All Activity

Does that mean we may stop hearing about action cams on the EOSHD Forum?

Well it looks like they really need these new models to be a hit. Full story here… https://www.redsharknews.com/gopro-8k-going-concern-warning

I am sure i have read / heard the internals are the same, so i presume its just different housings. Considering the pricing i guess which ever is dearer to make, takes a small hit on the profit margins. which is probably the mission1 ils, but then its probably going to sell less, so they can probably live with that. It is a niche product i think as well. I see the mission 1ils as a stepping stone. Once you have had a gopro or other action camera and done different things with it or if you have some kind of cinema expectations, you can become aware of some its limitations. I think the ils will help with bridging that gap perhaps even dragging things up a level. I suspect that you might even need two gropros the mission one for traditional gopro look and the mission 1 ils for the stuff the mission 1 cant do. Be interesting to see how things pan out. We have all seen some amazing stuff done with gopros however that all comes from a core group of people with a gopro , maybe 10% perhaps alot less then 10% i'm not sure. I was inspired by chris benchetler chasing el nino a series on snow skiing enough to buy a gopro 9. I realize he had a whole crew and helicopters to help however the gopros used for the pov was amazing. The only issue not a lot of snow around here... I'll have to continue with my thoughts later, got to go to town otherwise people are going to starve...🙄

Thanks! The more I get into this, and the more I think about what my own associations might have been, the more I realise how variable things are. Obviously people talk about how there isn't a single "look" for film, or even for an individual stock, as it depended on where it was developed and even who was running the machine that day, but if we zoom out then the look of film for one person might have been Hollywood movies at their local Megaplex and for someone else it might have been indy films at a tiny theatre with a super-worn projector, and for someone else it might have been the 8mm or 16mm their parents shot and projected. Even the examples on YT are stunningly different. I've linked to these videos before, but it's just amazing to me how different they are... S16mm on Bolex at night (IIRC on 500T and potentially pushed a stop?) S16 on Laowa Nanomorphs (Vision3 50D): I can tell you, the 35mm projection of Goodfellas I saw was absolutely nowhere near how sharp and clean this is! That's very encouraging to hear. I've shared this in a number of places and mostly got no feedback so I was wondering if it was more a case of "if you have nothing good to say then don't say anything", or potentially "you can't be serious, this guy is so far from the mark it's a lost cause and there's no point in me saying anything!" I didn't think I was doing that badly, but with film emulation some people have rather exacting standards! Assuming I've reached the goal of it not being obviously fake, I'm thinking about what I would do to grade it further, and the thing that comes to mind is a split-tone and the colour. Unfortunately the split-tone in FLC (and IIRC the separate OFX plugin in Resolve) aren't that great, so once again it looks like I might have to go the custom route. I'm also keen to play with the Subtractive Sat, Richness, and Bleach Bypass sliders too as I think they might be the key to getting a range of interesting looks. Some people do film emulations and have the saturated areas super dense, whereas others don't emphasise it so much. I remember someone posting their film emulation power grade to the LGG forums and the saturated areas were so dark I thought they were playing a practical joke on the forums, but people gave serious replies and they responded seriously too, so I just shook my head and didn't post any feedback.

