mercer

Nah... I'm pretty sure I invented it. 🤪 Haha... movies are not meant to be made by a one man crew. Lol. Thankfully, it's given me a lot of time to rework the script as needed. I've been watching a bunch of Amira videos on Vimeo and they look amazing!!! If I could own any camera, I'm pretty sure I'd pick an Amira.

I've read that article before and if you like flares, I know why you posted it. He has some beautiful examples. In his article, he seems to be using the EF version of the 50mm 1.2 L. I have the FD version. I haven't tested it for flares, but now I'm gonna. The filter thread on the FD 50mm 1.2 L is 52mm. I think the EF version might be 72mm, but that's just a guess from memory. Helios 58mm f/2 is kinda the King of Flares, so that may be another good lens for you.

Thanks, after 3 years shooting with just the 5D3 and ML Raw, I'm still as enamored with it as I was the first day and haven't really scratched the surface of what the image is capable of. Once I removed the need for 4K out of my brain, and accepted 1080p raw as a superior image to consumer level 4K, I stopped chasing rainbows. If you don't fall madly in love with the LF, then there's probably something wrong with you. Lol. My ultimate dream is to sell my film and make enough money to rent an Amira or Alexa Mini for an upcoming film. Leica Rs are beautiful lenses. They're a little out of my price range so I've never used one. I'd love to try the 50mm f/2 summicron or ultimately the 35mm f/2 one day. There are so many vintage lenses that add a little extra to an image, IMO. For instance, Pentax Takumar lenses, from the 60s, still impress the hell out of me. Nikkors lenses are great choices, though because there are plenty of options in their line up for every budget... as long as you don't mind the focus direction. The 35mm 1.4 was considered one of their "professional" lenses marketed to photojournalists and street photographers. It even has 9 aperture blades as opposed to the traditional 7 blades that most of their lenses have. But the 35mm f/2 can be had for less than half the price and is a great lens as well. My first ML Raw test was shot with the 35mm f/2 and that lens led me to the 1.4.

I have a Benro monopod already and they sell some inexpensive heads... nothing more to it really. As far as complex moves... maybe I overstated with the word complex... just basic crane movements. It's just I came up with the monopod/tape measure pouch idea out of need to have a quick, easy and cheap handheld-like solution. I never intended to do anything more than stay steady while being as mobile as possible. But with these belts, a monopod, and a tripod head, basic jib arm movements seem easily possible. No need to start another thread, I don't care if things go off topic. Conversations evolve naturally.

It's only a matter of time before one of these companies go this route and it would make a lot of sense for Fuji... DCI-2K in ProRes up to 120p, no crop, decent tracking AF... and IBIS... Umm... yes please... take my money.

Exactly why I see no point in upgrading my camera yet.

The MogoCrane belt looks like it will accept any tripod with a 1/4-20 thread on the bottom, so for the price of the belt, it may be worth a try to get some small and smooth jib shots.

Here's another product that's been around for awhile that works similarly. https://mogopod.com I may get a cheap Benro head for my monopod so I can do some more complex moves if I want to.

I was thinking the same thing. As it is, the tape measure pouch adds no weight to my bag, I use a carabiner to clip it to the bag's handle and if I don't want to use it, I have a monopod at my disposal as well. I figured this out because I hate carrying around tripods and since the monopod is attached to my center of gravity, it's actually less shaky than my monopod by itself.

Haha... smart phones are the great equalizers. It looked good. I wasn't following that contest too much but yours definitely had a cool look.

Some of the Magic Lantern Raw apps that process MLV files will also process cdng files to ProRes and they have a lot of features to repair issues with the raw files. I don't really need any of those features so I don't know if any of them will help this issue but they might. I know auto detect black levels is one of the things I tick off when I use Raw Magic... but I don't think that program processes cdng.

Haha. This looks pretty slick but a bit much for my needs. One day, something like this will be perfect for me, though.

So no 6K... then what's the biggest new feature... IBIS? Well, if they can keep the cost of the X-T4 very close to the X-T3 and include IBIS... IMO... that's an instant win. However, I would love for Fuji to do something out of left field like ProRes... I hate h.265.

