Bioskop.Inc

His last comment, on the above video & the title of this post, is the truth - you have to test cameras yourself, do not rely on other people's tests/opinions. However, nowadays people don't/won't just blindly go out & buy a camera. So we look around at uploaded footage & try our hardest to make a decision, which is a minefield in itself. The guy seems to have made a mistake, but what an error, especially if you're blogging - hey, but shit happens. Personally, I loath comparison videos & would rather compare independent clips, but that's just me. BM cameras get a lot of negative comments & mostly from people who've come from a DSLR background - they simply don't understand that most high end cameras have loads of problems (RED send out technicians to movie sets, enough said). We all now know that BM cameras can produce lovely images, on a par to some of these high end cameras & most importantly, for a decent price. Do you remember the marketing lies when FCPX came out? Premiere suddenly became this NLE that everyone was holding a torch to, when the reality of the situation was that no high end company was even using it to edit - the NLE of choice was AVID and then FCP7. It now turns out that the decision to rebuild FCP from scratch was a great idea, because it is now so much better than Premiere could ever hope to be. In fact Premiere now feels like a bad copy of the old FCP7 & brings nothing to the party - on top of this, you have to rent it from Adobe for a monthly fee. The NLE market now has loads of choices available, Lightworks & Resolve both have free editions or you pay a one off fee like FCPX - admittedly, Resolve is still developing, but it's nice to see Lightworks fully staking a claim again. So, who do you believe?

Just bought a new iMac, should be with me today or tomorrow, & I think it comes with High Sierra installed - if it does i can report back, unless you are worried how it plays with an older machine.

The rule of thumb is that not all MC lenses are equal - some lenses say multi-coated & are in fact single coated. A case in point is the Mir24M, which states is MC but flares very well. Basically, for the best flares look for a lens that has a gold type coating - when you hold it up to the light you'll know what i mean by gold coating. As far as the AIS lenses go, whether they flare or not, they are a very good match for the Iscorama.

Director's Cut too! I really like Prometheus & Covenant, but most people slam them. It does seem that Ridley Scott has started to take an interesting film making turn - he seems to be referencing a more Pure Sci-Fi angle (of a more traditional Gothic line of enquiry), rather than the typical Space Opera adventure thing. Morgan, by his son, also took a similar line of enquiry & is a well played out film, with very interesting themes attached.

Eventhough BR2049 is a CGI lovefest, I do remember the Ballerina Girl dancing in the street being very striking & the car flying past/inbetween the Atari sign was also a nice touch. The best bit of all, for me, was the Sinatra hologram jukebox where he's trapped in a belljar. It does seem that with the advent of CGI, the art of set design has slightly been lost. If you look at Alien, there's no CGI, it's all really there & being filmed live - the great thing about it, is that it looks as good as anything they do with CGI today. Interesting fact: the working cut was 4hrs long & they chopped it down to 2hrs40.

Probably, loads of great images in BR2049, but can't really find the ones i want. Watched Valerian (Luc Besson) last night & that really does have some truely amazing stuff going on visually. It also bombed at the box office, but is really worth a watch just for the world he created onscreen & the story ain't bad either. Personally, I was much more a fan of Alien than BR - there was something about that film that struck a hard note in me. The set design was amazing - inside & outside both space ships. Before you watch the new BR, watch the short prologue films - really helps, especially the anime one.

The thing to think about is SSD vs HDD & what you need the external for. If you're just backing up stuff to store, then you can compromise size vs price - you can get huge drives for quite cheap. However, if you're going to be editing from an external drive then really think about moving parts (HDD) vs. non-moving parts (SSD) - yes SSD's are more expensive, but if you've never seen a HDD melt or freeze up in front of you whilst you're editing then it's not a calming experience. This is not to say that SSD's won't fail, but less moving parts really helps. I've always used G-Tech, as well, & this was because when I worked for a big production company they were the only drives that could take the punishment of day-to-day editing. But with the advent of SSDs, my next buy will not be a HDD. ATM the marketplace is flooded with lots of options - so the rule of thumb is, as always, buy the best you can.

