Leaderboard

Dammit, v7 had a mistake in it, so re-exported and uploaded it.

You may or may not have see this, Adapter with Native AF Speed!? Only works with a g7 or gh9 ii no others it seems. Available for about 100 lenses but works with some others just as not quick it seems. on futher reading Olympus E-M1 series and OM System OM-1 series] Metabones transmits the same PDAF/IBIS data to the camera in the same way as the latest Panasonics, and gets a significant boost in AF speed

Ok its official, i have no willpower at all... as you can see not $700 but that was expected. I like the little embargo sticker, talking to a saleman they were only allowed to start selling these from yesterday. Hn gave me a gift card of $100 so the grip comes down to $54 easy decision. I did take it out of the box to charge it up on the way home as i had a usb to c cable in the car. I do wonder if i'm going to need a better memory card, what i have now is probably a bit ordinary. Big day tomorrow it would seem. we'll find out tomorrow, i'll let the suspense build :)

no 12 bit codec (whether it's PR444 or raw) makes it kind of DOA for me. that tended to be kinefinity's main selling point imo. conceptually its cool, but I just got a BMCC6K FF for 1500 euros second hand as a B-CAM. same sensor, same open gate capability, gives me an option to use an EVF as well, and it lets me do more in the grade.

Stepping away from film emulation for a moment, the thought occurred to me to that we have softened the image enough for the 2x and 4x in-camera digital zooms to be tested. The GX85 sensor is 4592px wide, which with its 1.1x 4K crop factor, means that the horizontal resolution for its 1x is about 4174px, with the 2x crop it's about 2087px, and the 4x is about 1043px. Normally the 2x is usable on a 1080p timeline and the 4x is not, but with the film emulation on it, the only way to find out is to test it in the real world. Here is the GX85 with 14-140mm lens on it at F5.6. Optically zoomed to about 25mm: At 14mm and zoomed 2x in-camera: To me this looks completely fine. So far so good.. Optically zoomed to about 50mm: At 14mm and zoomed 4x in-camera: This is the big one. I see some differences here, but not enough that if I saw this in an edit it would pull me out of it, which is really what I'd want - to know if it's usable. For some context, I shot this test with three lenses, the 14mm F2.5 pancake lens (which is the lens I'll be using), the 12-35mm F2.8 and the 14-140mm shown above. While the light was changing during the test, what is interesting is that the 14mm F2.5 has much less contrast. The reason I point this out is that when comparing the 14mm F2.5 with in-camera zoom to the other lenses I think the lens rendering itself is the most significant difference. 2x comparison: and now for the main prize, 4x: This is an excellent result as far as I am concerned! Caveats: This is with the v5 film emulation grade, which as @eatstoomuchjam pointed out might be on the softer side of the range for what 16mm film rendered However, this grade DID NOT include the lens emulation stack, so the lens barrel distortion, vignetting, and corner softening hasn't been applied, so that could go some way to evening out the look I haven't done any sharpening to compensate for any softness. In the past I've discovered that a digital zoom of about 1.6x can be equalised by some careful sharpening in post, so sharpening isn't to be underestimated, especially in the context of an edit where (hopefully) the viewer is looking at the content and not the image Super-16mm film was often shot on several primes, where some would have been sharper than others, or on zooms, where the zoom would have been sharper in certain parts of its range than others, so natural variation in this stuff is potentially making it a more accurate emulation rather than detracting from it I suspect that the 4x is on the edge of being too soft, which makes sense as it's a 1K sensor readout going through a lot of processing and rescaling, but this is a great result. So.... the GX85 and 14mm F2.5 lens is a Super-16mm setup with a "turret" of T2.5 lenses that are equivalent to 31mm, 62mm and 124mm, and it's (just) pocketable and fits in the palm of your hand! Happy to share the power grade if anyone wants to play with it.

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

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

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

Already working on that.. think i'll tape the gimbal to a stick to get closer to the kitten she's alot tamer now after a couple of weeks feeding her . i do have a few clips on the iphone 13 which i want to have a look at. I also now have that apple raw cam for the iphone which i want to try as well. so win win i guess.

WB should be before any creative operation, but before debayering is another story. Some still camera makers did that to make an "agreeable base point" for raw development softwares so they don't mess up with the brand's "image look" when they're doing their own WB process. Some differences in rendering we got used to see between LR and C1 is caused by the fact that there is very little communication between Japan and these software vendors. Some things like sharing the data of spectral response of the sensor with them. So instead of being more open, they place some pre scaling in the raw as baked in process. This practice makes less sense for Arri as they have a very good communication with software industry. But what do I know.

Looks like someone has made the ultimate A/B tool for your matching experiments. https://www.cineluxcinematools.com/sixteen

Just watched Spike Lee's "meh" Highest 2 Lowest last night. Well, about half of it. Anyway, there was a collection of 16mm in one of the sequences. This looks footage definitely looks like that footage, so I'd say you're on target.

