richg101

around 600gbp a day for the big boys from what i recall.

Lets keep this for the best of the best morph productions. No 'anamorphic tests' allowed (unless artistically beautiful or with a degree of creativity imparted on the production) I'll start:- https://vimeo.com/39345280 (Red and lomo's) Can you beat it?

hahaha. I'm not very skilled at machining. but I do as best I can. Mr Bodge Job:) It is a case of popping in to a local place that happens to do certain things similar. IE, a wood yard will be happy to charge to cut some pieces of wood to make a jig the same size as the lomo. then you just stick them together with some g clamps. the jig will be the most important part. ebay will sell all the rest. offcut aluminium bar, grubscrews, neoprene and felt sheet, large hacksaw, tap and die sets. Expect to spend 100$ on everything, and a day to do the work, then you will have tools and learned skills to make other similar stuff as and when required. I think when using very exotic lenses as the lomo's are, you need to be able to make your own stuff. there just isnt enough of a customer base for companies to make them in mass. being a lomo man.. https://vimeo.com/39345280 - shot on lomos and red epic

vg20? clean hdmi output 4:2:2 Maybe you get one without a lens for £1000 in a few months when they release new model

Nice topic. I think the 15mm, 25mm and 35mm f2.8 contax zeiss distagons would be a nice 3 lens set for the bmc camera too. granted the 15mm costs almost as much as the camera, but hopefully the hire companies will acquire such lenses with intention of hiring as a set specifically as a cost effective set for the bmc.

The BBC have just made hire acquisition of 20! C300's for use as b cams in the next series of Strictly Come Dancing (god knows why, but this is the most popular show on tv in the UK). The production of this show is very high. a priority for the BBC for sure.

just to add in... very few people who hire even an F3 package actually use S-Log. Very few want external recording when making pilots - 90% of what any of us can ever dream of! they are happy with the 35mb/s in cam recording. This will be about half the price of an f3 to hire, and is more user friendly for lower budget film makers. I bet a set of these on a hire list will make lots of money. Canon will lease these out at 0% interest for big orders and the big hire firms will make 10 times the initial outlay in just 1 year.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/18719/503f4d765140e_Untitled1.jpg[/img] forgive the crude drawing. so you would bend a piece of aluminium offcut around the lomo (or a wooden jig the same size ideally). 3mm would be think enough for the rigidity but wouldnt be too hard to bend. use another piece of the offcut on the underside to bridge the gap where the two ends meet - bolt them toghether using a countersunk bolt from the inside. drill and tap it so you can tighten it around the lomo using grubscrews. or, line the inside with neoprene sheet so it slides on snug. once assembled, slide back onto the jig and use a hacksaw to cut the slots for your nd's. make the slots wide enough so you can line them with sticky back felt sheet to stop the nd's being scratched as they are slotted in and out. use more layers of felt so the nd's are held tightly in place when in use. I am sure this idea could be reworked, but this is what I would do. ebay will ahve offcuts of flat aluminium bar. if you wanted it black, just rough up the surface using 320 grit sandpaper and use a enamel black paint,

[quote name='jgharding' timestamp='1346320047' post='16937'] If you're shooting on a corporate gig though, C100 with easy to use compact form factor and little files that look good enough will be perfect. It's just easier than spending money and time building a massive rig to get RAW capture, which makes workflow into a pig and the client probably won't notice anyway. If I were making a short or a feature or a series I'd be quite tempted to BMD, but for a huge amount of those making a reguolar living out of video this C100 is gonna be a very attractive product. They're just made for different markets. I still hate 24mnbps AVC though :rolleyes: [/quote] I agree. This will be seen handheld a lot more than the fs100/700. We'll see it being used by high profile music event doc work alongside c300 no doubt. the 24mbps will be fine if the way it is implemented is done well. as it is with the fs100

[quote name='QuickHitRecord' timestamp='1344010724' post='14917'] An e-mail that I sent last night: ___________________________ [size=3][i]Dear SmallHD,[/i][/size] [size=3][i]I am a big fan of your products. You seem like a company that thrives on innovation, so here is a measure of functionality that I'd like to suggest that no other monitor company offers (as far as I know): When you put out the upcoming firmware update with improved anamorphic functionality, please consider adding an option that "crops" a 3.55:1 image to 2.66:1 (perhaps similar to the 'pixel to pixel' mode). Many of the anamorphic lenses on the market today have a 2x stretch factor, which is simply too wide for most applications. By offering the crop mode that I am suggesting, a shooter would still be shooting in 2x, but able to view 1.5x easily and in more detail, and then he could crop when importing and never even have to deal with the unwanted pixels! This would be a godsend for anamorphic shooters. I know that your company could make this happen, and I truly hope that you do! Regards, Nick[/i][/size] And their response: __________________ [size=3][i]I will pass that along to the firmware team for you, it does sound like a cool feature. [/i][/size] [size=3][i]Thanks[/i][/size] [size=3][i]Dave[/i][/size] [/quote] Nice work man:) i think a custom zoom feature in general would be good. to allow custom framing without using masking tape ie. if you wanted to zoom into a de-squeezed 1.5x anamorphic image (2.66:1) in order to see a 1.33x (2.35:1) cropping off the edges by zooming in. I have to say. it is hard enough getting focus bang on with a wide angle and anamorphic attachment (21mm on the width for my setup) even while using the full surface area on my 5" screen. a desqueeze would hinder me while acquiring footage, but would be nice on a larger additional monitor for showing a director who wants to see the final aspect ratio on set.

