Volker Schmidt

everything is here: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicursamini

Yep, that really looks good! Seems like a GH camera with more character...

NX1 with a Miller DELUT

James Miller DELUT!:)

@shooter @wolf33d - it seems that you have a personal history on this blog... I´am not native english speaker, so I´am not able to register all nuances in your dispute... so I cannot/will not take one side in this matter - but when it becomes so harsh, it doesn´t makes fun to anybody. I think it must be allowed to joking a bit, and without intending to annoy someone special, this thread feels a bit like a wild roller coaster ride:) But this point even makes fun in blogs... and have its own kind of suspense:) In this case some points are really often repeated, so I ask me what I can add to make it more clear (from my view:) without pretending the super-wise guy:) @shooter - you are finally asking, which cameras allows you to shoot really slow shutter speeds in video mode. I could answer it for my own camera - 5dmkII and therefore for all Canon Cameras with Live view and Magic Lantern ability: With magic lantern (per mode-fps override) you can record every possible framerate down from 24p to 2p - with synchronized slowshutterspeeds (1/2 second - 2fps) or (1/5sec - 5fps) for example. In Live view mode there is no mechanical shutter active (in video mode). All Canon dslrs have also an electronic shutter. Without it, the camera would sounds like a helicopter during shooting video:), (apart from that, it would be impossible with that kind of mechanical shutter). This footage, you can slow down in editor - for example to "realtime" (choppy with motion blur, depending of the shutter speed). Here an Example from Chungking Express/Wong Kar Wei: This kind, it looks when frames are duplicated to the desired framerate (24/25p) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjd7PFf_TFw Or you you can speed it up, then its a time-lapse sequence, but more smooth in motion. - like in richg101s example. The effect of slow shutter speed is the smeary motion blur. The advantage is to keep Iso low, which means clear images with less noise. @dahlfors - your future technology theory about the fact, which Ebrahim determined: "There is no such thing as slowing the shutter speed lower than 1/framerate. It's a physical impossibility." - doesn´t work:) - it´s a natural law! - regardless of the shutter technique (manual/electronic). It´s hard to explain with my english. You said: "I just want to clarify that it is not a physical impossibility" ("Imagine a camera with a sensor that captures light constantly into a 10 second buffer. It would constantly capture more light as time goes by, constantly throwing away the data that is over 10 seconds old." When you choose a framerate, you decide to split the time of a second in so and so many pieces/frames. Per natural law, the maximum of exposing-time for each frame within this second is logically 1/frame-rate. (the second divides with the number of frames) Your plan, to "capture more light as time goes by" fails, because your captured-light doesn't fit "later" - to the meanwhile-moved-objects:)

It is like that.

The 5dII with ML RAW and VAF-5D2 Anti-Aliassing-Filter is a very cinematic and very cheap option with Full-frame look. It´s solid like an old cine-camera.

The presentation of female behavior is just super-stupid...! It´s so stupid as this one: https://vimeo.com/groups/blackmagic/videos/48025934 Dynamic range also doesn´t convinced me... But I have sympathy for the Brand: Leica and the format:) Curious to see, other examples!

I see, you are losing your own point here...:)

Ok, thanks! That means: slower/faster:) as the Sony A7R2...

Back to the topic: what's the slowest shutter setting in video on these cameras: GH4? I don´t have a Panasonic camera, but I´ve read that on the GH3 there is an option of a percentage increase/decrease (instead of frame rates). For example 500% (means 5fps - 5x faster when played in a 25fps timeline). Slow it down to 20% (5x slower) in the editor should be the same effect - but I don´t know if there´s the same option on the GH4... ...and don´t know, how slow the shutter speed works in this percentage mode, but I expect a 360 degrees equivalent (1/5th for 5fps, for example).

Funny discussion...:) What Sekhar said is absolutely correct: "It's shooting at 5 fps and interpreting as 25 fps to deliver at 25 fps as a convenience. If it delivered at 5 fps you'd have had to interpret it as 25 ftps manually in the editor, but the result would be the same. The point is that it's capturing at 5 fps, not 25 fps: it's impossible to capture any faster than 5 fps because by the time it's time to capture the next frame it'd still be capturing the first one." All what Ebrahim Saadawi said is absolute correct! And it´s also correct, what richg101 said: The Sony A7r2 allows you to shoot 5fps with 1/5th of a second shutter speed. But again: "It's shooting at 5 fps and interpreting as 25 fps to deliver at 25 fps as a convenience. If it delivered at 5 fps you'd have had to interpret it as 25 ftps manually in the editor, but the result would be the same!" Interpreting 5fps as 25fps simply means: Frame 1 - five times same frame, Frame 2 - five times same frame and so on... 5x5 = 25

Here´s some footage of this pre-36 version, recorded with the Panasonic GH2: I loved this lens! It´s far more accurate than any other anamorphic lens (from other manufacturer) I know!

...that is clear, there is no need to make a Tennis match live broadcast (for example), looks like Lord of the rings...:)

Yes, when Ursa Mini delivers what it promises, then this would be my first choice... The 4,6 K EF model with viewfinder, etc. A Canon CN-E 15.5-47mm T2,8 L Wide-Angle Zoom lens would be nice, but reduced the whole budget by half:). So, the Sigma 18-35/1,8 Art is also ok:). I think with this money, there are a lot of high quality lenses affordable... A used 1 DC as a B-cam. Lucky man!:)

@Nick Hughes - Dogme95 I agree. It works fine for this Film! Also "Festen" from Thomas Vinterberg! But I am glad, that not too many films done with this technique:).