@heart0less nice video. I was always a fan of the a6000. I briefly had the a5100 and liked it as well. What camera was your Citadel Park video shot with... X-T3? To the OP... if you can make the a7s work for your needs... then yes... go for it. It still makes a very unique and great image.

Thanks, Kye! It's not your traditional review but hopefully somebody more talented than me will be inspired by it and make a great film with this truly unique lens. This "review" barely scratches the story of how my life has changed since I started my film, let alone since I became interested in filmmaking. I could probably write a small book. I'm actually surprised that more filmmakers aren't interested in lenses like the regular visitors of the Lenses sub-forum are. In a digital medium, where we often discus processing, sensors and specs, manual lenses gives us a physical connection to the recording process as we manipulate the image in real time for effect. I guess they humanize the machine on some level. It's a great little lens. I look forward to seeing your Micro footage with it!!!

Well, I'm sorry if my statement rubbed you the wrong way. It wasn't my intention to offend anyone. I was merely stating, in an albeit brief and blunt way, that using "art" to excuse, or endorse, a behavior can become a slippery slope. And since we live in a world where everybody gets a trophy for showing up, I feel that certain accolades should be earned, or bestowed upon, rather than self-proclaimed. But you're right, by the definition of the word, any asshole that can put paint on a brush and slop it onto a piece of paper is technically an artist and are creating art and who am I to say it isn't.

The point is that Andrew can only write a review based on his experience with the camera and his experience with their customer service. He never said that the BM image or what they offer at the price point is bad, he merely wrote his experiences with it... what more can a blogger do?

Obviously, Blackmagic needs to cut some corners to deliver products at this price point. But this generation of cameras seems to be a turn in the wrong direction. The P4K would have been a steal at $1799 or $1999 and would have given them a lot more margin for their build quality. Other than the normal BM annoyances, the OG Pocket and the Micro were solidly built. If you had a YouTube channel, with the instant subscribers and viewers you'd receive, discussing these issues, I'd bet money they wouldn't dismiss you so lightly. I'm sure with your skill you could put together a great looking video showing the pros of the BM IQ and when you add the cons of their build quality and customer service things may change... at least with the way you've been treated. Right now, BM have enough "ambassadors" giving them the freedom to deny, deny, deny. Unfortunately we've seen it on this forum by some people whose work I truly admire. Try saying that you prefer the image of the OG Pocket/Micro to the P4K, in the P4K sticky thread, and you'll see somebody pop up to denounce your opinion. The whole thing is kinda creepy. At least the Red fanboys stay at their own site. Lol.

That's interesting... I never really thought about it but it makes sense. When I think Day for Night, I always think Jaws but after looking at some stills there definitely is a lot of grey in the shots as well. I shot an impromptu short film years ago... well it was actually a scene for a larger film that I attempted to turn into its own short film but I needed a Day for Night establishing shot of a cabin... for other reasons, the short ended up being in B&W and that ended up being tremendously helpful selling the Day for Night effect. Which brings me to my next point... I have been so spoiled by shooting raw. I aim to get my WB close in camera, but it's so easy to correct in Resolve's Raw Panel, that it doesn't really matter... I don't know if I can go back to a traditional compressed codec. Even when I originally had the Micro, and shot ProRes, I used 4500 as a middle ground and I would just correct it in post. I wouldn't do that now that I know better, but ProRes is beefy enough that I didn't have any issues. If I were to shoot on a compressed codec now, I really think I'd shoot mostly in B&W. In fact, if I ever get a second camera... a GH5... or whatever... I'd probably use it as a B&W only camera. There's an old saying amongst editors when they couldn't get a cut to match... "If you can't solve it... dissolve it." I use a similar saying when it comes to color... "If it don't look right... try black and white." 😎 Those guys at LGG are either professional colorists or aspiring professional colorists. When you devote yourself entirely to one discipline, you're going to get really good at that one discipline and learn a ton of tricks. A lot of us end up being Jacks of all Trades, out of necessity, and as Jacks of all Trades, sometimes we need to choose our battles. Oh I know... my whole film is basically shot with available light. I have a few shots at the end of magic hour that have been giving me trouble. As I said before, with raw it's a bit easier because I can adjust the color temperature but getting the tint right has been a chore. Sometimes I'll just scrap the shot. I'm usually chasing the light anyway, so the shot probably wasn't that great to begin with since it was often rushed. To the original point about AWB and working without it. I stopped using AWB once I moved away from Canon to Panasonic. But you can use AWB to see what's "supposed" to be right and then adjust your Kelvin temperature until it matches... but more often than not, your eyes will tell you what's what and it will be damn close. Once you figure out how each camera and sometimes lens affects WB, then the Kelvin temperature becomes second nature.

