can be mounted on full frame DSLRs without risk of damage. But they only have aps-c coverage obviously. whether this is because canon have 'Locked down' the rights to ef-s I don't know. But it makes no difference anyway. As for whether an EF-s lens with sticky out thing at the back will work with this speed booster, I know that it has been STATED that it won't work. but I would like to know whether it has been TESTED.

Have you tried an ef-s lens with the booster yourself? The 18-55mm kit lens for example?

Your footage definitely goes with the music which has a genuine late 90s trance feel (which I guess makes sense with Paul van dyke). Although I liked the music and the video I can't help but feel that they cannibalized your work a bit. It's non of my business but I hope that this was done with your full prior permission and that you were paid well considering what they would have had to pay someone to go out and shoot all this stuff so well. The fact they edited it makes no difference. The editing was a little loose and could have been more coherent. It was likely thrown together very quickly, so I hope that wasn't used to try and circumnavigate this being your video. Anyway. Very cool, and its a good track, so I hope it brings you recognition.

Reason number 0 (because it's more important than 1) : Olympus has NEVER had good video, and WILL never have good video. Neither will fuji, samsung, leica or pentax. Always automatically discount them as even being interesting to look at for video purposes. If a miracle happens you will find out about it anyway. But it wont.

You increase the light per area but not the total light energy, so Apsc+speed booster at iso 800 will have the same noise as full frame at iso 1600. However as I said you may get a slight improvement in dynamic range since dynamic range is generally greater at lower iso's. Because most people talking about low light performance are talking about noise, and relating to my previous point: the exact same thing can be achieved by raising the ISO on full frame. Same brightness, same noise. It doesn't mean people cant do it though. I will enjoy seeing how it works out.

This isn't like installing a turbo, its like installing an overdrive and then driving in second gear, you have achieved nothing. At least not in the way you thought you did. You gain a stop in exposure, but you also gain a stop of noise for every given ISO so that evens out. You may, however, get a higher exposure at a given dynamic range. In terms of depth of field you are exactly were you started. If you think you gain depth of field with a speed booster you are simply mistaken in how it works. What advantage this may have is that the rolling shutter may be less in apsc crop than full frame due to less sensor needing to be read. But this remains to be seen and it also remains to be seen what differences in quality between the modes will be. Its an interesting idea though, and it will probably be a good way of comparing the crop modes.

I think your guess of what the quality will be like is a good one. It will possibly be no better than the 4k that appears in their phones. And even if it does happen to be good quality, we are unlikely to see any usability functions like peaking or zebras etc. Sony and Panasonic have moved forward with this kind of thing but the other companies have done very little.

4k reduced to 1080p is so much better in terms of detail and lack of artifacts on the GH4 that there is no point shooting 1080p anyway. All I gives more accurate temporal samples, but any one frame might have more compression because there are more frames to encode.

The examples you provide of cinematographers who use deep focus are good ones. Nobody is saying they aren’t great. And no-one is saying that deep focus is not a great look. But to say a cinematographer who uses selective focus is not great because they use it is just strange. I can’t see the basis of the argument. There are plenty of selective focus shots in the godfather, among deep focus. Typically selective focus for the closeups and mid shots and deep focus for the wide shots. Do you think that the godfather has gimmicky cinematography? What is wrong with the director or dp indicating where the viewer should look with focus? How is it any different to lighting the scene with different intensities that may attract the eye, or compositional elements that direct the eye, or zoom shots that hone in on a particular element that the director deems relevant? I take exception to the word gimmick. It seems to come from a place of pomposity, as if you feel that shallow depth of field has somehow less artistic integrity. If you were to say that you personally prefer deep focus I would have no quarrel, but you are making absolute statements that shallow focus is a gimmick used by non-great dps. What definition of the word gimmick are you using? Definitions I have found are: "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade." Can the inherent characteristics of an optical system be considered a trick? Apart from when the 5dii first came out, I can’t see it attracting attention in of itself. A film shot with fast primes on a 5d3 might be more appealing to a client than a film shot on a camcorder, but I would argue it is because the image is more visually attractive, not because it is attention grabbing. Wikipedia describes it: " a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries." Since everyone is doing shallow depth of field now, how is using it standing out from ones contemporaries. In fact, one could suggest that deep focus achieves this definition more closely. didn’t citizen cane stand out for this reason. Though I would never call deep focus it a gimmick. Perhaps the word you mean is crutch or substitute. That people use shallow depth of field as a crutch to make up for a lack of other things (although they may be unaware of what is lacking). Probably in many cases with amateur film making this is true. But it doesn’t follow that a great photographer should never use selective focus. I happen to find that the varying focus through a scene can have a lot of beauty. Let’s not forget that it isn’t a case of either f1.4 or f22. There is a whole range in between. Those that think f8 provides deep focus are mistaken. Even the slightest of background blur is visible and has an effect on the dimensional quality of the image. Even the easy rider example you gave had the background out of focus in certain shots. I see depth of field as a parameter: too little can be detrimental in certain situations and too much can be detrimental in others.

