galenb

[quote name='riogrande100' timestamp='1353010111' post='21708'] Andrew great review on the camera, but your OS review is extremely poor!!!! Windows PCs are far better then people give them credit for. There is a reason many enterprises use Windows OS, and not OSX! [/quote] Maybe so but there is also a reason Mac sales are growing while the rest of Windows PC market has been pretty flat. Just say'n.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1353022398' post='21723'] This would be a good idea, though each lens would probably be about £4000 so not accessible to most. But if they did, I bet the hire firms would take them on as hire stock. if the hire cost for a 35, 50 and 85 were the same as a set of 3 zeiss cp2's, every proper indi film could be shot in morph if required. A popular hire package in this market is the sony f3 and the cp2 package. I'd certainly hire a set of slr magic morph primes instead of the cp2's to run on a s-log f3 for a indi feature film. [/quote] Good point. I would not be interested in buying all new lenses that's for sure. I don't really know enough about anamorphic lenses to make any kind educated suggestion. What I know about them scares me to tell you the truth. 3 meter minimum focal distance, weird couplings, diopters, and, oh god, dual focus system?! Not to mention, the Massive/long lens tube sticking off the end of your lens coming out of a tiny camera looks ridiculous to me. No thanks. The results are amazing and I'm totally jealous of those who can afford to shoot that way but honestly, the only way I would consider this is if it was some kind of simple attachment that I could stick on the end of my existing lenses and didn't cost over $1000. But seriously, no dual focus. This might be just my ignorance but what's wrong with the LA7200? It seems like it would work a lot better then all these goofy projector lenses? One thing I can say for sure is that I'm all for the 2X squeeze. I don't see the point in anamorphic lenses unless you really feel it. A lot of the 2.33 footage lacks that really wide screen Cinescope feeling. If I was going to buy an anamorphic lens, I would want it to be as wide as possible.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1352986951' post='21686'] Is that what [i]consumers [/i]really want? We, a bunch of enthusiasts on a very specific video oriented forum, aren't very representative of the market. It's easier to market a list of new features (like wifi) to the big public than a better codec. A bunch of new features doesn't cannibalize your own products. An amazing video optimized canon dslr is kinda out of the question now with their cinema line. 'We' shouldn't expect much from such companies. The big ones play it safe, aim at the mass market, the big numbers, thats where the money is, not in the niche of us filmmakers. Nikon with their consumer oriented mirrorless system, small sensor so it doesn't cut into their dslr market too much. Canon goes kind of the same way, don't expect a high end mirrorless camera anytime soon from them. The only big company that doesn't care much about cannibalisation is Sony. And they are smart not to care, because if they don't cannibalize their own stuff, someone else will. But that might be mainly because Sony is relatively new in the dslr/photography market. People who've been with Canon or Nikon for many years are stubborn and not very likely to switch. Yes. It would have been. And all the photographers who don't care about video would have been complaining about the premium price for all this video stuff they don't need. Even if the extra's come in a grip there would have been R&D costs, the processor has to be more powerfull etc... [/quote] I totally agree. You know, I'll bet digital cinematographers only equate to something like %1-2 of the DSLR market. I'm sure Panasonic, Sony and Canon are aware of us but I'm also sure our needs barely even register on their scopes. I think it's more about hype and bragging rights then anything else. "Our cameras where used to shoot the hit TV show..." I bet that the GH1-GH2 being a more video centric camera has more to do with Panasonic's history with video cameras than them seeing some sort of untapped market. And if you think about it, the GH3 being more photography centric makes perfect sense. Panasonic, being a video company, had yet to prove themselves able to really compete in the DSLR market. They needed a camera like this to compete with Canon and Nikon. I just wish they had done it with the regular G series instead of the GH. I'm sure digital cinematography is growing and I'm sure we will see progress but I wouldn't expect it to be in leaps and bounds any time soon. If anything the progress of HDSLR's is probably just a way for them to try and get us interested in their higher end cinema products. If you think about it, it seem more logical that a large camera company would want us to start buying their more expensive products, not DSLRs. With cameras like the C300, because of its price, Canon only need to sell a few of these a month as opposed to the DSLR market where they need to sell thousands. If they can drive us up market, it means a lot more money then keeping is in the prosumer market. Money is always the motivator. People who are trying to save money, especially Budget filmmakers, aren't going to sustain a camera company like Canon or Panasonic.

