tupp

Thanks for the link. The only footage from the camera that I found is evidently included in a commercial for the camera. I was hoping that it would have an interesting character, like the Pixel Vision camera. That's amazing! The Codex drives for the Alexa have been discontinued. I wonder if there is a way to rebuild the ones that died.

Yes, with apparently the only current exceptions being: the Angenieux EZ-1 focal reducer (only works with EZ-1 zooms on PL and some EF mount cameras); the White Point focal reducer for medium format lenses (PL mount?); and @lucabutera's clever NX-1 speedbooster (semi-shallow NX-1 mount). I think @lucabutera also made a focal reducer that that can be installed permanently inside a BMD camera. Perhaps he or someone else who knows about this can chime in. ... ah, you got me! It's late here. Going to bed now...

Not sure what this statement means, but if a Barbie Cam is anything like a Pixel Vision camera, I like to shoot a test with it. Why? There are certainly will be differences in the format, and certain color nuances, but what exactly do you think will better or worse in the performance/usability/reliability between the Panavision DXL and the FF Kinefinity Mavo (which has not yet been released)? Well, the page from the dealer ProAV is a little misleading, but that dealer does list the sensor size in at least two places on the page. In addition, the results are almost identical to using a full frame lens having an FFD of an EF lens or longer. Plus, you get an extra stop of brightness over using just a full frame lens with a full frame sensor, and you also have the option to use any S35 lens directly and get complete coverage (which is not possible with a non-croppable FF sensor). Furthermore, you can use FF lenses with a tilt adapter, which works perfectly with an S35 sensor. By the way, Kinefinity will be releasing their FF Mavo sometime soon. With a good speedbooster, the results would be almost identical to a FF camera, plus you get that extra stop and the other options mentioned above. I am glad you asked that question! There are a lot of advantages (mentioned above) to using a focal reducer with a S35/APSC sensor over just shooting with a FF camera. On the other hand, a S35/APSC sensor cannot work if one wants to shoot MF inexpensively by using a MF speed booster (such as the Kipon) -- a FF camera with a shallow mount is required. Additionally, if a FF camera with a shallow mount features a decent S35/APSC crop, then one has the best of both worlds! Such a camera is extremely versatile! So, there are valid reasons to get a FF camera over shooting equivalent FF with a S35/APSC camera and a focal reducer. Of course, there are also those who want FF who cannot fathom using a focal reducer or any other kind of adapter. Well, most of the dumbasses are probably going with Canon -- not Kinefinity. Canon makes good cameras, but due to the brand popularity it appeals to the "low common denominator." Some might buy the FF Mavo over a camera with smaller sensor because of the reasons I gave directly above. The results are virtually identical with a quality focal reducer. Ever heard of a Canon 550D, a 80D, Sony A6000? Yes. All good cameras. However, you probably won't be able to put any existing speedbooster on the 550D and the 80D, because they don't have a shallow mount. Did I mention that you have to have a shallow mount to use a speedbooster (and most other adapters)? Not sure I did, because you bring up the 550D and 80D -- both of which have EF mounts (not shallow). This point seems lost on many, as apparently some of us can repeat several times that a shallow mount it necessary to use a speedbooster and most other adapters (and, hence, most other lenses), and the point doesn't seem to sink in. You do understand that a shallow mount is required to use speedboosters, tilt adapters and adapters for most lenses, don't you? There is a whole universe of lenses that cannot work with EF nor PL mounts. These are the reasons why some of us push for cameras to have shallow mounts. One exception to this might be the focal reducer designed for the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms, but they cannot fit on every DSLR, and, of course, they only work with the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms -- they don't work with any other lenses. Angenieux can considerably lighten one's wallet, as well. Not sure, but I think that the White Point focal reducer is designed to work only with the White Point medium format lenses, and I think that the only mount for those focal reducers are PL mount. So, this new White Point setup might be an exception to the MF focal reducer requiring a shallow mount.

