mercer

Short films do not require the 3 act structure of a feature film. This specific short utilizes a simpler 2 act structure of setup and payoff. Read about the structure of a joke... Very useful for short films.

Does the D5500 suffer the same horrific workflow the D5300 does?

I would go with the Voigtlander, since you already have the 17, and you're pleased with it, you might as well have the 25mm for similar characteristics.

It looked great, as his stuff usually does. Interesting little story, even though the writer in me thinks the video shot of her should have been in the present, since Noam already introduced a supernatural element when the stalker vanished into thin air. But I digress, it looked great... If only it had an LCD.

That would be IBS, not IBIS

I agree, it's not for every shot. No reason to use it indoors where you can control your lighting, but for outdoors, when you want a shallow depth of field, and you're using multiple lenses with varying front lens diameters... It's a god send!!! But to tell you the truth, I have noticed zero loss in iq using this adapters, even if a "variable ND isn't really an ND at all." Honestly, I think it depends on what you consider proper film making? If you have a multi million dollar budget... sure get the best image you can even if it is only incrementally better, but for micro budget to no budget film making, a variable ND is perfectly fine. IMO.

This is one of the reasons it interests me, especially for narratives. It forces your shot ratios to be small and to previsualize your film.

I just bought my first Contax Zeiss. I picked up the 50mm 1.7 Planar. I haven't gotten a chance to test her out yet though. I recently picked up the Nikon AI 28mm f2 and I am not sure if I have ever used a nicer lens... Even with its squeaky focus ring. I also picked up the Rokkor-X 28mm f2. F2 lenses are my favorite, they just ooze cinema.

I picked up the nd throttle for Nikon to m4/3 and it is great. No color cast. Hard stops. No messing around with step up/down rings. Well worth it!!!

That first screen grab looks great. There's some nice dynamic range in there. Do you have a link to the Oleg Kodachrome LUT?

I just bought the Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7. I haven't received it yet but the prices are relatively cheap for that lens. I think the Hollywood runs about $800 for a decent copy. Not sure if the ZE is equivalent, but it probably is close. Hmm, that's a tough call. I probably would do it and then slowly build a nice collection of Zeiss. But, as araucaria said, you do have a decent set of lenses already. Good luck with it.

Post some more shots. Do you tweak the cinelikeD profile? I have been using this setup. Contrast 0. Sharpness -5. Noise Reduction -5. Saturation -2. I tried dropping contrast down to -5 as well but since the focus peaking is contrast based I found it unusable at -5. I have also been keeping my luminance levels at 16-255.

I have tested it once... It looks pretty nice. I haven't attempted any kind of grade with it though. I think @Zak Forsman uses natural with his gh4. What do you like about it? So far between CineD and CineV, I like CineD better, but I have a lot more testing to do. Luckily, I finally figured out how to export screen grabs, so I don't bore people with my test videos like I did with the NX500...

These turned out nice. Very clean. What lens did you use here? Is that Union Station in DC? Btw, please hijack, I am interested in hearing what people are using with their G7. My last 3 sets were done with a plug in similar to Magic Bullet Mojo, so there really isn't all that much skill there... Of course I gotten pretty good at moving the slider in the program back and forth... Does that count?

Honestly, the only reason I am thinking about keeping the nx500 is because the 4K downscaled to 1080 looks amazing in b&w and I may have a short in a month or two that it may be perfect for. It seems the over sharpness doesn't affect black and white footage as much... Either performed in camera or desaturated in post. And yeah, those Nikkors are work horses. So cinematically simple.

Haha, nah I'm not interested in that lens. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be in the system... I am having too much fun with the G7. And eventually, as I said the other day, I may pick up a used Mark II. I had the Nikkor 20mm, it's a really nice lens. If you don't need the speed, some people swear by the 3.5 and f4 versions... Of course I don't know if they're any cheaper. I never used the Sigma, but I have only heard good things. A friend of mine has the 30mm and that's a real nice lens so I can only imagine the 18-35 is brilliant. I hear it's like a set of primes in a single lens. The only problem I have with the art lenses are that they're crop sensor lenses, so if you ever go full frame, they probably won't cover the sensor.

I wouldn't pay that, but I understand why it's a sought after lens. For event videography and some commercial work, you can put the camera on a steadicam or shoulder rig and really nail the autofocus for some run and gun scenarios... and it's supposedly sharp as hell. Let me add, I think that's a good price if you need that lens.

Yeah, there's been a few people casually talking about them around here. I had messed around with some of the Jena and Flektogon Zeiss' (not the same... I know) and loved the look but the build quality is just not there. I have learned a lot about taking lenses apart, but even when they seem repaired... A couple months later and they break again. They're just not worth the hassle, well maybe in Europe where they can be found in abundance for next to nothing. Anyway, I searched the interwebs and found a few videos of the 1.7 on a rebel and a few on a gh4. The strange thing is that it improves the canon image and softens the 4K... Very strange. So, I found one on eBay for pretty cheap and figured what the hell. I sure would like that 28mm Hollywood lens though. You're liking those Nikon zooms with the Red?

True. I picked up a Zeiss Planar 50mm 1.7 yesterday on the cheap, so I was looking around for a 28mm and realized I can't afford the "Hollywood," which is a beautiful effin lens. I guess I let my bitterness get the best of me... My bad Geoff.

That's why I wrote, "apples to oranges," and I am not faulting him at all... His money... His equipment. I was just curious if it is that great of a lens. With the recent suspicions of Samsung leaving the camera business, it seems like a lot of money, for a lens that will be entirely obsolete in a couple years. But again, that's why I asked how good of a lens it is.

Nice. Dirty windshield lens diffusion looks great.

Is it really that great of a lens? I know I am comparing apples to oranges, but for that kind of money you can get a mint Zeiss Distagon 28mm f2 "Hollywood" lens.

You gave the Cliff's Notes version. Both are appreciated.

Thanks Volker, I am really considering picking up a used 5D Mark II. I have been drooling over that Raw image for years and the second hand price has dropped so dramatically, that now may be the time to say what the hell. But, I have always wanted to devote a little more time to stills and since it is a stills beast, I'd really like to know I can get the best of both worlds. Thanks again. Btw, I enjoy your work.

Did a few more tests today, but I decided to try out my Minolta 28mm f/2 lens. I am still testing out that cinelook plug in. For the short I am working on, I think I like the look of the Nikkor lens better than the Minolta, but damn I love this Minolta lens.