TheRenaissanceMan

...was that actually meant to address me? Because that in no way proved that image stabilization is ever necessary. For example, I like using what my friends and I refer to as the Polish Steadicam, which is a wide lens and someone with very steady hands. No electronic stabilization necessary. And somehow, for the 200 years that filmmaking has existed, thousands of great movies have been made, despite no professional PL cinema camera having IS. Crazy, huh!?

Uh...28mm is traditional. Very traditional. It's a classic focal length, from way back in the day to right here in 2015. Especially in the near-standard focal lengths, cinema sets tend to offer lots of different options. You can get a PL mount 24mm, 25mm, 28mm, 32mm, 35mm, 40mm, 45mm, and 50mm. Art Adams had an article a while back where he wanted the widest lens he could dolly from a wide shot to a close-up without making the face look unnaturally stretched. They tried the 28, the 32, and the 40, and settled on the 32. It's not weird or esoteric--it's just that once you get into that zone of 24-50 or so, you get a lot more choice because every few millimeters matters.

I would argue that one never needs image stabilization. It's nice to have, not need to have, especially for video, for which many other vibration-dampening solutions are available.

If Sony really wants to solve all these color complaints, here's what they do. Start including S-LOG 3 instead of S-LOG 2 and SGamut3.cine instead of SGamut. Boom. Problem solved. Apply the R709 Type A LUT in Resolve and get damn close to Alexa colors. http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html https://vimeo.com/96696423

I'm...aware... My point was that it's possible to like the same focal length on two different formats. I like 50mm lenses on everything but FF. Can't say why.

Hitchcocked liked the 50mm equally on VistaVision and S35, so it can happen. I've never been big on 50mm equivalent. It's like a 35/40, but boring.

I know this is completely unhelpful, but this makes me really happy I'm using DaVinci Resolve now.

"Crop sensor" is not a format. It could mean S16, M4/3, APS-C, APS-H, or even 135 if you're a medium format shooter.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1580 http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2505 http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=21447 http://reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-2061.html My personal favorites are: 35-40mm equiv--wide shots and steadicam 70-75mm equiv--medium close-ups and general use 135-150mm equiv--intense close-ups, shallow focus/macro, and compressed perspective shots I find the really wide angles hard to use effectively, distractingly dramatic with their perspective, and unpleasant on people shots. Generally, I use my 75mm (25mm SLR Magic on the BMPCC) the most, because my movies are heavy on acting and dialogue. But that's just me. If that last thread taught me anything, it's that there's many different ways to shoot, and all can produce cinematic results. Malick loves his wides. Deakins stays between 28 and 50 for everything. Ridley Scott shoots everything crazy long. Park Chan-Wook shot everything with normal lenses on Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance but used nothing but wides and teles for Oldboy. As long as you choose your focal lengths with tact and intention, there's no wrong answers--only different preferences.

Most of them are talking about 28mm spherical on S35, which is about a 40mm equivalent. It's Fincher's preferred wide, and shockingly enough, the widest lens Deakins used on No Country for Old Men. Apparently, the 50mm (70mm equivalent) was Hitchcock's favorite. I love it for medium close-ups, which are the meat of my films. I personally don't like to go much wider than 40mm unless I'm going for a specific effect or my location demands it. Or for steadicam/gimbal shots, I suppose.

Nope, just a large screen and a 4K projector. Looked great. A bad IMAX screening could've been any number of things. Sucks that you had to pay extra.

Yeah, your projection sounds like a disaster. My screening of Rogue Nation looked excellent. A little soft in some of the close-ups from slight misfocusing, but that's common with film.

I notice a difference, and it becomes very clear during color correction.

FDs. No issues whatsoever.

I had good luck with my M4/3 Roxsen speed booster. Great results, lenses fit perfectly, no weird flare.

Wow..that's incredible work, Ryan! Besides some slight flatness in the skintones in a couple bird's eye shots of the couple in bed, there's nothing to give away that this wasn't shot on a high-end cinema camera. How did you find the camera to use on set? Did you feel like it ever got in your way? How was it to deal with in post? Did you try and get your look in camera, or shoot neutral and find your look in post?

They picked the Alexa because every Marvel film uses the Alexa to keep the universe's look consistent.

I'm sorry, but this keeps coming up in other topics: what bugs? The black spots, which the Alexa also has and take one second to fix in Resolve? The white orbs, which were solved with a free company calibration and only affected the first batch of cameras? Because neither is a bug, and both only affected the Pocket to my knowledge.

A6000. All the way. You can use your crop sensor glass like the 10-18 (with a powered adapter), you can put a speedbooster on it, the burst rate and AF will be more like what you're used to, and the video output is just better.

I've already seen a big difference in color integrity between 8-bit and 10-bit recording with a LUT applied. https://vimeo.com/101350338

It's so funny how people did so much complaining about how big the NX1 and GH4 are and how the small size of the A7R II shows how much further ahead Sony is. Just goes to show that there's no free lunch. Every feature and improvement will come at a cost.

If I'm going to go to all that trouble and bulk, I may as well buy a 4K recorder or get a better camera. Idk. Blackmagic's worked so well for me, I can't see much need for 4K in my workflow.

It's an attempt to mitigate the fact that unlike DLP and Plasma, LCD and OLED suck at handling motion. The pixels can't change fast enough to keep up with even 24p, so they're constantly in a state of transition, also known as motion blur (not to be confused with the normal motion blur from camera movement--this blur comes purely from the display). Watch a plasma and an LCD side by side and you'll see what I'm talking about. The only way they've found to mitigate the issue is BFI, black frame insertion, which "resets" your eyes to each frame by inserting a moment of black between each. It helps, but still doesn't look as good as plasma/DLP. BFI also takes a huge toll on image brightness, making my Sony W800B so dim it's nearly unwatchable. Sorry...you're opening the floodgates. I have a lot of opinions on display technology.

Because they're touted as a feature, so manufacturers want them activated on store displays by default. It's the same reason most TVs' default color balance is insanely blue to make it look brighter, and why plasma never took off. It doesn't do well on a shop floor. Hell, that's the only reason 4K is selling; people stand way closer in the store than they do at home, so the set looks way more detailed than what they'll actually see in their living room.

Huh. My understanding is that the camera is already downsampling the full sensor resolution, so outputting 4:2:2 straight into the 1080p recorder is just as good. Correct me if I'm wrong--I lost track of that conversation after I decided not to buy an A7S.