pixelpreaching

The new sensor in the Blackmagic Ursa 12K - which BM designed themselves over the past 5 years or so apparently - actually gets us closer to "film like" than pretty much anything else out there right. In theory, at least, based on the sensor design itself - there's plenty of ways to screw up the potential of it in the imaging pipeline (not saying BM did that, but I'm talking just about the sensor design itself). Maybe a 1:1:1 Foveon sensor will someday be able to get us there on the video front - which I think is something Sigma is working on. I know they're working on a FF 1:1:1 Foveon sensor, but I think they're working on the video angle too. Anyway, I'm very excited to see what Blackmagic does in the coming year(s) with other cameras and sensors.

I don't know what your payload is, but a few I've used that are under $200 and very good: Benro S2Pro/S4 Pro (same goes for S6 Pro / S8 Pro, those just have higher payloads) - the S4 Pro is only $50 more than the 2 and worth it if you can Acebil H805 and H20 Davis & Sanford FX13 If you can afford very nice ones, I use a Sachtler ACE XL, Miller DS-10, and Manfrotto Nitrotech N12 (also have an N8). I wouldn't call those particularly lightweight, though. And they're pricey. And I don't know if you're looking but I'll shout out the best (imo) tripod legs for the money: Benro A373T ($206 at Adorama). I love those things and they are phenomenal - they'd be worth it for twice the price. They're not my primary legs on a serious shoot (they're back up or B-cam) but I use them when I need to work lighter in which case my Sachtler legs are just too much. They're 75mm bowl but you can buy a 75mm half ball adapter if you have any heads with a flat base.

Definitely depends on the film. Many of the currently available 35mm color films aren't great at all with skin tones. Portra, which has pretty much always been a go-to for people photos, is the best. But I've found pretty much any others are totally off - in a wide variety of different ways depending on the stock. Anyway, just wanted to add that because (IMO) Portra (all flavors are great - 160, 400, or 800) is the only one that gives me pleasing skin tones. Some quick examples, straight scans with no editing (1st is 35mm Portra 800, 2nd is medium format Portra 160 on a Fuji GA645Zi, 3rd is medium format Portra 160 on a Bronica GS-1)

Hi all I just thought I'd share this with you, for those who may not know about these new lenses. They are called Dulens APO Miniprimes and come in PL or EF mount (they have interchangeable mounts) and cover "full frame" (as in 24x36, and apparently some even cover the 44x33 MF sensors). All are f/2.0 and the T-stop (which will be marked on the lens) varies from T/2.3-2.6 depending on which lens. 72mm thread, 80mm OD. 270 focus rotation marked in both metric and imperial. Right now they have/working on 21mm, 31mm, 43mm, 58mm, 85mm, and are discussing a 24/25mm and 120mm macro. "VC coating" described as "very special rainbow flare and creamy bokeh." Their aim is to make lenses with some character and a more vintage aesthetic as opposed to clinical perfection. THEY ARE NOT REHOUSED LENSES OR REDESIGNS. They are designed from the ground up. The 43, 58, and 85 are shipping first in batches - right now they're only selling the 3 lens kit. It says "the Final market price for third batch would around 750USD" - unclear if this is for the entire batch or per lens. Wording sounds like the entire set, but that seems too good to be true. Unless they mean $750 each in the third round (batch) of sales. The first two rounds have sold out. The first batch is due to ship out after this month but COVID may delay it a bit. The third batch is still open for pre-orders as far as I know. Here's what they say to get on the list: They have no website but here is a link to the Facebook post in their group that explains everything (including what I've described here). You can join the group there. That seems to be the only "website" presence they have, though you can email them obviously. https://www.facebook.com/groups/406961286682447/post_tags/?post_tag_id=707462599965646 They seem to be working on a lot of different options and seem to be asking for a lot of feedback from people - regularly posting pics of lenses and different colors of the barrel/markings, etc, asking for input. I'm very excited to get my hands on one and try it out. It's even cheaper than the SLR Magic APO Microprimes (which are my favorite budget cinema lenses) - those also cover "full frame" and are apochromatic, with a vintage-esque drawing style. *I am not affiliated with them whatsoever, I just came across them and thought I'd pass it along*

It may well. It doesn't run often and is just a backup, so that's fine. It's the only LaCie I've ever had. On the other hand, I've had a dozen+ Seagates over the past 15+ years and the failure rate of those has been insanely high compared to Western Digital, Buffalo, and Toshiba. I think I had one or two portable Toshiba fail after four or five years of use, I don't think any of my WD MyBooks or Buffalo drives ever failed. The only mechanical hard drives I still use are WD MyBook RAID, a Synology NAS DiskStation and a Buffalo TeraStation NAS. Any of my working drives are SSD.