By defending these sorts of films you are legitimising them & their racisit narratives/ideologies. It's very sad in this day & age - what's worse is that they probably don't consider themselves to be racist, but are quite happy to find excuses to defend racism. If you dig a little deeper into what Griffith said about why he made the film, he stated that he wanted to bring to light the injustices of the Reconstruction Years that followed the Civil War - apparent injustices towards Whites by Blacks. Laughable really when we look at the suffering & degredation that slavery brought down upon a people whose only crime was the colour of their skin. I think visually the new film is more stunning than the original, but that might be because it isn't embued with that gloomy darkness of the original. I suppose this difference can be seen as a direct correlation between the themes that lie behind the narratives of the 2 films: the first is a dark & gloomy film (more akin to a film noir type style) that signals the end of an era in replicants; whilst the new one is brighter presenting a more hopeful vision, a new beginning for replicants maybe.

@Chrad I wasn't talking about or referencing you, please don't feel the need to defend yourself or others - there's a hole & you either fill it in or dig deeper. If you actually look at a list of BOAN's great revolutionary techniques, you quickly realise that there aren't many that actually relate to modern cinema - the one's that are would have been used at some point anyway in order to serve a different better story & not to help re-enforce racist ideologies. @kidzrevil Jorden Cronenweth was the DP for the original & an interesting fact is that the outdoor set was a re-dressed LA Film Noir street on a studio lot, so that's why it probably feels kinda cyberpunk - a great mix of old & new. The new one was DP'd by Roger Deakins & it did have a kind of a detached Observational Doc type feel about it (Deakins started his career in docs) & it really did feel like things washed over you, instead of smashing you about the head (loud volume aside). I would probably say that the City sets looked more Asain in feel - almost anime in style & less cyberpunk than the original. I think it really does deserve to be seen more than once, as there is no way that you're going to be able to absorb every little detail during the 2hr40mins of a first viewing. I think it's a brave film, that propbably asks people to fill in gaps with their own knowledge rather spoon feeding you every second. Thinking about Gosling's performance & I can see a direct influence from Delon's performance in Le Samourai by Melville - stone cold contract killer. I think BR2049's running time probably put off a lot of people, but we know a film can make money after it leaves the cinema & the first BR bombed much harder than this one. I think this one will have an afterlife just like the first one did & it might be seen to be as much of an oddity as the original.

No problem @kidzrevil - I think people nowadays really need to have it hammered into their brains that this sort of complicity really needs to be addressed. I mentioned Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will in an earlier post; just because the film looks great (the lighting, camera angles & the Hugo Boss uniforms etc.) & has loads of innovative cinematic techniques can never outweigh the fact that it is a piece of Nazi propaganda - propaganda that enabled a World War & millions of Jews to be exterminated! To state that we know it's racist, but that's ok because of what it might have given future filmmakers just simply isn't good enough. People need to wake up! You know what, i think the Blade Runner fans are completely befuddled by the new film as they are used to a disposable product that normally doesn't mean anything past the spectacle aspect of a Hollywood film. This new film rests within a more Eurpoean model, where art & ideology mix to form a deeper experience - a film that can be watched numerous times & interpreted on numerous levels - it's a tough film to understand if you were expecting an all action spectacular ride. One thing no one has mentioned is how inportant the 3 short prequal films are to the main film itself - to be watched in the following order: Anime first, then the other two. As far as BOAN is concerned, no one is saying it should be banned, but just understood within its context of being a racist film. Yes, it uses cinematic techniques that have influenced future Hollywood films, but these techniques helped propagate a racist naarative & that can never be a good thing. Another point to make, is that whilst it might have influenced future Hollywood films, it certainly didn't influence the rest of the world in quite the same way, if at all. In fact, Non-American films have had a far greater influence on modern filmmaking than Hollywood can ever have hoped to have had on the rest of the world. Hollywood has plundered & copied other nations filmmaking styles far more than the reverse, which is the real elephant in the room when talking about film history. If you want to look at innovation in filmmaking, Hollywood is the last place to look for or find it. There are so many great films that aren't American, films that you can learn style & technique from in a way that you simply can't do with the watered down versions that find their way to Hollywood productions. If your top 5 favourite films have more than 2 American films in it then you simply haven't watched enough to appreciate the magnitude of the world of cinema, or should that be world cinema.