Interesting that the Pro and ILS versions are the same price - that's not something I would have anticipated. Seems to me it's a pretty niche product. To justify it you'd have to really value something that it can do that other cameras can't (like shooting action stuff!), or you'd have to be looking at it as an all-rounder / your only camera and therefore not really want the things it can't do. I'm guessing that will be the case for enough people that the GoPro leadership and management bros will be able to look out at the world and see enough zealots who think it's totally rad dude and get the impression that they're doing the world a favour by just existing. There are a ton of options actually. The classic recommendation is the Laowa 7.5mm F2, which is rectilinear (not fisheye) and small/light and nice to use etc. It seems like you're not really that up with what is available for the MFT ecosystem - there's new lenses being released all the time. I recommend searching B&H, in the mirrorless catalog, and just select MFT as the mount and then explore what's there. B&H have 29 entries for prime MFT lenses under 9mm, including options at 3.5mm, 4mm, 6mm, 6.5mm, 7.5mm and 8mm. Some of these will be duplicates, but there's still a lot of options there. There's even a 4.5-10mm F2.8 zoom from Laowa in there, which appears to be a new product coming soon. B&H is the best option for new/current lenses: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/products/Mirrorless-Camera-Lenses/ci/17912?filters=fct_lens-mount_3442%3Amicro-four-thirds Then there's this page from Alik Griffin which is awesome and lists all MFT lenses ever made: https://alikgriffin.com/micro-43-lens-buying-guide/ No idea how many lenses are on that list, but it's about 35 pages long, so quite a few. Everyone who went FF think that MFT stopped suddenly in their absence! What would you define as "optimised for MFT"? Is it sharpness? or something else? Are there specific criteria that MFT has that differs from APSC sensors perhaps? If so, does it also differ between bodies or manufacturers? Like, I'm sure the sensor stack on an Olympus camera is different to the Panny ones? Genuinely curious, as loads of lenses are made for the new FF mirrorless mounts and seem to cover every one of them (E/Z/L/RF/M) but people don't seem to be talking about them not being "optimised for <insert mirrorless mount here>".

That depends on which back-bone modded camera you get. Their modded Sony RX0 has a 1" sensor, passive MFT mount, and the exact same crop factor as the Mission 1 (if I remember right). My modded Insta360 One RS also has a 1" sensor and a passive MFT mount. It suffers from lack of any option for wired monitoring - so one either needs to focus on the tiny action camera screen or over wireless which can get laggy at the most inconvenient times. It's pretty great, though, for setting up to record with fixed focus (I shot the eclipse with it, for example). The GoPro has at least some option for wired monitoring so that'll be nice. It's possible, even, that one of the older 0.58x boosters made for the OG BMPCC would work (if you could find one). My Metabones 0.64x and 0.71x boosters work fine with the Insta360. Though it's sometimes more fun to use it with a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter. With a 1.4x, the Canon 100-400 becomes a 140-560 with an equivalent view of about 380-1500mm. That can be pretty fun in nature. I don't need to anticipate it. I've lived it and I know the limitations don't bother me too much. But mainly, the ergonomics of an action camera are poorly-suited to trying to hold the camera and manually focus. Mission 1 seems to be a little bigger than some others and it has a small protruded grip on the right side which could help a bit. But otherwise, one ends up with the right hand curved into a weird claw, trying to hold the camera steady while the left hand turns the focus ring. If the focus ring is stiff, it can look pretty funny. Mounting a handle to the camera can help and it feels a little more like carrying around an 8mm or 16mm film camera. Passive MFT mount means that indeed, autofocus won't work. It also means that aperture won't work on a majority of Panasonic/Olympus lenses - and in some cases, manual focus won't work on them since they're focus-by-wire. Removing Pany/Oly doesn't leave a ton of lenses that are optimized for M43. Veydra mini-primes were nice (and still are, can't remember who bought the Veydra brand)... There are some nice Voigtlanders that are MIcro 4/3 designs. But a lot of the other third-party makers just take their S35 or FF lenses, jam on a M43 mount, and call it good. For me, I'm much more interested in it as a platform to mount my C-mount and some D-mount lenses. Like I have a 13mm f/1.9 Yvar which could be fun - or a positively tiny 15mm f/2.8 Yvar. But like I said, I think a lot of people are going to find that a 1" sensor with a passive MFT mount sounds like fun, but will balk once they start using it and realizing, for example, that they actually need a monitor to effectively focus it.

I was going to comment on the gate weave. For me, it's a little much. If you told me it was shot on 70's-era 16mm, I probably wouldn't second guess you after watching it. I think that in some shots, the blur/lack of detail might go a little too far - like the shot of all the trees with orange leaves seems a little too blurry to me and looks a little closer to super 8 than to 16mm. Otherwise, great job!

