Leaderboard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins. How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film. Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality. The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real! Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted.. my humble opinion..

Here's a nice little video I shot yesterday when I was hired to make a portret of a family. This is only the intro part of the film. All shot in 8-bit. Most of it in Full HD. I personally really like the colors of this cam and it's very gradable.

For me this is the most anticipated film of the year. I have mixed feelings about the trailer but beyond any doubt is that Roger Deakins has done an incredible job. Read the full article

Well what I think sucks about all the films talked about on here that it is basically the same old shit, volume 2, 3, 4, etc,,etc. Hell can't these people come up with something NEW?? They Never had all these damn sequels years ago. Hell someone got off their ass and wrote a new movie, not some Jackass sequel just to make more Freaking money, to suck in young, screaming girls, to make even more money. Hell they made Art back than, or at least tried too. I guess I am just a old turd that remembers movies that tried to entertain you with things you Never saw before, not some repeat crap of the same theme over, and over, and over. Christ!. This stuff is not Art, it's a easy as hell money grab! Rant over.

I have a doc I'm shooting this summer and my wife and I got the voightlander 25 and 42 f/.95 for the job. Not a lot shot with the lenses just yet, but I'm happy with the tests I've been doing. I've also been using my Oly 12-40 f/2.8 for corporate work. Looks fine. good rendering and sharpness.

I'm not so sure that this is all color grade. Little is known about the production thus far but Deakins is always adamant about shooting as much "in camera." Colored lighting is gaining a lot of popularity, especially with the advanced LED's and color control. Obviously the desert shots are over saturated to orange, but I think everything else might be motivated by existing lights in a scene. At the very least motivated by projector walls. Rogue One lit most of their space battles with giant projector walls displaying the space battle atmosphere. It looks natural, and less computer generated. I'm sure that Denis had a big influence on color as well. He might not have wanted natural skin tones running throughout. That's more of a style choice.

The Voigtlander 25mm may be one of the nicest lenses I've ever used. The mix of modern/visual IQ with such a fast lens can be both breathtaking and utilitarian for a single lens. Would love to see the 17.5mm or 25mm used with an LS300 with the prime zoom function... hmm... maybe I should make that happen.

Nice writeup. I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical: Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God): "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Or not.

If they made the focus transition feature controllable via the image app it would be much more useful.

120D/T is much higher output than Fiilex P360EX. Decent lists: https://***URL not allowed***/7-awesome-led-soft-lights/, https://***URL not allowed***/?s=led+fresnel

I want to stress again how amazing Duclos is if you want to get your lenses cinemodded. Just got my Voigtlanders back with matching gears. P.S. Really annoying how soft the photos become in this forum compared to the original image, click the image to see detail.

I haven't tried them- best bet buy some that you can try and easily return if they don't work out. You really can't trust the CRI or marketing spiel. I always buy daylight (5000k or so), so all the lights match somewhat closely, even if sun is coming through window etc. (it's never perfect but you're better off with close color vs. all over the spectrum (unless you're going for an artistic/emotional effect). To see how well good light should look on your camera, shoot with just tungsten bulbs (and no other sources) with WB set correctly. Tungsten is a black body emitter which is continuous spectrum and more or less a perfect light source. Then when you test your LEDs (regardless of color temp), compare to the tungsten shots. You can also shoot outside in the shade using the sun as a reference black body source. Outside is a bit trickier since you'll get lots of bounced light from your surroundings (ideally with black, gray, or white bounce surfaces only). Same suggestion- perhaps purchase both lights and test them, keep the winner (and let us know how it turned out). Dracast has upgraded their panels, so I wouldn't count them out without testing. LED tech is constantly improving and manufacturers are upgrading the LEDs in their panels. We need more LED spot/Fresnels (have 3, but only use the Fiilex P360EX (others have bad color and noisy fans)). IMO variable spot/Fresnels + light boxes / umbrellas + barn doors (and all the other available shapers) are a lot more useful than panels, and can pack pretty small. I would check out the Aputure daylight Fresnels too (120d and new 300d when available). Like the reviews have said, the Fiilex P360EX isn't super powerful (it is also variable color temp), however it's a tiny versatile light (Fresnel and soft dome options) and color and build quality are excellent.

heliopan germany make the best step rings in the world. made of machined brass expensive but military spec i have some that i purchased in the 1980s still doing the job.