What's really troubling is the way people seem to think that this film's Pros out weigh it's Cons, when really all it's innovation was done in order to propagate & enhance a narrative that is pure & simply racist to its core. It really is of little consequence whether he then made a film to appologise about what he had done. The facts are that he made a racist film & nothing can erase that - you've got to be pretty naive to think that he didn't know what he was doing or what kind of film he was making. You've got to remember that America fought a very bloody civil war over the question of slavery (between 6-800,000 people died, which is more than the other wars America has fought put together) & then 50yrs later a filmmaker makes a film glorifying the south & their ideology!? As I said before, this film is dangerous precisely because it used innovative techniques to advance its racist narrative - it should be a warning about how dangerous film can be & no excuses can ultimately change this fact. It doesn't matter if this film was the first to do this or that, what is important is that it did it in the service of reigniting & propagating a racist narrative/ideology & only 50yrs after so many people lost their lives in one of the most bloody civil wars in history. To defend this film is to continue to propagate an ideology that is repugnant, completely out of step & deeply troubling. Just because something like this exists, doesn't mean we should ever hold a torch up to it as something other than a warning about evil & the means by which dangerous ideologies will go to in order to re-enforce/normalise their message.

Just going back to BOAN quickly, just like to say that I've studied film (to PhD level) and lectured on film at University level & BOAN never came up as a film to be studied or watched as an example of anything worth while. The one time that it did come up was to do with it's blatant racism & not to do with any other qualites that people come up with. Perhaps its held with some regard in the US, but in Europe not really. The one film that everyone cites as the film to watch if you want to be a filmmaker is Citizen Kane - it has every shot type that you could possible ever want to use in a film & that's not even taking into account the editing or narrative construction. BR2049 hasn't bombed at the box office & it is just about to get released in Asia, so still more revenue to come. This sums up BR2049 quite nicely: https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/oct/09/blade-runner-2049-slow-burn-blockbusters-denis-villeneuve

I do try & stay on the cutting edge side of things these days! No, but seriously, what I'm hoping for is that more consideration is given to older viewers - if the kids can't stomach sitting in a dark room for 2hrs49mins (which flew past by the way) then lets hope that they reconsider who their audience really is. Think this summer should be a wake up call, but it doesn't look good for them because they've already made their schedule for the next year or so & if people stay away.... The thing is regardless of the techniques used to make the film or construct the narrative, it's still one of the most racist films ever made & that can never be swept under the carpet. What is most troubling about this film is that it is often compared to Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will & it's used as a type of excuse, but no matter what techniques or how good these films are (we wouldn't be talking about them if they were a pile of shit), they are dangerous precisely because of what they did right. However, I wouldn't call for an outright ban of these films, but that they should stay as an example of how good film making can be subverted for dangerous & evil ends. It's a real shame that Birth of a Nation seems to have introduced a template for American film making, one that hasn't gone away & should now be seen as not progressive. Luckily, the rest of the world didn't follow suit & we now have far better examples of films that broke the mould in the name of cinematic progression.

What's really nice about Blade Runner 2049 is that it doesn't feel like a big American blockbuster - you know, no brains & loads of action sequences spliced together. This feels like a very European affair & so has lost most people along the way, as they were expecting something completely different. People seem to have forgotten what a struggle Ridley Scott had with the original film & what we got was clearly not what he originally hoped for - even his Final Cut feels like a compromise of sorts. So the fact that the script was done first & it was enough to convince Ford to sign on, before Villeneuve came in to replace Scott (Alien commitments), that this film was always going to be a different beast - the kind of film Scott wanted the first to be. I really like the fact that the new film started the way the original was meant to & goes to further show how much the original studio influenced the first film - the original bombed big time at the box office. Hopefully, the recent bad box office for Hollywood films might change the content they spew out at us. I think Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent Science Fiction film, but not of the American Space Opera type & is one that will eventually prove much more satisfying than the original. Personally, I thought the original film to be a sad companion piece to the original novel. As far as the kids are concerned, fuck'em! Make films for us & let them have their 10mins YouTube shit made by annoying self obsessed money grabbing morons - love the way these content abusers are have their revenues cut!

Yeah it does look nice - makes it smaller & the close focus sounds good, but for the price you could buy some high quality Diopters of differing strengths & still have some change from £2.5k (lots of change). The only thing i'd worry about is needing to see samples of the image it produces with the close focus - deal breaker if you're flying blind on that.

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame. The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1. SPOILERS, BIG ONES! There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment. The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed. I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment. I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view. Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.

