Bioskop.Inc

Found this - The Kubrick Lenses & in the Sample Gallery there's a good video to go with it:   http://www.kubrickcollection.com/index.html

You could pick up a 5D2 + Mosaic Filter for less than the 5D3 - you get better stills & pretty much the same video.   Got to remember that Canon cameras are stills first & video second - so all new cameras are aimed at the stills market & not video! So its business as usual in the capitalist market place!   7D2 & 70D will be just as disappointing - a leopard just won't change its spots!

Looks good - Kowa's always are. Yeah i checked as well & all i could find was reference to the x1.5 version - so the x1.75 must be rare.

Hey Alan, do you want to elaborate more? You already mentioned to me that you'd been working on something for the Iscomorphot, so does this mean you've hit gold?

I concur with both Alan(Tony) & QHR - this is a fixed focus @ 4m, but with diopters & taking lenses of various focal lengths it really shines. This is sharper than any iscorama, if its in good condition, & those pics look like it is - sharp enough to crop to 2.66. Also, its far easier to use than a dual focus i.e. it won't drive you insane wondering if its really in focus - move back or forwards & when it is you'll know. Sharp wide open as well - well mine is. Shallow depth-of-field might depend on the copy or the diopters used (almost certainly the later) - used on its own you can get deep focus. I shot these (amongst others) with it: https://vimeo.com/45189945 https://vimeo.com/41213761

Really good & loved the use of the 'Laughing Man' style masks.

Firstly, you've got a Canon so put Magic Lantern on it - it opens up your camera to a whole new world (zebras, sound, fps override etc...) & don't worry as the last build is stable.   http://www.magiclantern.fm/   Now ML does have an audio section, which could mean that you could just plug in a mic directly into the camera now & get a pretty good sound out of it (look on the forums @ ML to see what people say about your particular model). If ML helps the in-camera audio then you could buy yourself a Rode Video Mic Pro or something similar & save yourself some cash. If you were going to spend some cash on an external recorder the Zoom or Sony (mentioned above are fine), but if you can pick up a cheap SH Marantz PMD 661 you will be in a whole different world!   Also, experiment with different Picture Styles - there are a ton of free ones out there & a few good paid ones (IMO VisionColor do the best ones at the moment).    http://davidstafford.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/123-free-canon-dslr-picture-styles/   Your lenses seem just fine, but yes the Tokina might be a good choice. Also, don't forget that there are a lot of great old lenses out there, which you can pick up for peanuts & give your film a more vintage look i.e. less video looking. And don't forget the golden rule - you CAN always move your tripod backwards or forwards to get the shot that you want. Which reminds me get a half decent tripod - one that is stable.   As far as narrative goes, your idea is just fine - keep it simple & then you can go crazy with your shot selection. Also, you're working with kids, so check with the school about how far you can push it - i liked the idea by Axel to introduce the Girl aspect into your original idea, but as you're a teacher it might not go down well (hence check first).   good luck

You should take a look at these:   http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/11/building-the-perfect-key-light/   http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/11/lighting-basics-going-with-what-is-available/   http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/12/lighting-with-home-depot-lights-part-2/

Sounds good & like the idea of doing things to highlight good causes (no advertising products though).

I don't know anyone who is using it professionally - everyone's still on Avid or FCP7 (no one in my neck of the woods is using Premiere either).   They both have a 30 day trial - give them a go & see which one you like best. I took the plunge on FCPX (after trying both) & its actually v.good - its also a hell of a lot cheaper, gives me the same results as premiere & does things in a way that i always wanted FCP7 to do (not much of a learning curve). FCPX introduced a bug in its last update so some plugins don't work at the moment - neatvideo etc...

Forgot the Super-Takumars which are v.sharp & work really well with an Iscorama - added bonus is that they're a hell of a lot cheaper than the Ziess lenses. The Meyer lenses are good too (lovely colours & contrast) - the stand out ones are the 100,135 & 200mm

nice find Kitchentable! I've been looking for something like this & getting really tired of wrist gymnastics. Much cheaper/easier option than most of the over priced follow focus systems. cheers

Kowa for Bell&Howell (its the best quality kowa out there) will be much better for the 5D3 & they go for about £300 - it really is about as close as you're going to get to an iscorama (just as sharp, can use taking lens wide open, but dual focus). Taking lens will have to be 85mm or above, but the anamorphic will give you a wider field of view similar to a 35 or 50mm lens - can't remember which.