FWIW, I have a Sandisk external SSD which is my working hard drive, so it's always plugged into my computer, and it's wonderful. Then I have a G-Tech which is a backup of the Sandisk... it's great as well, but has only seen a fraction of the use since I only plug it in to do a backup. I use Samsung T5's with my BMPCC4K & 6K and they've never done me wrong. I did have a Vectotech Rapid, which was originally my backup for the Sandisk. But one day I plugged it in and just... nothing. I will say though, that I emailed them and they had me send it in and quickly sent me a brand new one, no hassle at all. So that could easily have been a one off, but all I can say is their warranty/customer service was excellent. Sandisk, G-Tech, and Samsung are the brands I'd feel most comfortable with. I do have a Lacie (regular hard drive, not SSD) as my Time Machine backup and it's been great. Seagate is the only company I'll never buy from again - way too many second chances given to their hard drives.

That's not uncommon at all. Especially this year, when movies are few and far between, especially blockbusters. They're really hoping for technical awards (Sound Editing/Mixing, Visual Effects, etc.) and most big movies that go for awards like that just submit something to every applicable category. It won't win any (the special effects were pretty bad for 2020) but it could get some nominations given the thin competition. This will be a year where smaller budget indie films do really well. My guesses for winners would be: Nomadland (Best Pic), Chloe Zhao (Director), Chadwick Bosman (Actor), Carey Mulligan (Promising Young Woman), and Mank (Cinematography). Mank is the one I'm most sure of, and 95% confident on the others aside from Carey Mulligan. Visual Effects may go to Mank (there is A LOT of digital effects in there - like Marvel level work) or maybe Tenet.

Another important, and humorous, thing to point out here: Andrew mentions over and over how terrible Patty Jenkins is for all of these perceived slights, and yet of the film's three writers, two were men (Geoff Johns, a DC veteran, and David Callaham of Expendables fame). From what I gather, Jenkins's (who brought Callaham aboard after joining Johns, who had already started writing) most specific contributions to the script were the setting of 1984 and the numerous 80s nostalgic locations in Washington, DC that she knew from her childhood. Make of that all that as you will. (this isn't letting Jenkins off the hook or anything, but she is faaaaar from the only person to deserve blame here, especially given its a DC film - the latitude for a director's creative freedom is severely limited with these types of studio films)

Yup. The most positive reviews or comments I've seen were simply "well I enjoyed it, it was fun" from non-critics and nothing beyond that. 98% of what I've read or heard has been mixed or very negative. The RT score is as high as it is (and it's not very high now) because studios do a crap job of sending screeners to diverse groups of people. WW84 went from a lot of hype and positive comments pre-release (and like 80% on RT) to the exact opposite afterward (now 60%), at least as far as filmmakers/critics/screenwriters/etc. go (or "film twitter" as it is called). I rarely see a movie take that much of a downward turn upon release (vs. pre-release reviews).

The mental health statement is not, whatsoever, a consequence of him simply expressing his views. It's WHAT those views are and HOW they were expressed. Do you believe people can express ANY views that they want and not receive any criticism? That would be closer to Orwellian than anything going on here. People like you seem to love this idea of freedom of speech (as do I), but don't love the idea that it goes both ways and "freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from criticism." I'm literally in no position to cancel anyone, nor did I say anyone should "castigate" him (I assume you mean that as in "punish" - no, no one should punish him). He is entirely 100% free to write whatever he pleases on his own site. But I am free, like you, to express my opinion here (at least right now, he does have the right to ban me). I don't even know how the hell reddit works, I've maybe been there twice in my life for 10 seconds. I don't interact with film critics on reddit. I do so in real life and in private conversations and on social media. A good number of critics (as in published, rottentomatoes verified, currently employed critics) are personal friends of mine, many others are more what I'd call acquaintances that I talk to here and there. And did you seriously say that I should continue preaching that this movie is "the latest magnum opus of how we should think"? I SAID THE MOVIE IS BAD. There are MANY problems with it. MANY. It is not good. It also has some good points, but the bad ones far outweigh the good. Real critics and writers talk about how a film doesn't work on story, thematic, character, emotional, etc. levels. Andrew's post is just an unhinged rant, which would be fine if it weren't so horribly misogynistic. There are SO MANY ways to express how he felt that would have been far more appropriate. Again, he's free to be inappropriate and post poorly written reviews (I guess that's what this is supposed to be) on his own site. I'm free to say his review is gross and unhinged. And this isn't the first time he's come across like this, in other ways - rants about Blackmagic and Canon spring to mind right away, as well as making posts and tweets that take cheap, ugly shots at other folks (reviewers, youtubers, etc) on the internet for no reason other than to be mean. Once again, he's free to do that. But it isn't crazy to point out how this is coming across to many people. i've read this site for years and years and years and this stuff seems to be happening a lot more lately.

