Leaderboard

Hello, Sorry this is a bit off topic, but I have to say this out loud. The last few years the following has become a trend: Review websites are posting articles with youtube links without summarizing the content of the video. And this is annoying the hell out of me. Is it that much to ask to write an article summarizing the content of a video. All the big websites are doing this, nofilmsschool, fstoppers, ... I cannot watch video's all the time because of various reasons: 1: I cannot use audio (work, school, library, public transport, ...) 2: Video's take forever, I do not have that much free time (they will have an intro, outro, jokes, ...), I rather spend my time on watching an actual film or spend my time with my family then watching several youtube video's, where the content could be summarized in a 5 min read. 3: Reading is more efficient for me at least, as you can reread faster with less distractions 4: Clickbait titles with shitty content. 5: Its making influencers the biggest contentmakers, why should I visit other websites if everything links to youtube videos. So please if you are writing articles on photography/cinematography summarize the video's. I will be very thankfull! Cheers

When I first started out then NoFilmSchool seemed to be so awesome! I read it every week. But it has been sh*t for years and years now. I'm not sure what happened? Did it become total crap? Or maybe I became better? ha!

I bought a C100 mark 1 in 2018 so +1 from me too... but it obviously depends on what your needs are. for a $2K budget it's imo the best cine cam. Not DSLR, not MILC. CINE camera. Super35 sensor. 1080p downsampled from 4K. Dual Pixel AF (with face tracking on Mk2). XLR inputs. internal NDs. Internal stereo boom mic. outstanding battery. Canon Log. Canon colors. Native Canon EF lenses. Waveform assist. Great ergonomics. Modularity...etc.

The GH5s with a speedbooster and XLR-1 gives you 90% of the functionality of the C100ii plus the added benefits of smaller size, 4k, slo-mo, HLG, dual native ISO, and more. If AF is a dealmaker/breaker, then you already know your answer.

Unfortunately the most succinct summary for a lot of them would be "Please click my affiliate link below".

Well I was being a little hyperbolic but anonim went from one side of the spectrum stating that Grant Petty is an honorable man that wouldn’t risk his reputation to saying BM has too much of a bad track record to be trusted... But yeah, nothing is wrong with criticism or skepticism... I am skeptical of this camera. Actually I have two fears that are completely opposite scenarios... on one hand I am afraid that this camera’s use of this sensor is giving a lot of people false expectations that cannot be lived up to. But on the other hand, I really hope this isn’t a generic, vanilla camera that lacks the edgy, indie film look that was so beautiful in the first Pocket... I guess we’ll know soon enough.

I reckon BMD's approach of offering the user a LOT for very little $$, is indeed a desirable behavior. Any one who pays 100% with the pre order is foolishly taking on the risk. So now we've got that out of the way, BMD never promised the Micro would get a Global Shutter once they'd already started shipping the Micro. This seems like a very unreasonable point to bring up against BMD.

Maybe it will be nice to share fast unpretentious vacation-shots around the world... At least I'm always glad to see them, so that's mine last one.

Hey all, jumping right in here on the forums to share my work shot using Pro Color! I've come from the Canon world but now love my Sonys. Pro Color was a God-sent and I am fully embracing it! More to come but in the meantime please see this short video of a buddy of mine fishing shot handheld on the new Sony A7iii using a Nikkor 35mm f1.4 ai-s and 105mm f2.5 ai-s. V3 Pro Color was installed on the camera as at the time of filming V4 was not yet out. I applied a Lut of mine, Tenkara, you can grab from my website. Thanks Andrew for making these killer profiles!

It is crazy to think back when I started uni I didn't even have a dumb cellphone! How did I survive??

BMD partnered with Apple for an external GPU, it was announced today. https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicegpu/

I thought there was a new 13inch quad core

I’m thinking about buying a Mark I, so yeah I think the Mark II is definitely still relevant. As John Brawley stated in a different thread... a lot of US network television is broadcasted at 720p... so 1080p is more than enough. The C100 series cameras are workhorses... I’m sure you’ll have the camera paid off after a job or two and then it’s all profit. And for that money... it’s a no brainer.

Agree 1000%. His front ring enables you to attach the HCDNA safely (75mm threads) AND it also locks focus on the Kowa which means you don't have to worry about torque. It's an amazing product for a good price. Very nice guy as well. I assume the 16-S has the same front diameter as the 16-D. Amazing lens, very underrated.