A shallow mount such as an E-mount allows one to do a few interesting things. For instance, one can use the Kipon MF focal reducer on the Sony Venice and on the upcoming Kinefinity FF Mavo, and one is essentially shooting MF footage for a lot less than the Arri, Panavision and Red alternatives. It's no joke. Using a focal reducer to get the look of a lens designed for a larger format is absolutely valid. If you think focal reducers are a joke, perhaps you should take up the issue with Metabones, Angenieux and White Point. By the way, which camera do you have with an APSC sensor? Unless you can afford the Angenieux or the newer White Point alternatives, your camera needs to have a shallow mount to take a focal reducer -- that's sort of the point that a few of us have been trying to make in several forum threads.

Any off-the-shelf Sony technology that Hasselblad used is likely licensed so that Hasselblad can sell it. On the other hand, neither of us know the language of the clauses in the Sony-Hasselblad agreement, so until somebody produces the contract, it is sort of futile to go back and forth any more on the matter. You have not made that case. Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier. I think that most people would say it's an E-mount, even though the contacts are apparently not active. When you buy the mechanical portion of the mount, what do you call it? I have know idea how much Clairmont spent to make their adapters. They were a rental house, so they didn't sell them. I heard that Denny Clairmont merely retired and sold his company to Keslow Camera -- not that Clairmont "went bust."' I mentioned Clairmont Camera merely to demonstrate that the use of adapters is not always considered a "pain" nor "amateurish." Rental cost of the adapters is immaterial. Yes. Panavision is another company that produces adapters happily used by pros. I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens. As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses. I am okay with that, as I would probably never need to use such an electronic lens. I suspect that there are a few others who are likewise okay with it, as it being offered on a couple of cameras. I will try another way to explain how making the front end of a camera with a shallower mount costs no more than making the front end with a greater FFD. Lets say that a camera manufacturer wants to make two cameras, each having a removable front lens plate: one camera has a lens plate that mount at an FFD greater than that of say, a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "X" and camera body "Y"; the other camera has lens plate that mounts 12mm closer to the sensor than FFD of a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "A" and camera body "B." Lens plates "A" and "X" are identical, except that "A" is 12mm longer than "X." Camera bodies "B" and "Y" are identical, except that "B" is 12mm shorter than "Y." The tooling on the respective parts are identical, except for the difference in these single dimensions. Thus, it costs the same to make "A-B" as it does to make "X-Y." Got it? Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem. Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable. 99% of the EF users will never change anything. People who want to change mounts will largely be able to do so, and, of course, will have to accept any risks (which are almost nil). I wouldn't shim my EF mount (and I hardly ever use it). However, if I had to shim it on the adapter to which it is mounted, I would have to unscrew it, put the shim(s) in place and screw the mount back on. Of course, there needs to be enough male and female threads to do so securely and the shim/spacer needs to be positioned so that it comes between the adapter body and the mount material. I think that I have made it clear that having a shallow mount doesn't preclude the use of a popular mount, and that such a configuration could be designed so that most users would be aware that the popular, fully-functional mount is actually removable. I have addressed how the design of such a camera would not affect it's "market economics." You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. I am saying that it usually is not a problem with cheap adapters, especially if one is using rails and a lens support. Certainly,one tries to avoid skew, unless it is intentional (which, sometimes, it is). That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters. Yep. At substantial cost. It can be done. I agree. You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this. No. It doesn't actually cost that much, even with precision. Standard manufacturing/fabrication tolerances often start at +/- 0.003 inch (in the USA). Of course, optical tolerances can be higher. Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ? Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ? I know one or two things about manufacturing. The eight additional machining operations are tapping four threads in the camera body and drilling four corresponding holes in the lens mount. These eight machining operations could be reduced down to two -- as I recall, the Eclair NPR had a turret that was attached with a single threaded knob (tap one thread in the NPR body and one hole in the lens plate). Some fabricators count tapping threads as a separate operation from drilling the thread hole. Nonetheless, it is not that much more expensive than those who group such operations as a single procedure. Before anyone goes on about the extra cost of dealing with a separate piece (lens plate) in comparison with a body that includes the front end as a single piece, there are complications that one has to deal with in regards to larger molded/die-cast items, which can drive the cost higher. It's not more expensive, as I have explained in the "A-B/X-Y" example, and it is not much more expensive to go from a one-piece design to a two-piece design as I described directly above.

