Leaderboard

I’ll admit it, I use camera forums a lot. Too much, probably. I use them to check out the latest cameras and lenses and lights and accessories. I waste about two hours a day on them. Time I could spend watching “the View.” When I started out shooting part-time in 2005, I got a DVX100 because a juggler who was a featured extra on a tv show called “Sons of Saddam” told me to. “Cause it does 24p.” I didn’t know what that meant, but I plunked down $3,000 - all the money I had in savings on this camera. The camera could have been a bust. But I did it because a juggler who played one of Saddam’s sons goons said so. That’s how easily influenced I am. Then I bought a HVX200, not even testing it first. “Cause it can do HD.” I bought the Redrock micro adapter because I watched the work of MacGreggor and some other DPs back then do stuff on a Gorilla 35 lens adapter that hadn’t even come out. I hadn’t even tried it first. Just sent in my credit card info. Rinse and repeat. All these periods of time I bought things just based on videos I saw shot on them. No tests - I didn’t understand tests. Just videos shot with them and the opinions of people I respected. I could look at screen grabs but just scroll down to their opinions. Well finally 11 years later, I am seeing what I was doing - buying based on people’s emotions. Based on the emotions of people whose work I liked. This is fine to do, but it’s not always the smartest thing to do. There are several, maybe twenty influential figures online in the cinematography world. David Mullen, Shane Hurlbut, John Brawley, Art Adams, Geoff Boyle, and of course Andrew Reid, come to mind as leaders who people follow and listen to. Even the opinions of the above people and the other influencers are, in the end, just their opinions. When someone says, “this to me screams filmic” or “this looks digital” - again, that’s all an opinion. If they say, “that grade is terrible” or “man you nailed the skin tones” - again, that’s all opinion. Even looking at test charts and camera tests, the results are subjective. Aesthetic is subjective. There are scientific tests, but they lead to opinions. This isn’t pure math - this is an art form. There is no such thing as filmic. Everything is digital. Film emulsions see the world differently, but they go through a digital intermediate. They become digital . And I think that’s probably about 99.9% of all films shot on celluloid. Maybe a few hipsters shoot film and use a steinbeck, but they still upload their results to vimeo, which converts this to a h.264 file. I have very strong opinions, and a lot of people have very strong opinions. That’s why we work in film. It’s an art form that is full of passionate people. But I also have low self-esteem. My whole nature of existence is based on others approval. I’m getting better at trusting my own self, but this is my basis. I think maybe most artists have low self-esteem or why would they want to share their art? Is it ego? Or the attempt for others to connect? Yes that’s part of it. But whether you want to admit it or not, we love when people love our work. We live off the feedback, or why would we check vimeo 5 times a day to see if someone commented? Why else would we have awards? Especially in an art field where awards are just based on opinions of a community who may or may not get your work? Something is beautiful if you think it is. You don’t need an oscar in cinematography to be happy with your lighting or camera movement or angle, or have your opinion mean anything less if you aren’t in the ASC. Everyone brings something unique to the art form. Everyone brings a new perspective that is needed, especially now, when everything feels pretty much the same.

Here it is! We recorded hdmi 8-bit 4:2:2 out of it and went to the odyssey skin tones overall are nice! and stabilization is amazing. The camera was interesting to use - especially considering that it's a 200 ASA camera and has moire and dynamic range challenges - sometimes this is interesting to have to maximize something with limitations. It's difficult, but I guess it disciplines you.

Minor update, still doing what Im doing, still digging and documenting what changes Im finding in the firmware, have started to explore with telnet and the camera. Its looking good. Have a few ideas on how it utilizes firmware updates but nothing solid yet. But I like how both stages are progressing. Although i wish I had more to show haha but dumping c isnt going to have a point! I should have a major update in a few days though!

Hallo NX World, the NX Booster it's coming soon! This is the Prototype Mark II. Marco do not worry, if I do not post my progress, is because I have a lot of work in my private life. Next week I start the test with Nx1 camera.

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"

Here is a quick video showing the NX1 and NX500 SD Card Hack for Focus Buttons. This program allows you to record up to 6 focal points, these are stored on the SD card and will work after a camera restart. This works for photography, especially good for storing infinity focal point to re-use when it is dark for Astro Photography. Works in video allows you to do focus pulling from one focal point to another. Thanks again to Otto for all the hard work, All details can be found on https://github.com/ottokiksmaler/nx500

Dear people. Shot this musicvideo for a friend when is was in US. Enjoy

Humbled this week while I am in Nicaragua using an older camera that would never be my first choice...the GH4. I have been pleasantly surprised by the image quality once I figured out how to dial in the picture profile. Shooting on Natural with contrast, saturation, sharpness down all the way and using filmconvert to bring the image back to normal. Shooting mostly with Sigma 18-35 with speed booster on a MoVI M5. Love the long battery life. The very efficient 4k compression. The audio preamps for in camera audio. Weather sealed body. Great slow motion in camera. My previous experiences with the GH4 SUCKED. Hated the IQ and never gave it a chance. I think once you dial in a solid workflow and picture profile...you have a killer video machine! More to come later. Ill post in this forum post. Should have a video soon.

