Hans Punk

Looks like Epic to me,as it is grabbing a decent chunk from the imaging circle of that s35 lomo (edge vignette due to optimised aspect crop) and has a familiar rendering of detail... but Amira/ Alexa/ Ursa would all look the same with a distinctive anamorphic up front like that. It was nice not think about what camera or lens was present when watching first time, the content was captivating enough...it could have been shot on VHS and still been a strong piece.

Strong stuff. now the nerdy talk: The apartment interior/ balcony and daytime exteriors look extremely like Lomo anamorphic to me. The strong window reflection at 2:40 points towards a diopter being used for closer focus of interior shots. All things point towards Lomo (looks like 50mm squarefront to me)...the CA, edge artifacts, blur rolloff etc...all classic Lomo look. Nice to see it being employed without flares being provoked, nice and relatively understated. As for camera used - take your pick, they all look good these days, but my guess it was something S35 above HD resolution, as the 4k downscaling effect makes the softer rendering of Lomo anamorphic more acceptable (makes the in-focus areas look more sharp after downscaling). All the night time video/ news footage is cropped spherical. The apparent streak flare is almost definitely grease on the lens of a camera phone's lens or on a GoPro's lens, and almost certainly not intended to mimic anamorphic flare...as it's off axis and easily achieved by handling your phone and touching the camera lens on it - depositing finger grease. I sometimes purposely smear my phone's camera lens this way to give a fake anamorphic flare - but at best it looks like a cheap fishing line streak filter.

VR is the only thing I have a small degree of hope for, I was totally down on it to start with - but have recently been shown some very good examples of next gen headset displays and camera arrays that really make for a convincing argument for 'immersive content'. But the sad thing is, there still seems not to be a clear Idea of what content (other than games) can really capitalise on the technology. Good VR is worth putting a headset on for - regular 3D is not worth putting glasses on for IMHO (especially in most cinema situations - almost always projected below the recommended foot-lambert level). I suspect GoPro's push is going to be aimed at enabling the aquasition of this content to a somewhat standardised format. At the moment people are still 3D printing rigs to hold multiple GoPro cameras in an array, so it makes perfect sense that they are releasing their own dedicated camera systems and processing software. I can also imagine more of 'the kids' these days wanting a 360 degree video capture of their Run down the slopes, or jumping out of a plane...and to be able to share that experience with others via YouTube's 360 video support or whatever is to come. This has to be what they see as the 'future' of action camera capture. As for their move into the drone market, they've bought and developed a few interesting ip's in their holdback period - so when the 'Karma' is announced, it should not disappoint those interested in such things. GoPro only acquired Cineform 5 years ago, so it is little more than a property they own and can implement. But the flexability of that codec suits 3D pretty well, so no doubt they will put that to task with their upcoming VR/ 360 cameras. As for GoPro cutting down on their action camera product range and expanding into newer realms - it makes perfect business sense. As mentioned before, the GoPro style camera being a unique product is no more. Apart from all the competition action camera models out there to choose from (most of them cheaper) - You can use your smartphone these days for a lot of the same uses that only GoPro could do a few years ago.

This week, GoPro announced it will discontinue three of its six available action cameras and abandon the entry-level market as of this April. They are obviously doing a major gear shift and are banking heavily on the success of their 'Karma' drone, as well as two new dedicated VR cameras. The problem is they oversaturated the market - GoPro brand is now used as a collective term for 'wearable action camera'. Other copies of their products can be had at much cheaper cost, due to the mass produced nature of the components. Anyone could enter the action camera market these days, and offer a cheaper camera rival with comparible quality components...as the price of manufacturing has become so cheap. GoPro's main genius/failure in my opinion is that they relied too much on aspirational marketing. Perhaps people finally realised that buying a little camera and strapping it to their head will not instantly make them a kick ass rad x-game biker/skydiver/surfer etc? A similar fate has happened with Apple's recent releases (iwatch and iPhone 6+) - it's a product line direction (and price point) that is not innovative or in demand enough from customers, and sales figures have reflected that. GoPro has had to shake up its product output to survive. Looks like they are doing exactly that now, and will most probably become the dominant name in entry/mid range drone and VR hardware to come. They will no doubt be offering some flashy products very soon - a contact of mine who has been involved with testing the Karma drone said it was going to be the 'biggest success ever'. If not, and if GoPro go bust - it will all be because of the manufacturing world we live in today. And the cut-throat nature of underbidding for supply of cheaper unit costs of similar components that kill profits to companies like GoPro by 'a death by a thousand cuts'. Little cameras that strap to your head are simply not innovative products anymore. GoPro at least acknowledge this and are placing their bets on the VR and drone market being where they can diversify and have a better chance of market relevance and longevity.