Thanks! We were walking to a location one shooting day and an impromptu shot came up, rather than extend the monopod, I stuck it inside the pocket of my hooded sweatshirt and that worked a lot better than my laziness thought it would... the tape measure pouch was bought the next week at Home Depot.

It seems that a lot of people have love or hate for the lens. In a lot of ways, the lens is infuriating. On occasion the WB will seem off with this lens, to the point that I set daylight WB at 5000 instead of 5600 sometimes. And you're right it does veil wide open, but the contrast can be added back nicely in post creating a soft, contrasty haze instead of a low-con veil that some vintage lenses have. Some of the older Zeiss lenses have this too... maybe it's micro contrast? I think Olympus OM Lenses will forcefully mount on Nikon cameras too.

Obviously, even available light has a color temperature but yeah I get what you're saying. There's an old trick where you use a low color temperature and a polarizer or ND filter to shoot day for night. It makes the image look like moonlight. So I am sure there are plenty of tricks and effects professional cinematographers know to obtain quick looks. I didn't mean to imply that it always is. I know I would much prefer DPAF than manually pulling focus to track my actors. My shooting ratio would probably be cut in half... or more. But honestly, I'm surprised you aren't experiencing color shifts using AWB with your Panasonic. Canon always had pretty good AWB but with Panasonic I rarely had good results. The presets were pretty accurate though. With that said, I loved shooting Shutter Priority and AWB with my XC10 and FZ2500. In fact, I often said that shooting with those cameras was liberating and felt like point and shoot filmmaking where the equipment got out of your way. You're just such a proponent of manual lenses that I assumed you shot full manual. But shooting fully manual becomes second nature and lets you choose what you want to prioritize in a shot and it really only takes a couple seconds to decide and set.