I believe I have found the sdk for the srp. And quite a few examples of the c scripting style used before it is parsed into the machine state and binary. Working backwards it should be possible to figure out how it is compiled and explore what lies inside the system. It seems similar to an fpga so it shouldnt be very hard to dissect. Things that can be added over just changing the config files. Will update as I go. Keeping these updates short as I have a lot to do with making sure I fully understand the inner workings of this system.

Got a great deal on a new BMPCC during a Black Friday sale for nearly 50% off. It's my first Blackmagic camera (I have the Micro pre-ordered) and have been eager to pair it with the Trump lens set I ordered from Richard Gale. I took possession of the set a couple weeks ago and have started shooting a short film with it. I love the versatility in terms of contrast control (from standard to ultra-low) and the variety of aperture discs. The 2x and 3x ovals are my favorite. Made a quick comparison of the two here. But this week I finally started shooting a short I've wanted to do for some time. I work professionally as a freelance editor so this project is being done as schedules allow. Shooting RAW has been an eye-opener for me. For the last year I've been trying to wrestle a GH4 into being something it just wasn't capable of. And have come to the conclusion that I should have traded 4K for color science and dynamic range a long time ago.

I'm going to go ahead and say it. This $1,000 camera looks slightly better to me than the URSA Mini 4.6 footage I've been seeing -- in terms of color rendition and motion cadence. That's a matter of taste to be sure but damn it if it doesn't make sacrificing resolution a no-brainer for such a beautiful cinematic image. I have one pre-ordered. Maybe i should sell my Pocket and get two of these.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing. I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images. How? Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC. In Photoshop: Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm! To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it. List terms explained: Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera No = doesn't cover the sensor Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example) Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list Primes Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof] Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof] Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof] Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof] Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof] Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof] Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)] Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof] SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD) Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof] Zooms Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

MODERATOR INTERVENTION: Moderator Jonpais and myself as fellow Moderator have been talking and we are going to keep this thread open for now BUT THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS : the thread stays open for the four people involved in this crime to communicate, it stays open to keep Ebrahim Sadaawi honest and full fill his promise to refund everyone involved ......eveyone one else back off and let them resolve this issue . NO MORE POSTS on this thread from now on or we will delete them if you are not involued in this situation. Ebrahim Sadaawi you keep in contact with Tim , Thomas and James who you have stolen money from , you stick to the plan to refund them , you keep in regular contact with them and let them know exactly what is happening no excuses and no stalling . Tim, Thomas and James you keep in regular contact with Ebrahim Sadaawi and you can use this thread to keep us all informed how it is progressing . If Ebrahim Sadaawi goes back on his word and starts stalling post on here and keep us informed what is going on . Everyone else does not post anymore on this thread, yes that means you !! no more lynch mob and wolfpack tactics . lets get our fellow EOSHD members refunded - that is the priority now. let Ebrahim Sadaawi repay Tim, Thomas and James . If Ebrahim Sadaawi does not keep his promise to refund all three people he scammed , Andrew Reid will be taking this futher with the authorities - this is his forum. EOSHD MODERATORS

http://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3988168

Friday 7am London time sees the release of a firmware update for the Sony FS5 which optimises the performance of internal recording, fixing the issues spotted by early adopters of the camera including myself (Andrew Reid) and Paul Antico. Read the full article

Good news, bad news. Good news is that I have learned a lot about the srp( samsung reconfigureable processor) architecture. Bad news. It is very very very very complicated. Machine compiled c into binary. Unknown yet when it is loaded into the firmware and if the .cpp files that are listed are infact that, or just other hard ware controls So the srp is like an fpga in the way you can change what it does on the fly. It differs in the way that it uses VLIW instead of bits to do its magic. Reverse engineering the binary into something workable.. is possible, but time will tell if and how much can be changed. The plus side of a simple isp changing values in softwear can do something like what the gh2 hack did. The downside being you are stuck with the hardware. The plus side of the srp implementation.. Building a custom algorithm to..exchange the hevc codec with something else.. Could be possible. Unknown yet if the nr is a part of this or just a software implementation. Also if the rumors were true about the ml guys approaching samsung, this would be why it didnt happen. They dont release the srp compiler. One instance of them giving access to it at the SAIT school in Korea is all I could find. very very proprietary. But the dream for me of having a cheap 14bit 6.5k red competitor is what keeps me going. The confirmation of the UHS-II bus sweetens the deal. Going to investigate the possibility of a SD-SATA converter.. I wouldnt mind having a 1tb ssd attached to the back of the camera. TL:DR This camera is complex and things are not getting easier but still progression is being made.

