Hans Punk

Goes to show that Sony (and others) still have a way to go...surely no camera in 2016 should need to be wrestled with or need an external recorder just to get comparable natural looking colours from a hacked DSLR from 2008?. Despite the ML workflow and all its clunkiness - it is proof still that colour and dynamic range from full fat 14bit raw (even at 1080p) can kick many modern day 4k cameras to the curb in simply delivering nice looking images. I suspect it's very possible to get close with a compressed format if the colour science is more accurate to start with - using up limited bits, just to get a neutral or pleasant image sounds like an ass-backward situation. If ML were legally allowed (or even had a returned email from Canon) - I could imagine a partnership that could lead to a camera that tapped into the ability of recording 14bit raw to CFast, but with ability to simultaneously sidecar record compressed video and audio. Then have an elegant ability to conform raw media for export after cutting and grade. It could literally be done by using existing DSLR components lying around Canon workbenches and employing ML coders for a month or two! (hmm...probably) It would simply be a case of liberating the hardware limitations in the camera that ML have no control over. Saying that - I've been lucky to shoot lots of FS7 and Amira recently and the FS7 is a pretty wonderful camera and a good example of Sony getting things right....and not too much of a stretch from the FS5 price tag. Seems that Sony massively succeed when not trying to cram their magic into boxes that are too small to work without hobbling their internal codecs.

My point was that Vimeo does not auto adjust to 'as low' of a playback resolution when on a mobile device or slow internet connection speeds. YouTube is designed to prioritise playback start no matter what - over waiting to buffer to target HD resolution or 720p playback like Vimeo does.YT used to have the feature to specify HD playback as default priority for your viewers to watch in (like you can with Vimeo plus/pro), but it seems to have been removed from YouTube settings, probably because it can be slow to start on mobile devices and to them, fast playback start is their priority. what you get with Vimeo (and what many pay for) is a clean looking player that can be customised and embed easily, with non polluted advertised playback and ability to easily offer a download link to the original resolution video file..and it generally is not Populated with insecure 13 year olds bitching at each other in the comments section. So yeah, you get what you pay for.

At least (until things change) you are not the only one. I suspect the problem with YouTube is that their goal is to service all platforms at all connection speeds at all times. Consistent high quality playback is always the trade off until the whole world has sufficient affordable bandwidth to support HD/4K streams on billions of devices. Just as they do, I suspect some people will then complain that they can't view 16k HDR video on our watches. Current Codec developments can only improve web video presentation so much, the ultimate fix is with speed of connection and its lowering of cost for mass implementation. I'm old enough to remember in 1999 having to wait 30mins+ for a 480x320 QuickTime download of the Phantom Menace trailer on an average speed dial-up modem. 6 years before YouTube even existed - so don't forget how good we have it now, back then there was no macro blocking...it was massive blocking.

I guess you get what you pay for. (i.e nothing) If a client is embedding YT videos onto their site, or just sending out links to YT via links I'd guess they would not normally rank video presentation quality as a top priority, otherwise they would likely host their own preferred quality compressed video and player onto their own html5 site - or at least link to a embedded Vimeo link that at least has a more attractive/ custom player and non invasive pop up advertising. saying that, it's possible to create nice presentations on YT for some projects & companies and they are currently offering some very interesting 360 VR support, as well as very high resolution playback support. But when it comes to playback quality experience, it's almost always dependant on the connection speed to the viewer. YT only defaults to HD playback when the connection is fast enough( and often not by default even if it is fast enough), otherwise it will auto detect a lower (sometimes drastically low) quality stream to fulfil playback on everything from mobile phone to desktop. That is why sometimes it is good to use YT as a good backup way of promoting video, but better to prioritise and promote the hyperlink to the hosted video page on the clients site, or a Vimeo alternative upload to the Vimeo version may often yield better playback results - as it is less worried about loading fast on weak mobile connections, bit more likely to prioritise maintaining quality on playback...not auto switching to 360p when internet strength is weak. if your client is complaining about how the video looks, maybe it's time to ask them to think about paying for hosting video on their own dedicated web space - where compression can be controlled/minimised or at least try a plus or pro Vimeo account as an alternate sharing platform.

Beards come free with the Digital Bolex.