GoPro's drone 'Karma' will no doubt eat a decent chunk out of dji's market share when it's released later this year.

As with many cameras that can't shoot a dedicated 4:3 aspect for 2x anamorphic, you will have to shoot 16x9 and then crop the sides of your footage in post to the ratio you want to deliver. This is not uncommon at all and since many cameras shoot 4K+ resolution now, it's not a critical amount of resolution you are discarding from the sides of your frame. 1.33 or 1.5x squeeze lenses will allow more of your 16x9 image to be retained, as the 'unsqueezed' image will be less extreme in its wide aspect. Marking the monitor with a frame line of what you know you will be cropping to in post will allow you accurate framing when shooting.

Out of interest - what method did you use to convert to .dng? Was it from MLV or 'regular' raw file from the camera? I see some black stripes in there that could be adding to the moire effect - I've not experienced these artifacts at all since using the 'non-alpha' builds of any conversion software. If using 5D2 for ML raw video: Many people use a VAF-5D2 filter to eliminate aliasing on 5D2 when shooting raw (5D2's main weakness in shooting any video) - it's especially visible when seeing the clarity given with ML raw video. I've never had any aliasing issues on 5D3 unless shooting 50p - where it skips lines to get the readout from the sensor to a slow enough writing speed for the buffer to cope with...as long as you avoid contrasty vertical or horizontal lines however, it is often not a visible problem. http://www.eoshd.com/2012/02/canon-5d-mark-ii-mosaic-engineering-vaf-5d2-anti-aliasing-filter-review/

you can actually rent a 5D3 or 2 with magic lantern pre-installed (and with a bunch of fast CF cards) here in the UK - So am sure you will find someone in the US. The main reason ML development has become less frequent is because the limits of what can be squeezed from those cameras has pretty much been reached. And the main developers are now working on the code for an upcoming open source camera. Most incremental ML updates are tweaks and occasional bug fixes. You really need to invest decent time in the ML forum to learn things properly, it is not exactly 'plug and play' - but the payoff is well worth it.

Could be a good fit for you then. Since you mentioned B-camera use and short bursts being the primary use. Using the 5x 'crop mode' feature in Magic Lantern would enable you to shoot bursts of around 8-10 secs at the highest 2.5-3k resolution in raw (until the buffer chokes using 5D3) Since the crop mode effectively windows 1:1 on a centre portion of the sensor, you could use wider lenses - not even suitable for full frame coverage, and still cover the capture area. 5D2/3 could be a good choice, as you obviously have ability to quickly switch to conventional stills whenever you need. The 5D3 has the slight edge in that you can also shoot 48 or 50fps, which might be a big plus if you are capturing bursts at a time. I've had really nice results from shooting full sensor 'silent picture' bursts (basically a stills burst mode when in live view) you only get about one seconds worth of full resolution captured stills, but if the frames are crisp from high enough shutter speed, you can re-time the image sequence down to 1-2% with Twixtor or the inbuilt re-time effect in after effects, to create very nice slomo 'moving pictures' - like a snippet from a phantom high speed camera.