It is doubtful that Hasselblad (or any other company) would include a patented, 3rd-party component on a product without a licensing agreement, or without an agreement with a clause regarding licensing. I am not so sure about that, for the reasons I stated earlier. At any rate, what is the relevance of "native?" Does the Red or Kinefinity have a "native" lens mount? Either a camera has an E-mount, or it doesn't. Kinefinity has an E-mount. Maybe for some it is painful. Again, if a special lens or an adapter can give a distinctive edge, some of us can stand the "pain." Clairmont Camera got a lot of business from their various cinema adapters, which they advertised heavily with full page ads in magazines such as "American Cinematographer." These were often big, unwieldy contraptions, but I don't recall anyone complaining about them being "painful" to use (unless someone did something foolish with the squishy lens). Except for the clicked iris non-parfocal zoom, there are definitely cine lenses have the same problems. However, there are plenty of still lenses without clicked a iris, and, of course, in most cases, the iris can be de-clicked if that is really important. If you want a parfocal zoom, you have to use a parfocal zoom -- that's all there is to it. Again, I am fairly sure that the throat diameter of a M4/3 mount is larger than the image circle required for S35. Also, I am not saying that this is the best way to accomplish a shallow mount, but it's better than nothing. I do not look at the Digital Bolex as similar to the JVC LS300. Their "ideals" seem very different to me. Not sure about which has more "direct visual impact," but, from what I've seen, I generally prefer the look of the Digital Bolex. I'm not so sure about that. I think that one can attach an E-mount lens to a Kinefinity body -- you just won't have the electronics. At any rate, Kinefinity already has a "non-native" E-mount, and that's all that matters. No. I disparage manufacturers for being arrogant and ignorant. They don't want to understand that they can ship a "native" EF mount and still be able to use a shallower mount -- AT NO EXTRA COST!!! Do you understand that? I don't think doing so is "dumb," but there are better solutions for cinema cameras. The Red plate is required on a Red body, regardless of price. Doing what I suggest doesn't have to add a penny extra to the cost of whichever plate ships default with a Red body. Do you understand? The price of the individual plates is irrelevant -- one has to use some plate on the front of a Red camera, so merely making the required plates shallower will not add to the cost of whatever plate one has to use (unless there is a way to shoot with a Red camera without a plate). I am not sure if you (nor some manufacturers) grasp this very basic concept. I just used Red as an example, because of the simple configuration of their plate system (which BTW has been done with precision on other cameras for a fraction of what Red charges). The cost of the individual plates is irrelevant -- what I propose will not add to that cost, nor does it need to add to the cost of any camera with a removable front. 99% of people that buy this camera aren't going to want to know about shimming anything. Most people don't even understand how to do it correctly. 99% percent of the don't have to know anything about shimming if the shims are captive. In addition, higher quality adapters should be fine (though more expensive). Again, this is usually only a problem with parfocal zooms (or with folks who use lens marks). I remember that. Somebody f***ed up. If a lot of different lenses can't focus to infinity, I wonder who f***ed up? You mean those ones you were just saying don't have to be expensive ? Which is it then ? Again, if you already have plate or other intermediate mount, it doesn't add extra cost to merely make them shallower (especially with the simple plate system). I have not heard of a lot of problems with folks using FZ, KineMount, M4/3, E-mount, Red plates, etc. Parfocal zooms are the most likely problem. Cheap adapters tend to err on the short side, to avoid infinity focus problems. By the way, anything is shimmable, as long as there is enough male/female thread. A shim is just a spacer. I think you said it earlier. It's about degrees of precision. A bit out for you might be acceptable for for other sit most certainly won't be. Nobody is going to notice 1-2 degrees of skew, unless they are shooting flat art or they are using a very narrow lens wide open (or if they are focusing with lens marks). I am not crazy about EF lenses either, but it is obvious that shipping a camera with a precise, fully capable EF mount, doesn't have to preclude the possibility of a shallower mount on that camera. Manufacturers have already shown that such an EF mount can be default, while retaining the versatility of shallower mount, with no complaints from the clueless EF users. In addition, there is no extra cost to do so in some cases, and in other instances the additional cost would be low (maybe 8 more simple machining operations). I agree that when precision is important, it's important! What I propose can utilize the same amount of precision required for the Red plate system -- you just start out with everything a little further back, That's all -- no increase in the amount of precision required. Unless something was wrong or I was using a cheap adapter, I have never any problem with still lenses overshooting infinity. It wouldn't matter anyway, because I am usually setting marks with digital zoom or pulling focus on the fly by eye (hopefully by some kid good vision and a big monitor). Likewise, 99% of EF shooters never use marks on the lens (and they probably are using still lenses), so the point is somewhat moot. There is no need to address the other points you mentioned about cost, because what I advocate doesn't cost extra in some instances and it adds little to the cost in other instances. Do you understand?

