anonim

Actually, I think (but I'm not at all original) that deep dangerous is leaving UK or any other people in constant feeling of irresponsibility for whatever global evil and serial killing of thousands and million humans is done in their/our name and with their/our tax money - what f.e. is the responsibility epilogue of false arguments as foundation for destruction of Iraq and enormous-endless suffering of million human beings, false arguments/accusations which brutal goal was just to take over more oil fields?... Of course, you quoted just part of my statement - firm relationship with this broadly-speculative-article-thread is example-suggestion of maybe really "provocative" theme exploration instead of LvT 10 million $ movie (which btw I've seen being privileged inhabitant of second rate world in comparison with UK) basically in very skilful and imaginative way showing how/why so imaginative may be serial killer in hyper-comfortable consumer society... I'm sad that once upon a time there was in UK such a venerable voice for whom than was redundant to further explain these words about base feeling of responsibility: “Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

Wow, what a progress... from original "Cup of urin anyone" to quoting of quoting with arbitrarily contextualization. Actually, I think that you just illustrate best wow-impressed-public for last LvT achievement - also and formal capacity of disputed movie: Cup of something pseudoartsy condensed-dirty (which is btw everywhere and more diabolically subtle around us), than contextualize it within cheapest liberal politic blabbing and pathetic oh and uh behavior. Bertrand Russell would be in delight knowing that we finally learned that serial killer was cruel in the childhood and that his enjoy in sadism could be funny for himself and sometimes funny to watch for someone enough liberal outside if showgenius rendered it in explicit way. (Personally, I'd be more impressed nowadays if someone make movie-parallel between glamour wedding of second-rate actress with UK prince, and responsibility of UK people and government for million-rate serial killing in Syria or Libya - to provide fuel for common ignorant Western indifference to which LvT belongs with such theme.) Once again - problem with this movie is not that it is yes/no provocative, but that it is empty, oportunistic and desperately mainstream-disguised pretentious. It is miserable kitsch in trying to provoke in cheap and stupid manner, quite properly choose to touch not humanity, but egocentrically boring community that provide money for such achievement. Contrary to some other LvT movies, here we are forced to hallucinate over concrete artistic emptiness by which he has all rights to experiment, because - "A hallucination is a fact, not an error; what is erroneous is a judgment based upon it", as once said Bertrand Russel.

Imo nice casual/involuntary showcases of Voigts 10.5/42.5 smooth rendering I remember this one also - more about longer distance shots.

If you manage to buy Leitaxed (I suppose to EF) version for, say, 250-300e, it could be the special beloved keeper through mounts and systems Well, than to encourage you, maybe check this nice test of CZ 25mm 2.8 - in f4 there's really anything to complain in term of clarity while keeping "vintage" character, assuming that glass is clean...

It maybe depends of preferable mount or, more precisely, crop factor. They are strangely different, I'd say in different poles of all numbered lenses - 28 2.8 is the most "modern" in rendering, 25 2.8 is the most "vintage". 28mm is far better at close to infinity distance, 25mm has magical smoothness for near subject, it blurs background in extremely pleasant 3d way. Once upon a time 25mm was very expensive lens - regarded as "special" - much more than 28mm. Actually, 28mm is some sort of "workhorse" and maybe more appropriate for everyday usage, but 25mm can very easy bring a smile on your face. Frankly, sometimes it seems to me that constructor of SLR Magic lenses have CZ 25mm as inspiration for their early iteration of Hyperprime line All Zeiss Contax lenses have pretty noticeable focus breathing, if it concerns you (me not at all). And again - check their lubrication, possible fungus etc. Years leave more significant traces on them than on comparative Leica R lenses.

Great set - lately you can add 25mm 2.8, it is some sort of "painter" gem. And 35mm 2.8 - not so much different of 35mm 1.4. All of them are not at all bulky and quite appropriate for gimbal use. Just be careful about technical condition and if you are planning to use them with adapter, check it first.

As you wrote SLRM has "T" measurement, so even 10mm is actually F1.8, 12mm is F1.4 etc. and these are really wonderful rendering and top-build lenses ... as I wrote, with newer sensors difference in light gathering is non-existent, F values in effects are the same between all important sensors size - including even BMPCC. Once again, buying Voigt lenses you buy lenses that have - I used and compared them - in fact better building (smoothness, durability and precision in operation) quality than Cosina Zeiss Classic line (which is technically, I think, still their best one). Fortunately, I've managed to buy Voigts for significantly lesser sum. Saying all that, it is quite true that, striving just for shallow DoF, bigger sensors and other mounts have significantly more in general, and more cheaper (older) choices. But, all the same, knowing myself, if FF would be my preferred choice, I'd never find a peace till I complete, say, Zeiss line Maybe it is always wise to include different aspects of evaluating - even level and method of camera stabilization in effects to usage of cinematic shutter speed and real life usability of F stops. For me, personally - finding no reason to be ashamed because of that, and till the moment of very high-end producing pretension - excellent IBIS system really change everything. So my great sympathy for m43 system, of course with great appreciation for everything else.

