maxotics

@comurit. I'm just a hobbyist, Andy works at this professionally. Anyway, my two cents. Your latest video on Vimeo is really nice. If you're shooting RAW you have so much latitude in getting any degree of warmth or coolness. The benefit of an old lens on my a7 is that it shoots H.264, so I can't change the image much in post--at least, that's my belief--so you need to get your warmth from the lens, or before compression. However, I didn't purposely buy these lenses because they were warm. I just enjoy trying stuff out. I do plan on continuing to use the lenses, of course. If I was shooting 5D RAW I'd get a set of Rokinon Primes. They are an incredible bang for the buck. I've never shot anamorphic, so you know more than I.

I take it it's written in C#? Are you open-sourcing it, planning to commercialize it? I went to your site, I think, http://www.dijitalakademi.com/ if so, if there an English version? The app that comes with Panasonic cameras works well on my Android. Of course, you can't script the commands. Not sure how many people would use such a feature. Anyway, love to learn more!

I've been using a fanny pack for years. My youngest daughter calls it a "gay pocket" to the immense amusement of my family, though I believe they're coming back into fashion? Here's an example. I use a different one which someone gave to me. You probably want to shop these carefully. http://www.amazon.com/Everest-Multiple-Pocket-Waist-Black/dp/B000EPMK8Q/ref=sr_1_2?s=sporting-goods&ie=UTF8&qid=1415543628&sr=1-2&keywords=fanny+pack+for+men

Here's some quick sample footage of the RE Topcor 35mm (2.8) and RE Topcor 100mm (2.8) on a Sony a7. (Other footage a6k+kit). You're right Andy, these are some nice lenses! Glad I took the plunge! Wikipedia says they were manufactured between 1963 and 1971. Here's a 100mm still > And a 35mm > Both have some mild PS work.

I beg to differ! First, yes, the 25mm isn't very good. I call them "toy" lenses too, but only for shock effect to equipment snobs. They are anything but toys to me. I see similar distorted images in many TV/films. Some cameras have the "miniature" effect built in. Here's a shot that I can not get with any other lens. Keep in mind, that only the lens can determine true focal planes. Anything one does in post is a subjective guess at blur--it's hard to get right, like trying to get focus back after the fact. > Here's another one > These are VERY SERIOUS photos to me (okay I have no taste). However, the lens looses a fair amount of color detail and resolution on APS-C size sensors. I'd also like the high light collecting quality of full frame. Thanks the for links you gave!

I want to know the answer to this too! Don't remember if I asked Andy. This is on my "winter" project list. I'm not sure if the mirror would get in the way of the lens. I wouldn't think so, but don't know. Richg101 what lenses do you like best for humans? Here's a shot I took on my full-frame a7 (I thought I had put it on my a6000, was in a rush). >

If you like crunchy chocolate-chip cookies, then yes, if you like 'em soft, then no :) Most lenses are sharp at the center. So like JCS says, more important if you're looking for sharpness at the edges. That's really where lenses get super expensive. Also, color control, different "color" beams diffract at different amounts to lens coatings, glass, etc., can make a big difference. Again, $$$s. Anyway, if your question is, should you shop for lenses based on sharpness I'd say no (unless you're doing architectural photography) A lot of professional photos are out of focus. However, they nail composition and lighting and post processing. I LOVE sharp eyes in a portrait, but I doubt most people care or notice that much. Exposure is probably more important. No matter how sharp your lens is, if you've blown out someone's cheeks, let's say, then the sharpness is lost. The dynamic range of sensors is never as wide as we'd like. In other words, sharpness can ONLY be judged if the exposure was nailed. So you might be better off investing your money in a spot-meter instead of sharp glass. Focus is also important (Duh ;) ). So the focus breathing of the lens is important. I just found some Topcor lenses from the 1960s and they have long breaths (or whatever you call it), so I like them better than the focus of some moderns Nikons. Blur, or bokeh, is determined by the diaphragm and optical construction. It's subjective, so you might like the blur better in a dull lens. If you buy Andrew's guides you'll see him talk a lot about old glass and their characteristics. He believes a lot of things go into the lens quality. Sometimes sharpness is of no importance. As everyone knows here, many of my favorite photographs were taken with a $30 old video camera lens. http://maxotics.com/?p=331 In short, when you see a photo that you think is really good because it's sharp, there is usually a lot of other things done right that make it so. Sharpness is just the most obvious aspect.