Now you can clearly see the black screens on the Sonys when video recording. lol

Ah, the noise you are hearing is the internal mic. If you are only plugging in one XLR mic, when you import your footage, you'll need to either reinterpret as mono (1 channel), or mute the other 3 tracks. In Premiere CC, I created a preset to reinterpret the audio channels as stereo (use only channels 1 and 2) since I use both XLR inputs in the studio. After I import the clips, I select all of them then apply the reinterpret preset. In FCPX I disable channels on the audio board (haven't researched how to reinterpret imported clips as a group). I used to have the fan turn off when filming, however now I leave it on since the mics are on booms in the studio, and when shooting handheld, the shotgun mic (Schoeps CMIT5U) does a really good job masking not just the fan noise but also the AF noise (really impressive- all that gets through is low frequency AF vibration from the factory mic mount (can remove in post with a low cut filter; should try the mic low cut filter). If using a better suspension mount should be silent. Haven't tested, but something like this might work: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/861386-REG/Rycote_037324_SOFTIE_LYRE_MOUNT_with.html). Electronics last longer when cool, so I'd leave the fan on unless you can truly hear it in the recording and/or you're trying to save battery for a specific location shoot.

Yes, the GH5 is second. For sure, the 5D files have much more malleability than 10bit VLog. You can really go to town on Magic Lantern RAW - it's a much thicker file. It's almost pristine (except for ugly shadow noise). But I think that it is actually a testament to the GH5 that I can do that. And what I've presented here is only the realisation of my preferences. The point that I want to make is that the 10bit 422 files are robust enough to undergo a fair bit of colour correction / grading. To me, the VLog coming from the camera is a "raw" material with massive potential, as the (properly) RAW footage from the 5D3 is a beginning, and not an end in itself. In the main GH5 thread you mentioned that there was a range of quality in the posted videos for the GH5, from video-ish to something more satisfactory. Believe me, if Magic Lantern RAW was accessible to the same kinds of users - and in the same numbers - as the GH5, you'd see a hell of a lot of bad 5D3 ML videos. Exactly. You need 12 nodes or 20 minutes work to match this with that. But when the groundwork is done, you're in business. Today I made a nice lut that combines the Canon-like colour with a Lightroom film emulation preset. I loaded this into the camera as a monitoring lut and exposed until it looked good in the viewfinder. Came back and slapped the lut on and each shot was perfect. It took as long as it does to Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V.... with maybe a small WB and curves adjustment beforehand This is the look that I'm into at the moment. In a year's time I might be into something different. Big time!