GH5/S is not an option for me, i dont like the image that much, just saw a few "filmic" videos that i really liked. In my eyes its to "Video". Bigger (not a red one ? ) is a Plus for me, clients are blindet by big cameras. leave the fact that i dont like the Gh5, this package would be almost double the price. But thanks for your reply Thats the work i do, if i do something bigger i will rent a RED. Plan for this Camera would be, image films, music videos and shortfilms... maybe a doc someday. Sorry i should gave you guys the infos earlier

HTN adapters makes front rings for kowa 16D. Talk to HuuTuan for an advice. His rings are best solution than any clamp by far.

Never have owned one, but hell it might get the job done who knows? The price is sure good. ? https://www.amazon.com/BE-278-Barbie-Wireless-Video-Camera/dp/B00006666K Yeah my Sony A7s has that APSC crop thingy and it is a Great feature no doubt. Helps with Rolling Shutter, and it gives your lens a boost focal length wise. With it and Clear Zoom it is like having 4 different lenses in one. I don't have a SP for my Sony. But I know it does help if you use it to get back up to FF on them, to help with the RS problem the A7s has. They are pretty terrible for RS. One of the worse. 

Maybe, but the world would miss your controller which would be unacceptable. That bling though... ?

haha yeah always interested in good website if you got any. Agreed nofilmschool is 99% bs these days, they keep on fixating on beginner stuff. I always end up forums for more detailed or more expertised solutions. But I do like browsing sites like fstoppers, no film school and such because now and then you do pick something up.

I think I found your real issue.

I'm love to see an "URSA Micro" with the BMPCC4K sensor in it. Nah, just buy another one! ?

Yeah only problem with that is what if something breaks, the cost of the repairs will probably exceed the price of a ursa mini pro.

Well I also invested deeply into EF lenses. (shooting with UMP EF), so I will get a metabones speedbooster instead. As EF lenses are still the best still lenses mount choice. Not because I like the EF mount, but because you can mount EF lenses to about any camera and not vica versa. I shoot manual anyway so I dont care for the autofocus problems.

6. Not everyone has unlimited mobile data to view videos, but they've got enough to read text.

I already don't visit Filmschool any more and for Fstoppers, I'm subscribed to the channel but if I'm looking for information I just come here, google it or youtube search it and visit the most relevant or the newest. For example, the M50. Appart of Andrew's and Dave's I haven't found any good example of cinematic or unsharpened videos which makes me suspicious and prevents me from trusting Canon on that one, specially regarding 1080 50p. You're one of the best examples of why I consider this place that curator.

Well in most of the cases they are linking to a youtube video of somebody else. So the one who is posting it on fstoppers/nofilmschool doesnt get payed for the link to the video either as they are the article poster not the content creator. So in that regard I dont think it would result in affiliate links. The youth is already lost to countless hours browsing youtube each night so they will still have a fanbase on youtube. If this trend continues I think nofilmschool, fstoppers, ... will have to close the website down as its just links to youtube. I can go to youtube straight away, I dont need another website to bring me to youtube. And maybe even pushes authors to create original content.

You don't need shallow mount to use a focal reducer. You just need a mount that provides enough room for the lenses necessary to perform focal reduction. In the case of the Lucadapter, the lenses are in the tube that is inside the 4.6K EF mount, so you just screw a new one in. In the case of most speedboosters it's just easier to start with a shorter mount and expand to a longer one, such as EF or PL

Thought this might be interesting for you guys: I was at the Berllin Museum for photography this week and had the chance to see "Helmut Newtons private property" that gathered all his belongings shortly before he died in a car crash. (one of the most famous photographers of all time). At one point we could see the lenses he owned. Apart from some full format camera stuff he must have often shot with small handy cameras like the eos100d, pentax and nikon. Sadly the museum staff didn't put all the lenses the way that you could see focal lenghts and apertures (like nobody would be interested in that ? ), but I think I could make out he used the same range of lenses for all of his cameras. This is what I think I could see: 35mm (don't know the aperture), 50mm 1.4 85mm 1.4 as well as 135mm 3.5, all nikkor f`s.

