Julian

Hi guys

I recently posted my Night time lapse tutorial and got some great responses.

I've just released another photography tutorial based on Hyper Lapse. It got picked up by a few photography blogs which really helped bring in the views.


Last week I went out into Manchester, UK to shoot some long exposure hyper lapse videos and I was pleasantly surprised with the results. Whilst I'm definitely no expert I thought I'd share some tips and techniques in this short tutorial to encourage others to shoot hyper lapse.

Let me know what you think

Hi guys, 
I'm putting for sale an FF58 Dog Schidt Optiks lens, EF mount. The specifics are as follow:
- Fixed oval aperture, around f2.8
- Normal amber tint
- Stupid low contrast
- Light grey finish
It's in very very nice condition, really like when i got it around 15 months ago. 
I'm selling it because i actually do not have a camera to put it on anymore, i was using it on a 5DmkII but i sold it as i didn't want to shoot a DSLR anymore, and went the analog Leica M6 route instead.
I'm asking 100€ euros + shipping (around 12€) for Europe. I'm not reluctant to ship it outside europe too. 
It's a very nice lens, very peculiar, and though you can't choose everything like on the DSO site, the settings i chose are, IMO, very nice, and you can get it for less expensive than a new one (mine is like "new" really, i mean like right out of their workshop), and very fast as i ship the day after receiving the paypal transfer, so a few days after, you can have it home, shooting the hell out of it
Here are some pics of it, and some screengrabs, bear in mind that those screen grabs are taken from ungraded 5DmkII video set on a VisionTech picture profile (which is a low contrast low sat profile). So don't pixel peep sharpness or CA, this lens is not about that, and what i shot was really not about that, but all about feeling, and atmosphere.
Ask anything you want, if i can, i will answer.
Thanks, I hope it can make one of you guys happy.
 

If anyone wants to see how the LX100 performs in a theater setting:
 
Trailer for a theater piece for kids and grown up kids.
First shot is cropped from 4K, shot square for the purpose of the shot. All the wide shots are LX100, punched in a bit here and there. Lots of different color temperatures. Intercut with Canon 5D and Canon 600D.
(Colours crushed in post)
-Andrew, let me know if such posts are unwanted-

I like the Philips BDM4065UC (haven't used it, but looks pretty ok for the price).

€750, VA-panel, 40" - No, it's not a tv
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/philips_bdm4065uc.htm
BenQ BL3201PT also seems a nice 'budget' option. 32", IPS-panel (srgb), around €900
http://orwww2.benq.com/product/monitor/bl3201pt/

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this!
It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0.
http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/
I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

​I would remove the part about sensitive goverment intel and the google maps thing. It's sort of a "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta". A serious business offers its adress, the name, and offers payment through visa and/or paypal which covers fraud intents. Something you already do.

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this!
It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0.
http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/
I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

The set design will have probably have been adjusted to shorten depth and increase the amount of in focus material.  
I believe a large majority of the shots that made it into the edit were actually from the 50mm f0.7 but with a custom made front mounted afocal WA adaptor that changed the focal length to an equivalent 35mm f0.7.  the shortening of the focal length actually increases dof.  a 35mm f0.7 on 35mm film (22-24mm wide) is similar to a 50mm f1.4 on full frame (36mm wide) so therefore the 'look' isn't that crazy by todays standards.   

I don´t know about other people,but I would like to see a real,physical product and some test done by professional photographer before pay for this.
If also I can suggest something for the design..
I think this modules should be black matte paint,dented ring for follow focus,distances scale feet and meters and 90º ring turn. 
Right now,the CGI looks like a toy.

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this!
It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0.
http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/
I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this!
It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0.
http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/
I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

Very professional to publish emails like that.
No opinion on the matter. Let them figure it out between themselves.

Haven't seen Birdman yet, watched the video above here, reading about it now. Awesome cinematography. Love the wide angle combined with the shallow focus. Have to see this!
It's shot on Alexa with a Leica 16mm T1.4 and Master Prime 12mm T1.3 mostly. That's some crazy stuff, if they shot wide open, that's even less dof than you'd get on fullframe usually - or you would have to be shooting with a 18mm f/2.0.
http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/11/cinematography-birdman-emmanuel-lubezki-asc/
I also loved the cinematography of The Grand Budapest Hotel. Crazy combination of anamorphic wide shots and 4:3. Really suits the film.

The 'look' is shallower depth of field. This is most relevant with medium wide angles. You can't reproduce the look of a 35mm f/1.4 on fullframe on a smaller sensor. To get the same look (when shooting the same subject, from the same distant, with the same framing), you would need something like a 23mm f/1.0. This lens does not exist for aps-c and if it would, it would be crazy expensive.
This article gives nice examples, comparing Fujifilm aps-c to fullframe: http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-x-lenses-and-full-frame/
It's about photography, but applies to video too.
Also, full frame sensors generate less noise and typically have better dynamic range. But this isn't usually what people refer to when mentioning the full frame look.
Important point: you don't need the full frame look to get the 'cinema' look, since most professional film cameras are using a S35 sensor, which is the same as aps-c. On top of that, most films are not shot at wide apertures like f/1.4 because it's very difficult to keep an actor in focus with a super small depth of field.

 

Thanks!

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.     

What is the question exactly?

​DxO doesn't test 'feel' or 'general performance'.... Also, I don't think anyone can just look at color and say: camera A is better than camera B. That just comes down to personal preference and/or image processing, not something like actual bit depth.
You can disagree with the 'total' score of DxO, but just click trough to the tab 'measurements' and compare all the details.
An article on 'how to read DxO scores' would be helpful for a lot of people though It's important to look further than the total score and decide for yourself what is important for your photography (and photography only, DxO Mark is completely irrelevant for video).

​DxO doesn't test 'feel' or 'general performance'.... Also, I don't think anyone can just look at color and say: camera A is better than camera B. That just comes down to personal preference and/or image processing, not something like actual bit depth.
You can disagree with the 'total' score of DxO, but just click trough to the tab 'measurements' and compare all the details.
An article on 'how to read DxO scores' would be helpful for a lot of people though It's important to look further than the total score and decide for yourself what is important for your photography (and photography only, DxO Mark is completely irrelevant for video).

I went away for a month, and came back to see Andrew's top camera a Canon 1DC! The apocalypse is nye!

Hans and I thought that it would be nice to have our FM video channel on vimeo.
Share as many video as you like here:
https://vimeo.com/channels/857722
thanks

If you look at the measurements they made the 1Dx wins in all of them, except dynamic range below iso 400. Nothing strange when comparing between a high end Full Frame camera and a low level entry crop camera.

Hmm. Rather pay the 17 euros I think.
It's fine if you understand that. Well done to you!

I commissioned RAF Camera to make me a metal focus gear for my FM lens, he's now selling them on his site. I expect to receive mine in a few days (so I'll see if my measurements were correct!) and I'll report back when I've got it up and running...in case others here might be interested in purchasing, here's the link:
http://rafcamera.com/en/gear-fm-lens-88-107-32mm
I don't have any association with Raf other than me being a happy customer of his for a couple of years...so I'm not getting a discount or kickback for sharing this link - I just thought a few people here might be interested in getting a quality metal gear for their FM lens.
 
I'm sure AnamorphicShop will release their own focus ring in the new year in ABS or metal, but I needed to get one made before then.

​Nahua, when I get more time I will show you how I did it, I will post some close photos on how I clamped the sankor to the FM, meanwhile I did one more video test.