When learning still photography, I spent a lot of time (and money) buying LED lights to replace strobes (best bang-for-buck strobes I found were the Einstein E640s, fantastic light output and quality (one strobe can easily overpower the sun in broad daylight at the beach). However they don't fire 100% of the time (recommend perhaps Profoto as a step up or if doing full-time stills and traveling, etc.)). Even with gels and a light meter I couldn't get the LEDs which weren't great from the factory to produce nice skintones. Spending a lot more on Dracast LEDs, which are built like tanks, got closer, but they still didn't look great for skintones (magenta bias). The lower cost Aputure LSx series LED panels finally produced great skintones, as did the spot source LED Fiilex (fantastic skintones though not a great bang-for-buck and relatively low light output per dollar, plus the fan can be audible in recordings (it's pretty quiet, but not silent)). We talk a lot about how Canon has too much red, and red objects don't look right, etc. The reason Canon does this, is to make sure skintones look good. However for certain lights and conditions Canon's red bias can look no so good and must be fixed in post. To get a better idea of what camera and light makers have to deal with: https://www.provideocoalition.com/doestlcireallywork/ . CRI and even TLCI aren't great predictors of light quality. I can say I agree- only testing the lights has shown whether they work well for skintones/color accuracy. I recently replaced LED bulbs in my studio office to help make shooting video from my desk look better. The new Hypericon LED bulbs rated at CRI 95 were purchased to improve the light/color over these Crees which IIRC were 80-85 CRI. To the light meter, both bulbs have a magenta bias, but to the eye (and cameras) the bias is green. The CRI 95 Hypericons looked no better on camera than the older ~80-85 CRI Crees. At least they use 2W less power, 16W vs 18W. What's the deal with red and skintones? http://www.leapfroglighting.com/why-the-led-r9-value-isnt-important/ (read the article- they are actually saying the LED R9 (red) is the most important for skintones). If you are having trouble getting great skintones indoors, take a closer look at your lights, especially if using LED or fluorescent lights (my first lights used fluorescent bulbs designed for photography/film and they still had a green bias: skintones didn't look that great). If on an ultra low budget, tungsten with china balls is still perhaps the best bang-for-buck (provided all the lights in scene are tungsten).

http://www.canonrumors.com/the-next-camera-body-from-canon-will-be-cr3/ Told ya so

It is easier to buy an expensive car, than run the costs of it. Servicing, fuel, insurance, taxes, etc That applies to everything, in my opinion (and experience) everything in the workflow is important. Especially with tripods, you can't cheat, there are no very cheap Chinese ones, and you can't buy smaller if you don't want to harm your usability, I learned that the hard way (it is always hard!) a dozen years ago.

You and I both just brought it up...it's the whole reason in my mind for having a zoom...I never zoom while shooting....that would be a dolly or a slider for me....but the freedom of that lens on your camera...

I know!...lots of talk about the new mystery camera....but the LT is what I really want....IMO simply nothing to touch this exept the F35.... which was over a $200,000 more than in 2008 and shoots in 1080P only....but this dual ISO feature is saving producers a lot of money as the Varicams are being used more and DP's love it....but the color and the image!...it's all there!...even the LTis a brute in size though....you hit the 20lb mark with it pretty quickly!

They're grabs from some footage. If I get chance when I get back from this trip then I'll put a small clip of the original jlog up.

Yes. I'm so tired seeing same extreme color schemes in so many films these days. I don't get why whole scenes should be colored in one single color, I don't get why every film needs to rely so heavily on the orange/teal coloring. I think there must be some rule that you are not allowed to release your film to cinemas unless enough orange/teal can be detected...

I'm definitely stoked for the cinematography for sure I read somewhere that the younger generation of today will have far fewer cultural properties to define their name by (or for filmmakers 30 years from now to exploit). Certainly seems to be the case. What will Hollywood be doing in 2035, rebooting Spiderman for the 17th time? Likely they will face a crisis like musicians do- when you're competing for ears today, you're not only competing with your contemporaries but with the entire historical back catalog of other artists. The 18-29 exploitable population gets younger and smaller and more distracted.

I opted for the 12-60 Panny/Leica...I already own the PL 25 F1.4, Panny 20mm F1.7 and the 14-140 F4.0. I think it depends on your needs really....to me Leica glass was important...that the lens is F2.8 at 12mm and for interiors I would be on the wide end...I care less about the fact that it gets slower through the zoom...the extra 50mm of reach was also important to me, as I would need that outside, where for my purposes the F4.0 was outweighed by the longer reach of the 60...I would suggest, as they are both in and around the $1000 mark, that if possible you try them out...both for build quality and image Edit...The only M4/3 lens I actually bought....not as part of a camera package before the 12-60 P/L was the P/L 25 and the lens blew me away...then I added the 12-60....and I can now see myself selling my two Panny lenses and adding the P/L 42 prime and the 8-18 when it's released...there is a distinct difference between the Leicas and the Pannys....so where you go with your set should probably factor into this for you too

Why and why not? Just wondering...

yeah, suits all my needs perfectly, although i wouldn't associate "one fits all mentality " with Redstan. His highly specialized solutions for Kowas like16H and C35 are perfect.