I have MFT cameras, so again, am not saying they aren't great for some things. At ISO 100, MFT and full-frame are close enough to the same. However, you can't get the shallow DOF with MFT. 2.8 in MFT is more like 4? on Full frame. 2.8 on full-frame is like 1.0 on MFT, or less, and though you can use a speed booster, you're distorting your optics. What I've discovered, Leeys, is that I CAN NEVER have enough light. I can shoot 3200 on a GH3 and get a nice image, but not near as nice as a full-frame. On a MFT, I might need to shoot 2.8 at 3200 to get as little noise as possible. On the d600, I could shoot 5.6 and 6400 say and get the same quality. Even if money is no object, there is no full-frame that can do what the Gx7 can do at THAT SIZE. Power/heat needs mean that no full-frame camera can be made small enough to create video without aliasing problems. The gx7 doesn't have that. You're right about that lens. It's a $1,000 lens. However, if SIZE isn't an issue (though it usually is for me), I'd rather have a full-frame for all shooting situations. It's not about how high ISO it can do, it's about how high an f-stop or shutter speed you can use in normal ISO. That is lost on most people who have not shot full-frame (it was lost on me). Inazuma, the video really does stink, unless you're in a pinch. Unless I wanted shallow DOF, I'd rather shoot with any Panasonic made in the past 5 years.

The d600 is a monster stills camera (as good as it gets IMHO). Just in case someone didn't say above, remember you can't change the aperture once recording video. But again, a killer full-frame stills camera. Body built like a tank. Because my eyes aren't as good, I'm shooting with an a7 (focus peaking, etc). A full-frame line skips more than an APS-C size camera, so you gain shallow DOF but pick up more aliasing issues. I did some tests again the g5 and though the d600 had better color (expected, less noise) it wasn't sharp. You will probably find the same. The d600 will do better in low light for you, and will have better color, shallow DOF, but for straight-forward filming where you want sharp good exposure, the gx7 will do better. Bottom line, I wouldn't recommend the d600 for video only, but if you shoot any stills and haven't shot full-frame before, then you are in for a treat! The hack is interesting, in motion shooting, intra-frame stuff, it probably improves stuff a bit. But does nothing I could tell in general IQ. Again, a good camera to compliment the gx7. I don't want to be flamed, but no MFT camera can hold a candle to the d600 in stills. Here's the d600 with the Tokina 28-70 2.8. https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157634924059044/ Or low light with a Rokinon 85mm https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157634891578611/

Which camera, sensor, Daniel? an 18mm on a Canon APS-C would be 28mm (but RAW would be 54mm), on a BMpCC it would be 47mm. Just trying to save Andy a step here ;)

HI Andy, I picked up a few Topcon RE lenses today, 35, 58, 100 and 300 (which appears to have a broken iris). Just ordered the Topcon to nex adapter. I figured the 100 is worth the $95 I paid for all of them. Anyway, should I do some sample video or do you already know what these lenses do?

Hi Turboguard, do you have any of your videos on vimeo or youtube we could watch. Why do you want to go so wide? On thing to keep in mind about shopping for lenses is they are rated on their quality at their intended use, which is either APS-C or full-frame. Putting these lenses on the BMPCC crops the lens image by 2.6 as you know. And if you use a speedbooster you're putting other optics in there. I can't see much of a difference between native 4rd glass as nice Nikon glass (in my casual tests). So, all things being equal, I'd rather have some autofocus and aperture control of a MFT lens. Or I'd go the older version like Matt does which is probably optically the same. You might consider buying the 7-14 panny used, on Amazon, and then resale on Amazon. It would probably end up not more than a $150 "rental" cost for a couple of months of use.