Thats probably good thinking 🙂 when i did a quick google check on the mission 1 and variants the older model from the major store outlets are selling for less than $500 trying to clear old stock no doubt. Which makes me think what price could they actually sell a camera for ? I did look into the backbone at the time, however the crop put me off as i remember it being like a 5 times crop ( i could be wrong about that) rather than the 2.7 crop from the mission1 compared to a crop of 2x from a normal mft mount. My oly 12mm would become like 32mm, my 24mm sirui would become almost 65mm which is certainly something to think about. The 17mm takumar i play with a bit would become 50mm. Not sure how to get a wide angle look on a mission 1 and a mft mount ? So far i think i have to find a lens around 6mm - not more than 9mm. Haven't seen any footage yet, but i suspect a speed booster should work either 0.64 or 0.70 to get you back close to a 2x crop or is my thinking flawed as i'm curious about that ? Of course this is all still theoretical as the mission1 ils is not yet available. What limitations are you expecting with a 1 inch sensor and passive mount, the lack of auto focus ?

It's not just the ILS model that is $700 - it's the Mission 1 Pro as well. Currently the Hero 13 normally sells for about $430 and they are often on sale for $350. The Insta360 Ace 2 and DJI Osmo Action 5 are in generally the same price range. At least for traditional action camera use cases, it's a relatively hard sell to say that Mission 1 Pro is worth almost twice the price. For the ILS, Back-Bone haven't exactly been lighting the world on fire with sales. I think that there will be a first wave of adopters who quickly dislike the limitations of a 1" sensor with a passive MFT mount. I'm excited for it, but not at $700. Maybe a year or so after it's released, the price will drop. It's a lot more interesting at the price of the current Hero 13.

Your mileage may vary for your particular speed booster but if you look at the options for MFT on MetaBones versions they are transparent about which lenses may have restrictions with their products. For Nikon lenses, for example, there are limitations for their modern E range lenses (as distinct from their older lenses for their E Series cameras). This is a typical set of available options for the manual only lenses. Fungus optional. https://www.ebay.co.uk/b/bn_16098984 For completeness, here is a rated list of fast Nikon AF lenses. https://phillipreeve.net/blog/the-rated-list-of-the-fast-nikon-af-s-f-1-4-f-1-8-f-2-0-f-mount-primes/ The EF Art ones are excellent but are chunky fuckers.

It was better when you could buy stuff under $1000 and pay not additional taxes. Gerry Harvey complained to the government he was losing too many sales. Thats when the ten % gst got applied to everything and the government had a win and Gerry Harvey could suddenly afford a few more race horses as well. For awhile those overseas ebay buys were a bargain as the middleman got cut out out the deal. However i suspect the manufacturers or sellers have upped the base price regardless of middlemen or not and the savings aren't as spectacular as they once were. Ah ok, i read that as a reasonable (price) opposite of what you meant lol, although not sure what gopros have normally sold for over there. I think i paid $500-600 for the 9 when it came out. Confident i looked around for the best "local" deal. Playing devils advocate momentarily and to be honest i have no interest in the other models, a new chip, decent capacity battery it seems, and ability to mount mft lenses and that 1080 at 960fps even at 10 seconds is impressive, i think i would be happy to pay $700 even through its a jump over earlier gopros but it wont be $700 here, I'm expecting $1000-$1300 er i just googled mission 1 in aus. Seems like there here, except the ils gopro and its $1100 which might come as a bit of a shock to some of you 🙂