I posted about the work Im doing on the firmware side of the nx1 a few pages back, but it was/still is hidden for some reason. **no longer hidden on page 11 at the bottom. Much more detail about what I have found on the camera.** To sum it up, I have been working on this the better part of 6 months, didnt know anyone else was interested until I found this thread a bit over a week ago and posted my findings. Im at a point of comparing the changes in the firmware versions to see how the code is written. I have uncovered the bootloader, the file format and language used for their custom control files for tizen, info on lut, rgb 888, sd card bus speed(its quite low should be ush1 u3 but its not set close to the speed stated in the sd association docs) and a few more things. My goal is similar to what the guy said on the gh2 hack. I had a hacked 144mbs gh2 I used for 5 years until moisture killed it a few months ago. The tech inside the nx1 should be capeable of pushing the hevc and the sensor to the limit, even if it shortens the life by 4-5 years its still cheaper than a red by a magnitude. Ideal goals for me are raw/compressed raw output, see if cdng or another compressed raw format would work. As red raw is just their version of jpeg2000 modded for cine work. There is not a deadline I have set to finish this, as this is just one of many projects I have on the go but comparing it to other cameras its quite promising.

I don't think I currently have the experience or time to successfully modify the NX1/NX500 firmware. I don't even have one of those cameras. However it would be a shame to let the interest in this die, so I guess I'll post some of my notes/thoughts about the firmware in hopes that it might help keep the ball rolling. Note: if you aren't into technical minutiae, the only interesting part of this wall of text is the bulleted list at the end detailing what is and is not possible in my opinion. Here are the files listed in the header of nx1.bin (version 1.4.0): version.info: offset=0x0 size=0x3F (same as found in /etc/version.info) linux image: offset=0x0130 size=0x00624748 idk: offset=0x624878 size=0xD8E9 linux image: offset=0x632161 size=0x3192E8 linux image: offset=0x94B449 size=0x638518 idk: offset=0xF83961 size=0x01FF10 idk: offset=0xFA3871 size=0xB35140 rootfs: offset=0x1AD89B1 size=0x117A89FF (lzo compressed ext4 filesystem image) opt: offset=0x132813B0 size=0x58E91C (lzo compressed ext4 filesystem image) pcachelist: offset=0x1380FCCC size=0x7000 (PAGECACHELIST, preceded by a header, I think) idk: offset=0x13816CCC size=0x35BCC44 (lzo compressed. header indicates swap image?) Anyone with the skills to reverse engineer a camera could figure this out pretty easily, but it was fairly tedious so maybe this will save someone 20 minutes of poking around in a hex editor. If anyone knows what's up with the files I've labeled "idk," I would love to hear about it. The checksum algorithm is fortunately unchanged from the NX300 as far as I can tell. As documented at sites.google.com/site/nxcryptophotography/diy-firmware "width=32 poly=0x04c11db7 init=0xffffffff refin=true refout=true xorout=0x00000000 check=0x340bc6d9 name="JAMCRC"" "jacksum -x -a crc:32,04c11db7,ffffffff,true,true,00000000 [file]" The main camera app binary is (I'm pretty sure) located at /usr/apps/com.samsung.di-camera-app/bin/di-camera-app in the rootfs. It seems to access the hardware through a relatively high-level API with the /usr/lib/libmm* libraries. libmmf-camcorder.so is particularly interesting. The function I've focused my attention on is mmf_camcorder_set_attributes(), which comes from libffm-camcorder and is used repeatedly in di-camera-app. It conveniently (and strangely IMO) takes strings as identifiers for the attributes that are apparently being set (why not just an enum? I suppose I shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth...). Some of those attributes include "target-time-limit," "audio-encoder-bitrate," and "video-encoder-bitrate." The guy who successfully removed the recording time limit on the NX300 did it by modifying the instructions that set the variable being passed along with "targe-time-limit." I found the control flow instructions he mentioned in that thread, so it should't be hard to get rid of the time limit on the NX1, provided the camera accepts the modified firmware. The NX500 is probably similar. The "video-encoder-bitrate" attribute also looks promising, though it would take some more advanced reverse engineering to figure out where the values are being set. So from what I've seen and read, here is what I think is and is not possible to modify on the NX1 and NX500: Remove time limit: Highly likely. Seems to be the same as the NX300. Pretty easy too, if there aren't any new security measures in place. Increased bitrate: Possible. Needs some real reverse engineering to find where the rates are set for each resolution and quality. Noise reduction and sharpening: Possible. Haven't seen anything that looks like it's controlling these, but if setting the bitrate works, this should be possible too. FWIW I think that increasing the bitrate would help with the noise reduction issues. H.265 tends to smooth things out a lot to achieve low bitrates. Re-enable 2.5k on NX500: Plausible but difficult. It depends on whether they just removed it from di-camera-app, or if they removed it from the underlying libraries as well. Either way it would likely require actually adding control flow to the binary, which opens a whole new can of worms. Beyond my current ability, for sure. Focus peaking for NX500 4k: Maybe? I have no idea, really. There might be a good reason they didn't include it, there might not. 4k crop on NX1: Plausible but even more difficult. We know the hardware can do it, but it was probably never implemented on the NX1, even in pre-production. Gamma profile on NX500: Plausible. Similar to porting the NX500's 4k crop to the NX1, I think. 6k 24fps H.265: Highly unlikely. The H.265 encoder would have to support frame sizes larger than DCI 4k and be able to handle twice the pixel rate (clock speed) of 4k. Furthermore it would require implementing a brand-new video mode at a very low level. I can't say for sure it's categorically impossible, but don't get your hopes up. 10bit H.265: Nope. The H.265 standard does indeed allow for 10bit encoding, but I highly doubt Samsung would include the significantly larger (wider busses, more complex encoding) hardware necessary to do it. It would be a miracle if Samsung had really decided to go to all that effort and not use it. 6k or full sensor 4k at more than 30fps or 1080p at (significantly) more than 120fps: Impossible. The image sensor simply isn't fast enough. If you hope for this you will just be disappointed! RAW Video: Not really. It might be theoretically possible to dump the live-view feed as in Magic Lantern. Who knows how fast the SD card interface is, though. Certainly no more than 1080p. I can imagine tricking the GPU into packing 12bit 4k RAW into 1080p 444 HDMI like Apertus, but consider that a pipe dream. Don't get your hopes up. Anyway, that was longer than I expected, but I enjoyed poking around in the firmware, so I don't regret it even if it comes to nothing. It's a shame Samsung appears to be dropping the NX line; they are cool little cameras. p.s. If you know anything I've said is wrong, please correct me; I'm learning this as I go along.