Sorry to be the fun-suckerer again, but I don't see the difference in Axiom's open source hardware and Canon's closed-source camera when it came to ML commercial development. On the ML forum a photographer offered $300 to fix the boot-flag on the 5DIII and you'd think he was a Christian Right Fundamentalist asking a question at a LGBT forum. Not only did he fail in getting a dev to look into fixing the problem for him, which he said should be shared, others implied he was trying to ruin ML with a "money" attitude. The failure of ML gaining widespread commercial success was not due to Canon's proprietary cameras, it was due to the dominant culture of ML IN NO WAY am I saying the ML devs and community are wrong about this. It is THEIR TIME and THEIR CHOICE. It is a true democracy, for good and bad. What the devs work on is what THEY feel an interesting challenge and for those who ask it that they are inspired by. How will it be any different with Axiom? Again, I'm not saying the devs won't create GREAT software for the Axiom. Past experience is already PROOF they will. The question is who will take responsibility for the system out in the real world where the $5,000 camera (which can be re-sold) is dwarfed by, say, HOURLY $1,000 OUT-THE-WINDOW, ONE-TIME, on-set costs (talent, crew, time to schedule, location scouting--everything that goes into those precious hours)? Like JGHarding, I'm rooting for all involved! The sad thing for me is I WANTED the ML devs to get more recognition for the work they did which I SO ENJOYED. In the end, I accepted that I'd rather have new stuff to play with than a reliable camera. So what I'm finally saying is that, unless they tackle this problem straight on, Axiom will have to rely on some form of non-profit funding to continue past this first phase of funding. Perhaps that's a good thing.

Inazuma have you shot with a RAW-based camera, like Magic Lantern RAW on Canon, or BM? If not, I don't expect your vacation from GAS to last much longer. The only reason I sold my BMPCC is that I shoot mostly stills. Video (filmmaking) is my first love which I can't really scratch because I just don't have the time. I get obsessed. I'm an independent data/software expert so I can't let my hobbies turn into obsessions that put my family out in the street. Photography is time-consuming enough. I'm one of those old guys who could never afford 16mm film (The RAW of my day, vs 8mm "h.264") when young, like other old guys who couldn't afford an electric guitar and now have 50 of them. Anyway, as you know, no one knows lenses and video looks like Andy. Low dynamic range (images) video, however, cannot be achieved with lenses or tricks. It's all relative to your needs and expectations of course. Ultimately, the dynamic range between any two pixels is defined by the measurement of the light hitting those pixels, so two bits bit of data, each having between 0 and 24 million values say, will have more dynamic range than two bits between 0 and 1 million values. Here are two stills that represent the differences between the Panasonic h.264 camera and RAW-based images http://maxotics.com/?p=146 Or to put it simply Low Data = HIgh Contrast HIgh Data = Low Contrast Of course, we've beat this subject to death on EOSHD. And I continue :) If you have PERFECT lighting you can get good dynamic range with your camera (like the golden hour). That is, the lighting has to be perfect BEFORE the camera compressed the image. If not, you won't have the data to get it back. Again, if you're just looking for soft looks, Andy will get you there. If you're really trying to get low contrast images, you've probably maxed out what the Panasonic camera can do. AGAIN, not saying they aren't great cameras. I have a GM1. Just saying IF one wants a certain look only RAW can deliver at this time. Again,I'm just passionate about this point because I spent a lot of time trying to match dynamic range between cameras. And I'd be remiss if I didn't repeat NOTHING ABOUT A RAW WORKFLOW IS TRIVIAL IN TIME AND MONEY. You have to really want to sacrifice a lot for the look. If you're shooting events and just want a few effects, then you have the perfect setup. For the kind/amount of video I shoot, the GM1 kills it.

Sorry, I was just talking about getting low-contrast images using filters. That kind of softening stuff Any is talking about, I agree, every filmmaker should learn the technique. I was only joking about trying to get a very specific RAW image from a compressed video camera. Thanks for the links, Andy! Maybe I'll go back one day and do it the right way.

I tried the Nylon stocking thing too! Andy's sending you down the rabbit hole!!!! :) Next you'll be ordering clear filters and wiping vasoline on them. I also tried small drops of clear nail polish. I'm telling you, go take a job at McDonalds. In the same amount of time you'll end up doing that stuff you could have earned a BMPCC at $10 an hour flipping burgers. :) :) :)

I was thinking if you lived in the U.S. I could drop some filters in the mail. I don't have any great ones, don't remember what I have exactly. They're just sitting in drawer. Except for polarization and ND I feel most other effects can be done in post. I'm no expert though, that's a 1-pence opinion ;)

Also, moire is a naturally occurring phenomena in all optic systems, even biological. We can see it visually with our naked eye. Indeed, I saw it a few weeks ago in the grating on the heater of a subway car. For cameras that have line skipping the aliasing problem is lumped into the "moire" problem by most people, though they are a bit different.