Yes, the physical sensor size doesn't have anything to do with this. Just the megapixel count. Well, really it's all about the size of the raw image coming off the sensor. The only time I mentioned large sensors was at the start when I said that, "[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]most large sensor, high mega pixel cameras have issues with moire.[/font][/color]" If you take the raw image from the sensor at say, 16 MP (I thought the GH2 was 16 MP btw?), in order the downsample it by way of averaging, you need to either have a hardware chip that does the averaging or do it in software. Either way, this is a CPU/chip task. The sensor only acquires the image and sends it along to the image processor. Maybe you are thinking of how, when line skipping they can choose to read every other line from the sensor to reduce the data throughput? Anyway, if they are line skipping, chances are high that they don't have enough horsepower to average pixels and that's all I'm talking about. The higher the megapixel count, the larger the image, the more processor intensive it is the downsample, and the higher the data throughput will be. All of this culminates to make a bad situation for turning the images into frames of video.

[quote name='hmcindie' timestamp='1352808211' post='21550'] I'm gonna have to slightly agree with the assessment of the Alexa. Have you guys noticed how a lot of tv-series look very much alike nowadays? Yup, that's Alexa for you. Also I disagree with a lot of these "hyped up" great looking shows. Game of Thrones. Shot on Alexa. Every damn review site claims it looks great. To me? Very average. You can see exactly how each shot is lit. Half of everything is done on a studio stage. No character, no persona. And every show is starting to look 100% the same. It's a great cam but people are using it completely alike. [/quote] I totally agree that all these shows look the same and very boring. However I'm certain that this has nothing to do with the Alexa an everything to do with the DP and Colorist. Also, a lot of these shows are shot with an extremely low budget so I wouldn't hold it against them. and don't forget there's also all the extreme color grading that goes on all the time now in Hollywood. I really don't think you can blame the Alexa for this. Not to mention that a lot of these shows are shot on red/F65/film/whatever and still look exactly the same to my eyes as well. I think it's just a "look trend" more then anything.

I've noticed that most large sensor, high mega pixel cameras have issues with moire. My theory is that when you have an image that large coming from the sensor, its not practical to down-sample by way of averaging. Esspecially if they are using a slow CPU to save money. I think most of them have to line skip (basically cutting the data in half so that it's a more manageable size) and then they can avarage pixels. Some of these cameras don't even do that last step and just give us the aliased image. So I think this is one of those things that will put photographers and videographers at odds. Photographers want more megapixels but this will almost always cause aliasing for videographers until CPUs are fast enough to avarage pixels down from 20-24 megapixels.

AWESOME! Thanks so much Julian! You are my hero. Yeah, I would be inclined to agree here as well. It does seem to produce a slightly more flat profile. Nothing like LOG what what do you expect? ;-)

Can we have a look Julian?

All this talk of Roger Deakins reminds me of my favorite thing I saw about him on the Wall-E DVD. Pixar hired him as a lighting adviser on the film to teach their Technical Directors how to light using more classic cinematography techniques. Until recently CGI lighting has been very difficult due to limitations of software and hardware. Now that software has advanced to allow full light simulation (or at least close enough) CG technical directors have to re-think how they light... So he starts out with a three point lighting setup and then moves on to adding fills and eye-lights and all these little specials and then starts flagging things off and really going crazy... Suddenly he stops and turns all the lights off and grabs and hand held light and shins it on the side of the subject's face and says something like, "Or you could just do something simple like this." He points out the subtle little things that get smoothed out the more light you add to the scene. His point was not to over-light and I thought it was a perfect illustration of something I've strived for for so many years. But I'm going up against the expectations of people who feel like, the more lights you use the more professional you are. Regardless of how the scene actually looks, a lot of times you get, "You have to have an eye-light!", or "There's no rim-light!" and so on. Even though, there is light reflected in the eyes from a window or the light is bouncing off the wall and rimming them just fine.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352461880' post='21388'] Mark said [b][i]'cannot be matched by grading unless you mask off and grade every single item with colour in it. This would be so expensive as to be impracticable. And is so random I cant see technology figuring out a way to do it at least not in the forseeable future.[/i][/b]' Mark this is easy to do I use this function all the time its essential to grading its called 'selective colour' even Photoshop has this function so you can do it on stills too. it lets to alter each individual colour or combination of colours to achieve the look and feel you are after. Try it its very very useful As a projectionist Axel has no doubt watched more film stocks than all of us put together , he knows his stuff!! I always find Axel's advise very useful. [/quote] There's also something called a color lookup table guys. ;-) Curves can give you this kind of control too with maybe more organic results. You can literally change any color to any other color in post. But to tell you the truth, I can understand what Mark is saying. Because really, that's a bunch of work we don't really want to have to mess with. I can see how sometimes you would just want to shoot something and not have to mess with it. There's a sort of trust that you are going to get the expected results when you shoot with film. I can understand that but I don't really think it's a big deal myself. It's kind of like the argument that Canon's color capture rendering is better then Panasonic. To some extent this is absolutely true. However, if you really needed to, you could get at the colors and change them (assuming they even get rendered as separate colors). It's just that it can be a lot of trouble.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1352453189' post='21378'] Reminds me of the true story of a 500 year old wine bottle (with a history appropriate for a TV series) that was auctioned for $200.000. The world's most expert wine lovers were invited. After the bottle was uncorked, the wine reacted with the oxygen in the air and turned into vinegar immediately. The testers said the first breath they took over the open bottle was of a very good bouquet. [/quote] Oh my god what an awesome story! I love it. I can imagine a story following that of one of the guests going to search the world for that illusive bouquet that he'll never have the chance to taste and how everything else is shit. Like the guy who searched for the mermaid after he saw her. He was convinced no woman could ever satisfy him from then on.