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :) At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen. I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question. I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping). The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY? The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground. The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m. Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport. I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again. There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all. The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks). Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

The camera which Panasonic can't decide what to call (GX80 in Europe, GX85 in the US and GX7 Mark II in Japan!) really excites me. It's the first time that anyone has put 5 axis in-body stabilisation in a 4K camera which exceeds the performance of the stunningly good Olympus 5 axis system. It's not quite as effective as a gimbal for sweeping handheld movement, but that pain-in-the-ass tripod you can certainly dispense with now, along with that Olympus 1080p mush too!! GRAB A CUP OF TEA, PUT DOWN YOUR F***ING IPHONE AND READ THE LONG ARTICLE!!

As bad as this is, in my opinion you should hold a bit back @Ed_David. I get the feeling we get back to medieval age when I read that we should "embarass him" and "destroy his reputation", especially since I get this dejavu with Philip Bloom.

Yes Marco, it's a speed booster prototype selfmade. It's possible. In the nex time I post my full work on it, and begginning the test on NX1 camera.

nx-patch v5.3 is out. One point of interest to videographers: killall switch added which basically returns camera to factory settings (until battery pull) EXCEPT for the already set bitrates. Pull battery to reactivate mod UI.

(1) and (2): Some explanations. Scripts are stored on the SD card. SD cards are optimized for sustained writes and generally slower than internal emmc flash, especially for mixed read/writes. When you start to mix script reads and video writes you are confusing the sdcard (internal) flash memory controller and since the card is optimized for large writes it will behave badly for short reads like those of scripts. Especially when these are comparatively rare in between long sustained writes. The ARM core running Tizen and the user interface is single threaded and not very fast (the fast ones are running the non-Tizen T-Kernel operating the camera hardware). You WILL see slowness because the UI has to wait for the keyscan to finish which in turn waits for the scripts to finish which in turn get read from a (comparatively) slow card the SD before it (the UI) can continue with whatever it was doing. the scripts heavily use the Linux shell, launching it every single time a script is launched (and remember for us scripts are launching other scripts - nested scripts). Bottom line, there are several things someone will need to do before you will get better performance: RUN, don't walk, from storing any script/mod/hack on SD card. This is the single greatest reason for slowness, and to make things worse, it is highly dependent on card model (and more expensive cards will not necessarily make things better because it may happen that high end cards will work less well for small reads than cheaper "non-optimized for writes" cards. Otto is doing something about this but AFAIK it is still experimental although not rocket science. But you will also have to overcome your fear of storing mods internally. After all, once you did the BT mod, you basically did 95% of what is required anyway and successfully passed the "dangerous" phase of changing camera rootfs. I do think that we need to improve that mod to enable mod bypass during boot just in case something goes wrong with any of the internal mods, and that we need to have a "mod witness" permanently on the screen to show that mods are enabled, but this is minor. Eliminate multiple scripts from "production" mods. Scripts are fantastic for getting functionality in your hands and to allow fast test turnaround and mod interface evolution but ultimately there needs to be a consolidated mod that sits in ONE binary. This is, by the way, I think, one of the reasons for the fat di-camera-app that runs the entire camera UI. Script support needs to stay (both card and internal) but over time, all mods should aspire to be part of a main mod binary. Ideally, a mod should go through multiple stages: SD card based while it is evaluated and goes through fast changes and updates and while we are NOT CERTAIN that it will not damage the camera internal when determined as safe for camera and changes are not so frequent once stable and generally accepted, optimize and integrate as binary (non-shell script) in a main executable mod for fastest speed. There you go. Also, from what I can see in the firmware, it seems that the data flow in the camera goes: Sensor => DRIME (that is operated by T-Kernel) => Tizen kernel => write on card. The reason Tizen and not T-Kernel writes on card is that you cannot have multiple operating systems write on the card at the same time. This means that if we bloat memory use on Tizen, its capacity to maintain sustained writes is lowered compared to what it might achieve with more free RAM. In turn, this means: avoid shell scripts or heavy programs (like my gdb bitrate mod version). This, IMO, is also the reason the "poker" method allows faster performance than the "gdb" method. It is also the reason I am working towards an even better method than "poker" which will consolidate the "memory change" mods in one binary without the need to stop the di-camera-app multiple times (which is very time consuming for the CPU). Finally: Would anyone mind starting something like a gofundme campaign for a NX500. Mine needs a replacement power button (I kind of abused mine I guess) and I am reluctant to keep working on it after I get it repaired. It is too bad because with time, based on what I see in the camera, and if there was a developer community built around it, the hardware could achieve wonders. And to be clear, Otto, Kino Seed, Chant, and me do not "community" make IMO, like for example Magic Lantern. If you guys want anything close to ML you will need to do a lot more about spreading the word and competing for developers time/recruiting new ones. Regards Vasile

