bjohn

I'll mainly use lights for documentary interviews and small (i.e. duo or trio) music videos. I decided to go with a reflector system; I debated between the three leading systems (CRLS, Dedo Lightstream, and K-flect, and went with Dedo since there's a distributor in my country. I got a small kit of reflectors in different diffusion levels and one small dedolight with the parallel beam attachment (which increases its output by about 8 times). It's pretty amazing. Only one light to plug in but I can get three- or four-point lighting by bouncing the beam around with the reflectors, no need for diffusion (the different reflectors have different reflectance angles ranging from mirror-like to very diffuse), and the reflectors effectively increase the distance from the light source so you get more natural falloff and take advantage of the inverse square law. My entire interview lighting kit, minus the C stands of course, can fit in one carry-on Pelican case. It's a great system. I could have/should have saved money by getting a cheaper light; that and the parallel beam reflector were by far the most expensive items. The reflectors themselves aren't very expensive.

I agree; I had the RX100 iii which was not a particular good edition of the RX100 series. The reviews I've read say the mark iv is better.

Because I've seen some footage from this lens that I like, but mainly because it's so versatile in terms of its low-light capabilities and useful zoom range. I'm not at all against sharpness and I'm not interested in emulating film; if I could afford it I'd probably be shooting with Zeiss Otus primes, which are very sharp but still have plenty of character. I think it takes time to get to know a lens and understand how to get the best out of it; I've only had the Sigma for a year.

Here's the one on the right: https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/industar/55mm-f28.htm The Helios 44M 58/2 in the middle is a classic and you can discover all the info you need about it via google searches. Uses an M42 screw-in mount; adapters are readily available. The one on the left also uses M42 mount; here's some info: https://vintage-camera-lenses.com/carl-zeiss-jena-biometar-80mm-2-8/

I have a Pixel 2 that I bought as a camera and used it that way for a year until finally deciding to use it as a smartphone. It took far better photos than the Sony RX100 mark iii that I used to use as my travel camera, although the RX100 had it beat in low-light situations of course. I got disenchanted with Android due to the short (2 to 3 year) support cycle (I kept my previous cell phone going for 10+ years) and it looked like alternative ROMS such as Lineage wouldn't work on the Pixel, so I ended up switching to the new iPhone SE, which was a big mistake from the camera perspective. I hate most of the photos it takes; video is a bit better but for photos I've gone back to a real camera or else I bring the Pixel 2 without a SIM card.

Yep, tried all those things (using Hollywood Black Magic diffusion filters instead of Promist) and decreasing contrast in post, still don't like it. I think it's just not the right lens for my tastes, but I'll keep experimenting with it for a few more years.

The only problem is that an MFT speedbooster (as differentiated from a speedbooster specifically for the BMD Super 16 cameras) is only going to help a little in terms of angle of view. The so-called crop factor for MFT is approximately 2, so a 28mm Minolta Rokkor effectively becomes a 56mm on an MFT camera, but the crop factor for the Super-16-size sensors in the BMMCC is 2.88 so that 28mm becomes an 80mm portrait lens. With the speedbooster I think it'll get you back toward the 50-ish territory but I'm not confident in my maths. So the problem is that even with a speedbooster you won't be able to get a true wide-angle view if you use the Minoltas. Which ones do you have? I have a set of three Minolta Rokkors and ended up just getting a dumb adapter and am using them as portrait and telephoto lenses on the BMMCC. The 100mm Rokkor becomes a nearly 300mm lens, which would be good for wildlife shots although you need an extremely solid tripod! I've been tempted to get either the Metabones MD-to-MFT speedbooster or the one you linked to, but after realizing that I still really wouldn't have a good wide-angle solution I decided not to bother. I have a Metabones Nikon G to BMD Super-16 speedbooster that I use for a couple of other lenses (mainly the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 zoom, which is based on an Angéniux design), but it turns out you can't adapt Minolta MD to Nikon F/G mount without adding yet more glass in between and I assume image quality would suffer so I haven't tried it.

There is the redesigned (smaller! lighter!) Sigma 85mm that just came out. Won't be cheap, though and I think a used Sony 85mm 1.8 might be a cheaper and perhaps better choice. Apart from the 35mm f1.2, I haven't really seen anything from Sigma that I'd consider owning. I have the 18-35 Art zoom for video and it's my least favourite lens; it's too sharp, too contrasty, I don't like the bokeh, don't like the color rendering except indoors under certain lighting conditions and outdoors on cloudy days. I'm keeping it, though, as the longer I work with a lens the better I understand it and I've seen plenty of nice footage shot with it so I know it's capable of goodness, just not in my hands so far.