I really like the look of this new camera. C300 was too expensive IMO. This should fill a nice gap. BUT. It dawned on me that Canon might soon unveil their 7D mk2. What is the likelihood that they happen to be moving to Avchd on their upcoming hdslr's and they decided to 'rehouse' this new 7d into the c100 form to add perceived value to film makers? will the 7D mk2 not have the same image quality or will they use a different sensor data acquisition as they do on the c300 before the compression is applied? Based on their strategy with the 1DX and 1DC (9000$ price difference but not much difference in technical terms), will there also be a similar 7Dmk2 and C100 situation with the 7dmk2 being $3500 cheaper? I'm not trying to play devils advocate. just interested to see a reason for canon to release this product considering you can now get 2 fs100's for the price of a c100. Are low sales figures? of the c300 prompting a rethink?

Looks lovely. great form factor - IMO an fs100/fs700 beater in this respect. i'd imagine if the sensor readout management is the same as the c300 it wont matter about the avchd.

wow. that dvx thred is full of angry little men.

nice. I know the stuff. i rmember when i first came into contact with ti. velcro on steroids!

nice idea of using the velcro style stuff for diopter mounting. is that th stuff like lots of mini mushrooms which bite into eachother?

manual focs primes from olympus, nikon, canon, conatx zeiss etc. all can be used on the gh2 and are really good for video due to their smooth focus rings

hahahaha. I'd stay well away from that cinematics junk. they are selling you this:-http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pentax-M-SMC-50mm-f-1-7-Prime-Lens-Film-Digital-EOS-NX-M4-3-4-3-Nikon-Sony-/280948796265?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item4169da6b69#ht_1786wt_1348 (36£) with some cheap chinese plastic around it to make it look like a cp2. then charging you $500! rip off. at least your canon ef 50mm f1.4 will have resale value. there is no point in that cinematics lens unless they offer an 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm to match. if the cheap 50mm lens costs $500, the 18mm (if there is one in pentax) will be about $3000 or more at that inflation rate. A classic example of a chinese company entering a market they know nothing about. making a product look like something else is unfair. I can think of a lot better lenses to rehouse. why go to the effort if you are not going to create a full set? you wouldnt hire a single 50mm zeiss cp2. the whole point is that they are all matched in the range

Dan Chung seems like a really good down to earth, 'nitty gritty' type guy. I like his interview style. never too optimistic, never worried about being honest and straight to the point. Seems like he gets a lot of good and honest info out of these guys.

very nice. you did very well for $1200 all in. looks very good. nice location. nice makeup and costume. nice shooting, and nice editing. id love to see it a little less saturated. same color palette but less actual saturation. If I saw this trailer in the cinema, with slightly better graphic design and maybe a re edit of your edit by a pro trailer editor I recon this would pass for a big screen worthy piece. Also, the music was good but a little cliche. sometimes less is more in creating that feeling of isolation from the outside 'safe' world.

[quote name='septemberdawn' timestamp='1345764523' post='16347'] In Premiere CS6, what are the advantages of using the aforementioned techniques as opposed to importing anamorphic footage into the clip 'bin' > right-clicking the clip > Modify > Interpret Footage > Selecting 'Conform to' and choosing an appropriate anamorphic format? [/quote] I dont think there are any. but assuming the modify clip didnt have the specific stretch preset this would be how you could do the stretch. I have not tested this, but if you set your timeline to 16:9 and then apply an 1.33x modify to your clip, then drag the clip into the timeline I wonder if the clip will then modify the timetine in a stretch to the horizontal, or a squeeze to the vertical? ( you get a window appearing saying "would you like to modify your timeline to match the clip".

You can import up to 15 seconds of jpegs into photoshop within the 'animation' mode. Opening up the amazing power of image post processing within photoshop. far superior to most other grading techniques. the rgb curves in photoshop seems nicer to use than those in premiere. the change from 30p to 24p will have a slight smoothing result to the footage without making it look very 'slow-mo'. it adds a degree of weight to some types of footage. Check out footage from the OM-D, shot at 30p and changed to 24p. when you add the amazing image stabilisation into the equation the footage looks really amazing.

thank EOSHD's anamorphic topics. It was this that made it apparent about the downsizing adding a perceived sharpness to the vertical plane

imo it is better to set your project to 1080 tall. and multiply your width by 1.5x. then when you go to export it out it automaticlly fits it into your frame. then at a later date if you wanted to export it out at a full 1080 tall (the the respective stretched horizontal you will maintain greater detail for playback on screens and projectors surpassing 1080p... this is especially the case with the GH2 which really is a lot sharper than the 5d etc. the 5d benefits from the downsize because it squeezes more fluffy detail (fluffy 1080 tall) into a smaller 720tall area. this gives perceived sharpeness increase when watched on a smaller screen with scaling enabled.

i checked myself. the bottom choice does actually say 1.5x dv pal or something doesnt it. maybe do some more research on that. for now, horizontally stretch each clip by 150% in the motion section of effect controls.

I think their footage has the edge over the BMDCC due to the subject and the colorist more than the dof and image quality differences. BMD need to give their camera to a real artist because i felt the subjects shot on the bmd so far are boring to look at.