Peak of image detailness and specific traits of rendering quality on Voigt m43 lenses is around f2-2.5 - see Shane Hurblut reports. Double with factor 1.5-2, that's even more shallow dof than mostly preferred value in today's cinematography (assuming super 35 as standard). Contrary, similar peak for most FF lenses is most often at about f4 or even at f8 with older generation lenses. Another question is actual quality of these Voigts lenses and corresponding values - these are lenses quite in league with Zeisses (of course, the same Cosina manufacturer) which are mostly priced higher. So, I think that comparing Voigts with cheaper FF lenses just because of simple dof mathematic is not quite correct - besides, there are also cheaper m43 solutions such as Mitakon or even SLR Magic with more players just in the game - Laowa or so. Importance of shallow dof vs easier affordability of deeper dof in real narrative experience is so often and endlessly discussed, also here in different threads. With little bit of shame for repeating it, I'd just again note that, imo and im-practice, extreme shallow dof is simply secondary effect - because totally destroying environment discernibility most often is not in the favor of story. Photography has different preferences. About light gatherings - the must calculated condition is to compare just sensors at least of the same generation, preferably of the same manufacturer. Than it will be clear that f stops provide approximately identical effects in m43, APSC or FF when sensor light reactivity is the same for all. Factors of bigger surface (FF) and lesser need for lightening power (m43) are mostly in compensating relationship.

Yes, but moreover, LvTr with film as this last one doesn't provoke anything, doesn't reveal nor explore anything, it is legitimate and welcome part of brain-and-feel-washing industry. Seen inside of global direction of modeling human mind - It just well serves in plan of step-by-step habituation to projected goal as described, say, in Huxley's dystopias. With its intention and articulation, today it is simply cheap commercial movie for so-called or so-self-esteem upper western public. There's no elaboration as inside, say, Clockwork orange, there's no intrinsic form-call to dilemma or critic dialogue, it is just big movie-spot. For me, fundamental conception of article is wrong - problem of this movie is not at all that it deserve censorship, which is senseless. Problem is, not that it is just irrelevant by its cheap-cliche idea, but that it is deeply opportunistic and easy-understandable commercial - although impudently promoted as rebellion. Deprived from subtlety, it is not achievement of rebel, but of well-established screw in industry.

Yes - to think and say, not necessary to show it nowadays: today it is simply too cheep and "cool". After all hardcore sex around, after ISIS decapitations on youtube, 40+ years after Salo or In the Realm of the Senses or Last tango in Paris, 60 years after Night and Fog of Alain Resnais etc - I'm really not out of comfort zone by anything that shows me how human could be sensual, perverse, brutal or sadistic monster. Problem/case with today's Lars von Trier is, very simple and very often repeated, problem of diminishing quality and inspiration, replaced with superficial (psychological) effects and mannerism. Would Breaking the waves be better if we can see Emily Watson raped several times? Or double of Nicole Kidman busy with fellatio in Dogville? Or if we can see ritual collective masturbation in Idioterne? Themes of "dark" sides of human nature were often deeply explored and presented with brilliant subtle artistry by L.v. Trier as admirer of Tarkovsky - but with Nymphomaniac it seems that he started to lose his concentration and focus, becoming less subtle and more pompous and trivial, or simply without-fuel-so-old. This case I see as example of, to say so, boring mutual pretending and higher mutual pseudoart hypocrisy - critics are pretending that are shocked, von Trier is pretending that he still can touch something hidden/important. In fact, being "troubled" seems no more original nor trouble at all - performing similar "troubles" today is very usual and trashy way of new-age-taste entertainment.

@Andrew Reid "It’s 2018, we’re officially in the space age, but the biggest disappointment for me is that the world seems to be regressing into a puritan Victorian culture where sex scenes in most films occur clothed..." Is this a joke?

Yes, and that also says something about state/need of readers/listeners of a good story

But "nothing" usually provides best foundation for everyone to say/write/add/feel/project "something" important about it.

Because the same continual discussion etc. today belongs to everything that is 6 month newer? Isn't it the same with current shooters with another camera sensors size or AF or color orientation? Or basically the same with owners of best looking tulips, poodles or watches?

Contrary to others, I'd say - Zoom H4n Pro + 2 xlr lavs or boom one of NTG (or even both with one line lav) depends of situation. As you now, you can easily fix it on cage and make monitoring on camera with attenuator cable. Why suddenly, and so puristic, H4n becomes so bad estimated for one-man band, easy moving operation and filming that is not meant in ambition more nor less than to, say, get vimeo stuff pick choice?

Than you are far of going from scratch. So, from functional point of view, without additional investments (gimbal, speedbooster etc) - Sony looks like obvious choice as sum of enough usable (not specially advanced/accentuated) parts?

Apparently you don't yet mastered mind-usage of two magical words - color science... Applied to footage seen on 8 bit HD or even 4k screen, I finally understand "color science" as such: the more I'm looking in two comparative footage with identical postgrading result, the more I'm sure that far better "color science" have that one, that origin from today-modern camera I actually have, or I wish to have in my last wish-iteration...

How wonderful, so pleasant overall pastel quality and blur distribution away of center. And story is so deeply human.

Whole showing-selling strategy looks as based on certain rethinking of notion of forwardness.

With all due respect to G.P, it seems to me that in this case he's clearly indicating just certain level of over-pretentiousness.

I'm interpreting it as some sort of Prometheus gest to (EOSHD etc) frozen community...

I think that these attacks are speaking something important about character of persons who find so topically important to direct or revive them, especially in thread about lenses... So, maybe in general it's not so bad for getting to know each other better?

I found that prominent shallow depth of field is just effect which has to be used sparingly. Or, at least in movie oriented creation (contrary to photo/portraiture oriented), it is as secondary element deeply subordinated to the logic and content of composition - more often it interrupts and distracts narration than adding to it as amplification of some particular impression. It seems to me that it is tool that go in pair mostly with medium+ to close up shots - or in psychological very specific creative decision (sort of effect of subject alienation)... But I know that I'm not at all original in these remarks - I repeat it just as sign of revolt against shallow depth of field as a priori rule of beauty or quality