Not technically a hack (but take your point) - as the ML firmware runs 'on top' of the canon code. You can still access canon menus and unload/ load ML firmware at any time. Canon DSLR's (specifically 5D2) was never primarily intended to be used as a video camera to start with - it was a last minute request by stills photogs to be able to shoot video clips for news websites. If anything the 'DSLR revolution' was the hack...dragging a non primary feature of a stills camera - kicking and screaming into the filmmaking community. I would (and have) used 5D3 running ML on paid gigs, but never as A-camera. Not because of reliability issues - but mainly due to MB/s being so high, it is often impractical to allow to roll for multiple long takes. I recently used 5D3 as C-camera next to Amira's on an electric motorbike commercial, had no issue matching the image from the Arri cameras. Form factor of the 5D3 was a huge bonus - as it could be rigged very easily and be maneuvered between A-B Cam, often capturing better action. The final edit resulted in roughly 40% material shot from the canon. When the commercial goes live, I'll post a link. BMPCC + Speedbooster looks very very nice and is best route for 99% of compact/raw loving folks, but if you 'need' full frame look with very beautiful colour rendition - ML on 5D2/3 still seems to be a gold standard, despite the huge file sizes and clunky workflow.

Suffering for one's art is one thing, suffering for work is another. If any work conditions, imposed or self-imposed are making you unwell, physically or mentally - get out of that work....or re-evaluate and change. Chasing unrealistic deadlines, spreading yourself too thin and underbidding others to get work is exactly what feeds the vicious cycle. The biggest investment as a freelancer is yourself, without being able to work efficiently due to poor health from too many hours or stress situations - is literally killing your own business. A production of any worth should never expect (or be legally allowed) to push consecutive hours that endanger the health of yourself or others - if they do, walk away. If you are on a non union/ indie project that requires excessive hours, tight deadlines and poor conditions - negotiate to get those conditions changed, or at least get heavily compensated with increased pay... if they don't, walk away. For every time somebody accepts work conditions that harms them, it sets the precedent that it is acceptable. If these unhealthy conditions are self imposed due to wanting/needing to secure work - make sure it becomes a rarity, not the default. Suffering for your art on the other hand is completely fine. Set yourself on fire, take drugs, never sleep, cut yourself, drink yourself to death...whatever, It's all been done before. As long as you create art as good as Beethoven, Bowie, or Botticelli - I see no problem in having to suffer for it, if that is what it takes.

On repeat viewings and clearer thinking through of its intention - it is a powerful piece. But I'm still torn between thinking if its presentation style helps or hinders the intended purpose. As a filmmaker: I see beauty,history,trauma in the images - like a moving painting from the napoleonic war. I can appreciate the artistic merit of images separate from the subject matter and its possible controversy. Some beautiful images can be found from very ugly things. As a 'regular' guy: I see pointless trauma being inflicted onto animals but presented in a confusing way that reminds me of a high budget car commercial. I guess my only feeling is that I'd prefer to see it as part of a longer documentary that invested time into the people who contribute to the tradition, as well as those who appose it. Having a montage with slow motion 'beauty and wonder' aesthetic is a powerful cinematic tool, my comment regarding this being an unwise choice is subjective. As Bioskop said - 'you recoil twice as hard precisely because of the dichotomy of the images (beautiful & grotesque)'. - I partly agree with that, but I think the issue I have is the clash of cinematic visuals next to intended journalistic reportage. It may possible to combine these, but very hard to convey a clear message in short-form without those (sometimes) overpowering aesthetics being noticed. You at least need a balance there. In any case Santi - you did a good job in documenting the event, the fact that there is an ambiguity in the presentation style only adds to the impact and help provoke discussion. It's an interesting case study on how 'real-life' imagery can be presented in a cinematic style - and what ramifications that may have to the viewer when trying to take a neutral stance from a journalistic/ documentary perspective. Why could they not be riding Donald Trump through those flames instead?