It certainly IS Hasselblad doing a native E-mount camera Hasselblad did not just suddenly decide to buy a bunch of NEX 7s and put wooden handles on them. They had to have a licensing agreement with Sony on the hardware. At any rate, because Sony has already licensed the E-mount and for the other reasons I mentioned earlier, I think it's possible that we will see the E-mount appearing on more cameras in the near future. Not at all. You can use them on the camera used in the title of this thread just fine. I've got a nice M-->MFT mount adaptor that works great with my M mount leicas... So, it's okay (and not amateurish) to use adapters? ... even with all the futzing? Rather than condemn the variance in look as annoying inconsistencies, it might be beneficial to think of such subtle differences between lenses as characteristics that can be employed for expression, Well, I guess that different folks have differing thresholds of what is considered "painful" or practical. Certainly, it is generally nice to work with cine housings, but sometimes that is not possible. In addition, the original housings on still lenses are usually lighter and more compact than their rehoused counterparts. Somebody must be buying the LS300, as there is footage on the internet. I never said that using an M4/3 mount with a S35 sensor is a "great" idea, but I do think that it is a good idea, as is having self-cropping sensor (as long as it can also be manually controlled). I don't think that anyone here made declarations that the LS300 is a "great" camera. Again, I mentioned it merely to prove that an M4/3 mount works with a S35 sensor. Yes. That is my point. What I am advocating is just dumb-simple common sense. The point is: if you start out designing your camera with a shallow enough mount (be it M4/3, E-mount, EF-M, a bolted plate... whatever), then the users can do anything with the camera's front end. On the other hand, if you start out with a mount that is too far forward, then you create unnecessary limitations. That is my understanding of how the LS300 works. I think one can manually override the auto-sizing. Actually, that is not true, as there are native M4/3 lenses that cover the full LS300 sensor. I suspect that our concept of what is "backwards" (and "forwards") might differ a little. Our concept of what constitutes "success" probably differs a little, as well. To me, if JVC has made a profit from the LS300, it is a success. Furthermore, we all know that the best ideas are often usurped by sub par alternatives, especially in this age of consolidation, monopolies and mediocrity. That notion brings us back to the proprietary leanings you expressed earlier: JVC owns that auto-sizing. No other camera other than one made by JVC will have auto-sizing (until they license it or until the patent runs out). I would also like to add that auto-sizing is much more novel and patentable than a bayonet lens mount (which likely has prior art going back over a century). It is likely that the claims of the Sony patent(s) for the E-mount are generic, over-reaching and easy to get around. A universal mount is not required, but that would be nice. Such a mount doesn't have to be any more expensive than a M4/3 mount, a KineMount, an FZ mount or a Red plate (the actual cost of the Red plate -- not list price). I've never had a precision problem with cheap adapters and prime lenses. In regards to parfocal zooms, usually adapters with higher tolerances are required, sometimes with captive shims. However, all that is required is that the manufacturer ships the camera with the default mount precisely calibrated, and the shallow mount doesn't necessarily have to be field switchable. It's been done: Kinefinity; Sony (FZ); Sony (E-mount); M4/3; Canon (EF-M); Red (plate). All of these mounts are precise and allow electronic connections. Now, if you don't need the electronic connection, there are numerous more examples, including those found on a lot of precise film cameras (some of which had removable lens turrets). It's not difficult. It is extremely simple and it has been done a many times over with precision on previous cameras -- even on two BMD cameras (the Ursa and the Wooden Production Camera). The Ursa bolt-on is actually more complicated than it needs to be, and, of course, it is not shallow enough. However, are you suggesting that the default front shipped with the Ursas are problematic in regards to their precision? Are EF or PL users having problems with precision? Remember, such typical users need never remove the mount -- they can just get a whole new camera every time they need a different native mount! In addition, Red seems to be using bolt-on front ends without problems. What I advocate requires nothing more complex nor more expensive than that system. Again, I only used the LS300 as an example of what is possible in regards to shallow mounts and a S35 sensor. The number of people who want the LS300 is irrelevant to the feasibility of using a shallower mount, bolt-on or otherwise. On the other hand, the number of LS300s sold has to be decent, and there has been no shortage of discussion about that camera on this forum. Hats off to them. Innovation should be rewarded. If it's what people want. I'm not sure, but I believe that BMD might be reaching one of those milestones later this year. So, hats off to BMD. Innovation should be rewarded. If it's what people want. Actually, the milestone of having a raw, M4/3 4k camera is not innovation -- it's just progress. The smaller Kinefinity is making faster progress than the larger BMD. It's a lot more expensive and complicated to make and produce a camera than it is to produce a song.  Ha! I would bet that there were cameras which appeared in the late 1960s that cost less to develop and make than the cost of producing "Good Vibrations." At any rate, my point was that what is most popular in a market is often not the best option. You have professed your dislike of EF lenses described their shortcomings, yet there are 130 million EF lenses. Are EF lenses the best option because they are the most popular? There is no shortage of other such examples. But no one buys them. Not true. Tell that to Jannard and all of the Red fans using lens mount plates. I have never had any skew nor sharpness problem with a fixed adapter and a prime lens, even with the cheap, wobbly adapters. Also, I've shot with a few view cameras and I own a tilt/swing adapter, and a few degrees of skew is very difficult to perceive, unless you are shooting flat art with a wide aperture. Easy to say. Harder to do. No. It's easy to do. and having shallow mounts on cameras can cost the same as not having them. With the Red example, having a shallower mount is merely a difference of proportion. It is possible that only two dimensions need to be changed in the existing working drawings (the length of the lens tube and the length of the camera body in front of the sensor). It doesn't have to cost any more to have a shallow mount. I don't think that the image circle required for a S35 sensor is larger than the throat diameter of an M4/3 mount. Actually, you could probably bolt an enclosure with EF mount over the M4/3 mount, and none of the EF users would notice the difference. Or, just use the simpler shallow lens plate system that defaults to EF for all of those users.

