richg101

with each firmware downloaded they should take a postal address and send the user a little red sticker with a 'C' on it to stick onto their camera body...

​I'm not really interested in the post side of things with motion. I'll do this sort of processing on stills if I feel there is a need but clever masking etc in the computer domain doesnt really interest me. I'd more likely just not put a window in frame if it blows out. What would a powermask do that a layer of nd4 film wouldnt?

every scene in this incredible looking movie will have been lit to accommodate for the film dynamic range. The lighting/power and associated transport will have cost more to rent than the camera and film costs. Setting up/lighting the scenes will have taken 20 times longer than shooting the scenes that made it into the movie. each scene will have looked flat and dull compared to the actual end results. i'm about to invest in some arri lighting. assuming I have 1 stop less dr on a camera, I'll light the darker areas so they're exposed 1 stop brighter to compensate. dynamic range in the context of discussion on this site generally relates to its importance when shooting in natural light. If i can't afford to add fill to a dark area, or mask windows with nd, an extra stop or 2 is going to help me out. getting a smooth image in a fast paced documentary shooting environment is a valuable asset the added dr affords.

Opening a can of worms.... The full frame look comes from the ability to shoot with longer lenses while maintaining the same field of view. Longer lenses have a shallower dof. longer slower lenses also tend to be lower distortion and sharper than wider faster lenses so the 3d pop is pronounced. shoot gh4 and you need a 25mm f1.4 to get the same look as a cheap 50mm f2 on full frame. however the 50mm will always outdo the 25mm. Nearly all users of smaller sensors who haven't used bigger sensors will argue this fact, claiming shallow dof isnt important, yet will always get excited by a fast wide lens that gives them the ability to get the shallow dof if they want it. If shallow dof and wide fov's are top priority a full frame sensor will save you money on lens purchases at the moment. the ability of smaller sensors being able to match the look depends on how many more advances there are in lens making technology. lens tech is slower than sensor tech at the moment and the thought of paying huge amounts for a small format 25mm f1.4 in order to obtain a basic 50mm/f2 look seems like madness to me.

​ If I were a lens tech / equipment procurer for a rental house in LA I'd see no problems hitting buy it now on some of the higher prices if it means i can just buy it and have it in a few days for a client that I know would rent it, then have it in stock for future clients looking for something different. nothing else does what an iscorama can do, and for the price of a single crappy boring compact prime (a budget lens for rental to film school final productions) the iscorama is a rather amazing item. The rental houses are dictating the buy it now prices. the guys with enough time to sit at the computer and snipe are the ones who get the irregular bargains. People are paying silly prices, but probably paying with a company credit card knowing 10 days of hire will pay for the lens outright.

The little helios44-2, - personaly favourite taking lens, modified with a focus lock. with the isco 36 standard it's a lovely combo for full frame. 58mm but nearly at 50mm. a 1.5x oval f2.8 or a 2x oval f3.5 fixed aperture really adds to the oval distortion and sharpens things up too!

the pins on the metabones adaptors are too long and short circuit on a lot of lenses. The particular short seems to affect the way the metabones adaptors communicate with the camera. use a bit of pvc electrical insulation tape over the back of the lens to stop the electrical contact being made.

no comments about the imagery other than that it looks beautiful. Biggest feeling i got is that my need for a dog got greater. those champs are awesome!

Either the 1dc's sensor has taken steroids or the a7s is not delivering its advertised dynamic range. what was the a7s ev meter saying in spot mode on the highlight? I recon you could have slammed the a7s harder on the highlight without the information breaking up. maybe by as much as 1-2 stops harder. I'm finding my s-log footage is looking the best it has done after ragging it by +1 to +2 stops on the highlights. the zebras are useless on the a7s as is the metering when in s-log mode i am finding

​ Goodness me. the number of almost catastrophic slips this guy has due to poor manual dexterity and inappropriate tools is worrying. if attempting something like this I suggest using a shorter screwdriver and always keeping a thumb or forefinger over the tip of the screwdriver to stop it slipping. also a couple of layers of masking tape on the rear optic for protection cant be a bad thing.

I must re affirm that I know that pretty much any lens will deliver when closed to f8-f11, but what i mean is with regard to use of lenses when near their wide open aperture - which tends to be where I'm at most of the time. f2.8 or wider on full frame. Now the otus lenses will deliver the required resolution for a d800e or a7r 36mpx even at f2.8. but very few others do on paper. Is it resolution gains we're seeing or is it simply a placebo? If I shoot a landscape shot (36mpx still) on the a7r i'll be at f11 with a tripod and at f11 most lenses don;t quite deliver the required resolution. at f2.8 it's like mush.