No idea but I doubt it w/o replacing the codec. Chant might eventually be able to do something about it but don't hold your breath. At the moment I see a slight chance to get: more resolutions (i.e. 2.5K on NX1) the high rate 2.5K on NX500 (subject to dangerous manipulations on burner cam) maybe higher res and rate MJPEG out of NX1 (although TBH I do not think it would reach the quality of 150-160 Mbps hevc) with a lot of luck disable or reduce video NR (I might take a look at this at some point in the future but this will definitely involve weeks of work so not too keen to start). Basically Chant is looking into adding true new stuff. I have been looking more on the side of tweaking what's already in there - easier than Chant's ambitions but I already picked the low and medium hanging fruits.

Things are moving fast guys. I've created a sub-forum for any subjects which might require a separate thread. Regarding compression on uploads or attachments, let me know if this is a problem and I will look into it. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/forum/25-samsung-nx1-hack/

So yep... I've been shooting with the A7SII pretty extensively on a bunch of music videos. This particular video is narrative-only, shot in Whitby UK within 6 hours with a crew of 5 people including make up artist. My duties? I wrote the idea, shot, lit, graded and edited the video in FCPX. Most of the video was shot in natural light. One night scene was lit with Lupolux Dual LEDs and Scorpion Lights, powered by batteries (lifesaver!). The sun was going down quick and we used the A7SII up until ISO 12,800. Picture profiles were custom Slog2 profile and also custom Cine2, shot in 4k 25fps. We used the Sony CLM-FHD monitor on the camera (very useful). Would never used the camera without a monitor again unless desperate. Camera remains light and easy to use. Gimbal shots were on the Ronin-M, with the full IBIS activated with the Sony Vario-Tessar 24-70mm - operated in upright mode. Fantastic combination. Handheld lenses were Sigma 18-35mm (used at 35mm), Samyang 14mm and Helios 44-2 85mm (bloody well hard lens to focus!). This video wouldn't of been possible to shoot in 6 hours without the A7SII. The aesthetic helped the video with it's murky look, and the portability with IBIS was awesome. Helped keep us on our toes and be creative with the shots. Issues? I went through 9 batteries and er, the zip on my coat broke and er... I got a wet ass?... that's about it. I'll let you guys decide what you think the story is about and all that jazz. Hope you enjoy it!!

4 hrs later... But on a more serious note... indeed good job on listening to the feedback and make amends.

Every shot in this video except the rooftop was shot with V-Log L 10 bit on the GH4/Assassin. Thanks to Sandro and Nicolas Maillet for helping me with a couple of Twixtor shots.

Well that took a bloody long time! But I've just this minute completed my new reel and site. It's not "announced" until Monday.... social media campaigns etc blah blah. But it's live! Check them here: View my new showreel and website! Some info Each and every image - I shot, lit, edited, graded. A little directing. Very involved in creative ideas. Core crew was mostly 4-5 regular people in these productions (Director, DOP, Production Manager, Spark, Make Up Artist). For the geeks - cameras used are Sony F55, FS7, FS700, RED Epic, GH3, BM Pocket. All images are music videos, but going for commercial/corporate work aggressively into the next year. (and still many music videos). The aim is to have 100% new material for Showreel 2016. Max creativity required. Anyway, if you like it or don't like it, whatever. Just thought I'd share.

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP". A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses. The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body. It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

Hi guys, FilmConvert here. Just wanted to let you know we've heard the feedback about some redness in the NX1 profile. We're doing some more QA here, and may release a new version of the profile shortly.

Just wanted to say I'm proud of everyone coming together to help out three members here get on their way to get their money back. It was an intense few days or so. But this really, in a dorky way, felt like a real community. A weird meta one, since none of us know each other in the real world, except for me and Mr. Coffee after a great skype interview session. Now I am crying. I am crying and crying and crying and sobbing and need to get a hankey. Okay got it. Anyway goodbye guys! Till the next hot-buttoned issue!