First I'd like to say that I appreciate that the Lenses sticky thread is now it's own Sub-Forum. It really allows members to post more specific topics and it allows readers to ignore topics that may not be useful for them. With that said, @noone had a great idea creating a topic with one of his favorite lenses... so I figured I'd follow suit with one of my favorite lenses... Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s As I started writing this brief, real world review, I realized that this lens represents a larger story of me as a filmmaker as it chronicles the highs and lows of my life since I started shooting my film... So what started as a brief review morphed into a much longer story. If you don't have the time or inclination, stop now. For those that are still interested... here we go... I love fast, wide angle lenses. They offer shallow depth of field while allowing you to get close to your subject. And a fast 35mm straddles a wide angle FOV and a normal FOV making it almost the perfect full frame, focal length for my style of filmmaking. This is my second copy of this lens and truth be told... I've almost sold this lens a half a dozen times over the past year. My first copy I bought when I started shooting my film. I had a simple game plan... the Canon 24-70mm f/4 IS lens for daylight and the Nikkor for lowlight. Here are a couple frames from the first shots I took with the lens for my film. For some reason I decided to go a different route for my lowlight shots and bought a Canon 35mm f/2 IS lens. In most ways, the Canon is a better lens, but it lacks the charm of the Nikkor even if it did match my zoom a little better. At the time, my film was moving along at a steady pace, so I decided to keep the Nikkor for a different, upcoming film... Well... Life had a different plan, like it often does, and some unforeseen medical issues in my family slowed production to a near grinding halt. With those medical issues came some unforeseen financial issues and I was forced to sell a bunch of lenses. For a brief time I thought I'd be forced to sell my camera as well, but I luckily made it work. Before I sold the Nikkor, I decided to take it out for a final spin. Here are a couple frames from that last day with the lens... By this time, I was also forced to sell my Canon zoom and my Canon 35mm f/2. Over the next 6 months I raided my closet to test any and every lens I had that could work for my film. Luckily, during that time, I found a Canon 28mm 1.8 listed on eBay "For Parts" for peanuts. Needless to say, I won the auction and found another one of my favorite lenses born from need. For the next 6-8 months, the Canon 28mm 1.8 lens became the only lens I used to shoot my film and at the time, I couldn't be happier with the results. But I still missed my Canon zoom and my Nikkor 35mm 1.4. Last year, I came into a little extra money and immediately sought another copy of the Nikkor and after a few weeks, I found one. With the extra money in my account, I took the opportunity to test a bunch of lenses I couldn't otherwise afford but always wanted to try. I tested some beautiful lenses but being a hobbyist, I needed to contain my obsession and build a couple logical lens sets. I used the end of my sporadic shooting days to test a lens. My method was simple, use my main actor as a model in the same locations I was shooting my film. Here are a few frames from those tests... After hours of deliberation and footage, I finally realized that I don't change lenses that often and I grew to like the idea of a single POV, from a single lens, as if the lens' FOV represents an invisible narrator's eye. I used my feet to zoom and put together a simple rig consisting of a closed monopod with a tilt head and a tape measure pouch clipped onto my belt. The bottom of the monopod fits snuggly inside the tape measure pouch giving me a stable image with a handheld-like flexibility. During these tests, I realized that I had way too many lenses and could easily shoot a short film a month, for well over a year, and never reuse the same lens... What was I thinking?! I am just a hobbyist with no delusions that I will make the next great indie film. This was getting out of hand. So I set up a final round of testing and narrowed down my keepers to a grand total of 5 lenses with the only "set" consisting of my Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L and my Canon 28mm 1.8. At the time, I even contemplated selling the Nikkor 35mm 1.4 one more time to keep with my minimalistic utilitarian approach. But after some careful thought, and some good advice from some other EOSHD members, I decided to keep it. Although I was still unsure if I needed the lens, after a recent go at some of the footage with my mediocre color skills and my crappy monitor, I came up with these frames from one of my test shots... Although, I realize that none of these shots are particularly spectacular, but each one represents something I like about cinematography and tells a story about my life over the past 3 years. Sometimes the gear we buy is more than just tools for the stories we tell... they become part of the story... part of the journey. Maybe I am being too sentimental but when I look at these perfectly imperfect images taken with a perfectly imperfect lens, I remember the moments that brought me from then to now and what I learned during that process... This lens taught me that my equipment is better than I am. I learned that I don't have to shoot everything wide open and that I probably shouldn't if I ever want to pull focus on an actor walking. I learned that some lenses have a vintage look when wide open, but when stopped down can look crisp and modern. But most importantly, I learned that I need very little to make a movie and gear is the least important. If you're interested in a more technical review, I recommend Ken Rockwell's review of the lens. He gets into the nitty gritty of the characteristics of the lens. I feel he's a little too hard on the lens but everything he writes is dead on accurate... https://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm For me, I can sum it up in one paragraph... The Nikkor 35mm 1.4 ai-s lens has a warmer tone and when shot wide open, the images are dreamy, a little soft with a ton of coma on the edges. Stop it down to f/2 and it cleans up a little. By f/2.8 it's like you're using a different lens and that lens is as sharp as a knife. It's like having two lenses in one with both being sharp enough with a bunch of character. So there you have it... thanks for reading.

Re: ProRes ... most productions (TV shows and films) that shoot on an Alexa... shoot on ProRes.

I bought it for ProRes, so it isn't crazy to use it for that. You get a lot more card space shooting ProRes as well. But I already own a raw camera, so the raw video on the Micro didn't mean so much. Kelvin temperature is pretty simple. Set it to the temperature of your light source and you will be damn close. Sunlight is 5600 Kelvin. Artificial light is around 3200... depending on the type of bulb. This is good for you. You're too talented to set everything to Auto all of the time. 😎