Could be mixup somewhere but if you heard it had anything to do with a film scan or being a 'standard' for mastering footage...It sounds more like the Cineon format to me: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cineon The .dpx offshoot format is still fairly commonly used for bringing in film scans, especially for visual effects and restoration work. Then those digital files can be outputted back to film or (more commonly now) kept in the digital realm for post production. I have many old .dpx Cineon files of 35mm scans - from effects footage taken from the early 2000's. These .dpx files were usually 2k scans open gate - and considered the 'digital negative' or 'Master' (because they contain log data comparable to raw, but from film scan acquisition). Cineform is now the new standard for GoPro lol.

Think you may be confusing Cineform with Cineon format? Cineform is now owned by GoPro (make of that what you will) In a nutshell Prores and DNxHD are most common formats for TV broadcast 'masters' (at least for here in the UK) - often they also require a compressed SD MPEG version for compliance. if you have the storage space, you could use whatever format you want to master in. But since you are on PC - you could export uncompressed .Avi as a master format as aaronchicago mentioned, this is how I used to do it- then spit out any compressed flavour of file from that file using AME. Find the best balance of file size vs quality for uploading or sharing. This may be Cineform, DNxHD whatever...but you will quickly find what works (regarding file size limits for upload). I can personally recommend 10 or 8bit DNxHD masters for cross platform compatibility (Mac/pc playback) - as well as being compatible for uploading to Vimeo (as also previously stated in .mov wrapper). File sizes can be reduced to impressive amounts for the visual quality of the file. It is fair to say it is one of the closest formats to Prores on a PC...as it is so easy to select different quality settings (that are very similar to the prores presets) and without the ball ache of installing additional codecs if you ever needed the deliverable master file to be sent to a Mac based editor or broadcaster.

DNxHD or DNxHR are one of the closest Prores equivalent export codecs in windows Adobe Premiere. If you are exporting for broadcast/ for a mac system, these .MXF formats are usually the most compatible. It's an AVID codec so any decent editor set up on a mac (or Linux) should have these installed on their machine already (if they are not already installed with edit software). Third party encoders to wrap file in prores format can work - but take extra time to encode. IMHO Makes much more sense to use .MXF format if on windows machine for delivery format...and .h264 for offline proxies/ viewing copies etc.

https://gfycat.com/ConsiderateAbleChanticleer

Keep in mind that if you are investing in the Ursa Mini, you would not be able to use the 501 natively (without SDI - HDMI converter box) So you would maybe have to choose the more expensive 502 model (with SDI & HDMI input).

For £150 on a new tripod for regular video use, people would more likely swear at it - rather than swear by it. I'd personally search for used ebay tripod listings for that budget. Broadcast houses often turf out gear that is not needed any more - and it's possible to grab a bargain sometimes on some decent quality Manfrotto or Vinten model from the HDV days. I'd recommend going with a known name rather than the thousands of tempting cheap Chinese no-brand models, as it's always a lucky dip as to what the quality of some of the components are like....and they are often not as lightweight as they appear in pictures (if you are after a lightweight model). Going with a known brand also increases the likelihood of finding spare parts or online help if something ever fails. Saying that, I'm sure people will chime in with good experiences with cheaper Chinese models they have had (E-Image brand for example) - but everyone's needs for durability and payload are different. But there is a reason that camera hire facilities do not rent out these models....they simply ain't built to last, unless you are handy with modifying/ upgrading failed components as they occur.

...and you can also shoot time-lapse and full resolution stills using ML RAW's 'Silent Pictures' feature - all without using the mechanical shutter being actuated.

http://www.creativebloq.com/adobe/history-photoshop-12052724 Lucas had to drag Sony into the movie camera business, at first they (or NHK) did not see the importance of filmic frame rates or how to accomodate PL lenses - so he convinced them to collaborate with Panavision and started the conversation between filmmakers and electronics giants. The Alexa has become the benchmark film crew friendly camera because it successfully fuses Arri's excellence and experience in film cameras, and transposed that to digital. Incidentaly the sensor inside an Alexa was developed by Sony. I don't think Lucas has enough credit, it's far too easy to flame him over the prequels and forget how much he nurtured and pushed technology in vision,sound,editing,animation to where we are today. He also gave his 4 billion dollars to charity from selling Star Wars to Disney after proclaiming 'I have enough money'. The Force Awakens will probably be appropriate for most fans to have further distance from the prequel films, as well as set up a new generation to be introduced. They have more films planned until at least 2019 so I don't think Disney will be worrying about the health of their cash cow, or critic reviews. People will always watch these films and it's a smart move getting different directors for each film, as if any individual film sucks - it will be on the head of that specific director. I'm expecting The Force Awakens to be like the best made fan film ever made...if it can offer new and interesting things within its expectation, that will be a welcome bonus.