Unfortunately, Ebrahim, when you chose to steal from other people, you risked ruining your reputation. I think this thread should remain on the forum, but locked, onced the matter is resolved. You are only refunding these people (if you actually do) because of the pressure brought upon you by this thread. If the OP had not started it, you might have been tempted to scam more people, given your previous success. You are a criminal because you have stolen from (at least) three people and you are a liar because you have lied repeatedly and continuously. These are not desirable characteristics for a Dentist starting out on his career and now future employers will be able to see how untrustworthy you are. You brought this upon yourself and risked a huge amount.

Just read all todays madness Time out Please! ES needs to refund the 3 people involved in this matter , it's between him and them . Andrew is away filming and I don't think he will want an internet intervention lynching branded by EOSHD members when he has said if this is not resolved he will get the authorities involved. ES contact the three people involved , keep in regular contact with them and get on with the plan for refunding them in full with a realistic time frame they are happy with and stick to it. or you will be dealing with Andrew Reid direct.

Hey Michal. I am glad someone has noticed this. I have all the rumors sites in my news feed and I visit some of the other blogs, the truth is these are majorly demotivating for me. It seems the general direction of the internet is going away from long form reviews and articles, into quickly thrown up deals and clickbate, along 2-3 minute quickly knocked up youtube video which are nice to have on in the background as you have a cup of tea in the morning, but contain very little actual useful information. If all the attention is going into the wrong content, so what motivation do I have to carry on with EOSHD? There's still some great stuff out there but it's few and far between, and getting worse. So I actually share your depression with the state of affairs. EOSHD articles I used to do are almost unviable today... the formula is broken... the amount of effort required versus the lack of reward in putting so much information out there for free. Geez. Thanks for the support... not. Facebook and Instagram content is where it's at, sadly. A finger swipe, 2 seconds, next. In the end the audience will regret allowing the internet to dissolve into a trivial social network where appearances are valued above substance.

As a long time lurker watching the progress happen and trying out some of the hacks my self here is a brief summary of main accomplishments. Current hack achievements in no particular order Increased bitrate on both NX1/NX500. So far there is no consensus on the optimal bitrate. Further testing is required by experience videographers who are good at analyzing footage. Added 2.5k full sensor readout with increased bitrate on NX500. I do not own an NX500 so I am not sure what is really happening with this hack. Perhaps someone else could fill in. Removed video record time limit on both NX1/NX500. This is something I haven’t personally tested as I do not need it but reports sound like it works perfectly fine and can be used to record videos that will fill up your card. Fully electronic (silent) shutter on the NX500. Not yet working on NX1 from what I understand. There are currently three main ways to apply hacks to the NX1/NX500. The original method by running in factory mode by running a script on the SD card root called info.tg that can run other apps such as Otto K’s keyscan The WiFi method. Similar to the blue tooth method below but more risky. The best method is the blue tooth method. This is done by modifying the file /usr/sbin/bluethd in camera to execute a scripts that can run whatever other program you want. Telnet (busy Box) can be run from the SD Card to remotely execute any command on camera. Alot of the built in camera commands have been figured out and you can now write scripts to make the camera do pretty much anything you want. Even I was able to written a few scripts . Current progress Lately (past few weeks) the majority of the activity has been around trying to remove the in camera NR for video. There has also been quite a bit of talk about creating a GUI for all the hacks. If you are a programmer and are interested in getting involved I think this is likely the area where you could really help out. If there is anything I got wrong or missed please don’t be shy and call me out on it

This is a bunch of basic information about affordable camera support gear. A lot of people who are new to all this Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera stuff (or DSLR sized cameras), and folks who don't have much money to spend have been asking me about all this lately. I don't have a lot of time to do gear reviews, so I decided to try to cram as much information as I could into this one video hoping to answer as many questions as I can all in one place. Items covered in this video: BMPCC Cages Rail Systems Shoulder Rigs External Batteries Follow Focus Devices Matte Boxes Cats and Dogs Living Together Tripods Jibs Gimbal Carry Case *Note: The "one size fits all" cage I show here costs $149. I forgot to mention that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqzJlgPjL_c Some of the links I've been able to locate: "One size fits all" Cage - $149 Movcam BMPCC Cage - $323 Fotga Follow Focus - $170 Follow Focus Speed Crank - $13 Giottos Quick Release Adapter - $38 Offset Riser Clamp - $18 Cavision Matte Box - $99

Good news! Blackmagic have sent me one for review, should be here any day now!

Some great work here Thread is now a sticky topic.

I use Natural (contrast -5 and saturation -5) and I store it as CUSTOM profile 1 .....leave the NR and Sharpening at 0 yes you dial the colour back in in post ,Im shooting alot of night interior scenes in this movie on sets and I want to record a much shaddow detail as possible , I dont want crushed blacks in camera . so contrast and saturation are -5 , it works great this way . I shot a whole moive that way last year and we got superb results with it. this was shot Natural (contrast -5 and saturation -5) with the colour dialed back in in post /grade. all that detail in the actors uniform would not be there with crushed blacks in camera .

