lafilm

Leeys - Really, very little SA on the 35-100?

Have not used the A7s yet, but I have used the 1D C. Yes, it's heavy, cumbersome, and does not have peaking/zebras…and file sizes are huge. However, the image (Canon Log) is stunning. I've seen it on 75 foot screens in Hollywood. It's brilliant with very little color correction needed. The 1D C image will hold up 50 years from now. It's really that good. No exaggeration. A lot of 'regular' people in the audience thought they were watching a film that had been shot on 35mm film. We can bitch about the price of the cam $ all we want, but the puppy delivers the goods when you view it. Somehow Canon engineers sold their souls to the devil. They're just the best at color science. (skin tones/that 'x' factor) Period. It's voodoo man. That being sad, Andrew is correct, the A7s is lighter, has more video functions, and will be much easier to use. Better in low light, yes, although I shot 12,800 on buddy's short film on the 1D C and it looked amazing. (with minor noise reduction). The image from A7s will not look as good as the 1D C right out of the gate. It will require much more post work. The 1D C is all built like a tank (you can shoot with it in a hurricane) and is the best stills camera that has ever been made (still is). Over 80% of photogs at the Olympics were using it. (or the 1D X). The Super 35 mode on 1D C looks ZERO difference from the Canon C300. Try and figure that on a side to side test. Impossible. If the 1D C had been sold for $5 grand out of the gate, every indie filmmaker would already own one. (indie films from last 2 years would look better) And they would not have complained at all. The price is what soured the community on the 1D C, not the image. If you shoot at least 50% stills for a living, or you shoot films with a small crew, than the 1D C is still your best bet for DSLR video. If you are budget strapped, are basically a 1 man show, than of course the A7 s will work - even though the rolling shutter is the worst I think I've ever seen from any cam. I will say this: Canon is absolutely ridiculous for not putting basic video functions on the 1D C from its inception, however. You can bet the 1D C part 2 will have that - and will still have that 'voodoo'. My 2 cents.

Yes..Autofocus..very true.

Thank you.

The $10,000 sale price for the 1 DC is over. The cam is now back up to $12,000 (US). The sale lasted for 3 months.

Aaron..are you saying the camera will give you a line on top..so you would mask with tape the bottom line crop (to match the top) for 2:35 guidelines?

The Voigtlander 0.95 is actually $600 dollars cheaper, than the Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2. However, the Leica has OIS and is lighter.

Hmmm…interesting. Thanks for the Link.. Maybe someone who has shot a short film (Andrew) possibly would know for 100% certain? On another forum two guys are debating if the GH4 has this feature, but neither one has the camera! Hopefully someone on EOSHD will be able to confirm yes or no.

LOL - You are correct, sir..nothing like doing things the classic way. Thanks again for looking and posting!

Anyone have any experience with this?

Rolling shutter looked worse than expected in this new test:

Heliopan is much superior in my opinion. More expensive but worth it in the long run.

Nothing can compare at the price point. So..yes.

Does anyone know if the GH4 has 2:35 aspect ratio guidelines? Similar to the one you can enable on a Canon C100. Would be nice to not have to add a Small HD monitor for once. 2:35 aspect ratio is great because of it's cinematic composition. Thanks in advance.

"Engineering samples and prototypes exist. If that is fiction then maybe there's a bit of HAL floating about in space?"   LOL :D

Andrew,   Info on Anamorphic D16 from JR:   http://www.digitalbolex.com/forum/lenses-and-accessories/anamorphic/#p2233

Obviously, any narrative piece of filmmaking intended for a theatrical audience will (should) hire a professional sound man.   The D16 will be a reality this year and you'll see features shot on this by end of 2013. It's been done multiple times on the 5D2, it will certaily happen on the D16.

I do hope you get the Ikonoskop back for more tests. Seems if it came down in price it could give BMCC a real run for it's money. The little bit I've seen looks damn good. Perhaps the closest digital to film look.   Thanks for the update.

Nice shots, Andrew.   It seems (maybe NAB?) there will be a competive 4K DSLR or some sort of handycam (better than the Pani) that will feature slow mo as well. I would agree to wait. Nice rental item though for selective shots.   Btw, hopefully someone didn't steal your hardrive and take off with your Ikonoskop footage. :o

Not bitter, and your post made me laugh :D

@BurnetRhoades   I am 100% correct. It's not a sharp. Period. As for those films you mentioned shot on 16mm film with very nice budgets and a full 100 man + crew - yes, there are exceptions to every rule.   It's not the norm...and for the peeps ordering their BMMC for indie films to shoot for nothing and hire their friends and local actors...so be it. Let me know when they are nominated for Oscars or win Sundance. Thanks, chief.   And yes, wide angles on the BMCC are a bitch. If you want to add the adpater fine, but it will not be as sharp. And not full frame. Simple physics.  

Barrel distortion and not as sharp.   Still a great product, but this hurts being used on narrative film.   Doc users will be all over this. Maybe BMCC users as well because they are in dyer need of wide. I don't think F5 or F55 users would touch this if given for free.

Andrew,   This sounds almost too good to be true..Amazing! This changes everything.

If this does not compromise the image quality in any way then yes, it is revolutionary. Thanks for the post.

Any short films out there?