P337

Last night a Canon rep was telling me that the new Canon 35mm Cine prime had been redesigned for less breathing, but my question to him was if the optics were improved over the rather soft 35mm 1.4 L lol, so I assume it's still their old photo lenses rehoused which I refuse to believe are much better than Samyang ;-P

http://cheesycam.com/konova-nab-new-product-teaser/

lol this guy is hilarious; "life of Pee", "Mental Focusing" if that's true then it's worth the price!

@JGharding  Which Angenieux did you get?  I'm interested in its look compared to the supposed Angenieux designed Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8;  from what I've see they tend to render the shadows slightly cooler (a bit of blue-green) and warms the flares to a kind of light gold along with a slightly warm haze, especially wide open.  At least that's what I'm seeing compared to the (as you put it) clinical look of Canon L glass.  I've also heard that some older Leica R glass a similar look to the Angenieux zooms of their day and also produces a lower contrast image compared to Ziess ZF glass.   @Bioskop  I too have been looking for a good true parfocal zoom but have started to think they may be overrated, we would probably be better off working on our focusing and just picking up a modern day "almost parfocal" photo zoom.  The only reason I want one is when doing run and gun/one man band stuff because for everything else I can measure things out and have a focus puller watching the focus.  Then I realized parfocal works best when zooming out not in, since it's almost impossible to set the depth of field for a wide shot that is dead center (if you can do that quickly I don't think you need parfocal), so if you need it for zoom out shots than it would be of some use but since I mostly want push in shots I have to zoom all the way in, set focus, zoom out, then slowly push back in and hope the subject doesn't move.  I find very little time to do that whenever I'm doing something like a wedding or event so I actually don't find it that useful over the "almost parfocal" modern zooms and like I said everything else I could just measure and mark.   Also, I personally prefer the 5D3, 6D or 7D over the 5D2.

You should conform rather then retiming your footage.  Retiming 60fps footage in a 60fps timeline to 50% speed doesn't actually have enough frames to do it properly, so it creates new frames in between each frame by blending two frames together.  Conforming 60fps footage in a 30fps timeline however plays each frame twice as long, resulting in a smoother clearer motion image that takes twice as long to playback.  However just dropping 60fps footage into a 30fps timeline will drop every other frame.

(I know this is a bit longwinded so in short, you'll be fine syncing the H4n with 60fps )   If you plan to overcrank the 60fps footage for the slow motion effect they'll need to be conformed to 30 or 24 fps so you'll need a 24 or 30 fps timeline anyway, why not just shoot the interviews in 30 or 24?     Unless you want slow motion interviews... lol   I've never actually recorded an interview at 60 but I don't think it would have any sync drift issues with the H4n.  One second of audio at any sample rate is still the same as one second of video at any frame rate, they may look and sound a bit different but they are both still recording one second of time.  Just like one second of 24fps video is equal to one second of 60 fps video except one has more frames in that second which results in clearer motion while the other has motion blur; they may look odd cut together but they'll still be in sync.  The frame rate or sample rate doesn't change the amount of time recorded but speeding up or slowing down the recording will change the amount of time the recording takes to playback so just make sure you're playing back the footage at the same speed you recorded it with the audio.

It's me!

I'm in a similar position but I decided to go with an EVF, which I also recommend to you for your needs as they give you a better (magnified) view to see focus easier. I already have a 7" peaking monitor very similar to your 1st option. I found peaking to be slightly helpful (on this monitor), it's not very accurate but it gets me into a ballpark range. It simply "peaks" anything with strong contrast even when out of focus so relying on the peaking alone cost me some focus misses (however after tweaking it I found that if I turn sharpness all the way down the peaking is more accurate but then I have to rely on it as the image is a little soft now). Another issue I have is the color accuracy, I do not feel comfortable using this for exposure because even after calibrating its setting the red channel is always way off compared to my camera's LCD or my TVs. I've heard good things about SmallHD, mostly about their built and feature sets, but I have not used one so I really can't say. The only bad thing I've heard is that the color accuracy on these are also off even after calibration and if that's true I don't know if I could warrant their prices since there are a few color accurate monitors around for about $800. Your last option seems to be the H005/H056 which I also haven't used but heard its screen is noticeably sharper then the rest due to its smaller size and higher resolution however their peaking feature isn't implemented very well (as in not very noticeable), the image is a stretched 16:10 or has overscan (there was a slight update to firmware that fixed the 16:10 to 16:9 but introduces overscan issues) there is no HDMI pass-through, the colors are inaccurate plus their lack of features and build quality is really bad (some people receiving units with power on issues right out of the box). It should be ok for focus and composure but not much else. **Update: there is apparently a new revision of the H056, the new model fixes most of my issues and is now in an aluminum shell.  There is also the Feelworld/Seetec 5.6" version which supposedly shares the same screen but is better built than the H005 with better firmware and cheaper than the new metal H056.

trolls

I don't know about a cheap one but there are a few USB follow focus models for Canon DSLRs that do just that for a couple hundred $.  And Garret Brown's original concepts for the Steadicam actually included a wearable eyepiece for monitoring! lol   Here is one story I just quickly found on it: http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2008/07/18/stead-as-she-goes/

50 Mbps is 6.25MB/s (approximately a 12:1 frame compression)   Your 30MB/s card (aka 200x) would limit you to 240 Mbps (3:1 frame compression) Opps! I just found out that SanDisk Ultra 64GB 30MB/s card you have (which I have too) only reads ar 30MB/s and writes at 10MB/s, still you can get up to 80Mbps (7.5:1 compression) with that so it's still completely useable on a GH3 or 5D3 (unhacked).   597 Mbps (75MB/s aka 500x) is an uncompressed(1:1) 1080p 4:2:0 image at 24fps but I've heard h.264 has a limit of 300 Mbps(2:1 compression) so even with a bit rate hack there's little use for anything over a 37.5MB/s (250x) card for video, photo bursts on the other hand are a different story.