The uploader is from the PACMA organisation that highlights animal rights issues, which is a totally valid cause to document traditions such as these for discussion. Unfortunatly the edit and slow motion presentation of the imagery makes it questionable if it is a celebration of the tradition. Context is key - without any counterpoint to the documentation of celebration, one assumes the filmmaker has no objection to it. This is not diluting a neutral observation of a good documentary - it is simply having a voice, or including another point of view. The images are very striking and haunting - but that is mostly due to the subject matter being documented in slow motion. Cinematic language has taught most audiences to associate slow motion and ambient soundscapes as depictions of beauty, not for critical study.The end text at the end of the video does identify the organisation and its intention, but without that, there is no difference to it being a promotional video for the "Luminarias" celebration. Imagine any 'pro' horse burning idiots having their organisation logo at the end of that video, and you will read a different connotation from the ambiguous images. I totally applaud the maker of this video for it's apparent intention, but feel it is a very muddled presentation when shown in isolation. If it were the opening sequence to a longer-form documentary about traditions involving animal abuse and if they should be outlawed - it would be a very striking montage that would certainly grab audience attention.

At which part did you recoil at the animal cruelty?

http://stevemccurry.com/galleries/last-roll-kodachrome?view=grid

YashicaScope but under a different name.

@Bioskop.inc That makes perfect sense - the example pic looks like the lens center could be left clear, but flanked by two other mirrors that can be angled or hinged in to the desired angle (close to lens to create soft edge). The CA on the edges kind of suggests a prism type effect, but could simply be a result of using plastic mirrors - or thicker edged glass mirror at sufficient angle to cause halation and aberration. Rigging plastic mirrors to flank the sides of the lens front could be the easiest/ cheapest thing to initially experiment with.

You can build your own 'mirror box' - which can be elaborate, or as simple as you want. Usually made from anything that diffracts light in interesting ways...prisms, glass ornaments, clear plastics etc. The results depend on material used, light source intensity and proximity to the camera lens. Still photographers have it slightly easier, as they can offer up diffracting objects in front of the lens by hand. But for motion work you may need to devise a way to statically fix (or hang) in front of your lens, either as a simple box frame mounted in front of the lens or clamp to a stand and dolly the camera through or past - to achieve 'revealing' shots, or interesting transitions. The trick is to have a bag of pre-tested objects and a few clamps and a stand or two - to offer up a few things on the day of shooting. It is the kind of thing that with a little bit of preparation beforehand, you can achieve some interesting shots. Experimentation is key, but the example image looks consistent to results from either glass or plastic prism with multi facets or a crystal 'sun catcher' type ornament- since the image is being repeated through reflection/ diffraction. Sometimes offcut clear perspex pieces can have interesting results when given enough light and allowed to reflect at odd angles to each other when placed in front of the lens (defocused). You can buy cheap prism effect filters for lenses, that split the image up in even sections - but they look like a kaleidoscope 1970's disco video effect, rather than what I think you are after.

At least 50% of commercials in the UK are still broadcast in SD...1080p broadcast is compressed to hell - so when 4k does rollout, (and after compression for transmission) it will probably look like low compression 1080 at best.