Not sure what this statement means, but if a Barbie Cam is anything like a Pixel Vision camera, I like to shoot a test with it. Why? There are certainly will be differences in the format, and certain color nuances, but what exactly do you think will better or worse in the performance/usability/reliability between the Panavision DXL and the FF Kinefinity Mavo (which has not yet been released)? Well, the page from the dealer ProAV is a little misleading, but that dealer does list the sensor size in at least two places on the page. In addition, the results are almost identical to using a full frame lens having an FFD of an EF lens or longer. Plus, you get an extra stop of brightness over using just a full frame lens with a full frame sensor, and you also have the option to use any S35 lens directly and get complete coverage (which is not possible with a non-croppable FF sensor). Furthermore, you can use FF lenses with a tilt adapter, which works perfectly with an S35 sensor. By the way, Kinefinity will be releasing their FF Mavo sometime soon. With a good speedbooster, the results would be almost identical to a FF camera, plus you get that extra stop and the other options mentioned above. I am glad you asked that question! There are a lot of advantages (mentioned above) to using a focal reducer with a S35/APSC sensor over just shooting with a FF camera. On the other hand, a S35/APSC sensor cannot work if one wants to shoot MF inexpensively by using a MF speed booster (such as the Kipon) -- a FF camera with a shallow mount is required. Additionally, if a FF camera with a shallow mount features a decent S35/APSC crop, then one has the best of both worlds! Such a camera is extremely versatile! So, there are valid reasons to get a FF camera over shooting equivalent FF with a S35/APSC camera and a focal reducer. Of course, there are also those who want FF who cannot fathom using a focal reducer or any other kind of adapter. Well, most of the dumbasses are probably going with Canon -- not Kinefinity. Canon makes good cameras, but due to the brand popularity it appeals to the "low common denominator." Some might buy the FF Mavo over a camera with smaller sensor because of the reasons I gave directly above. The results are virtually identical with a quality focal reducer. Ever heard of a Canon 550D, a 80D, Sony A6000? Yes. All good cameras. However, you probably won't be able to put any existing speedbooster on the 550D and the 80D, because they don't have a shallow mount. Did I mention that you have to have a shallow mount to use a speedbooster (and most other adapters)? Not sure I did, because you bring up the 550D and 80D -- both of which have EF mounts (not shallow). This point seems lost on many, as apparently some of us can repeat several times that a shallow mount it necessary to use a speedbooster and most other adapters (and, hence, most other lenses), and the point doesn't seem to sink in. You do understand that a shallow mount is required to use speedboosters, tilt adapters and adapters for most lenses, don't you? There is a whole universe of lenses that cannot work with EF nor PL mounts. These are the reasons why some of us push for cameras to have shallow mounts. One exception to this might be the focal reducer designed for the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms, but they cannot fit on every DSLR, and, of course, they only work with the Angenieux EZ-1 zooms -- they don't work with any other lenses. Angenieux can considerably lighten one's wallet, as well. Not sure, but I think that the White Point focal reducer is designed to work only with the White Point medium format lenses, and I think that the only mount for those focal reducers are PL mount. So, this new White Point setup might be an exception to the MF focal reducer requiring a shallow mount.

A shallow mount such as an E-mount allows one to do a few interesting things. For instance, one can use the Kipon MF focal reducer on the Sony Venice and on the upcoming Kinefinity FF Mavo, and one is essentially shooting MF footage for a lot less than the Arri, Panavision and Red alternatives. It's no joke. Using a focal reducer to get the look of a lens designed for a larger format is absolutely valid. If you think focal reducers are a joke, perhaps you should take up the issue with Metabones, Angenieux and White Point. By the way, which camera do you have with an APSC sensor? Unless you can afford the Angenieux or the newer White Point alternatives, your camera needs to have a shallow mount to take a focal reducer -- that's sort of the point that a few of us have been trying to make in several forum threads.