Do you actually believe that? meaning,is it a hypothesis that you have thought about for some time and are sure about? or is it something you have just pulled out of your ass in the last half an hour? It sounds like the latter. Deep focus is certainly a look that you can decide to go for and works well in a lot of cases. But to suggest that every single shallow depth of field shot or photograph in the world ever is to mask bad framing, bad lighting and cheap ugly backgrounds is patently ridiculous. As for anamorphic. If you are shooting deep focus there is not much point. Anamorphic is primarily to preserve resolution, but with 4k you have more than enough to just crop.

Many people wont be using the raw hack on the 5d3 either, in which case dont even bother because it looses hands down, Period! (to use your word). The 5d3 in raw is utilising it to the utmost of its ability, so the GH4 should be utilised to the utmost of its ability for a fair comparison. In this example the speed booster does not give the GH4 an advantage because the lens on it is at 1.8 vs the 1.2 on the 5d3. The speed booster merely equalises them. The 5d has a larger sensor size, but not all of its sensor is read during raw video mode: possibly only 2 of its 22 megapixels, where as the gh4 uses every pixel in 4k crop mode, so the comparison isn't simple. Its physics that pi is 3 if you measure it wrong. I'm not saying that the 5d3 isn't better in low light but your arguments are unsound and your tone is pretty douchey.

For the neumanfilms comparison the Epic and 5d3 looked out of focus. He says in the comments he was focused as good as possible, but he doesn't say on what object so I don't believe they were. So that particular video is useless as far as a comparison. As for Andrew's, the shots really do match together quite well. Obviously more detail in the GH4 so I think it would be superior for documentaries. There are a few shots where the 5d3 seemed to have a little bit more dynamic range, but not by much at all. I guess the best person to make the comparison is the person grading the footage. Which camera can get to the image you want the easiest and most reliably, that is the only way do decide because in this test the images are equal.

I'd have given up in that temperature way before the camera ever did.

It should work. If the bmcc speed booster does reduce by 0.64x, then the cinema 4k crop factor actually works out at 1.59. Ultra HD works out at 1.67. Diagonals of 27.16mm and and 25.84mm respectively, where the diagonal for nikon/sony apsc is 28.3mm. But as it sounds like it could fuck up your shutter It would be best sticking with the normal speed booster which shouldn't even vignette in 1080p video mode (but will in stills mode).

I have a 550d and it is a great first dslr. Canon to me do have a good look with good colours. It has the advantage of phase detect focus for stills (as long as you only use the center focus point and use the focus and reframe technique). But I wouldn't describe it as a small and compact camera. It's compact in the sense that you can carry it round with one hand, but compared to the GM1 it is humongous. You will end up taking the GM1 out more because it is smaller. You may want to look at the EOS M. Its bigger than the GM1 but more compact than a dslr but with practically the same canon sensor. The 22mm lens is also really compact and sharp. Whatever you get make sure you shoot raw for stills. The video on the canons - while having a good overall look - wont be as detailed as the GM1 and may have more aliasing. Overall it will probably an idea to look at what kind of lenses you will want and look at the systems as a whole comparing size, weight, functionality and price.

Isn't 24hz in cinema 4k mode EXACTLY 24hz instead of 23.976? I'm pretty sure it is. It's because it actually conforms with the digital cinema standard. In ultra-hd mode it says 24p but it will actually be 23.976 which is needed for perfect three-two pulldown to 29.97 for NTSC. The easiest thing will be to conform to a 23.976 timeline if possible. This will only slow the speed down by 0.1% so will be imperceptible. The audio will drift short a millisecond every second. So it might start to look out of sync after maybe a 50 second shot or so. But if that's a problem we can just shoot UHD.

The GH2 always looked video-like to me.

For most people this is still a new and confusing thing. Though I know you have mentioned this many times in the past. I remember seeing some of those old discussions and not fully understanding it all. In fact I was thinking of starting a thread with some of my questions. But before I do that I will have a read of the old threads, so thanks for providing convenient links for those.