Yep the Tair 11 does match & is very nice - actually excellent! You could also get a Jupiter 9 85mm f2 or if you're feeling extravagant the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 (they've just released brand new ones, so you don't have to go secondhand). All made by KMZ. http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/logos/ The one thing that i found with the Helios 44-2, was that it took a few buys to get a sharp one (zebra MMZ version was a winner for me) - but they cost between £10-20 & are the easiest lenses to take apart & clean/refurbish, a child could do it! Together with the helios 44-2 & the Mir 1b 37mm, this is my lens set of choice with my Iscorama - great vintage looks.    A lot of people say these lenses aren't sharp, but in my experience it just means they got a bad copy! I had a whole set of Contax Zeiss a few years back & sold them - just didn't like the look anymore, horrible/sterile. If you like the Russian look, then stick with it - some other brands will set you back a lot more.

  You'd half hope that because the BMCC/Digital Bolex have taken so long to actually materialise, coupled with the fact that they won't be able to make enough units before the end of the year, that Canon would be rubbing their hands & finally be willing to throw off their self-impossed shackles. I don't think anyone is expecting leaps & bounds, but something to at least challenge the resolution of the GH series. The only info about the 7D2 is the photo specs & a teasing "lots of video features"! Could this mean crop mode, 1080/60fps? Who knows.   Also, not sure if anyone noticed this, but in the screen grab of upcoming cameras (apart from the EOS Me & 3D), its suggested that a GH5 is in the works for December. http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/02/2013-predictions-for-canon-eos-products/   Now is/could this be a 5D3 annihilator or are Panasonic going after the 1DX/C? This could be v.interesting!

Well the 70D is meant to be previewed at the end of this month & the 7Dmk2 soon after, so they might want to protect the 5D3. So it all depends what they do with those. My guess would be the 4:2:0 wrapped as 4:2:2 & cropped mode (if we are lucky).

@JamesH - thanks for the info, as i always thought that was the case for saturation. One question, what about contrast? Is it the same principle or does it work slightly differently. I've found that if you dial all the way down, you help the shadows but you end up sacrificing the highlights - this was really evident in the GH3 footage i graded.

Gave the clips another go - quick & nasty. PPs are in the following order: Natural, Scenery, Portrait, Standard & Vivid. No Sharpening done (FCPX doesn't have one worth shit & NeatVideo doesn't work atm). https://vimeo.com/60901278

No problem Mark & if you're going to watch a film with 'Django' in the title, do yourself a favour & watch the original version - its a fine film & shits all over Tarantino's!   Tarantino is one of the most exploitative filmmakers around today & he does it for cinema ticket sales - its all about creating a buzz/hype to get bums on seats. I recently re-watched Pulp Fiction & i ended up switching it off - it just wasn't the film i thought it was anymore. Maybe i'd seen it too many times or maybe it just wasn't that great in the first place.   If you want to watch a really good film then try something like Chungking Express - yes its in cantonese, but it was filmed in 2 weeks (while he was waiting to edit another film), has a great narrative & some beautiful images (no violence). Its art/filmmaking like Tarantino could never do! 

  Sorry MarkM, my words were not meant to undermine you in anyway whatsoever & i am deeply sorry if there was a misunderstanding.   I was getting the impression that it was becoming unfair that so many people were attacking you & my comments about your opinions being as valid as everyone else's was absolutely sincere. I may not agree with you, but you have the right to your own opinion.   The only thing i can see that you could have taken offence to was, what now seems to be, my poor attempt at some light humour, which was intended to create some much needed [comic] relief - "just remember to keep telling yourself its only a film..." was a message used at the beginning of some 70s Horror Films, in an attempt to reassure/remind the audience that they were about to watch a piece of fiction.   This is the problem with the written word at the moment & i just keep forgetting that humour just doesn't always come across as such.   Anyway, do keep fighting your corner, its what makes debates like these v.interesting (& i'm being sincere, not poking fun at you).