Wow, I'm shocked that there is someone out there that says they didn't like the look of the Alexa! :-) Everything that I've seen from it always amazes me personally. Oh, and a colorist who says they would rather grade a contrasty image? All very strange. [edit] Oh yeah, Great report Karim!

nope. The hack only needs to be on the card while the camera is loading it up. Afterwords, it can be deleted or you can just format the card. Don't format the card on your computer. [edit] LOL! Andy beat me to it!

I just hope Grant learns that it's better to just not give release dates until you have a finished product on the assembly line. It's fine to tell people about new products on the horizon, just no release dates. Even if it slips by a week, you'll have the crazies frothing at the mouth and causing all sorts of bad press (if there is such a thing as bad press). I love BMD and I've always had the greatest respect for any company that tries to produce pro-level equipment at consumer level prices. It's called democratization and it plays a key part in forcing the fat cats who sit on their asses to innovate. BlackMagic's main issue is that every time they set out to do something like this, you're taking a serious risk that they won't be able to produce. They probably hear it all the time, "You can't produce something like that at that price!" In order to make something that would normally cost thousands more, it means you have to find the cheapest way to produce it. That obviously means that you are going to have to cut corners or find components from other markets. Maybe even dealing with people/companies that may have less then stellar business practices. The sensors are sourced from a company that normally makes them for scientific imaging. They've never even made this sensor before. Grant said that normally it's a not even a color sensor! So it's a risk you have to be willing to take in the name of democratization and hopefully you'll profit from it in the end. Good luck Grant!

You can buy a crank separately if you like but in its not really needed. It fits into the square hole on the center of the knob of the follow focus. Here's some videos on Youtube of some various follow focuses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSS8Axp46KM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1M0c96DH6w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtTMYQvvU3I

Sorry, I don't want to mislead you, It's not a stabilizer like as in a steadycam. It presses up against your body and give you a more stable grip on the camera. It's meant to give you the most points of contact with your body in order to give you more stability and reduce camera shake when doing hand held work. Really, they call this a DSLR shoulder rig but since it doesn't have a part that goes over your shoulder, some people call it a chest stabilizer. The main reason I suggested the eye piece is that it's would add to increase the points of contact. So you'll have the camera touching your chest, hands, and head. The main function of the Eye piece though is essentially to magnify the back 3" display and make it into a viewfinder. So, it's not really a replacement for an external monitor. It's something that you would use when you were shooting with the camera close to your face like in this situation. In situations where the camera is father away from your face, like on a tripod or low slung while holding the top handle, a monitor is obviously more beneficial and the viewfinder wouldn't really do anything for you.