Here is a screen grab from test footage that shot a few years ago with an EOSM and a tilt/swing adapter, and, as I recall, a Nikkor 50mm, f1.4 (don't know the exact aperture setting, but it was almost wide open). Note how the bokeh has a "gradient" from left to right. I went a little over the top, as I wanted to push it to the extreme. Such adapters can give a more subtle bokeh gradient, with the right touch.

I'm not so sure about that. The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount. Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time. No doubt, it has occurred to Sony's camera division that they could sell more lenses if the E-mount were widely adopted. In light of the Sony CEO's recent declaration that the company is moving away from manufacturing "gadgets" (apparently including digital cameras), it certainly is conceivable that their camera division might consider selling more lenses, in deference to their scrutinized bottom line. I did not know that there are that many EF lenses. That's incredible. The EF scourge is even more prevalent than I realized! So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas? Does that include the PL rehousings of FF (and MF still) glass, especially those that are being used with the recent large format cinema cameras? Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish? Well, I suppose some folks are more "adaptable" than others. I have done okay changing between different mounts and adapters in fairly rapid shoots. With a couple of ACs, usually one of them knows how mount a speed booster, so it makes things much easier. It seems to me that "futzing" is sometimes a part of filmmaking, especially if one is trying something completely new. Furthermore, if a little futzing adds some distinctiveness that sets my work apart from the run-of-the-mill, I will gladly futz. Huh? If you are referring to my earlier mention of the JVC LS300, I brought it up because it merely proves that an M4/3 mount works fine with a S35 sensor. I would not know a show shot with that camera nor with most any other camera. On the other hand, I have seen some good footage from the LS300, including clips shot by our own @Mattias_Burling I would guess that we differ slightly in regards to the notion of what constitutes "amazing creative work" (not that one notion is better than the other). I am not familiar enough with most of the existing footage from the LS300, but I think that it's special capabilities shine if one shoots with a set of lenses made for different formats or if one uses focal reducers or tilt adapters with a S35 sensor. I'm sorry, but I have to disparage some camera manufacturers for their arrogance and short-sightedness (who are possibly unlike the two manufacturers that you disparage). Outfits like BMD, Red and Canon, etc. are not interested in the fact that what I advocate does not preclude the use of EF lenses to their full capability, nor are they interested in the fact that what I propose requires ABSOLUTELY NO FUTZING for EF users. There are several inexpensive ways to make such a versatile front end, of which EF users would be completely clueless to the fact that the EF front is removable for those who need a shallower mount. The simplest example that I can give is to merely imagine a Red camera, but with its lens mount plate set further back to accommodate a shallow mount (such as the E-mount, M4/3, EF-M, Fuji X,... whatever). If such a camera is shipped with a smart EF lens plate already bolted on, the clueless EF users won't notice any difference, and such hidden versatility won't affect sales figures at all. In regards to your mention of Kinefinity, a typical shooter might consider them marginal. However, Kinefinity has already beat the larger "non-marginal" BMD (and several others) to a few important milestones, including offering a raw, M4/3 4k camera and offering a raw, FF camera. Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles. Those two scenarios are not exactly what I am advocating, but I would certainly be fine with either. Again, with the right front end design, most would never know that a camera has (or can have) a shallower mount, and the camera manufacturer would not even need to supply an E-mount -- it would not be "commercial suicide." Furthermore, the notion that a S35 sensor is "LARGER" than an M4/3 mount is completely arbitrary -- especially since the LS300 (and other camera/adapter combos) proves that such a configuration works. Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters). I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem. Also, even if such a camera only has an M4/3 mount, a prominent qualifier in all literature and on all pertinent web pages should prevent most such problems.