Somewhat embarrassingly, I originally bought the EF-MFT SB to replace my M42-MFT SB, but when I put my Takumar 50mm F1.4 on an M42-EF adapter and that onto the EF-MFT SB, the rear element of the Takumar interfered with the EF SB glass when I tried to focus more than a few meters away (nowhere near infinity focus). I probably could have determined that before I bought it if I'd searched enough, which is the embarrassing part. I'm not really sure how to tell which M42 and C/Y options would have this problem too.. is there a way to know? What Nikon lenses would be F1.4 or faster? and are there issues with the SB? The native MFT lenses from TTartisan / 7artisans are good options, but aren't as fast as the two Voigtlander F0.95 lenses I have, and are also bettered by a F1.4 lens on a SB. I did shoot with the TTartisans 50mm F1.2 in Japan and it seemed pretty good, but at 100mm equivalent FOV it's on the long end for my hand-held stuff. The Zeiss ZE Planar 50/1.4 looks like a potential option, being cleaner than the Takumar+M42-SB combo. The Mikaton 50mm F0.95 would be a stop faster than the Zeiss, and would be cleaner than the Takumar too, but is more expensive. I should look at the Sigma F1.4 primes too, in case something there stands out, although they're competing with the Zeiss Planar, which I would imagine is tough competition? I already have a ton of options and combined with my very specific requirements I'm really pushing things to find any options I haven't thought of, but I didn't think it would be so difficult to find super-fast FF EF lenses!

Black magic generation 6 color science is supposed to be on their latest high end cameras.Hopefully more will be revelled at Cine Gear Expo June 5 & 6.Generation 5 came out way back in July 2020 . Greg Clarke from Blackmagic says Gen 6 is for the top end RGB cameras and whilst the update should be available to some other cameras there will be a cut off due to processor limitations on older or less capable cameras.

Thanks for the feedback! The gate weave was applied at the timeline level, so is the same settings throughout. It's funny how it appears differently on different shots through, maybe because the coffee equipment is motionless the gate weave stands out more? The original gate weave within the FLC looked like periodic horizontal movement, which surprised me as I would have thought that the film moving vertically at high speed and then being abruptly stopped for each frame would have resulted in more vertical positioning error than horizontal. Sadly it doesn't have any controls other than Amount and Rate. I ended up completely rebuilding it using the Camera Shake OFX plugin that has lots of controls. Sadly it seems based on a SIN function with a bit of randomness built in, so I had to play with the rate slider so it would interact chaotically with the frame-rate to appear relatively random. It does have separate amounts of vertical and horizontal (and also rotation, which I didn't use). I asked AI about the different characteristics and during a decent discussion it suggested: I got it to update the numbers with a 16mm projection print and projector, which made them slightly larger, but later on in the discussions it also suggested that having a small gate weave on each frame and occasionally have a larger registration slip of 3-5px, which it said was what people remember about the look. I don't really know how to do that in Resolve, so didn't include it. It also suggested that a worn projector might include some horizontal wandering and that film emulation plugins might emulate that as well, which might be what the FLC was doing. I ended up adjusting the vertical and horizontal so they were stronger than V4 but not so much that I hated it. Another thing it mentioned was on larger screens the amount will appear much more than smaller ones, and I'm editing in semi-cinema conditions, with a FOV of someone sitting in the middle of a normal theatre. If you're looking on a smaller device it might appear less. When I went to see Goodfellas at a theatre that was projecting from original print distributions, they played a bunch of old ads and a bunch of previews (IIRC a lot of these were 16mm) as well as the main feature on 35mm. The gate weave was really inconsistent, with some items having lots and others having none and being noteworthy for how absolutely rock solid they looked. Anyway, what else separates it from looking like real film? I suspect we're not there yet, and probably not even close...

As you aren’t bothered about the AF aspect then Nikon F mount lenses adapt easily to EF so you could open up that path. The issue is that with the f1.4 requirement you’re looking at fairly pricey options in both vintage and more modern versions. Similarly, M42 and C/Y to EF adapters open up other paths for you. To be honest though, in my view, the path of least resistance to get fast manual focus glass on to MFT cameras economically probably lies in native MFT lenses from 7Artisans and TTArtisans. More size appropriate for what you have in mind for them too.

