Nikkor

The difference between 6k to 4k and 8k to 4k is something you won't see in a motion picture. In fact, given the larger sensor the alexa will give more resolution. Even panavision tries to explain this effect in a video in a very cute and wrong way.

Going to try this once I have some free time. Thanks!

The camera probably has to switch to a worse/faster readout mode which has less bits, or something in that direction.

http://www.ebay.es/itm/Zeiss-Ikon-Moviflex-E-S8-Vario-Sonnar-1-1-9-10-30mm-/310655887108?hash=item485488a704

I think the blue filter lets through less light. Another thing is that depending on the light, there can be very little blue.

That's a problem with every bayer camera.

There are two problems, firstly the image processors in most cameras suck, second, if you want to make adjusments, you need more bits or even pre-debayer data But you already knew that.

The problem I see with the "thing" is that it's huge and you need some kind of device to tether or record. It also looks very 90s . But for little money it could be nice to have.

Anyone tried the D 21? It also has the rotating shutter and optical viewfinder, but it's more primitive than the alexa.

I think the reason nikon raw images don't fall apart as much as canon's is because the shadows are cleaner, as soon as you start going crazy with clarity,etc... you bring up a lot of noise. But if you overexpose, or expose to the right on the Canons you can get a lot out of those files (nikon cameras don't like overexposure, I made the test long time ago and it screws up too fast compared to canon.

I will get one then, it's a fun camera, the design is so primitive I like it.

Finally

Beside the classic stuff that has been mentioned, I like the nolan Batmans and Inception, even when there are some people who say the action is bad...

I know what you mean, the snes looks gorgeous on my 27" Sony trinitron when connected over RGB, much better than with an emulator on 1080p. Haha, 27", I remember when I got this thing as a kid I was freaking out, sooo big. With VGA you can see the lines seem to dance a little bit and fuse with each other.

A monitor with only vga must be some ancient thing, you can get monitors for next to nothing these days, so why keep the oldie.

Imagine a 5dmkiv with ML and CFast

Boosting the gain in camera? That's called ISO and it makes you loose the top F stops.

If you ask rinad amir what would he say about those specs? If you ask me I think they would be very nice for everybody because the competition would have to make 2x better cameras in order to compete.

It can be seen as a commodity, like policar said. An easy to store and durable one. Unless something revolutionizes lenses/cameras, vintage lenses hold their value better than money sitting on the bank, and they can increase their value if they become relevant.

So what are you basing your exposure on? Anyway, I'm shure someone with an A7s will come by and say something like, haha 8bit, slog2, lots of shadows = no fun. Did you record this internally or do you have a 4K recorder?

Well, I think what's happening is (I might be wrong, but it has happend to me with very flat profiles) that you want a dark look, so you expose in camera to make it look dark, but since you are shooting in slog you are getting fooled, because slog brings the shadows up and makes things look correctly exposed on the small screen. Once you get to your computer you notice it looks horrible. So what you must do, is to expose correctly, the image has to look bright on the screen , it will look bad, but log doesn't look good. Afterwards, you will delog your footage, this will make the noisy areas go back into the dark where you don't see the noise.

Well that's what should happen, I don't have a A7s, but when you are shooting log you can't judge exposure easily on screen. Just get a lightmeter, and meter that thing correctly. You can increse the iso, or increase the light, just don't underexpose.

Well, you have to learn how to expose a camera. That scene is underexposed. Slog moves the shadows into the midtone zone, this makes you believe you are exposing correctly, but it's actually wrong. Shadows are noisy, your image is 100% shadows, 100% noisy. Upping ISO makes shadows less noisy = your image less noisy. Use a lightmeter, or a screen with a lut.

If you read again, you might understand why it does. I think the touchy part of it is that there are some people who don't understand the concept but still want to have an opinion on it.

Read this, http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html, and understand it. And btw, conversions make all the sense in the world. A 36x24 proyection with a 85 2.4 lens will give the same image as a 18x12 proyection of a 42.5 1.2. lens. The total amount of light will be the same, and both images when magnified to the same size, will look almost identical (except the smaller format will look proportionally shittier, blurrier, which you might like if you are going for the hipster look)