Nice article! If most camera manufacturers adopted the KineMount, it would be great for the sole reason that there would be many choices of cinema cameras with shallow mounts. No doubt that there would also be many more inexpensive, "universal" adapters available, as well. On the other hand, manufacturers don't need to bother with proprietary or "standardized" hardware, as they can default to a simple, long-established, lens mount plate system such as the one adopted for Red cameras -- but much shallower. Thanks for the quote/link. So, it appears that Kinefinity is considering electronic capability in future versions. The question now becomes: If this E-mount adapter is primarily mechanical, what prevents its use on other Kinefinity cameras with ≥S35 sensors? I have imagined that world many times over and over, additionally with all kinds of focal reducers (including MF) and tilt/shift adapters. Having a versatile shallow mount is a dumb-simple, inexpensive improvement for camera makers that don't have it. I cannot understand why most manufactures (nor shooters) fail to grasp this basic concept. By the way, some lens manufacturers exhibit a similar ignorance: many of them offer completely manual lenses with EF mounts, but not with Nikkor mounts! How does one use a lens with an EF mount on a Nikon D850? ... or how does one use a non-Canon EF lens with an EF speedbooster that cannot accommodate the rear lens element of a non-Canon lens (while the Nikon speedboosters do accommodate such lenses)? This EF-centric mentality is a scourge. That is an extremely cool and compact rig! Too bad such a rig is impossible on BMD ≥S35, on Red, on Panasonic ≥S35 and on any camera with a Canon EF mount! ... and most of them stink. [obligatory] On the other hand, I agree with @Jim_Giberti that there is a difference between opinion and verifiable fact (subjective interpretations aside).

According to an August 2008 Wired article, Jannard first got the idea to make a camera when he couldn't use the files from his Sony HDR-FX1 (which first appeared in late 2004). Dalsa was showing footage from their working 4k raw prototype at the 2003 NAB. The event that you linked is not the first time footage from their camera was shown -- it is "the first international real-time collaboration on 4k digital content," whatever that means. According to the Wired article linked above, Red achieved "first light" with a prototype in August of 2006. Sorry, but Dalsa significantly preceded Red and all others in the 4K raw race. I didn't call anything a "mistake." Not sure if the "effect" automatically follows the "cause" in this scenario. However, it is my understanding that the Terra uses the same KineMount as the other Kinefinity cameras. So, making the E-adapter work on on those other cameras probably isn't an insurmountable challenge! In contrast, to enable an E-mount on the ≥S35 BMD or Red cameras, one would have to use a hacksaw. I agree with you that most of the manufacturers that you named are not going to make a ≥S35 cinema camera with a shallow mount anytime soon. That's a shame, because it would be very easy (and inexpensive) for them to add such versatility to subsequent camera lines. I am afraid that most of those camera companies are guided by ignorance, greed and hubris. On the other hand, I have no doubt that Panavision would create an E-mount DXL within a week, if an ASC guy asked for it. By the way, I was incorrect in saying that the Red cameras and the Kinefinity cameras were similar in that they both used lens mount plates -- Red does, Kinefinity doesn't. Not sure if this is correct, as the Kinefinity E-mount adapter has conspicuous electronic contacts, as does the Kinefinity mount on the Terra.