We had a lot of fun making this one, three people in crew in total and a £500 budget for all the extras (props location etc) the kit is our own Animation took a long time, and VHS style was tough to build! Happy to answer questions on production if anyone is interested!

Hey Andrew clearly this bothers you the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out. Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed. There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour. If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. so there are my thoughts. if you miss the show watch the movie version. It's more believable. "fast and the furious"

SAMPLES ! Sony A7 + Novoflex adapter ring + Nikon 50mm E Serie f1.8 + Redstan clamp + Bolex System Moler 16/32/1.5X anamorphic lens More samples and larger on my Flick'r : http://www.flickr.com/photos/43243778@N04/sets/72157638698522816/

Hi guys, We just shot this video with the BMCC, Metabones Speedbooster, Nikon Lenses and Iscorama 54MC. RAW files were developped in After Effects CS6 (with Camera Raw) to Prores444 2400/1350. Color grading was done in AE. Please let us know what you think, we'd love to get some feedback. Cheers, Mihnea

lesson learned....     not one person dealing with this issue seems to have contributed positively at all to this forum.  Just come here to take take take.  either selling or buying, they bring NOTHING to the forum.  Personally I think there should be a stop to all this posting of ebay listings, personal sales, etc.  at least topics of this nature should be only postable and visible by regulars.     Also, someone please close the ebay listings topic.  this has to be the most ridiculous idea ever.  Share your findings with the world, kill any chance of you or anyone else savvy to anamorphics getting a bargain because everyone and their grandma can come in and see a run down of anamorphics worth bidding on.  If it were a secret topic to regulars I'd understand, but literally, I'd say that topic alone is contributing 50% towards the current silly inflation of anything with a squeeze ratio! 

Hey guys, I've written a really simple command line app for Mac that will resample GH4 footage from 4K 4:2:0 to 2K 4:4:4 using pixel summing. This will give you real 10 bit data in the luminance channel, so it's not just doing a brute-force bump from 8 bits to 10 bits. There actually is some interesting pixel finagling going on here: http://www.mediafire.com/download/f7h950spj5hrn9f/gh444.dmg There's no GUI, so you'll need to run it from the terminal. Do this by copying the app into the directory that contains the GH4 MOV files and using the following command in a terminal: ./gh444 INPUTFILE.MOV Make sure you cd to the current directory first if necessary. You can do this by typing "cd" into the terminal, add a space, and then drag the folder containing the MOV files into the terminal window. It will automatically add the path to the cd command. It'll look like this: cd /path/to/gh4/files The app will spit numbered DPX frames out in a folder named "dpx_out." I'd love for you guys to give it a try and see if you find it useful!

Hi Julian... Thanks for the response. After a close family friend passed away years ago I arranged for the sale of his old Arriflex II-C camera, His Iscorama lens was given to me by his niece as a "thank you". I've used it for years, shooting slides, then shelved it when I "went digital". Several years ago I stumbled across the EOSHD website and it rekindled my interest in using it for digital work. It's only fairly recently that I've played around with it with the idea of adapting it for close-up shooting. I'm still not fully up to speed with it when working at close distances. The very shallow DOF at high magnifications is a problem, and working with mongrel supplementary lenses scavenged from junk lenses is "iffy" at times. There's a tremendous amount of variability in image quality when I mount add-on lenses on the Isco, depending upon which primary lens I'm using. Through quite a bit of testing I've created separate sets of supplementary lenses to work with the Isco when mounted on specific primary lenses. A few of my add-on lenses do vignette a bit, which is cropped away preserving the normal decompressed aspect ratio. I haven't run any focus / compression tests at anything closer than about three feet, but feel as you do, that if I leave the Isco at infinity there probably won't be a shift in the amount of "squeeze". Here are a few sample images, all taken using an old Nikkor-H 85mm f/1.8... stopped down to f/16 or f/22, with a variety of supplemental lenses. The 85 and the Iscorama both have their focusing ring "locked" at infinity with wide rubber bands, focusing is achieved by moving the camera. Lighting is from either the pop-up flash, or a small speedlight bounced off foil covered cards or shot through a home-made bowl diffuser. Forget-me-nots, 85mm Nikkor-H, Iscorama, objective from a junk Soligor 450mm reverse mounted on the Isco. Orb weaver leg regeneration, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective. I really like the bokeh here (out of focus evergreen branches). Web repair, 85mm with Iscorama, Soligor 450mm objective reversed on the Isco, with a Soligor 90-230mm zoom lens objective reversed on the 450mm. Bee, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscoama, with a Soligor 90-230mm objective reversed on the Isco, and a Panagor 85-205mm objective reversed on the Soligor. Freshly moulted Funnel Weaver, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, with the objective from a Vivitar 28-210mm zoom lens reversed on the Isco. Tiny fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and the objective from the Vivitar 28-210 reversed on the Isco. Baby funnel weaver with a fruit fly, Nikkor-H 85mm, Iscorama, and a Raynox MSN-202 close up lens on the Isco. This add-on lens is mounted on an adapter ring that fits the Isco, not in the "snap-on" adapter supplied by Raynox. The results I've been getting with the Iscorama are very encouraging. It's been great for general photography, but seems to work well up close too. Shooting anamorphic macro images is great... but there are a huge amount of "throw-aways"... more than with using a macro lens without the Iscorama. Shooting extreme close-ups with the Isco is probably "pushing the envelope" a bit, but I'm getting enough decent images to keep me at it. I've been asked why I'm "wasting my time" with the old isco, and been advised that shooting wide angle and cropping might be easier. Having done that years ago... there's no comparison. I just like the look and feel of the anamorphic images better.