  @Andy Lee, which contrast level were you referring to that looked similar to Alexa's log? (I'd want the same)   Although what do you guys think about the differences between using a low contrast lens vs a log profile?  I've used vintage single coated Nikkors with a flaat profile to get a flat look on Canon DSLRs and while I think it would be fine if I were planning to bring a flat look to final, I don't think they help to replace a logarithmic profile for grading.  Those with experience grading on a log profile like in the FS100 vs a low contrast lens might know the differences better but I don't think this will help those needing a log replacement for grading.   ​Logarithmic profiles are meant to retain details in the highlights and shadows to the best of the sensor's abilities, which when viewed on a screen with a limited dynamic range looks low contrast or "flat".  Low contrast lenses are just lenses that promote flaring, it doesn't retain any extra detail in the shadows and especially not in the highlights, a haze just makes the image appear "flat".   I'd recommend these lenses for those of us that either what the flat look in their final work without grading but more so like to play with flares (like me!) but not to attempt to replicate a log profile for a grading workflow.          

For those that can't find it here are the lens options:       I did not know the 1.5 was intended to use with the iscorama 36; I was planning on that one but now debating it.   I'm also not sure I'd want the "stupid" low contrast, so is the 1.5 similar to choosing a variable aperture option with "stupid contrast levels" and "high glow"?

Magic Lantern has been working on something similar to this, I had it on a 7D alpha build back in October 2012.  The Magic Lantern implementation saved the LCD's live view buffer files as jpegs(not mjpeg), I recorded 24 jpgs per second for one minute on my card (some dropped frames though) but it showed no sign of stopping on it's own.  My jpeg files were 4:2:2 and 98-623KB, which are 15:1 to 2.5:1 compression ratios of the 1.5MB 422 YUV originals used for the live view LCD.  Except they were only 1056x704 images.   I've heard the newer 6D uses 1816x1210 images which is closer to 1920x1080 but the Magic Lantern guys are supposedly having trouble saving these to jpegs on the 6D.     Maybe Canon is working on a way to bring a 1080p60 422 jpeg variant of this to the new model, which would be grand but I'm trying not to get my hopes up.  Even CanonRumors doesn't know how real these specs are. 

Thanks for posting that video richg101!  Which is which though?  I assume the first one shown is the Helios followed by FF58,  I really like how the second lens is capturing the light coming off the bulb but I also prefer the more colorful flares from the first lens (even though I find them more distracting).   mmills, that was quite some artsy fartsy Romanticism crap you're peddling ;-P but after getting through it I realized you're right and I completely agree.  Even though I always shoot for the cleanest footage I could get (and am not on board with that "flat look going to final" trend) I do like a nice flare and feel this is something hard enough to replicate in post that it's better done in camera.  I think all "artists" like to play with the limits of their trade and your observation of why we like this kinda of lens is spot on.  Furthermore the idea that these lenses convey a breaking point that is not only beautiful (rather then the all too common ugliness of a compression codec pushed too far) but also emotional has added much more potential in a "flare shot" for me.  So thanks! :D

Yes, I am very excited about Panasonic's new light splitters but I would be surprised if it's ready to be used in an upcoming model.     "UHD 4K" (which is actually just under 4K) in a 16:9 ratio is already 8.29 megapixels but they could pixel bind that sensor in 2x2 blocks for a clean 1080p image and still retain the ability to produce printable photos.   I think RobertoSF means BlackMagic might release/start shipping the BMCC with the micro four thirds mount at NAB which would start to directly compete against the GH line.  This supports the rumor that Panasonic will be releasing a "higher-end" GH product to stay competitive.     Like I said before, I just hope their pricing stays conservative; all I need is an 8.29mp GH3.

It's my opinion that one of Panasonic's biggest advantages it has had over all its competitors in this "HDSLR revolution" is their lower price yet equal (or better) quality products.  If they were to enter a product in this "high-end" $10,000 price range I think it would lose a lot of their current fan base,  which is really why I think the AF100 failed.  What I've loved about Panasonic is that I truly believe they try to give me everything they can for half the price of everyone else.   They will have a lot of trouble trying to convince EOS Cinema or FS owners to switch this late in the game, so they need the support of their current fan base to gain traction and succeed in this new territory.  I suspect the current GH consumer base will only extent to the price range of the 5D3 and BMCC, which is $3,000, and it needs to properly compete against these (let's face it) better cameras.  It will need to compete with the 5D's amazing low-light performance as well as BMCC's amazing latitude and detail quality.  These cameras also have weaknesses to exploit, such as the 5D's relatively poor image quality (even with 4:2:2 8bit coming) and the BMCC's horrid ergonomic designs.   The only solution I see for Panasonic to compete with their m4/3 mount is a new 8MP 1080p m4/3 sensor.  This would increase the low-light performance and dynamic range (the two major weaknesses of m4/3), it is the most essential upgrade for any GH product above the GH3.  If Panasonic just re-released the GH3 but with an 8MP m4/3 and called it new I would happily pay $2,600 (double the price) for that right now.  I'm already pretty happy with the GH3's internal codec options but they could use a higher quality 1080p60 and of course I would also like a recordable 4:2:2 10bit HDMI out to better compete with the BMCC's 12bit raw.  Any "GHish" model priced higher then this would need to be like a mini EOS C100; the same features as mentioned before but with a superior ergonomic design and NDs (like the EOS C models but smaller and lighter) and should cost around $3,500 in my opinion.  After these "high-end m4/3" camera's become a hit (which I'm pretty sure they would) then they can start tackling the $10,000 4K lossless cinema cameras.