I believe that is precisely the point that @Savannah_Miller (and others) were trying to make, to counter your suggestion that Red has had versatility in regards to mounts before others. No. Kinefinity has one more option with the native mounts (with focal-reducers for both a Nikon and EF, but no native Leica-M) than Red, and especially with any adapter/focal-reducer that can attach to a Sony E-mount (which also includes anything that can attach to M4/3, such as a tilt/swing PL mount!). Not sure if most shooters (nor even many camera manufacturers) understand the significant advantage of having such a shallow mount. I wouldn't say that Blackmagic consistently builds cameras that " match the sensor." BMD tried to get "cute" with the ID on their first few cameras to the detriment of functionality/usability. This malady is a common to manufacturers trying to make an impact when starting out in an industry. Unlike Kinefinity, BMD is definitely ignorant of the advantages of having shallow mount capabilities, and they don't seem to understand that a camera with a shallow mount does not preclude electronic capability in EF lenses. I have talked to them about shallow mounts at every NAB since the Ursa Mini first appeared. At that time, I even made a US$10,000 bet with one of their condescending show reps that an S35 sensor can be used with a M4/3 mount (the Ursa Mini appeared the same year as the JVC LS300). Unfortunately, it seems that the same camera manufacturer hubris that (according to BMD) pushed them in to making their own models is now thoroughly entrenched within Blackmagic Design. Like most other camera makers, they are more interested moving boxes than they are in creating versatile cameras. In regards to the aesthetic design of the 4K Pocket camera, BMD definitely was not trying to be "cute" at NAB -- that prototype is possibly the most butt-ugly camera that I have ever seen. I almost recoiled in horror when I first saw it. Too bad BMD doesn't offer M4/3 mount or Sony E mount or Canon M mount (or just a simple shallow mount plate) on their S35 cameras. As I recall, Red first appeared at the 2005-2006 NAB saying that they were coming out with a 4K camera. It was vaporware for a long time after that. The story that I heard about Red's beginning was that Jannard was having problems with some Sony camera from 2004-2005, which gave him the notion that he could make his own camera. Keep in mind that Dalsa started showing their 4k, raw cinema camera at NAB around 2003. After that, miniaturization and continually diminishing cost is just a natural progression -- not innovation. I am no huge fan of Kinefinity, but I think that they have a better idea than Red and BMD on how to make a camera with advantageous versatility. I would not say that Kinefinity is a "spinoff" of Red. The only thing that those two brands have in common is a boxy design of no particular novelty and the use of common lens mount plates (which are configured much more advantageously on the Kinefinity models).

Of course, such functionality has to be obvious to drunken wedding goers, hence my call for usability considerations in an above post. It might be easier to just start with a faster frame rate and simply choose the desired frames (every frame, every other frame, every third frame, etc.) to yield the final speed -- rather than changing the frame rate (and shutter speed?) on the camera. Again, sloppy bridesmaids (and groomsmen) have to be able to operate this machine, so dumb-simple speed-changing usability is key. Not sure if wedding goers will remember the URL in the morning, but if there is a booth attendant, he/she can jot down the specific download link and hand it to users as they stumble out of the booth. Actually, an attendant might as well operate the camera controls...

I think that they tapped into the signal coming out of the A-to-D converter. Doing so is a little tricky as one must: find the part of the circuit to tap; bring that raw digital signal up to line level/voltage for a recorder; work with extremely miniaturized components. Over the last year, I have considered trying such a hardware hack with my EOSM, but the skills required for steps #1 and #3 are beyond me. Here are two videos showing the EOSM innards: Don't know if it would be feasible to start a business making such hardware mods on EOSMs, as I can only guess at the demand/quantities involved. However, such a hardware hack could work just as easily on the EOSM-5, EOSM-6 and EOSM-50 as it would on the original EOSM, which could transform these more recent models into raw, mirrorless monsters.