Well true I used it for still photography, so you are right, I would have to rethink that when using Video! Hmm, scratching my head! Well I most of the time have always used a camcorder style camera for Video, and I just change ND filter more than anything. So I guess I hardly Ever change a wheel on them. With manual focus older lenses I just change the F stop. So once I set the FPS speed With a Wheel, I never touch it as they are out of the way, to not Have that happen accidentally for a reason. Camcorder layouts are just, well Hands down more convenient than Any dual purpose DSLR style camera is. And that is why I like using them so much. I got spoiled back in my ENG days.

Here is a short video shot on the Varicam 35. Jesus I want one!

Yeah, it's a reach. The quasi-religious element of the book (Mercerism?) was absent from first movie; I keep hoping it might pop-up somewhere in this...

After some suggestions here, I looked into using canon lenses plus speedboosters. But it seems like most of the useful lenses (like the sigma 18-35), are quite heavy and large, and then there's the added cost of speedboosters. So I think I will stick to mostly native lenses for now. It's an interesting option to have though.

Certain people only know how to live in pack societies. Actually when not both sides are right... not so rare to happen. "There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19W3wq4XkO8 My name is Philip and I am a 21 year old passionate photographer and videographer. This march I travelled to Dubai with a friend and shot this video. I focussed on framing and architecture. Hopefully, you like the BW aesthetics. Lens: Helios 44-2 Anamorphic adapter: Kowa 16-S

"Arrival" was so mediocre, really believed in Villeneuve, really disappointed. I still remember watching a different cut of "Blade Runner" on VHS tape someone send from England when I was a teenager. It was huge for us back then. I am not expecting the same chills and thrills, but not because I am older now, because the writing isn't there (or here) anymore. Giorgos Lanthimos the "Dogtooth" and "Lobster" Greek director was a famous advertising and video clip director here, serving the mainstream, I do not even remember one TV spot or video clip of his that I liked. His films though were something else, well, the key was Efthymis Filippou, his screen writer. What I am saying, the main issue is the script, we are lacking good scripts, and in general, younger generations send emoticons or videos, not words. In our pursuit of visuals we forgot to write, read and listen. P.S oh, by the way, how disappointed people are from the new Star Trek franchise?

I think it looks eerily similar to the new Ghost in the Shell film, very pretty indeed but too sterile and glossy. Doesn't feature the depth of the original, same thing with Alien: Covenant. The music on the first half is good (because it's a version of the original Vangelis soundtrack, though not as good), the rest of it sounds cheap imo, standard modern action trailer background music that has no place in BR universe. I thought they would go the extra mile with this, currently it does not look very promising.

My thoughts are on the front page now. It's a mixed bag for me!

Well, in the future we're shooting light-rays and doing everything, including focusing, after the fact. So: keep calm and fix it in post. But indeed we're not quite there yet. Plus, every half an hour shot you'd need to multiply by like a gazillion to get the amount of time it will take to edit. Until you know, we finally catch up and tap in to our eyes and brains to extract what we need. For now though, I'm fine without autofocus, because you know it's just a form of creative control I'm not willing to give out of hands. You're purposely framing shots, adding motion, lighting the scene... focus is hardly any different? Focus is a tool that allows you to tell the story, to show the audience what's important (or not, or to misguide, or whatever, that's the beauty, it's creative control). I mind Panasonic-like hunting, like just pushing past the focus mark and then backing it up to snap into it. Argh, it's just the worst. Or when it just gives up and gets stuck with blurry vision. Nah, I could do without that. But even solid autofocus to me is not absolutely necessary. I don't per se need 100% focus accuracy. Like, if someone is entering a room and sitting down in a chair, I don't need them in focus throughout. It can be sorta revealing to have the focus spot on once the person sits down. Or following someone with a gimbal, you just set a fixed distance and follow your subject trying to keep the distance the same, I don't mind them entering the frame out of focus or slightly moving in and out of focus as the person walks, should you have a really shallow depth of field. I think that can have something organic, something real, opposed to perfect autofocus. But as all camera related tech... tools can be useful, as much as it can be a creative choice to do something a certain way, it can also be when doing something with a completely different approach. And it's like keeping one of those lifesaverhammers in your car. You probably don't need it, but it might one day really come in handy. So I'm always for pushing tech to the next level and having as many tools in your bag as you can. But people have managed forever without this... it shouldn't suddenly become a necessity or the norm. I see these kids riding around on their magic hoverboards... I'm just hoping they don't one day forget how to walk.