Why would anyone want to do this? It's an all metal lens, unlike the the 36 that is housed in some lovely plastic - the plastic is the reason people wanted to have the 36 re-housed in the first place. There's simply no need to re-house a 54, it's perfect as is.

I don't think i've heard of anyone doing a close focus mod on the 54. Personally, I just use diopters & longer taking lenses for close ups - problem solved & you don't have to risk damaging a lovely piece of [expensive] glass in the process.

I know that there are a few people on this forum who have bought/used these lenses, but as far as I know they are based on the 54 but are x1.33, which makes them good for a 16x9 sensor as you can desqueeze to 1:2.40. Obviously, the x1.33 won't give you prestine oval bokeh like a x2 anamorphic, but the out of focus areas will still look nicer than a spherical lens. They are for projection, but obviously they can be used for filming too - should be single focus. They are big, like the 54, which puts most people off - get some rails, a lens support bracket & you'll be fine. Nothing wrong with this lens & you've still got a great German anamorphic lens with top notch glass.

Super Takumar 28 f2.8 or f3.5 - the STs do combine well with anamorphics & are sharp Mir10a 28mm f3.5 - russain goodness & always combine well with anamorphics or Look at Nikon Ai-S 28mm lenses (yeah i know you said M42, but Nikon adaptors are cheap).

Bit of a cheat as it's a zoom - Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8 A prime - Mir24M 35mm f2

MPEG StreamClip has an option to export & choose the Mb (lots of options MB & Mb etc..) you want it to be - might solve your problem, but are you sure that the website wants it full sized & HD?

I'm sure there's a special recipe for uploading to Youtube/Vimeo - I've tried the "upload the +2K & in ProRes Lt or proxy", which seems to work for Vimeo but not so great for YT (seen this first hand recently). However, you see lots of great looking YT videos (movie trailers/high end ads/music videos etc), which makes me think that maybe they get special treatment for a price? There's almost certainly a double standard between big companies' content & the rest of us lesser mortals - if there isn't then why do our videos look pretty damn rubbish. But...most YT/Vimeo content is watched on a phone & so it will almost always look good - smaller screen & maybe, slightly different encoding. Yes you can argue "I don't, I always watch on my computer etc..", but you are in the minority & will just have to accept that. The only real thing that sets YT & Vimeo apart, is that via certain Vimeo accounts you can allow people to download a pretty good version - well, better than the streamed version. So there's that. The last thing to say about streaming is that even on Netflix/Amazon etc. you can see some pretty dodgy looking highend content (macro blocking etc.), so it might just be a case that not all compression routes are equal & by this i mostly mean NLE export settings.

I've got the PMD661 MK2 & had no idea that Marantz had been sold - there's a surprise! If you can find a MK2 with the pre-amp upgrade then buy it! Personally, I still use a Field Mixer (no recording features) that either plugs straight into the camera or into the 661. But as someone else has said here, there are a load of vintage/used mics to buy & no one really seems interested that much - people here will buy vintage lenses & then go out to buy a brand new mic! New isn't always better & the same should go for some of the field mixers for sale - just because they don't have a record feature doesn't make them obsolete. But as has been said above, don't use this forum as a measure - you'll notice very few people replied to the OP.

In all this discussion no one has mentioned has even remotely mentioned Marantz, which is a big mistake. People just seem to get a hold of names & think they're the best - Zoom & Tascam are pretty average & that's why they're cheaper. Sure Sound Devices are king, and for a price you get real dependable excellent quality - but they're really for people who earn their bread & butter recording only sound. Marantz are a step down from Sound Devices, but they are worth checking out as a much better alternative to Zoom/Tascam - remember, just because loads of people have them doesn't make them the best, just makes them cheaper. A Zoom H5 alternative has to be the Marantz PMD661 mk2 or 3 will absolutely shame anything from Zoom period - at £500 it's more expensive, but you'll be glad in the long run. I've been using the MK2 for a while now & it produces great sound - I even use it with my old SD field recorder in order to record the sound digitally, blows me away everytime. You can find 2nd hand one for around £300! And have noticed that they now do a model for DSLRs similar to the Tascam - Marantz PMD706 for only £300! I have no experience of this model, but if it's anywhere as good as the 661, then it'll be much better than the Tascam.