I can imagine that someone would want to start/stop the recording to get a good take within the allotted recording time. Changing slo-mo speed might be a desirable feature, as well. Also, some folks might want a copy of the footage, so entering an email address for a download link might be required, which would probably necessitate some sort of GUI. In addition, it might be beneficial to add the options of virtual masks, costumes and backgrounds.

@Paul Howard When shooting, don't use the "meter" -- it probably told you when the white background was exposed at 18% grey. Instead, use zebras and/or a histogram and/or a waveform. By the way, if you shot a robust enough codec, you probably can get a decent final image from this footage with a little noise reduction. What does the image look like before you apply the lut?

There are three ways that mplayer could work in this scenario: it can play the video playback/live stream from the camera (given that the camera playback/live stream is the desired fps); it can play the file directly off the camera at the fps specified in the mplayer command (given that the destination device can mount the camera's storage); it can play the file from the destination device, as it is being transferred to (or stream-captured to) the destination device (at the original fps or slower); I have just tested the last method by playing (at 24 fps) a Canon 60 fps MOV file off of a USB pen drive as was being transferred to the pen drive. Not sure if it will work with every codec/container. I misread the requirement of a "box." I thought that the box was intended as a "controller box" to enable the instant slow-mo -- not that the box was a "photo booth." Now that I understand what you are trying to do, I think there might be better camera alternatives if you are not locked into getting a GH5 or using your A7's. For instance, it would probably be easier to just use a machine vision camera that was constantly streaming and merely record/capture and playback that stream, with a button (or two) that starts/stops the right scripts. The real challenge might be devising a usable and appropriate interface. Are there any prior examples of a slow-mo photo booth?

@BTM_Pix Mplayer can play a file on the destination device while the file is being transferred from the camera to the destination device. So, if the video file is the right container/codec, a simple script would enable slo-mo playback with mplayer, by starting a transfer and then starting the mplayer playback at the specified frame rate. This method should work with both USB and wifi file transfers. Looking forward to hearing your solution!

@Alpicat Thanks for all the updates and videos! At some point, I hope that someone will create a simple tutorial demonstrating how to configure the EOSM with ML to enable these capabilities.

Getting deeper and deeper into the age of instant gratification... It probably doesn't require a lot of processing power to simply slow down the frame rate -- it just takes a buffer/storage to hold the faster playback stream from the camera. Mplayer can play a stream from some video files while the file is being stored/created. Here is an example of how to play the frames of a video file at a frame rate of 23.97 (regardless of the original frame rate): I think that ffplay (the ffmpeg player) can do the same, but I am not too familiar with it.

@Alpicat Thanks for the videos and for the link to Juan Melara's page!

Yes, but smudging grease on your lens will simultaneously make the focused foreground softer, so doing so doesn't really affect DOF as much as it affects the overall focus. On the other hand, an APD filter will not make the focused foreground softer while it does make the bokeh/background softer (than what is expected by the DOF formula). So, there exist variables other than those in the DOF formula that affect DOF. By the way, never put grease on your lens -- instead, do so on a clear/UV filter.

That's good to know. Isn't there some bit depth mode of 9-11 bits? If so, I wonder if that would give a better, continuous image than 10 bit. I actually read about this in the ML thread. I assume that a Sandisk Extreme Pro works without running the tests. By the way, I was at the Cinegear trade show two days ago, and both Sandisk and Kingston had a booth. I told both of them that ML folks are starting to overclock cards, significantly increasing the write speeds. I suggested that they should consider designing cards meant for overclocking. Neither company had heard of ML nor card overclocking, but they seemed interested. It looks great! Thanks for all of your tests! Seeing people in the frame definitely helps. The dynamic range looks wide, but it seems like there might have been open sky (and/or a white building) behind the camera. So, you format this card in the camera with an exfat filesystem? Do you install ML with this 64GB, exfat card to give the card the boot flag, or do you use some other program to do so? Thanks!

The speed booster was also made by White Point. The combination yielded nice look.

Sorry, I meant to say that the Schneider swing lens has a Sony E-mount.