During some number crunching regarding resolution I have found an interesting theory regarding how beneficial shooting at high resolution to downscale is when factoring in resolution gains if there are any. Mainly as to whether or not the Atomos Shogun is worthwhile to me over the in camera full hd of the A7S in order to gain resolution This primarily focuses on use of typical 36x24mm full frame glass when used wide open or stopped down slightly - generally the way large sensor cameras are used. Lets take the Helios 44-3. a 58mm f2 lens which is considered a great non nonsense normal focal length for full frame with a pretty typical level of resolution. it has a 40LP/MM resolution in the centre and a 20LP/MM resolution at the edges of a 36mm wide (full frame) frame. So at f-2 the lens will resolve 40+20 / 2 x 2 (average Lines per mm across the full width of the sensor) x 36 = 2160 pixels across the width of the frame, or around 2k. Use the same lens on aps-c and we use the equation 40+25 /2 x2 x 24 = 1560pixels across the width of an aps-c sensor (not even full HD!!) now, lets go to a GH4 in 4k mode. a 15mm sensor width:- 40+35 / 2 x 2 x 15 = 1125 pixels across the width of the sensor. - less than 720p! So with this in mind, what are people's thoughts on this subject? How many people actually have lenses capable of delivering 4k onto a full frame sensor, let alone on a gh4 in 4k crop mode. Is the benefit of shooting 4k simply a way of achieving less in camera downscaling artefacts and more colour information? Are most of those shooting 4k actually gaining any resolution advantage when using typical lenses?

i think if i had the dispensable 5k£ I'd have got one too. in combination with an 85 or 135 L lens. bomb proof dslr that will survive out in the rain all day every day, that also shoots 4k or beautiful 1080p straight to card. if only the viewfinder was an EVF with punch in capability!

​ wonderful.

​up until recently the argument has always been that using a crop sensor on a lens designed for a bigger format is advantageous due to the fact that a crop sensor uses the best portion of the image circle from the lens, cropping away any edge problems that might have been visible on the original larger frame size. However since we're now seeing crop sensors with very high mpx counts it's important to factor in LP/mm ratings (if obtaining the most from your high mpx count is important to you). a really good piece about the value of LP/mm ratings is this:- https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf This pdf refers to high resolution medium format lenses vs large format lenses, but the theories translate into our discussion.

looks like 'Real anamorphic'. Like real lenses shotting on 4 perf 35mm film. the locations are wonderful. And the weight of the entire rig appears to be translating into a rather solid look to the handheld shooting.

​i was not talking about a m4/3 to m4/3 speed booster. I thought it was a given that a speed booster needs to be adapting from m4/3 to an SLR mount like Contax/Yashica. the reason I brought up the speed booster + contax 50 is that the thread starter suggested the 45mm f2 contax g lens (reputed to be one of the finest resolving lenses within an accessible price range. the problem is, the g series does not allow use of a speed booster and thus wont allow any gain in resolution from the process of focal reduction. ​generally the best option is to get a m4/3 to ef mount speed booster. then adapt lenses to ef mount. SLR magic lenses tend to be native m4/3 lenses - usually based on other lenses but with additional optics sitting behind them to do focal reduction. ie. an slr magic 25mm lens for m4/3 will likely be a 50mm lens for full frame, with some optics on the back to make the image circle smaller, causing a focal reduction + a gain in speed. I suggest reading up on focal reducers and their purpose. TBH its not that any of your slr magic lenses lack the resolving power to deliver the 1080p signal the gh2 needs. even getting an otus wont show much of an improvement on the m4/3 sensor since 70% of it;s image circle is cropped away and lost.

for utmost resolution you wont really gain anything better than the slr magic lenses you currently own. particularly from 135mm format lenses like the contax g series. this is because the contax leses are designed to deliver their resolution onto a 35mm frame so you'll only be using a small proportion of that area. a good investment would be a speed booster since this will compress more of the optical capabilities of contax zeisses into the smaller area. -and will equal a higher resolving power onto your m4/3 sensor. the resolution benefits depend on the quality of the optics in the speed booster so I would suggest waiting for the ultra version in m4/3. this in combination with a zeiss 50mm f1.4 will outdo the contax G 45mm in resolution terms, and will allow you to run at f2.8 rather than wide open for the same light transmittance and with a slightly wider fov than the 45mm on its own. £1000 should just about buy a 50mm f1.4 contax and a speed booster ultra..

​it's only the ef-pl adaptors that have limitations. a m4/3 to pl adaptor will be fine

I think it might be wise to understand the model of focal reducer that is being used. if of a split pin type retainer it could be that the split pins are just opened up too much and should get looser as you use it. personally before getting the dremel or emery cloth out, I would remove the speed booster from the camera and give the two a bit of force attach then remove a few times. remving the camera from the equation means the actual camera isnt being subjected to stress.

​i'm afraid its not really the mirror that causes the main problem. It's more the fact that the actual barrel of the lens (the stainless part after the 4 notched ears) is too deep and thus prevents the lens from seating into the pl port on the ef-pl adaptors - there is a step on the inside of ef adaptors which means the actual PL mount of the lens needs to be short. also I'm pretty sure some of the PL mount 35mm format supers are simply the same lenses as 3 blade the rollei versions with a small amount of focal reduction optics on the back (to shrink the circle from Full frame 36x24 down to s35 (24x15) - gaining speed. these rear optics seat very deep into the pl port so would hit the speed booster optic. Unfortunately the 50mm f1.4 is 7 blade with no option for a 3 blade. there are some 35mm f1.4's with 3 blades. most of the 85mm's are 3 blade. I actually mod contax zeisses (35, 50 and 85) with a fixed triangular aperture (new fixed aperture can be from f2 and smaller) to give the superspeed look to great effect. I wouldn't do it to rolleis because i have too much respect for their heritage!

i prefer 135mm instead of 150. but 50, 85 and 135 are the best IMO

95% of pl lenses wont work on ef-pl adaptors unfortunately. your best bet to get the superspeed look would be to go for early rollei f1.4's adapted to ef mount.

wonderful images. Personally I think just about any camera would deliver lush things with that 135mm f2 you used on some of the key shots in combination with your photographic skills. That oversampled sensor is capturing wonderful levels of detail and colour.