Seeing a film shot anamorphic on custom built 35mm Panavision Millenium and IMAX cameras will be worth a watch, if not for the spectacle/ geek factor alone. The next film 'Rogue One' will be on Alexa 65 with Tarantino's Ultra Panavision 70 anamorphic lenses. Regardless of being a fan or not, it's good to see filmmakers are making films that actually bother to bring back spectacle to the cinema experience. If it was not for George Lucas' pushing of technology for the original trilogy and the advancement of digital camera technology (specifically Sony) for the repulsive prequel films, we would not be running around with 4k cameras for under $100k right now - or be able to afford any digital post production software (including Photoshop). So directly or indirectly, every filmmaker who shoots digital or uses post production software owes a debt of gratitude to the Star Wars franchise and the bearded cocaine addict George Lucas.

Looks great to me...can't see any obvious misalignment in flare streak and it looks pretty sharp throughout the focus range. The Rangefinder is introducing the aqua/blue flare artifacts, as it's blue coated optic is bouncing light through the front and rear optic when exposed to direct light, adding to the iscomorphot's standard golden streak flare. As for vignette, this looks normal for the S8 iscomorphot - it is often what people call 'barrel glow' or 'veiling glare' it is usually mostly noticeable when some anamorphic lens' are flared with intense direct light. It is almost always caused by the front optic edge of the anamorphot not having blackened edges, causing light to illuminate the frosted optic edge and a glow to happen around the edge of the image. Most of the lenses discussed on this forum were designed to only let light out (as scope projection attachments), rather than let light in (for camera attachment), which is why many do not have edge blackening on the optic front. This can be solved by using a longer taking lens, to shoot 'through' that apparent vignette of light, or carefully blacken the front optic edge with a black marker pen to dull or eliminate the barrel glow from showing up in direct light. To many, this barrel glow is part of what makes the look of anamorphic unique - so don't worry about it too much, most of the time you may not be filming directly into the sun anyway!

Yes - I was referring to getting the Isco alignment correct by adjusting one on the optics ( in this case the front). By twisting to align with the rear optic, there will be a very finite mark where the optics correctly line up - that is what allows optimum sharpness of the anamorphic. Using longer lens (and live view zoom) to get this alignment at infinity is a good idea. Flaring the lens (non zoomed) is another good way of checking Isco alignment - if any of the streak flares are not horizontally parallel to each other, there is an alignment issue and therefore not going to be sharp as it should be. Sounds like you on the right track though.

Hard to tell with that video clip. Set to Isco and taking lens to infinity (or what you guess is infinity mark) - use zoom in live view monitor to zoom in as much as you can at an object at distant object. Rotate front or rear optic (whichever one you altered) twist/push/pull until you get it as sharp as you can. That is then confirmed by checking the alignment with its horizontal flare, you ideally want all horizontal lines in the streak flare to be nice and parallel with each other. If you get these thing happening, you'll know that the alignment is correct and sharpness will be acquired at infinity.

iscomorphot S8/2x has such a beautiful look (easily in my top 5 of all lenses I've ever owned) , it really shines when used for portraits/ close-ups & medium shots. Using diopters with this lens makes for an extremely formidable 'close-up' lens - well worth left not destroying to hope to gain infinity IMHO. Because it is so light and small - it works great if 'pre-set' on dedicated taking lens with a 0.4./0.5 or +1 diopter ready to go, for when you need to switch to close-ups/ portraits. The setup is then virtually as convenient as swapping a regular lens. Used alongside another anamorphic lens (for shots from infinity to 5 feet) it can be quite a package. Personally I've mostly used my s8/2x as a portrait/ detail lens in this way, nothing really comes close in it's lovely character for medium/close range when using diopters (including the 16mm iscomorphot version - which is also very lovely) - As Bioskop's video illustrates, the quality of the optics are definitely there - and set for that distance for a reason.

I was reading this the other day about the x-rite vs DSC OneShot chart: http://www.provideocoalition.com/what-good-is-a-macbeth-colorchecker-chart Skin looks very natural in this video regardless, very nice!

Footage looks great, but I find it very hard to get excited over any released footage anymore from new cameras...as they all can do the job, some more suitable for different projects, some more suitable for different budgets. The reality is that too many people scrutinize between the numbers and nuances of many cameras a bit too much, forgetting that as long as they do not restrict a creative end...they are the least important part of the process. The mac vs pc debate never went away, it just shifted to cameras.That is the downside of making affordable cameras - people want cheap, but they also want the 'best'. Love the look of the Raven, and apparently there is a considerable Scarlet update coming soon...but I'm more interested in renting 'high-end' rather than invest in 'medium-end' if a worthy project deemed fit. Rather spread money to art department /costume/ lighting which is almost always what actually make an image shine.