Most of it seems shot in the golden hour and the full-daylight shots are warmed considerably. In the car scene, the weakness of h.264 is obvious to anyone who has shot RAW (not that it was bad). I went through a "filter phase" for a bit, trying to lower contrast. The cost of good filters gets close to the $750 you can pay to get a BMPCC. If low contrast shooting is one's style, beg, borrow or steal a RAW camera. That was my conclusion. Or shoot in the golden hour when the sky becomes one big soft-light. Most cameras look good then :) BTW, Inazuma, are you located in the U.S.?

Hi Matt, at the bottom of this album you can find shots I took with the Vivatar 7mm (Nikon mount) on a BMPCC https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxotics/sets/72157641966461713/ My kids and I love that little 14mm 2.5 Panny lens on MFT. A little workhorse.

My experience is the number of people who will buy the camera for that reason is very low. And I couldn't agree more with Tim Naylor on the high end. When I got involved with ML I ended up trying to make the EOS-M a killer RAW camera (and it is, at 720p). My video tutorial has 6,589 plays all-time.

This IS probably one of the areas where this camera could hit a home run. Nikon has the best DR of any camera (stills) and it uses Sony sensors. Since Sony cameras don't have the same DR, it leads one to believe Nikon has some really good firmware/software that writes sensor data to memory (RAW). Sigma Foveon cameras have 8 stops DR, but at 100 ISO deliver medium format quality because of the sensor design... DR does not equate to color quality. Anyway, last I was at ML they were working on ways of writing two different exposed images at the same time, then using HDR techniques, to give a higher DR image. With the Axiom you should be able to program this. For example, you could program it to take 72 frames, each set of 3 frame -1, 0 and -1 EV. Then software could use them to fix blow-outs, dig out the shadows, etc. Unfortunately, it looks like AXIOM is spreading itself very thin. The camera, without easy to use development tools and libraries, will experience a bottleneck of having too few devs. Again, if there isn't an easy path (tutorials, libraries, etc.) to learn ML, why will AXIOM be different? But again, if money is no object, this is the camera that may push DR technology ahead in powerful and creative ways.

I agree with everything you say. As for open-source, I spent a LOT of time on ML, which is also open-source, but in the end the BMPCC just WORKED. The whole project is aimed at what filmmakers want with not enough attention to what they will USE, or what they can afford. I learned a sh_t load about photography working with ML, for that I am ETERNALLY grateful to people like A1ex. However, I was able to start with a used 50D, and with Adnrew's guide, was up and running for under $400. The Axiom project is priced at the semi-professional level, if not professional. How many young filmmakers, programmers, are going to have $2,000 to pay for a body? From my experience on this blog, not many! Finally, when I was working for ML people BEGGED for features and fixes. But there wasn't enough A1ex, or the other about 5 real devs to do the work. I don't see how Axiom can grow as an open source expensive platform where ML couldn't. Guess we'll have to see!

There cannot be TOO MANY CAMERAS for me! :) :) However... o. The cost puts it out of the reach of most amateurs o. It's trying to do too much, too fast and reeks of "vanity project" for all. o. Commercial users will require commercial support and ML has a poor record of delivering that kind of reliability. o. If a 3rd party offers commercial support can they survive on just one platform, against other better capitalized providers? o. There are very, very few people who can/want to developer software--PERIOD. I cannot stress this enough. So what's the benefit to them? In fact, it's a negative because no one wants to feel responsible for something they're uncomfortable with. In short, VERY, VERY FEW PROFESSIONALS would use anything but a rock-solid, time-tested platform on a real shoot. o. What happens if a serious flaw prevents the first batch of cameras from working? Who will pay? o. Didn't Ricoh try interchangeable sensors? Some ideas are good in theory but NEVER work in practice o. Why can these guys do what BM can't? Because they'll work for free? Because they're smarter? Because BM is dysfunctional? There needs to be a GOOD reason for it to be sustainable. o. I don't hate the camera makers (even after Panasonic wouldn't fix my GM1 :( ). Open Source, and other social virtues can get awfully expensive and I'm not sure people will be forgiving when their $2,000 camera keeps resetting because of some shitty capacitor buried in a circuit-board. My opinion, they should take the money and try to create the lowest-price open-source camera, start small, and build up. Plan for it to take 3-5 years.

Delete