Bravo! I like this version the most. The grain seems more convincing somehow. (It's hard to describe why.) I think the grain could be dialled back a touch in a few of the shots but it'll depend on what you're doing with it I suppose. I'm watching it 4K which shows the grain nicely and when I switch it to 480p, there's no grain at all but the colours and levels of brightness still look like it might've been shot on film. I think you're there (or perhaps very close.) You might want to create a handful of variations on this so you can choose different ones for different content to see which one works best for any given clip.

How is that any different to any other camera manufacturer ? Canon gave us the cripple hammer and cameras that overheated because of a timer. If you have a list of 7 attributes for your forever camera, no camera manufacturer will give you all 7, perhaps 4 at best... Your correct, its because i tend to stick my head in the sand. It's a basic defense mechanism designed to help avoid additional financial trauma to my wallet.. That new laowa zoom seems interesting, i'll have to keep an eye out for that. I hope gopro don't go broke before they release the ils, as i would still buy it counting on the fact that my gopro 9 still works after i don't know how many years of ownership. I did rewatch the potato jet vid and i thought that the warping was better controlled / less obvious then previous models, anyone else notice that ? My oly 12mm probably wont work with mission1 ils but every other vintage lens i own should, whether they actually resolve to 4k or higher might be an issue. I'm trying not to over think it considering that with a 2.7 crop there's a chunk gone off the top, bottom and sides leaving the center portion which is usually the best bit, i'm prepared to call it character and live with it unless its a really obnoxious look. From what i have seen with those that have a ils to play with, it seems like they all had phones or monitors hooked up. So my first though was that it would have to be rigged to be useful. Which is about a 180 degree turnaround to how a normal gopro is used. That seems obvious to me and doesn't strike me as an impediment at all. I mean look at all the smallrig accessories potato jet had at his disposal.

This is correct. Depending on the emulsion, grain is also not sized uniformly. And since you posted the Take 2 Films' tour of Kodak, it's also worth pointing out their latest film is comparing a couple of different film stocks and methods of processing them. This aligns with something that I frequently say - "film look" is meaningless as a phrase, given that different films have different characteristics - and depending on processing, can take on even more other characteristics.

Interesting about diffusion in the mids only (I think that's what you mean). It could be that film has different levels of detail in different tonal ranges. (I don't know.) These seem to have something not quite right about it to my eyes. The grain seems too fast, as in 30 FPS, not 24. Also the grain looks electronic and not chemical. Just something about it and the way it changes each frame.

Still no info on whether it's IMX410 (it probably is), but Kinefinity have wisely dropped the price. It's now $2,499 and that's with a built-in 220GB SSD. They also are offering a break on preorders so it's only $1,999 in the short term. IMO, $1,999 is the correct price. That puts it really close to the Nikon ZR which has a lot of fairly similar specs, but also can shoot raw internally, just at the cost of a really dumb placement for the battery/memory card. Time will tell, but overall, not a bad value at all. I hope they get some good sales. https://www.cined.com/kinefinity-vista-confirmed-at-2499-full-frame-6k-open-gate-220gb-built-in-ssd-610g-body/

I was chatting with ChatGPT about the look of cinema and it gave me some things to think about, one of which was experimenting more with diffusion, which I don't think I've really found a good way to emulate in post. This is v6 of the test shots. Changes made are: Slightly less softening Less gate weave, just because I don't really like it Lowered Midtone Detail as a sort-of diffusion method Definitely a work in progress, but if anyone has any strong opinions on this then happy to hear them.

Here's a shot where I graded the 4x digital zoom to match the optically zoomed reference. I sharpened, added midtone detail and played with curves to counter the diffusion from the 14mm F2.5 lens. 14mm with 4x (look only) 14mm with 4x (graded to match) Optically zoomed to 56mm (reference image) So there we go, if I wanted to get a 4x shot to match, even between lenses, then it's completely possible.

Oh, I wasn't getting as fancy as anybody's sensor stack or anything like that. I just meant smaller lenses which didn't need to decide to have an image circle that covers S35 or any other larger sensors. The Laowa 7.5mm that you mentioned is a fantastic example of a lens designed for Micro 4/3 and I'd be shocked if its image circle would cover S35. I'd contrast that with something like a Rokinon Xeen. You can go buy one with an MFT mount, but it'll be the same design/glass that you'd find on the same model of Xeen for FF. It'll work fine, of course - but the lens is bigger and heavier than it needs to be. In that case, of course, there's an EF mount version which would make more sense on a focal reducer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I worded my response badly! I meant that the $700 US price tag was "already there" in terms of 'exorbitant, ridiculous, and "this is just an action camera - WTF"' which Kye had just said in anticipation of the AU pricing. I should have chosen phrasing that made it more clear that I wasn't simply repeating US pricing that is already known. 😅