Yeah, I prefer the original

+1 for shooting a grid, then correcting from that result. It is probable that you have to adjust correction for different taking lenses. Nuke would be most proficient for correction like this, but After Effects would work too - using the optic compensation tool (inbuilt into AE) and/or some custom warp tweaks.

Franz Kraus addressed at Conference of the International Association of Film and Television Schools (CILECT) in Munich on Nov 27th, that a s16 Amira prototype has been tested. They are apparently in progress to a feasibility study with an aim to supply film schools/educational market, as many schools still having lenses left over from the SR/ST days. Simplified s16 Amira (true S16 Sensor not a crop) sounds very much in the feasibility stage for now, but could end up being an interesting little camera if produced and made available outside the educational market. http://if.com.au/2015/11/26/article/Arri-reveals-prototype-educational-camera/IQUTSYTINV.html

Franz Kraus addressed at Conference of the International Association of Film and Television Schools (CILECT) in Munich on the Nov 27th, that a s16 Amira prototype has been tested. They are apparently in progress to a feasibility study with an aim to supply film schools/educational market, as many schools still having lenses left over from the SR/ST days. Simplified s16 Amira sounds very much in the feasibility stage for now, but could end up being an interesting little camera if produced. Maybe not a time yet to get rid of s16 glass quite yet....glad to see s16 film acquisition is still around too, it really can look beautiful these days when contrasted to some digitally-shot projects.

Depends what eyes you are watching with, a general 'non technical' viewer may not be very articulate in expressing the technical proficiencies or deficiencies of a production, they will simply like or dislike the viewing experience - Be immersed or 'taken out' of the show/film by the presentation experience. General audiences do not care (nor should they) about what camera,format, post production process was used for a TV or film production, for them it should support and serve the story,mood and vision of director and DP and to all intensive purposes be nearly invisible to them. For example, Most audiences don't even realize that they have motion smoothing on thier TV's as a default setting in some cases. But audiences are more and more technically savvy now to what higher end productions 'should' look like - they have an expectation of quality now with high-end TV shows that often rivals film production standards. It is often true that 'style over content' can be seen - often in TV, less so in film - where generally time and budget is smaller so less time is available to perfect everything from art department to lighting, making a cheaper emulation of bigger budget shows or films fall short of the results of weeks or months of pre/post production time. There are many reasons why films take so long to make, when a TV show employs similar aesthetics they sometimes fall short and audiences can tell. This is often a trap I see happen in low budget film - when trying to mimic the style of a bigger budget production but without being able to see why it works. 'Greengrass shoots shaky handheld?...cool, let's shoot our entire film handheld...even for the dialogue scenes'! Broadchurch is a show that employed a great deal of real locations in the South west of England, shooting in summer time - where it can be very visually attractive. richg101 on this forum lives in one of the seaside towns (Clevedon) where they shot a decent portion of that show, and from his stills and videos from over the years you can see how nice it can be made to look. 'The Remains of the Day' and 'Never Let Me Go' are notable movies shot there. Production value on screen are instant as soon as you shoot in interesting locations, Broadchurch was fairly unique in that regard for a UK drama often only augmenting natural light to get filmic results. Being relatively local and knowing people 'in the biz' who worked on that show, it's very clear about the constant battle with turnaround times for these shows have so it comes as little surprise that the final 'look' can be compromised to those who may be more opinionated on aesthetic values of film or TV production. Often the grade is where things get better or broken, in TV it is often a limiting medium to go too crazy - as there are still legal limits to broadcast and people will complain that an image is too dark for example, even when it is an artistic choice for a noir feel....people want mediocre which is why most dramas (at least UK ones) look like they are graded in the same bay session as the commercials either side of the show - often looking too sickly saturated, or too flat and bland to not risk little 86 year old dorothy in Aberdeen to complain about not being able to see what's going on in a moody drama. Saying that (and being a bit biased) UK drama can have the most diverse and interesting looks when it is allowed to. Channel 4's 'Black Mirror' / 'Utopia' and similar shows are visually outstanding, especially compared to primetime 'Broadchurch' type shows that always have the pressure of broader appeal and trying to employ 'commercial' styles that does not always compliment story or theme.