To my eye this seems like the right amount. The shot of the coffee maker seems to have noticeable vertical gate weave that I don't see in the other shots and it was distracting. Are there adjustments for vertical separate than horizontal gate weave? If so then maybe only use horizontal. But other than that one shot it just seemed "natural" for the grainy look. By "natural" it's of course what I've come to associate with grainy film from a certain era. Later cameras were so stable that they didn't have any really.

Gate Weave increased (and I rebuilt the gate weave engine using the Camera Shake OFX). I'm not sure I like the aesthetic, so might turn it down for my own projects. @Clark Nikolai @eatstoomuchjam @Framed_By_Dan would especially appreciate your assessments of how close this is and what might be any next steps. I feel like it's good enough for my (untrained) eye, but if there are any more specific things you can identify then I'd be keen to keep going and see how far we can go. I'm gradually disabling things in the FLC plugin and manually recreating them myself using other plugins or just manual methods.

Just FYI, if anyone on here is looking for one. This one is 5000 Euro. https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/104495-for-sale-digital-bolex-d16/

Soooooo...... no more EF manual focus lenses around I should know about?

For years now, the EF 35-350 has been near the top of my "will I or won't I" pile. So far, still "won't I," but one of these days, i'm gonna get a wild hair to search and find a great deal..

There are actually good answers to the 10x question for each FF mount. Sigma 20-200mm is an answer for E mount and L mount. Sony has their own 24-240mm too. Nikon have a 10x near miss with their 24-200mm and an over the top 14.2x 28-400mm. Canon has their 24-240mm too and if you don’t mind mimicking trombone playing while zooming then their old 35-350mm EF is a great bargain. I actually have one of the latter and the range is great.

It absolutely feels like a modern Super 8! Especially when you pair it with Magic Lantern to shoot raw video, slap on a vintage C-mount lens, and add some heavy grain in post. The workflow is quirky and slow, but that’s honestly half the charm - it forces you to shoot more intentionally, just like actual film. One random but massive headache with this setup is sorting out custom aspect ratios and cropping thumbnails or cover art for projects if you're trying to match that classic 4:3 or square retro look perfectly. If you don't want to mess around with heavy Photoshop templates just to resize a quick reference image or profile shot for a project, a simple online tool like Visaphoto works surprisingly well. It’s technically an automatic passport photo cropper, but it's great for instantly forcing any image into exact dimensions and pixel constraints with clean compression without having to open an editor. Definitely keep shooting with the M. For the price, nothing else gives you that organic, textured aesthetic quite like it.

I think the niche aspect is actually a strength. The best documentaries often pull people into worlds they knew nothing about beforehand. From the comments alone it sounds like the film has strong characters and a genuine sense of place, which usually travels further than the subject matter itself. I'd definitely explore the festival route and maybe even a shorter cut for online release later on.

If that is the case, it’s a stupid tactic. If sales had begun within 7 days, I would have bought one. As things now stand, unlikely to any time soon, if at all. Now the dust has settled, I think I’ll wait it out a while and get my S9’s audio fixed. Then it’s a case of keep the fixed S9 until such time as an S9II comes up, preferably with the S1Rii sensor, but probably unlikely, or flip to a third S1Rii which would also make sense. But any impulse buy for an L10 has passed as it will have done for others. And as for the great unwashed, they won’t be sitting around waiting but will simply buy something actually available.