  It was in an interview with him, can't remember where. So the film would have been longer & given us more character development, which is where i feel the film is lacking - still a good film, just not his best.   @MarkM: Probably best if we agree to disagree. All points of view are valid, since we are autonomous beings with our own set of morals & taste preferences - that's what makes use so unique as a species. But just remember to keep telling yourself, "Its only a film, its only a film..."   @Everyone Else: The violence in film debate will rage on & on. There's no clear cut answer & only time will tell what the effects on society will be. Censorship, motivated by moral panic, just doesn't work - the Video Nasty farce in the UK is the prime example. Banning films just because you wouldn't watch them is not a good enough reason - shit i won't watch Titanic, but i wouldn't ban it! The ins & outs of the Video Nasty issue are quite complicated, but the real scandal was that the authorities did commission a professor at Oxford Poly to do research on the effects of dramatised violence on children & then when they didn't like what the results where they broke into his office & stole all the data (luckily he had some backups). They then took his findings & subverted them for their own cause - the worst case of this was claiming that 40% of all children under the age of 10 had seen a video nasty (the researchers had interviewed 10 kids & 4 claimed to have seen a VN - they also realised that those that had claimed this had lied). Luckily for the UK, the Video Nasty bill was scrapped! (Book - Video Nasties by Martin Barker)   We all have to understand that the film industry is a business & making money is its goal - its not something i like to admit, but facts are facts. All films exploit their audience to some degree, its just the way the industry works. This is not to say there aren't filmmakers that create great art, but the majority get caught up in the machine & make rubbish (that's from an artistic point of view). There are films that should never see the light of day, but i choose not to watch them - after all it is my choice!   As far as children & TV is concerned, well there are films & programmes made for them that i find highly offensive! In fact, i'd go as far to say that the so-called safe stuff is far more damaging & worrying to the development of children, than say the possibility of them seeing a late night movie that was never meant for them. I know that at the moment there is research being undertaken to try & understand the rise in abusive teenage relationships (rape & violence towards teenage girls is at dramatic levels). The results will be interesting, but where will the blame be placed? Role models, violence in the media, the over sexualisation of kids by the media, who knows?

@ JamesH - that's for the 5D's FF sensor & for some reason it seems to behave differently to the APS-C - well it has in the tests that i (& other people) have done. I can't remember which forum it was on, but a few of us came to the conclusion that 1 or 2 (I use 1 normally & 2 for distance shots) were the best settings for an APS-C sensor, it brought back some detail that was missing at 0.   @toxotis70 - I do understand that, but not all situations present these problems & i'm very careful to avoid them like the plague. Also, that's where using shallow depth of field comes into play.   On a similar note, there's a few guys on vimeo that recommend using a Black Pro Mist filter - their stuff looks stunning! vimeo.com/39108335

Didn't realise that you could use PPs on a Nikon - can you use the ones for Canon on a Nikon or are they specific for each make? If you can there are many more better PPs out there.   I've used the Flaat PPs on a canon & they aren't great (10 is the best of their bunch) - their claims of more DR aren't exactly true (what you gain in some areas, you lose in others).    In fact all claims that a PP is going to improve things is a little bit off the mark - 8-bit isn't going to get [dramatically] better because of a PP, it'll only give you a bit more wiggle room.

@ Andrew. Inglorious isn't great,  this is partly because it was meant to be 2 films, but it got squashed into 1 & doesn't really work as a result - its very bitty.

Bingo! Saturation is important for colour, you simply shouldn't get rid of as much as you can (the footage provided here was meant to be a Sunset/Rise - but getting those lovely colours back was near impossible). Contrast is fine all the way down. Also, if the GH series of cameras give better resolution & are sharper, why dial it down all the way just to re-sharpen in post? That just seems pointless to me & yes i do understand that they can over sharpen in-camera.   Now Canon cameras don't have the resolution of GH's, but even so i never dial it down all the way - since on an APS-C sensor you actually seem to loose even more detail at 0 (1,2 or 3 if you must).