Absolutely love how people like you immediately hop to "cancel culture" the instant someone has a dissenting opinion, as if I even alluded to him being cancelled, have the power to do so, or am attempting to do so. Y'all love to cling to "free speech" and say things like "if you cannot accept a differing opinion" while literally not being able to accept a differing opinion. His article was written and posted on the internet. With a link to a forum discussion specifically about the article. I guess I missed the disclaimer that to post in that forum you had to (ironically) keep your differing opinion to yourself. "Bronzed Hollywood MILFs" is a degrading, gross, misogynistic description of - among others - amazing veteran actors like Connie Nielsen and Robin Wright. This disdain for working professionals isn't the first time to appear on this site from Andrew, however. The movie is bad. For so many reasons. Hell, many feminists have brought attention to the very weird and borderline rape aspect of Steve's character inhabiting someone else's body. But, oh, wait... that can't be... this is a movie that "has nailed itself to gender equality, and female identity, thus putting itself beyond criticism." Maybe if people around here actually, I don't know, SPOKE to working film critics - both men *and* women - you'd know how absolutely, insanely nonsense that statement is. I can link you to *at least* a dozen different essays/pieces about how bad or problematic this movie is just from critics I know... probably more than half of them from women. Frankly, the idea that this movie is immune from criticism by "woke" circles is the most laughable thing I've read all week... and it's been an insane week here in the US. I'm sure all of this will, once again, be dismissed as being a "Little Hitlerite" or "cancel culture." Apparently those things are just when you respond to someone on a forum that they created specifically for an article they wrote and posted publicly on the internet. Orwell is indeed laughing. Just not for the reasons you think.

This is absolutely unhinged. I actually know and talk to *dozens* of working film critics and I don't know a single one that really liked this movie - and easily half of those critics are women. Maybe one or two said they enjoyed it just fine but it's not great, while the VAST majority have talked about its many, many issues, including a lot of xenophobic/racial nonsense. But this.... is just, I have to say, the writing of someone who needs to really look at themselves. The off the scale irony of complaining about how men are portrayed while consistently railing against all the women involved here ("bronzed Hollywood MILFs" is a real nice line, very cool and mature and not sexist or gross at all). Man, you write this shit on the INTERNET. You do know everyone can read this, right? The movie sucked, but holy hell, seek some help. Or maybe this is just who you are.

I also work in the industry and there is undeniably a democratization happening with streaming. Hell, look - the highest grossing American film of the year was directed by a woman this year. Never happened before. Now that was more the result of lucky timing ("lucky" being used loosely in regards to that result). But even after theatres shut down, films directed by women and non-white men have found huge success on Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, VOD, etc. We have - for a very long time - existed in a divide where we have huge multi-hundred million dollar blockbusters and then a lot of smaller films under $30 million (or so) and many indie films. The middle bottomed out. A lot of people probably don't even remember what theatres and movies were like before the Marvel (and later Disney) take over that started in 2008. And that just wasn't ever going to be sustainable without adapting. I love seeing movies in a nice theatre with a nice projection and a nice sound system. I love seeing exciting moments with a big audience. But I also love a VARIETY of content from a VARIETY of voices. Every day we get access to more and more of that. Which is great. (none of this is to say that I don't have my issues with streaming or certain companies, like Disney - Disney is a garbage company - and there are pitfalls to the takeover of streaming media. But guess what? The world changes. You adapt or you die. Hopefully Chris Nolan realizes that)

I think you're agreeing with me? Haha.

This is a very ignorant and frankly dismissively rude statement. Let's ignore Netflix, Hulu, etc. (who are making films like Mank). Amazon Prime: just in the past year we've had (to name but only a few from the top of my head) films like Honey Boy, Suspiria, Cold War, The Vast of Night, The Sound of Metal. The latter, quite recently released, is a masterpiece from a first-time director with one of the best performances of the year. The Vast of Night was a $700,000 film from a first-time director that never would've been made by a studio like Disney. Cold War is a black-and-white historical drama (in 4:3) by Paweł Pawlikowski, in French/Polish. Honey Boy is a $3.5 million film directed by an Israeli-American woman - Alma Har'el. Shows? They made Fleabag - a low-budget a black comedy from a woman that few have ever heard of; it became on the highest rated shows of the decade, won multiple Emmys and Golden Globes, and catapulted Phoebe Waller-Bridge to stardom. Setting aside the actual diversity of CONTENT, Amazon (among other streaming services) has opened doors for diversity of TALENT behind the camera. We've never seen so many films and shows from female and foreign directors/showrunners with the audience and exposure that Amazon (or whomever) provides. Sure, they make some crap. So does literally every movie studio. But to dismiss their content as "remakes" and their directors as "fresh from a couple of flashy Super bowl commercials" is insulting, arrogant, ignorant, and beneath anyone who has the audience you do. Look, Amazon sucks as a company. They are pieces of sh*t. But don't dismiss the artists and their work.