Par-36 pinspot is a good shout - if you need to match it colour-wise with your existing lights, this can be done cheaply with correction gels. But the tungsten lamp of the Par-36 gives a nice warm hue to the light if mixed with other colour temperature lights...and tends to look nice and natural. Par-16 'birdie' are also great, a smaller version that accepts very common lamps: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PAR-16-black-spotlight-inc-barn-door-birdie-lighting-240v-window-display-spot-/171564102770?hash=item27f2047472:g:e98AAOSw9NxTsP8 I just did a little test with one of my other pin spot lights (10w LED version) - The one I have is a '4 in one' version (has 4 separate LED chips that can mix to create any colour) Pretty impressive for the price (full colour control,strobe,colour change,DMX control option) - but can be set to constant colour in manual mode too. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RGBW-10W-LED-Beam-Spot-Light-Party-DJ-Stage-Light-Pinspot-Lights-Effect-EU-Plug-/351592456773?hash=item51dc8b2245:g:HqQAAOSwwE5WXA9I Because the 4 chips are focused by a snoot lens, the beam angle is very tight, and if used to flare the lens - creates different hues in the flare as you pass through it, due to the separate colours being blended (very unique effect). Since it is a very tight beam, one (or more) can be rigged in such a way to create pools of light that you can hunt for with your lens and control flare amount quite precisely. Because the focused light is so intense, you will not have a problem at all with getting streak flare from your Kowa using existing taking lens or even a heavy multi-coated modern lens. I also noticed that when this intense coloured light hits my Kowa B&H (has golden streak flare in sunlight) - the flare characteristics take on the hue of the lightsource. So I can turn my normal 'gold' flares pretty much any colour blend I wish. Pretty wild results when moving through the beam - but can be tamed by simply choosing a lighter colour blend and/or only partially hitting the lens to pickup a more subtle flare. ('4 in one' LED 10w spotlight - Camera WB set to daylight on above pics) Nasty highlight clipping in raw stills due to being 10 feet away from source - these things are intense! Sharpness in the streak flare is dependant on focus distance, relative to light source. There is a white light only version of that LED pinspot that i've yet to try - I suspect that it will not have the colour shift through it's beam - since it's a single chip LED fixture. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Eyourlife-10W-CREE-Led-Pinspot-Beam-DJ-White-Xmas-Home-Party-CLUB-Stage-Lighting-/121859773447?hash=item1c5f689407:g:zNUAAOSw7NNT9ayD The Par-36/16 and 10w LED lights seem perfect for motivating lens flares in an interior situation similar to your example video, since they are spots that need not interfere with scenic lighting and can be bought very cheaply. If streak flare is the aesthetic priority that you would like to achieve, i'd recommend experimenting with cheap spot lights before buying a specific lens - as with the intensity that these lights can produce, even a stopped down Canon L lens will get you a nice streak flare from your Kowa. If you want to introduce more flare (secondary) artifacts to the kowa's streak flare - the Helios you already have is pretty much king at creating all those lovely extra flare effects when wide open - or closed down with a sufficient light source.

Yep - that is a '74 and should be all good. It must be the light source in the scene that is not pokey enough to flare. Makes sense if it is a LED brick light with multi points of light - especially if diffused. If you are ever looking for another Helios to try, I'd recommend the 'Zebra' Helios 44 with glossy black finish - it's a variation on the theme but can give some nice alternate flare artifacts. Sometimes even getting a cheaper/older Helios that is beaten up a little and has coating wear can actually increase the effects without affecting sharpness. richg101 on this forum is the guy to talk to regarding all the flavors of Helios 44 and the nuances of every year and factory release. In addition to recommending the 30w par-36 pinspot, if you want something less powerful yet really lightweight are portable - the Ikea Jansjo LED is a very handy light to rig to fire into the lens and get the results that you were after in your example video. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00I9A2Z2Y/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_1?pf_rd_p=569136327&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B0055IVM1I&pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_r=1VJBC9JC5PDQJ7J8FTJ9

I might be completely wrong but it looks like the Helios you have might be the more 'modern' type - has more flare suppression coating on the optics. But it could also be completely due to the light source in the setup. Also if you are shooting smaller than s35 sensor, you will only be capturing part of the Helios' potential for flare - as some of the charm of older Helios models are the 'secondary' rings and rainbows that tend to fall at the edge of the frame. When coupled to anamorphic front, this can greatly add to the overall impact of the 'streak flare.' I would expect more flare from an older model such as the 'Zebra' or pre '2' model called simply the 'Helios 44' (simple golden coating) - or the KMZ Helios 44-2 with green and yellow distance markings (this model should compliment your kowa 8z's flare colour the best). These are the better lenses to achieve flares with, as they are the earlier models that have less refined coatings and are more prone to bouncing light inside the optic edges when wide at f2. Having an older model such as the KMZ Helios 44-2 will greatly increase flare when opened up. Jupiter-9 is a good 85mm pairing to the Helios-44 58mm (again look for older model).Other lenses worth considering (not primarily for 'crazy' flares) are the Pentacon preset type, 14-15 blades ensure circular aperture throughout stops - resulting in constant oval bokeh when paired with your Kowa. The 135mm pentacon f2.8, Meyer Orestor 100mm 2.8 and TAIR-11A 135mm f2.8 are particularly good for anamorphic use. Older Nikkor's flare very nicely, but have fewer aperture blades - so they cut into the oval bokeh quite harshly.Older Olympus OM's are a very good choice too - as they are very sharp, flare is not so pronounced but can easily be acquired to make a nice matched shooting set. As for light source, the LED lights in squares will give a blocky diffused streak (as do fluorescent tubes/kino's), best to use a point source (such as the sun for exteriors) or for interiors - a single bright lamp such as a single chip LED desk lamp...or even better a tungsten/halogen light source. A very cheap light to use for some interior shoot's like your example video can be a 'pinspot' - a par-36 lamp that is very pokey and can be easily rigged on a stand or set on the floor to give a shaft of light that you can maneuver to lens in and out of : http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Pinspot-PAR-36-30W-Black-Lantern-suitable-for-Mirrorball-Includes-Lamp-Stage-DJ-/181599693906?hash=item2a482f6c52:g:y1kAAOSwGWNUV7Wo There are LED 'pinspot' versions out there that are also good - that have focusable spots, they are lighter to rig but can flicker at some shutter speeds. (but tungsten lamp tends to give a nicer/more natural look IMHO and almost immune to flicker at most shutter speeds).