According to the reviews I've read, the MD f1.8 is quite sharp, even wide open (see http://www.rokkorfiles.com/35mm.htm ) and the MD 2.8 is supposed to be quite sharp as well. I've been waffling about getting one, as I currently have a 28mm, 55mm, and 100mm, and a 35mm would be practical. But I think I'll end up getting a Cosina Voigtländer 40mm Nokton instead (I'm using a Sony camera). I'm using the Rokkors only for stills at the moment as I have no intention of using my A7iii for video, but if I ever get a Sigma fp or something like that they would be my lenses of choice for cinema-style video.

I love those split shots (above/below water)! That would be really cool. I actually don't use a remote anymore as I'm only using fully manual lenses and am starting to shoot Raw 3:1 instead of ProRes, so setting the white balance isn't crucial and there's nothing else to adjust (I never alter the frame rate or ISO and only occasionally alter shutter angle). But you do have to go in and adjust the date/time every day and I've never seen a remote that does that, plus you have to use the menu buttons to format your SD card. I've gotten used to navigating them but even after a few years it's still hit and miss. The date and time start to drift pretty quickly, usually after a day. The Canon batteries are not actually that bad, at least compared with the original Pocket camera with its Nikon batteries where I never got more than 15 minutes; with the BMMCC I can usually get 30-45 minutes from one of the Canons so I use them when I am traveling overseas or when using my Glidecam to save weight. Otherwise I use Shijan's battery enclosure, which goes for hours and hours (I think at least 4, I've never let it run to find out).

That's good, same here, and if you can get more from the owner when you buy a used BMMCC so much the better. I bought one of my BMMCCs new and the other used; the used one came with two more cards in addition to the five or six I already had so I probably now have a lifetime supply. You can reformat them thousands of times with no worry and I reckon they'll last many years. It's a great camera. I keep getting tempted to update to something that can shoot 4k, but then look at the image quality and the flexible form factor (and the investment I've made in mine, which include the Rawlite OLPF on both of them plus Dmitry Shijan's excellent battery pack and other accessories) and figure I should just dig in and keep using them until they (or I) die. There's something to be said for sticking with one camera for a long time: you get to know its quirks and how to get the best out of it. The footage I'm shooting now with these cameras is so much better than what I shot with them at the beginning. I would say the only drawbacks are the poor low-light performance (and noise) and the godawful menu buttons. There are some good remotes (the One Little Remote and a new smaller one under development by a guy in Japan) that minimize or eliminate the need to ever use the menu buttons and they make life a lot easier.

Replying to my own post to say that according to the BMD website, the new 3G Video Assists (the cheaper models, announced a couple of weeks ago) do in fact record up to 60 fps so you should be good. Only Prores, though; the BMMCC does not output raw over HDMI. BMD provides a list (in the Support section of their website) of SD cards compatible with the new 3G Video Assist models. Of course if you spend more money you can get the HDR video assists that can also record to usb-c drives, which might be a smart solution for longer term compatibility.

There are a number of SD cards that work, but not many can record at 60fps if you want to use it for that. I have tried the Kingston Canvas React 128gig card and it's fine for ProRes and Raw 3:1 up to 30 fps but no higher. There are a few threads on the BMD forum that might be helpful, but you have to wade through a lot of trial and error; here's the main thread but there are others that you can discover through Google searches: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=83050 As for using a BM recorder, I assume you mean the Video Assist? That'll work as long as you don't buy the original Video Assist, which has the same card compatibility problem. However if you get the new generation of Video Assists there should be compatible cards now. You can only record ProRes, not raw to the Video Assist from the BMMCC, but I mainly use ProRes HQ myself and only occasionally shoot Raw 3:1; the image quality and flexibility of ProRes HQ is more than adequate for my project needs. I think on the cheaper set of new Video Assists announced a couple of weeks ago there may be a frame rate limitation (i.e., they won't record 60fps) but I haven't verified.

I'm not sure everyone actually wants an "organic image," whatever that means. I think there's a camp of people who prefer a modern, clean, sharp, digital look, and a camp of people who prefer something softer with more "artistic" rendering. But within the second camp, there are people who prefer to start with a tabula rasa (a clean, optically perfect image) that they can manipulate however they like, versus those who prefer the look to be baked into the footage. And I don't think the baked-in crowd is necessarily lazier, more pressed for time, or less skilled at post work -- they may simply like a camera/lens combination that asserts its own character and forces you to meet it halfway. It's similar in the audio world: there are people who want completely neutral, uncolored microphones and preamps, and people who want color and warmth out of the box.

The "character" I'm referring to boils down mostly to the lens and the sensor, not the compression type or raw vs. compressed. But even shooting ProRes HQ on the OG Pocket, Micro Cinema, etc. is better than h264 and that's mostly how I work; I hardly ever shoot raw except on my Micro Cinema where it's too much trouble to dive into the menus to adjust white balance. I think of h264 as a delivery codec, not something you'd actually want to work with for editing or color grading. On the very rare occasions when I have to shoot h264 (e.g., on my Sony A7iii) I transcode to ProRes for editing and grading. That doesn't improve dynamic range or anything, since the compression was done in-camera, but it's a lot less work for my computer.