I did a run n gun low budget documentary series for a small TV station last year, and I used the Canon C100mkII AF 85% of the time. I saw the light. Since then, I didn't have a job that I had to rush so much, so I have use AF only on the Samsung NX1 3 times, while on the Ronin with, maybe, 95% success. For the next chapter in my pro life, I am really looking forward for a C100mkIII or C200, or whatever will be called, with a CN-E lens, I am expecting this combo to increase my productivity vastly. AF is here to stay, it is not philosophical, it is just becoming better and better, C300mkII has already a few more AF tricks, but there will be always MF for purists and people and situations that we need total control. In my opinion Dual Pixel is way ahead any other system right now. It seems like Canon bet on the right horse. Again. Not only they pleased the hordes of their amateur funs that do not care (or need, or have the way to edit) 10 bit video, and only care to keep the occasional family moment, while shooting pleasing color pictures, but they also transferred successfully AF to the pro level.

Autofocus for video will never work for 100% of the situations. It's that simple in my opinion. And since it won't, it's better to become the master of manual focus so you will never ever have the problem of becoming dependable on autofocus, until you find yourself in a situation where it doesn't work. For instance, you're filming a wedding. You have a beautiful shot on the bride and all of a sudden her father walks in the room. You quickly zoom out to get him or them both in the frame. You want to focus on him but still keep the frame like an over-the-shoulder. How does the autofocus know what to focus on here? It doesn't know, so you have to tell it. So do you physically have to touch the touchscreen here or press some buttons to transfer the focus from one point to another? On any camera without voice-command, most likely. And are you able to do so without moving or shaking the camera and maintaining the exact frame? Not with my setup. I can however with my middle finger just slightly move the focus ring of my lens whilst holding my rig steady, and the focus peaking confirms my new focus point. 0.02 seconds of work with great results. I do not need to discuss autofocus for video ever nor while I ever rely on it for the things that I do such as weddings. 'Sorry that I messed up your ceremony, the autofocus didn't work apparently'. No. On a professional movie set with expensive props, gear and talent? Nope. As a vlogger or to hold your cat in focus while it moves towards you? Yep, might be handy. Surely there are and will be camera's who will be up to this task but so is my $150 phone. So yea, I agree with you. No perfectionist, which every cameraman or cinematographer should be, would actually care about autofocus.

I dont care about RAW, that why I never bothered getting the $500 upgrade for unlimited RAW on my FS5, it doesn't fit to my business and doesn't make economical sense as well, I rather spend on that 120fps unlimited upgrade which is more useful.

I did of course mean the Contax Zeiss 28-85mm and not 24-80mm

When even multimillion dollar productions are not shooting in raw, I don't believe it to be a big deal breaker at all if it is missing out on raw from the new lower priced Varicam. So long as there is from the Varicam sensor an internal 4K 422 10bit and 2K 444 internal as well, then we should all be very happy indeed! :-)