As a 47mm F2.2 it's pretty close to a 50mm, so a pretty good FOV if that's the look you like. I've just bought the Panasonic 25mm F1.7, which is 50mm F3.4 on the GH7, and it's my first 50mm FOV lens, so I'm keen to start taking that out and about and "learning" that focal length. It probably seems odd to most that I've never shot with that focal length, but it's never really suited the situations I've been shooting in. Big and heavy isn't desirable, especially as I have some pretty killer combinations in that range already. I've got the Voigtlander 17.5mm and 42.5mm F0.95 lenses, which are 35mm and 85mm F1.9 equivalents, and with the Sirui 1.25x adapter they're as wide as 28mm and 68mm F1.5. Problem is those combinations are each 1300g / 4.6oz (2100g / 74oz with GH7) which is usable for hand-held shooting but my arms are pretty much done after a few hours. Of course, I'm also pretty much done with being on my feet for that long too so the setup isn't the limiting factor. These setups also have the advantages and coolness factor of being anamorphic too, so there's that! I'm slightly tempted by some other much stronger anamorphic adapters too, but in playing with the Sirui I've learned that they're very dependent on the taking lens, and some lenses work and other lenses that seem very similar are an absolute train wreck, so it's basically a blind purchase and these things aren't that cheap. My current preferred Night Cinema combo is the Takumar 50mm F1.4 and M42-MFT speed booster, and I bought the EF-MFT speed booster to try and get a slightly cleaner image, but unfortunately the 50/1.4 -> M42-EF adapter -> EF-MFT speed booster stack doesn't work as the back element of the Takumar interferes with the EF SB glass. I figured that the EF SB would open up a whole new world, as EF used to be the default standard for about half the worlds camera users, plus EF and PL were the de facto standards for cinema. My recollection was that there were tonnes of interesting and super-fast third party EF lenses, but now I go looking there doesn't seem to be so many to be found. If budget was no-option then there are a lot of cinema lenses that are very interesting, even anamorphic ones, but budget is a consideration so unfortunately things like the USD1400 Blazar Cato 85mm T2.8 2x anamorphic lens will have to just remain a dream! Apart from this being like me asking "can you recommend a lawnmower?" and you suggesting "just sell your house and move to a NYC apartment", I actually don't think it's true. I've done a lot of "what if" scenarios for what I'm trying to achieve, and while it might have worked for you specifically, when I look at the lenses for a given system I find every system to be very lacking. Sure, you can get fast lenses at 28/35/50/85, but there are all kinds of other gaps that MFT just doesn't have. This is gradually changing, as manufacturers gradually fill out the various lens lineups, but my impression of the current landscape is that most FF systems have the fast primes and holy trinity zooms (28/35/50/85 and 16-35/24-70/70-200) but very limited and patchy coverage of small and light lenses and in-between focal-lengths, etc. Adapting vintage SLR lenses gives access to character lenses, but only FF ones, not really S35 cinema ones (unless you go to crop mode which is throwing away resolution and now you're half-way to MFT!), and not the S16 ones. You sort of get the standard focal lengths in modern and in vintage, but that's it. MFT has all the small and light and in-between focal-lengths, but the weakness is in the fast primes and fast zooms. MFT used to have all the advantages of mirrorless essentially being able to adapt any SLR lens, but as time goes on, more and more of the interesting lenses are designed for mirrorless APSC/FF cameras and therefore not usable (or only available in MFT mount so you don't get a SB advantage) or are EF cinema lenses and are huge/heavy/expensive because they compromised on size and cost to ensure they're sharp sharp sharp sharp sharp enough for modern use. As an example, I have a tracking sheet of all the lenses I own (not every one available) and it's FF equivalent. This table includes: 15mm 18mm 26mm 28mm 30mm 31mm 34mm 35mm 40mm 50mm 53mm 56mm 59mm 64mm 70mm 71mm 75mm 78mm 80mm 82mm 83mm 85mm etc. I don't even think it's complete! Most of those are different characters too, being a mix of different manufacturers, vintages, and combinations of being native / with a SB / with an anamorphic adapter / with SB and anamorphic adapter, etc. So yeah, if you happen to want a fast standard focal length, or a fast trinity zoom (that's enormous), then FF is great, but the rest is pretty lacking. The other reason I'm not moving to FF is that most of what I shoot is on a native 10x zoom, which FF doesn't really have a good answer for. The other other reason is that the work for me to sell all my MFT equipment and re-buy in FF would make it so that I should just work those hours at my day job and increase my budget, so selling things isn't really cost effective. The other other other reason is that the GX85 has all sorts of configurations that FF can't match, so I wouldn't be selling that anyway.