I think it boils down to a difference in aesthetics. In both cinematography and photography there are people who value sharp, clean, optically pure images from a camera and people who value images with character built-in. The "clean" camp argues that you can add character in post; the goal is to produce a clean image that you can take in any direction you like, whereas if the character is baked in you have fewer options. The "character" camp argues that it's hard if not impossible to duplicate the rendering of images with built-in character, and seeing how the camera rendered your images is half the fun anyway. The arguments can be seen with both lenses and cameras. I've been following some of the threads on Cosina Voigtländer lenses for E-mount at the fredmiranda.com forums: the Nokton lenses have a lot of optical defects that create character, whereas the APO Lanthar lenses are among the most optically perfect lenses you can buy. People gravitate to one or the other and defend their decisions zealously. I think in the hands of a good photographer, the APO lenses are amazing, but most of what you see in those forums are photos from people who bought the APO lenses because they were optically perfect. Their priorities are more technical than aesthetic, and thus they tend to shoot photos that are technically perfect but boring to look at. The people who choose the "character" lenses tend to have more artistic sensibilities and their photos are usually much more compelling even if the images have soft corners, chromatic aberration, and other optical flaws. That said, good photographers with artistic sensibilities who choose the APO Lanthar (optically perfect) models can produce stunning and gorgeous photos too. You can get gorgeous character-rich footage from the BMPCC 4K or 6K with the right lenses, lighting, and good color grading skills; have a look at some of these BMPCC 4K examples from the talented cinematographer Fabián Aguirre: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=116781&p=644858&hilit=aguirre#p644720

Looks good. I'll be curious to see if the fan noise from the Micro is a problem in your audio recordings. Even with my Sennheiser 8060 shotgun I could hear the fan if I had the mic on camera or anywhere near it, at least if I was in a reverberant room (wooden floors). Of course if you record 10-15 seconds of room tone at the beginning you can eliminate the fan sound with Izotope RX, Acon Acoustica, or any other good audio noise reduction program.

It's entirely possible that under the terms of the lawsuit settlement, Ryan Avery was required to help promote the Meike lens line. Or he could just be doing a favor for a friend (Matt Duclos, who also appears in that video; Duclos Lenses is selling Meikes now individually and in full sets). EDITED to add that Sanveer's hypothesis makes the most sense to me.

Perhaps it doesn't suck as much as you think: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=82199

Over the last couple of months I built up a set of three Rokkor primes (I bought four but the 85mm had a bad case of fungus); I now have a 28 mm, a 55 mm, and a 100 mm. So far I've only used them for photography but am planning to try them on my Micro Cinema Camera once I get a Minolta MD to Nikon F adapter so I can use with my Nikon-to-MFT speedbooster. These lenses have rejuvinated my photography and I'm taking some of my best photos ever. The colors are painterly, the bokeh is gorgeous. The only drawbacks are the lack of flare resistance and a few other minor things; I like that they are generally low-contrast wide open but super-sharp stopped down a bit. A few examples: 28mm: 100 mm: 55 mm: 85 mm:

For more info on the Ursa Broadcast as a S16 camera, see this: https://www.provideocoalition.com/hidden-flexibility-of-blackmagics-ursa-broadcast-a-s16mm-camera/

Actually the BMD Ursa Broadcast is known as an excellent S16 camera, and lots of people use it for that. Tristan Pemberton in Australia has been using it for a few years now with the "Hurt Locker" lens (Canon 8-64mm T2.4 PL zoom); I've seen a few other people say they've been using this combo, including on films shot for BBC. I haven't seen any actual examples though. The Ursa Broadcast doesn't have this amazing new sensor of the Ursa 12K, but it's a fraction of the cost and recently gained a lot of new features (including BRAW) in a firmware update.

Sort of, but the glidecam actually has a mechanical gimbal. I use a much scaled-bag rig for my BMMCC when using it with the glidecam (just monitor and a wide-angle lens) and that works great. For handheld with the top handle, I weigh it down as much as possible by adding all the bells and whistles (follow focus, heavier lens, matte box, Video Assist with two batteries, etc.) and it's more stable, but still never gets quite as smooth as the glidecam. With practice I could probably make it acceptable.

I am really looking forward to seeing some BRAW footage shot with the fp. You can apply generation 5 color science to it now as well.

Me too; this one's my rig: https://bmmccrigs.tumblr.com/image/190190620501 I have a top handle but never use it as I have a glidecam; I've never been able to get smooth handheld shots with the Micro.