Any off-the-shelf Sony technology that Hasselblad used is likely licensed so that Hasselblad can sell it. On the other hand, neither of us know the language of the clauses in the Sony-Hasselblad agreement, so until somebody produces the contract, it is sort of futile to go back and forth any more on the matter. You have not made that case. Yes I have ... for the reasons I stated earlier. I think that most people would say it's an E-mount, even though the contacts are apparently not active. When you buy the mechanical portion of the mount, what do you call it? I have know idea how much Clairmont spent to make their adapters. They were a rental house, so they didn't sell them. I heard that Denny Clairmont merely retired and sold his company to Keslow Camera -- not that Clairmont "went bust."' I mentioned Clairmont Camera merely to demonstrate that the use of adapters is not always considered a "pain" nor "amateurish." Rental cost of the adapters is immaterial. Yes. Panavision is another company that produces adapters happily used by pros. I would agree with your wording, as long as the E-mount lens is an electronic lens -- not a manual lens. As long as you're OK with not being able to change exposure, use IS or use metadata with E Mount lenses. I am okay with that, as I would probably never need to use such an electronic lens. I suspect that there are a few others who are likewise okay with it, as it being offered on a couple of cameras. I will try another way to explain how making the front end of a camera with a shallower mount costs no more than making the front end with a greater FFD. Lets say that a camera manufacturer wants to make two cameras, each having a removable front lens plate: one camera has a lens plate that mount at an FFD greater than that of say, a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "X" and camera body "Y"; the other camera has lens plate that mounts 12mm closer to the sensor than FFD of a M4/3 mount, with lens plate "A" and camera body "B." Lens plates "A" and "X" are identical, except that "A" is 12mm longer than "X." Camera bodies "B" and "Y" are identical, except that "B" is 12mm shorter than "Y." The tooling on the respective parts are identical, except for the difference in these single dimensions. Thus, it costs the same to make "A-B" as it does to make "X-Y." Got it? Okay, If Tokina was the one to blame, I am not sure why you brought up the problem. Until they change over time or aren't right.Which is what happens when you make something user-changeable. 99% of the EF users will never change anything. People who want to change mounts will largely be able to do so, and, of course, will have to accept any risks (which are almost nil). I wouldn't shim my EF mount (and I hardly ever use it). However, if I had to shim it on the adapter to which it is mounted, I would have to unscrew it, put the shim(s) in place and screw the mount back on. Of course, there needs to be enough male and female threads to do so securely and the shim/spacer needs to be positioned so that it comes between the adapter body and the mount material. I think that I have made it clear that having a shallow mount doesn't preclude the use of a popular mount, and that such a configuration could be designed so that most users would be aware that the popular, fully-functional mount is actually removable. I have addressed how the design of such a camera would not affect it's "market economics." You're saying you accept a mechanically induced optical problem. I am saying that it usually is not a problem with cheap adapters, especially if one is using rails and a lens support. Certainly,one tries to avoid skew, unless it is intentional (which, sometimes, it is). That is not what I think, but there are obviously a lot of people using cheap adapters. Yep. At substantial cost. It can be done. I agree. You just don't want to pay for what it would take to do this. No. It doesn't actually cost that much, even with precision. Standard manufacturing/fabrication tolerances often start at +/- 0.003 inch (in the USA). Of course, optical tolerances can be higher. Can you elaborate ? Have you made lens mounts ? Lens adaptors ? Are you a manufacturer ? can you share some examples of your work ? I know one or two things about manufacturing. The eight additional machining operations are tapping four threads in the camera body and drilling four corresponding holes in the lens mount. These eight machining operations could be reduced down to two -- as I recall, the Eclair NPR had a turret that was attached with a single threaded knob (tap one thread in the NPR body and one hole in the lens plate). Some fabricators count tapping threads as a separate operation from drilling the thread hole. Nonetheless, it is not that much more expensive than those who group such operations as a single procedure. Before anyone goes on about the extra cost of dealing with a separate piece (lens plate) in comparison with a body that includes the front end as a single piece, there are complications that one has to deal with in regards to larger molded/die-cast items, which can drive the cost higher. It's not more expensive, as I have explained in the "A-B/X-Y" example, and it is not much more expensive to go from a one-piece design to a two-piece design as I described directly above.

I would change my spelling mistake but then your comment would be well, confusing LoL. And seeing, as far as I know, that the cheapest camera Sony makes now that has a Global Shutter is the Sony F55. So it ain't easy to do on the cheap as they say on every camera.