FS5's weakness is sensor is old and codec not solid, I know cause I own one, I also have A7RII which I can get better colour from a7rii than fs5 anyday, a7rII colour just feel more solid, though non compares to C100MKII which with a few tweak will have good colour even if straight from camera footage looks crap. I know many people waiting for AF100 successor, me included, price is still within reach so thats ok lol (gonna trade my FS5 for it), I got GX85 and loads of M43 lens, also got Sigma 1.8 zoom lens on EF mount (for FS5). So what if new camera doesn't use mft, I can use it on GH5/GX85, but I know my sigma 1.8 zoom will be on new Pana camera so that works ok fine. And I hate native Sony lens because their MF is really terrible, that why I use Canon mount lens on FS5 for solid MF support, still dont know what the big fuss about af, I know AF lens suck ball when you try to use MF, they are totally unusable! Vice versa for Canon lens too, only STM lens have really nice AF (but suck MF) on C100MKII, L lens is only ok but I wouldn't rate it stellar and they make noise, but MF is reliable.

Things I would like. Hmmm. Add to the list----FALSE COLOR!

@mercer Understood, Canon and Sony have the most complete line in photo and video, that is why they are market leaders in most categories. But whatever entry or middling Canon you buy, EF-S lenses do not work on their full frame cameras anyway, so it isn't exactly true that there is a great continuation. Also their mirrorless range is another mount to consider, EOS M, and with just a few lenses, so you have in reality at least 4 lines, EF-M / EF-S / EF / Cine line while in Pana you have only m43 and the pro mounts in Varicam. There is the GH4 still on sale, for most people that is a perfectly fine hybrid and do not have to pay 2000$ for, more or less half of it! The problem isn't that Panasonic do not have a middle camera between G85 - GH4 and GH5, is that Canon charges too much for their 80D, 7D and up. Except dual pixel, which is truly incredible, middle Panasonic cameras are much better than 80D and down, even if they cost the same amount of money. Do not forget that GH5 is reaching dSLR levels in size and weight, you can't have that for cheaper m43 cameras, their biggest selling point was always how light and small were, you can't just make them bigger than full frame dSLRs, you can do that to a specialized video tool like the GH5, but not for the rest of your line. I consider the JVC a camera to bridge the gap between GH5 and the new Panasonic, it is close to the GH5 price anyway, no 10 bit (and IBIS of course), but everything else is there. We don't even know the Pana price yet, why we are so certain that it will be 6500?! There is also the DVX200, a little more than 4000$!

@mercer Read 80D, replied with the only words worth of this camera. As you know C100markII is my favorite camera for most uses, but if there is a C100markIII with 4K capabilities (and it should be, really soon) then it won't cost 4500 euros, so the new Panasonic will compete with the III, and not the II. The C100markIII it can be north of 6500euros, to close the gap between the 13.000 euros Canon C300 mark II (and look at those specs for 13.000euros). When they are both out we will compare and decide (I am definitely in the market for such a camera), I favor Canon in general, so many years they have treat me good, but as you know I am brand agnostic, whatever works; but in 2017 I can't buy a 4500 camera with only 35Mbps 8 bit bitrate, even though it is a magically robust codec. Raw isn't something they will give for cheap, even the new Ursa reaches 5 number price territory if you include all things necessary. I can accept such a camera for 6500euros, if it has everything else I need in that price range, and get raw out of a Atomos or Video Devices recorder. Seriously, for more expensive products we just rent a camera, but of course it is good to have raw with some way. Now, if Pana gives as raw in that price range, then thank you very much! In my next buy I would like to use more dual pixel technology, so ideally I would like a C100markIII (or C200, whatever it's called) and a CN-E lens. P.S what's wrong with G85?! I consider it to be a more advanced camera than the 80D, and native lenses are just fine. GH5 is extremely cheap for what it offers. Unbelievably cheap, and there is the GH4 for less than 999$ as a worthy option.

17.5 Voigt and 42.5 Panaleica are the best MFT lenses.

I hav but only for stills ( not much time for videos lately). It's a great lens. About the same as the 42.5. Size and weight a perfect match for the GH5. I really love the Aperture ring. The price is okish, like the 42.5 still on the high side. One of my m4/3 recommended lenses. B