This is another existential filmmaker post spawned by a few recent threads. You've been warned. Also spoilers for a film. Recently I saw a film that articulated a question I didn't know I was asking. That film was "Frank" the story of a talentless, wannabe songwriter/keyboard player who is recruited to join a band led by a man who wears a fake head at all times. You might have seen it floating around Netflix, and maybe you even disregarded it because it sounds gimmicky, or the poster looked like quirky nonsense, but I decided on a lark to watch it, and it was absolutely devastating. The "protagonist" of the film seems like a nice, sweet guy in the beginning, until he starts exploiting Frank's talent by secretly filming and posting videos of their rehearsals to youtube, eventually earning them a slot at SXSW. He tells Frank "People love us." to which Frank replies "People love us?" The pressure of the show, and pleasing an audience cause Frank to have a nervous breakdown. This film resonated with me in a major way. I watched it once, over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. I thought about how fame and success never occurred to Frank. He just created music for the art and expression of it, and when faced with the pressure of a major debut performance at a festival, he creates a terrible song that he thinks is his "most likeable song ever". The entire experience breaks him. The whole film forced me to think of my goals as a filmmaker. I've wanted to be a filmmaker since I saw the Making Of Jurassic Park on TV when I was six years old. In high school, I got serious about having a career in film after seeing Pulp Fiction and El Mariachi. I then discovered the French New Wave and John Cassavetes, and I wanted to make honest, devastating, achingly truthful and beautiful masterpieces of cinema. I made my first feature at 21...and now I'm almost 28, with not many shorts, and not a single follow-up feature since my first. My first feature was extremely disappointing to me. I was obsessed with it for years, and even tried to make a quasi-remake of it, which was a disaster. I've been struggling to come up with an idea for another film that I like. I haven't been able to finish even a first draft in two and a half years. I used to be able to crank out script after script, draft after draft with all the blind confidence in the world. And since my feature, I've come to the realization that I only really have a few basic themes that I keep going back to, and I keep trying to force myself to think of something different, to be a different filmmaker, but I'm not. And now I'm questioning my goals. I've wanted a career making indie films so I wouldn't have to work a crappy day job. I've been working the same crappy day job for almost four years straight, except for the nine months where I moved to LA to pursue my career. I could't even find a day job to pay the rent. Toys R Us interviewed me twice and wouldn't hire me to work in the stock room during the holidays. I sold a bunch of my lenses, and the DVX100 I didn't use anymore, for rent money. I moved back to my hometown a year ago, broken and miserable. A year later I'm in a great relationship with a woman I'm moving in with in a month. She also has a three year old daughter, and though I thought I never wanted kids, now I can see myself raising this child with my girlfriend, and marrying her. We both see it. She's extremely supportive of my filmmaking, and doesn't want me to give up. But I just feel discouraged. Discouraged that my films will never look good enough, have good enough acting or be important enough. And I still want to make films, but I'm wondering why I want, or need, to be successful at it. Before I got "serious" about it, I used to have fun making movies. The same group of friends and I would get together and film shorts on the weekends. Most people here I'm sure had the same experience. I think all I want now is to form a troupe of actors/crew members and make cheap movies in our spare time for fun, and perhaps never even show them to anyone else. I'm accepting that I'm nowhere near the level of talent as Francois Truffaut, Paul Thomas Anderson, or David Lynch, and it's okay. I'm giving up on success. I just want to make shit.

I am upgrading some members to moderator status. If they choose to exercise their newfound abilities, this upgrade comes with the ability to delete and lock posts as well as the all powerful, all conquering ability to ban members who misbehave!   Thanks for their positive contributions to life here at EOSHD I am promoting RichG101, mtheory and jonpais to moderator status for the main forum and all sub-sections.   It carries no extra work or obligations - exercising their privileges will be entirely at the discretion of the moderator. I'll continue as the main admin. But I think having extra eyes and ears plus a few more trusted people with the ability to clean up posts and ban members will help me a lot.   Also since they expressed an interest, JohnBarlow will moderate the Anamorphic forum and Andy Lee will get his own sticky thread on lenses and lighting which may build into it's own forum section if it is successful.   I'll create the moderator privileges later in the week. Any objections or any opt outs please have your say on this thread!