Also did you watch some of those CookeTV videos with Geoff Boyle? About 6 months ago they posted a video where Geoff talks about using a certain companies camera that lacks an OLPF and testing it for a few months. He doesn't mention said company by name but we all know who it is. He says if he shoots certain patterns he can produce moire, just like with the herrinbone suit that was seen during the HBO camera test. BUT after all of that he says it doesn't matter when you actually get the camera and shoot REAL jobs. Sure you can take a Blackmagic camera, underexpose it 2 stops and find more FPN than a certain competitors camera, and yes, you can maybe find moire if you shoot certain patterns, but in the small chance that it does happen, i can easily be fixed by moving the camera a little bit. The magenta issue was one of the only problems that was very "real" and I would define as a serious issue, but they fixed that almost completely with firmware updates.

@nigelbb Thanks... I'm personally little bit tired of endless discussion of the same technical tips - so I thought it would be more interesting to see them in some unpretentious, uncontrolled actions with artistic touch, at least in the season of vacation... Actually, it was interesting weather for me, being able to filming during all day with diffuse light and without ugly harsh shadows - while I was not occupied wiht long swimming ... As I wrote in youtube comment, it was GH5 with Voigts 17.5 and 42.5, maybe just to add that all was in HLG with ISO 400, just in the night shots ISO800... Of course, all handheld, even just at 24p with Atomos recorder (it happened to be that I had no enough space for 60p). Actually, I had also and Contax Zeiss S 60mm with me, but there's no need/time for its usage... besides, that Voigts have plenty enough macro capabilities and power to "see in the dark"... What maybe suprised me the most is - how low is color fringing even at f0.95 (maybe I'm lucky with lens samples). @jonpais Thanks, I appreciate your comment. It is really great and encouraging if night shots look clean even at your big monitor/resolution! And yes - for these shots I played (and will and further on play) with reconstructed @Sage Alexa lut... I didn't bought it, but I inspected his process and results and tried to reconstruct... so, IMO, he really did marvel and I'm ready to take totally serious what he said about how close GH5 with cleverly tweaking channels/colors could be to, say, Alexa! Great time for artistic shooters... @webrunner5 Yes, it would be challenge even for me-fanatic (once upon a time I swam for national swimming team)... but maybe you still have some pirate boat around the corner... or forgotten in the your old full photo storeroom...

Do you think you can get a baked in look without mashing the shadows too much?

im shooting my next film on potato

Shot with this yesterday on a shoot with quick turn around. All Procolor V4. Still need a little white balance to match (and Pre boat removal on the horizon )

'EF Full Frame Package' -> 'EF Mounting Adapter with Kine Enhancer' -> 'KineEnhancer turns Kine camera from S35 to Full Frame camera (Very closely) and increase maximum iris to One f-stop when using Full Frame EF lens' -> 'Crop factor to: 1.1 when using on the TERRA 5K/6K, Crop factor to: 1.3 when using on the TERRA 4K' _____ Didn't pre-order the BMPCC4K. See no point in doing so. Atleast with Panasonic you might get a freebie or something (battery grip, V-LOG L activation). I'll just get one from the first store that has stock. Easy as that. Still quite excited for it, because the results from the original were awesome, it just wasn't very practical to use. This one seems to be... but indeed let's first wait if the results come close to the high expectations the first iteration has set. Sure hope they're able to pull of that thick lushious gradable filmic look with that Blackmagic mojo we've come to love.

You seem to be picking fights with everyone since that debacle with someone calling you out rudely a few weeks back, that's all. I can't remember this place ever being as nasty as this and it becomes a slog to read through – it's not only you, though.

Well, a couple month ago i did my own LUT, and have a post about that in the other thread: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stiils from Daniel Peters https://vimeo.com/danielpetersdop. LUT i did is: gh5 v-log to bmd ursa mini bm_film Maybe someone will be interested: https://yadi.sk/d/IPxyk13d3GXd4o (rar with LUT) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can find this lut for gh5 lut assist in attached files : BMURSA.vlt (cant say it looks similar to the original LUT for NLE but it's ok for in camera exposition judgement) I want to find some "official" or more accurate and 100% match LUT for VLOG gh5. Actualy i think that my lut is not 100% match, bu really good as a start point... It have more natural color and less contrast compared to original filmlog from BM... Anyway... You can try it, its free;) And tell me what do you think P.S: you can see a little banding in gh5 footage on the image above, just because i take a compressed gh5 mp4...With original 8 or 10 bit footage you would`t see any BMURSA.vlt