Tim Sewell

Heh. I'd sell everything I own for an affordable, ergonomic camera with global shutter and raw recording., especially if it had all the other features of a modern hybrid. Edit: Apart from my lenses and my Olympus OM1.

Reading the full American Cinematography article it seems that the choice to use DV was in part driven by cost and logistics, but also because Boyle and Mantle felt that the harshness of the format matched the script's darkness and brutality. So a technology choice deriving artistic benefit from an economic necessity. the impression I get from the musings on how great the London scenes would have looked on 35mm was that there is an unspoken proviso - 'but not for this movie'.

the Clerkenwell Road (or 'the hipster highway', as it's known locally) is an alternate dimension.

With you to a point. When I see a victorian-dressed bearded guy in wooden headphones riding a penny farthing in Clerkenwell, however, it's not fear that's my motivation when I snort about hipsters. I wouldn't, mind you, use the word to denigrate someone's choice of imaging technology.

I can't be bothered to get into any lengthy discussion about this, but 28 Days Later wasn't shot on those cameras because they couldn't afford to do it on 35mm. As he says, in the passages you quoted:

I can't find where he says he would have preferred to. he said he could imagine how lovely those vistas would have looked on 35mm, but that that wasn't what they were doing.

That's interesting. I was intending to get the 50/2 as my next purchase (although that's been put off for a while as I'm enjoying the 7Artisans 55/1.4 far too much to take it off the camera right now). Obviously there's a major price difference with the 56/1.2 - is it £300 better?

I have the 35mm f2, the 18mm f2 and the 18-55 f-whatever and they are all among the best modern lenses I have ever used. The 35, especially, rarely leaves one of my bodies. I also use my Samyang cines via both a straight adapter and a speedbooster clone; all work very well with the excellent X-T2 EVF (which has been considerably improved in the new cam). In addition I use a plethora of old Tamron Adaptall and OM Zuiko lenses which are all, again, extremely easy to work with. So I would say have no fears about the small, light f2 range of Fuji primes, but also know that your existing adapted lenses will fit right in to a Fuji kit. Of the Fuji zooms, Fuji forum dwellers seem to rate the 16-55 and the 50-140 most of all.

I think that people who want the image Fuji X series cameras give will overlook or work around the ergonomic shortcomings of this new camera, while those who don't will continu to happily shoot with their preferred camera. 'S all good, man.

I must say I rather like the Eterna sim. As I probably won't be buying this camera (not new anyway - maybe S/H a year from now) I sure hope it Kaizens into the X-T2 as well.

You're absolutely right here. In the noughties my wife and I had a nice little side business doing wedding and events photography and we were soon able to charge £1200 - £2500 a pop, depending on the coverage - and make a profit from prints and albums until we stopped doing them. By 2010 that market had pretty much dried up in the very prosperous southern seaside city in which we live. The lower end were leaving the photography to an uncle with a DSLR while the higher end were booking nationally-known wedding photographers. Of course, part of this was no doubt due to the financial crash, but a lot was to do with the fact that an amateur uncle could produce images that were 'good enough' for people to whom wedding pictures were of lesser importance. I don't think it will go quite so far with video. Producing good video of something like a wedding takes a lot more concentration and effort, not to mention skill, both on the day and after it. Uncle might have a great hybrid mirrorless, but he does also want to get drunk, eat food and chase the bridesmaids - none of which activities mix at all well with shooting the wedding video.

He did a great write up on that movie (Mullen, that is). The whole thing was shot on a sound stage and for very little money. David Mullen is a great guy (and a great DP), who shares his experience and expertise willingly and exhaustively with the community.

Absolutely right. I am continually amazed by the amount of shadow detail I can bring back in my X-T2 stills (haven't really done much video with them yet - awaiting the spring). Also - and many have said this - upping the ISO brings out noise that really does just look like film grain, with virtually no banding or false colour. I shoot mine at 800 most of the time, as it's pretty much noise-free, but one of my presets, based off Classic Chrome, I shoot at a minimum of 6400 and it looks gorgeous!

My understanding is that they sent him one for review and he loved it so much he bought one. He's produced some beautiful stuff with it - for a cinematographer he's a pretty tasty stills photographer! But seriously, @webrunner5 - film is dead? Fujifilm cameras are crap? Did someone steal your car this morning or something? There are no rules when it comes to creative endeavour. People will use whatever realises their creative vision the best - for them. There's really no need to shout people down and disrespect their creative choices.

My wife saw this and was raving about it for at least a fortnight.

Thank you to all who have resurrected this thread - you reminded me that I have to cancel my Vimeo plan before the end of the month!

I think PB has a Kinefinity (can't remember which one) on test at the moment - from his comments on Instagram he seems to quite like it.

Try Bruxelles Midi station - they sell it there (although it might be the international edition). I don't have a subscription, I'm afraid, as I read it online. I can buy a copy and post it to you if you like. PM me your address.

The Guardian runs job ads.

Maybe, but the Cion would look much nicer on a display shelf in my lounge.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/AJA-Cion-4K-Cinema-Camera-FULL-KIT-Battery-Media-and-more/263397430773?hash=item3d53b5d5f5:g:DRwAAOSwSZFZvr~c GBP3900 with a bunch of extras. Not bad, really.

I'm a fan of his work too - although I sometimes think 'Crikey, this guy has decorated his house and dresses his kids in such a way that he can always get a nice retro looking shot'! I think he does quite well out of selling presets too (and yes, he's mainly a Fuji guy).

Firstly, Andrew posted an opinion piece so he wasn't really attempting to state any kind of universal truth except inasmuch as he sees it. But actually there is - at least across a fairly large portion of the world - a fairly accessible selection of objective moral standards. Loudmouth Breitbart commentators and presidents might try to subvert those standards in the minds of their gullible acolytes, but actually, most of the world agrees that you shouldn't kill or steal, that you should love, or at least respect your neighbour, that you should help those in trouble. These are basic human altruistic impulses that are codified into law in virtually every 'civilised' place on our planet. Likewise I'd be surprised if - had you access to the world's population - you could rustle up anything more than a tiny minority who would agree that behaving with disrespect to the corpse of a man in such pain that he had to end his own life was anything other than despicable. So moral relativism may be a fun debating gambit but it actually falls over not just in the here and now, but across a pretty large portion of human history. Some people like to say that the relative decline in the West of organised religion has led to a reduction in ethics and morality, but those phenomena existed long before any of the organised religions came on the scene and will far outlast them. An objective reality? Well everything is altered by our gaze upon it, but human values (not political ones, BTW) that are agreed on by the majority of my peers will do the job for me. He does have the right to be an ass - we have the right to ignore him - as does YouTube, should they choose to. In certain countries people have an inalienable right to free speech within the bounds of the law, but I'm not aware of any constitution that says they also have a right to utilise a private company's platform to disseminate that speech. It would be censorship to lock the knob up for his unpleasantness, it wouldn't be censorship for YouTube to tell him to take it elsewhere.

YouTube, social media and the web in general is still at the stage of being a world-wide social experiment of which no-one (or their kids) asked to be the subjects and that's controlled not by scientists but by corporations whose only duty is to their shareholders. And we wonder why the whole shit house is going up in flames.

https://www.junocalypso.com/ June Calypso's work is dramatic, enigmatic, cinematic and flawlessly executed. I absolutely love her stuff.