The a7sIII has a second native ISO at 12,800.

I can 100% assure you it is not the same sensor. Numerous sources have stated such and there is no reality in which a 39.5MP/37.4 effective sensor can be the same as that old 36.77/36.4 effective sensor.

It's a very disappointing camera, largely because it's Zeiss's first digital camera. People (including me) have been wanting them to make a camera for years - ideally a rangefinder like their Zeiss Ikon ZM. That's a market they could really tap into, given Leica is (essentially) the only option for digital rangefinders. I wouldn't have complained about a fixed lens rangefinder either, if they wanted to do that. It's just weird because they have a phenomenal line-up of excellent M mount lenses.... why not make a camera that can use them? FYI, the sensor is NOT the old 36MP one in the a7R / K-1 / D800. It's a 39.5MP sensor with 37.4 effective MP and a base 80 ISO. It's a totally new sensor designed by Zeiss - not sure who made it, but most likely Sony.

I'd like to see an accessory EVF, e.g. Leica Visoflex. If they had that plus a pancake 28mm lens, it could rival the Leica Q/Q2, though I doubt they could make one that small at f/1.7 - that's simply an advantage of matched lens/sensor designs. But f/2.5 maybe. But either way, an accessory EVF would be incredibly nice. Also, PDAF as you mention, and a faster readout, particularly needed for stills. It's a cool little camera. Had/has too many first-gen quirks and deficiencies and so I ultimately passed, but I hope they get there. Seems like they're progressing well.

I believe it is the exact same sensor as the S1R, with Leica's tuned pipeline and whatnot. But the filter stack and microlens array would have been added by Leica - and I am fairly positive they are different from the others because Leica wanted to ensure optimal IQ with M-mount lenses. The filter stack/microlens array can make moire more likely depending on how they're set up. And if the lens is out-resolving the sensor, you'll get moire under certain circumstances. I guess we have different experiences with the camera - moire was incredibly noticeable in video within the first 30 minutes of shooting. And it's a widely documented issue from many users.

I'm not sure what they're afraid by releasing a CL with 4K Log. We've seen pretty clearly from other companies that APS-C cameras don't cannibalize the FF offerings for video - either someone wants full-frame video or they don't, in which case they'll spend less money on an APS-C model. The idea that getting a second-hand SL as a B-cam instead of them making a CL for such a purpose seems... silly as well as not beneficial to them. They won't make any more money if someone buys a used SL.

The moire is pretty awful in the SL2 - more so than in the Panasonic S1R or Nikon Z7 or a7RIII. I don't know if it has something to do with the microlens array or possibly the Leica lenses are resolving more. Could be a number of things. But it is quite pronounced and not just occasionally. Far more common than I've seen with any other camera.

Well, it's Leica. They probably won't feel like they need to answer anything. I've not had good experiences with Leica over the years nor have a number of photogs that I know. Quality control has been... lacking to say the least with many of their lenses I've gotten, to the point that I just don't bother with them anymore. Zeiss has some of the best lenses for less money and some of the best QC of anyone. They also aren't arrogant when you tell them there's a problem. Leica does make some of the finest lenses out there (if you get a good one) - like the Summicron 50/2 ASPH and their Leica S lenses are some of the finest lenses ever made, but boy... the QC issues and just overall flaws in some of their stuff are unacceptable at these price points. And it's been that way for a long time (Leica M8/M9 sensor corrosion, bottom plates cracking off on M9's, the list goes on). It's a shame because the SL2 is a DAMN nice looking camera and feels wonderful in the hand. Haven't used it more than an hour but it was a pleasure to use (didn't do any video).

Just FYI on this Leica SL2 issue: (this is from Leica) "The camera has some peak current requirements that can not be provided by the battery below a certain charging level. We did decide to go this way, because the majority of customer do use the camera as a still camera. This issue can only be solved by a bigger battery. This would mean for the majority of customers to carry a bigger and heavier camera body for a functionality, that they do not use. For serious video product we did implement the USB power supply option. From our point of view this is the best solution for such a versatile product."