DBounce said: What exactly does this mean? I used to think that it meant that the image lacked depth. Or perhaps the image looked somehow artificial. But anymore what I think it really means is that the image is clean. The truth is many modern cameras produce clean images, and frankly that's okay. My eyes don't see film grain when I look around at my surroundings. So why do we expect cameras to show this when it's not really there? The so-called "organic feel" is nothing more than distortion. My eyes "are organic", and the images I see with them are free from this grain and other artifacts. This whole "video look" thing reminds me a lot of when CD first came out. Many audiophiles complained that CDs sounded too digital, too clean... Sterile. Some producers even went as far as to add noise and hiss to their digital recordings in an attempt to make them sound more organic. I think that many filmmakers are following in these same footsteps. Trying to make the new digital format appear more like the old noisie, distorted, soft format that they are accustomed to. I watched the trailer for Revenant... That's the new movie that was shot on the Alexa 65. It looked wide, it looked impressive. But you what? It didn't look like film? And do you know what else? I really didn't care that it didn't. The truth is, if you are attempting to make your video look more "filmic", what you are really trying to do is make your video look more vintage... You are living in the past... clinging on the a memory of how movies looked when you were a kid. It's not bad to look like video, this is what the Alexa 65 has shown us. I don´t get the point, what you mean exactly... Look at ten years old footage from a film camera and a videocamera, then you see what is video-ish and what is filmic. Nowadays we have the luck that digital cameras looks more or less closer to film. And this depend on a lot of things like Highlight rolloff or what Andrew and others said... And yes, I agree, we don´t need to add Grain or distortion to have a nice image.

I like it that SLR magic work continually to design new anamorphic systems! But I´am not convinced until today. In my Eyes, they all have a cheap looking behaviour in case of Sharpness, CA, Bokeh, etc. For me, they are more like fun lenses. But maybe I´am wrong, and probably there are some ways with the right taking lens, etc... In case of the rangefinder, I cannot imagine, that even high-end spheric lenses work as fine from closer distance to infinity at the same quality level like the intern complex lens design... (puuh, my english...) So, I´am curious to see more footage.

With the 1DC you be able to shoot a feature film on the highest aesthetic level! Congratulatios and thanks for sharing!:)

Thanks a lot for the WILD link. It´s just great!!! It really surprised me, that it was filmed with the GH4! This Clip has reconciled me with this Camera:), thanks!

I also think, it´s not a question of the depth of field in the classical sense of sharpness and blurring... In my opinion, the bigger sensor a priori brings a more three-dimensional capturing of the space. And yes, there are a lot of other amazing things going on in the trailer:)!

Hmm, please do not imply that somebody cannot do correct colour grading when he express his opinion about Sonys Color Science... - by the way, I find it always funny, when the battle starts about the qualities of different cameras...:) - but immediately I also start with mind-monologs about my own opinion... a kind of stupidity!:) At the end of the day, it seems very simple: different cameras, different requirements, different tastes, different decisions! - subjective decisions! And that´s ok!:) About objective facts there is nothing to dispute; resolution, for example - It´s the trend of the time and can be measured absolut precise - in this point some cameras have a significant advantage. The same with sharpness-evaluation (EVF) and so on... Personally, I´ am just interested in the overall image quality which comes out... In this context, I´ am always rating the rendering of colors (from lenses and cameras) a bit over sharpness and resolution. I think, Canon Cameras (also the Nikon and Blackmagic Cameras... and the NX1 too) have a real strength in this point, over the wonderfully Sony Cameras. - ). Because probably some users react allergic about the skin tones theme - let´s talk about the color rendering of sunlight... For me the most important question about the capabilities of a camera: Is the camera be able to reproduce a clear and truthful reproduction of the sunlight?! Here an example from one of the first 5dmk3 ML raw videos: Sorry, I haven´t seen any similar convincing clips from the A7s till yet...:) one of my first MLraw 5dmk2 test clips:

Hey Ty, for me it´s negligible. But installing and removing the filter takes 5 seconds...

Hi Ricardo, after all this advices, I complement hereby my own importantly opinion!:) Bur seriously, I think it´s really not easy to make your decision for your own needs... 5dmk3 - nope, H264 sucks - ML raw is great, but you said, you need good images straight out of the camera... raw workflow is not a recommendation when you shoot a lot. A7s: nope - ...often said, from a lot of people - so it´s not inventive to repeat it - but I do: I can´t stand the colors from this camera - I really hate it! If you like the colors, then it´s a very good camera...:) NX 1 - pros: nice colors straight out of the camera, 4k cons: rolling shutter, workflow... Blackmagic Cameras: I like these cameras, but I don´t know so much about the issues on the different types... (Low light, moire, display, form factor, etc.?) As far as I know/have seen: Colors are always great, very good overall cinematic feeling, very nice motion cadenza... Affordable price in respect of the high quality! Nikon D750: from the first reviews/images of this camera I like it a lot - This camera has very nice colors straight out of the camera and a far better HD resolution than the 5dmk3. Very cinematic! Here a good example: https://vimeo.com/131890380 Probably the best thing is to wait, what Samsung and Nikon release next time... :) (Blackmagic had published the Ursa Mini, etc. but it seems that it is to expensive for your budget).

This test is shot with the Canon 24-70 2,8 L. (with Andrew as actor:) On the wide shots you see a bit of the corner-sharpness "issue". But as I said, for me it´s not a problem, I like it... The 24-70 is my favourite Zoom lens, - used, it´s a bargain!