Okay but you have to rack the focus so that there is always something in the scene that is in focus. Take a ruler or measuring tape and place it extending away from the camera and shoot down it. As you shoot, rack the focus back and fourth slowly. There will always be something in focus and you'll be able to judge it better.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1352405268' post='21345'] I'm editing my raw footage and totally up to speed with it now. First blog post not far off [/quote] Hey Andy, would you consider adding in a little comparison between the gradability of the ProRes vs RAW. Not really a comparison but more just showing how much latitude you are missing compared to RAW? I'm wondering how much you loose when you don't have time to shoot raw. Maybe shoot inside looking out a window in both RAW and ProRes? Thanks! [edit] Oh god! I just noticed that I wrote Andy instead of Andrew. Sorry, don't know how that even happened.

Additionally, when Julian did his tests I think we found that turning the Sharpness down to -5 actually causes the camera to soften the image way to much. So I would recommend to use 0 instead.

http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/ The first one is a common pattern I've seen used most of the time.

Another possibility is all the Nikon glass out there. The You can get a Nikon to Canon mount adaptor ring for pretty cheap. I've shot with Nikon glass on a 7D a few times. Not to mention all the legacy lenses that can be converted to Canon EF mount like Minolta, Pentax or Olympus. One lens I've always been on the lookout for is an inexpensive 24mm f/2 or lower... f/1.4 would be dreamy. The issue I always have with the crop sensor on m4/3 is finding and equivalent to my Minolta 58mm f/1.4 @ full frame. Anyone have something like this or know of one that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

Okay, no more after this I promis: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?222269-Panasonic-Pancake-Lens-Shoot35-Follow-Focus

Yeah and while we are on the subject of points of contact, this will help keep things stabilized too: [url="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wpV0XQa%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg"][img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41wpV0XQa%2BL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img][/url] [url="http://www.amazon.com/CowboyStudio-CA0602-Viewfinder-Digital-Cameras/dp/B005EM6G7U/ref=pd_cp_p_2"]http://www.amazon.co...U/ref=pd_cp_p_2[/url]

[color=#222222][font='Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)] Another thing I just thought of is that with the 20mm pancake, the focus is by wire with no hard stops and not necessarily repeatable. Because of this there's no way to guaranty that the lever of the lever type focus is going to be on the right side of the lens for your hand. In fact, now that I think about it, you might not be able to use those adjustable belts with a follow focus either. Because at some point the clasp could get turned around the lens and jam up with the focus gear that hooks up with the lens gear. Hmmm. There's no easy way to explain this... I hope you are able to follow my train of thought... At any rate, it will take some careful planning and learning to get it right. So, for the one I indicated above ([url="http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Compact-Follow-Support-Camcorder/dp/B008MU97MC/ref=sr_1_354?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1352332540&sr=1-354"]which is this one[/url]), it looks like the whole gear box can be rotated 180 degrees when you loosen it to move up and down on the vertical mount. This way the gear can be turned so it is closest to the lens instead of the gear box running into the camera body first. I don't know if that makes sense but I think it will work.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

Yeah, that one is cheap but I don't think it's actually going to help you out much. If the issue is that when you touch the lens it causes the camera to bump and shake the footage, then what you need some way to stabilize the camera. If you get this, when you move the focus lever, it will cause the camera to roll (rotate on the Z axis) a little. Maybe even more then when just using you hand on the lens. This lever mechanism is a good invention for tripod use or when you have the camera mounted on a shoulder rig though. The follow focus is a better solution because when you turn the knob, you are only moving your wrist in the cameras X axis which is actually easer to counter with your right hand then the Z axis rotating. Another advantage is that you are turning your wrist so that when you want to focus on something closer, you turn your wrist towards you and away from you when you want to focus on something farther away. It's just more natural then rolling the lens back and forth. BUT, the big issue here is that since you are using a pancake lens, I don't know if you can actually get a follow focus on this. Maybe someone with a pancake can chime in on this? Actually, What I think you need is a shoulder rig more then anything else. Just something that gives some more stability so that when you touch the camera it doesn't move and shake as much. The Camera will be more stable with more points of contact. I have a little secret here: [img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WwELcrebL._SL500_SL130_.jpg[/img] [url="http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Shoulder-Support-Handles-Standard/dp/B008MTRGJY/ref=pd_rhf_se_p_t_1"]http://www.amazon.co...pd_rhf_se_p_t_1[/url] It's ridiculously cheap and pretty good quality to boot. And best of all, it comes with a freaking follow focus! This thing is an amazing value. Just the follow focus alone is a $100. But the question is still whether any follow focus works with a pancake lens.