Crazy thing is that 35mm's are often cheaper than S16 kits now - as its more economical to shoot the smaller gauge. I knew that the film camera business had officially died when I saw a 435 sell on eBay than less than a new 5Dmk3

Super 8 never really died to those determined to shoot on it since it was always a comparatively cheap format to shoot even when all the main labs closed and a handful of independent vendors picked up the niche demand. Processing/DIY scanning at home can be fine if you are dealing with 50ft at a time - but can quickly become impractical. Kodak's new camera however seems to be several steps back to make film aquasition appeal to filmmakers as an alternative to digital. No single frame or interchangeable lenses? The new camera from Kodak is fine for a soft introduction to shooting film, but not much else. What Kodak should do is collaborate with Arri on a hybrid S16 and 2perf 35mm camera, using a similar concept to the new S8 ... The Dream: S16 camera would cost around £5-7k, form factor similar to an A-minima (200ft internal - 400ft external mag). 2perf 35mm camera - Arri 2c form factor...name your price. simultaneous HD video/audio recording via reflex (effectively a glorified video tap recording to SSD) - SDI/HDMI out - XLR in etc etc. Stock cost from Kodak could include Telecine service...user can edit or select takes from the HD proxy video that is then sent to Kodak via cloud. User can send EDL/ text file or the edited proxy video to Kodak who then TK only your selected takes to 2-4K resolution as .dng sequence or prores with synced audio - then they send you the master files via download link or physical drive. A collaboration with Resolve could make the software side really sing - also allowing LUT to be loaded onto the video assist on the camera to show how your selected stock will look when processed. Since you'd also have your processed camera negative, you would also have a physical master of your rushes. I hope this Super 8 buzz starts some kind of revival, film can look amazing when selected for the appropriate project. But I fear that unless a professional range of hybrid cameras get released as a follow up, film will remain an increasing rarity for the average Joe to contemplate shooting on for anything other than short form projects. The simple fact of the matter is - no new film cameras are being made anymore, Aaton, Arri and Panavision silently stopped making them a few years ago. If Kodak collaborated with Arri on a 2perf 35mm, I'd expect many people would want to buy or rent. Below is a reminder of 2perf loveliness - a hybrid camera could deliver this quality, in a more 'digitally friendly' workflow that a younger generation of crew have only experienced working with. It would at least give an additional option for celluloid capture....and if embraced enough may be able to be made as a cost effective rival to modest budget productions.

Resolve,Colorista,Speedgrade all have ability to isolate/key/punch skin tone to where you want it to be. If you going in with a heavy orange and teal grade in mind, maybe try to avoid reds and oranges in wardrobe and props where possible. If you can load a LUT onto your camera monitor...great, it will show you the ballpark of what a stylised grade will give you as you shoot. For exterior/overcast weather, you could favor a warmer colour balance to bring skin looking less washed out. If your actor is very pale, that is something you can't do too much about - without helping with makeup.