cantsin

They don't. Panaleica lenses are made in Japan, and Leica is no glass manufacturer.

Unfortunately, this is what happened: "Digital Bolex will no longer be producing cinema cameras after this month, and we will close our online store effective June 30th. Cameras will still be available to purchase until 11:59PM, PST on that date, and we still have cameras in stock. So if you’ve been eager to purchase a D16 for your project, consider this last call." https://www.digitalbolex.com/thank-you/

Well, it should be said that this camera is no longer in production and that the company who produced it went out of business.

Well, at least this is the proof in the pudding that the Leica label on Panasonic lenses is a scam.

The Galaxy Note 8 hasn't been reviewed/benchmarked by DxO yet. So the YouTube comparison doesn't really say anything about the validity of the DxOMark score. - On top of that, the video doesn't even review stills taken in raw and video taken in log profiles, and doesn't contain any information as to whether one or both of the two smartphones record 10bit video....

Rokinon is just the most common American brand name for Samyang lenses.

Good point, Ed! All is fine if this is clear enough to people who google "motion cadence" and get two links to this forum as their top hits.

I'm not sure whether you might have misread the photograph. This is about plastics pollution of the oceans. I personally wouldn't mind if people used their camera gear to give visibility to urgent - and otherwise abstract - issues (...instead of shooting the n-th bokeh test video...).

Oh dear, please don't introduce another un-/pseudoscientific term like "temporal jitter". (Jitter, btw., is temporal by definition.) EDIT: Maybe we need to write a present-day "Dictionary of Received Ideas" for camera forum culture, with entries such as "motion cadence", "3D-pop", "full frame look" etc.

"Motion cadence" is a term that only exists in camera forum discussion threads - it's neither a technical, nor a scientific term.

...without sound, with unreliable frame rate, and probably with the need to hold your finger on the shutter release so that you will lose half of those 10 seconds because of camera shake...

This is true. Rule of thumb is: 90% of c-mount lenses are designed for 2/3" image circles (i.e. half of MFT, equivalent to 4:3 16mm film), 15% are designed for 1/3" image circles (Super 8 equivalent) or smaller, 4% are designed for 1" (or Super 16), 1% is designed for MFT or bigger image circles.

If your priority is image quality, you can simply host your self-encoded video files on a website or blog. Thanks to HTML5, the obsolescence of Flash and affordable server bandwidth, this has really become a no-brainer today. WordPress provides good tools for this. But all you actually need is to encode a video as an h264/aac mp4 file with the quality-vs.-bitrate compromise that you find best suitable, and write... <video controls><source src="myvideo.mp4"></video> ...into some HTML file that you're uploading to your web server. The strength of such platforms as YouTube and Vimeo is that, behind the scenes, they provide all videos in a variety of formats and quality levels so that they can adjust playback quality on-the-fly depending on a user's available bandwidth. So they're the better suited for making sure that your video will remain watchable under all kinds of bandwidth conditions and display resolutions. But they are less than optimal if in-browser playback quality is your priority.

Nope, not discouraging it at all being an ML shooter myself. But one also needs to be frank/brutally honest to others (who lack the experience) that it is and will remain an experimental system. Maybe a better analogy than tuned cars is how in the past, indie filmmakers modded their 16mm cameras (including budget Bolex and Krasnogorsk cameras) to Super 16. The s16 format was, in fact, created as a DIY hack by a filmmaker in 1969: http://www.fdtimes.com/2009/08/20/the-early-years-of-super-16-and-how-it-all-started/

How do you know that? And data throughput can be set to values that are higher than what the hardware is designed to do, otherwise there would be no frame dropping or aborting. This is fully analogous to overclocking a CPU - only that it is done with the memory bus. EDIT: And MagicLantern is fully open and transparent about that, see the official FAQ: http://wiki.magiclantern.fm/faq

With a few exceptions: Maxing out memory card bus bandwidth way beyond what Canon would allow in its end-user product; manipulating the hardware registers in order to reduce global drawing, display color and display FPS in order to achieve higher video resolution and/or fps; allowing resolution/fps combinations that make the camera drop frames after a few seconds, and that are therefore outside the legal specs... Yes, it's all software-based, but the controller chip hardware is designed in such a way that it doesn't have hard limits for features that overtax the rest of hardware; instead these limits are implemented in software and can therefore be tweaked/maxed out by MagicLantern. In that sense, it's not that far from tuning a car motor. (Which, as we know from Volkswagen, is nowadays done in software, too...)

I like your analogy. We're car tuning nutcases with our cameras, taking them to unofficial, off-industry races like in "The Fast and the Furious". ;-)

I am fully aware of this. It's just that (digital) cinema projection isn't 8bit (and much more than 8 stops), and HDR video isn't 8bit either. Even with run-of-the-mill displays, we're already beyond 8 stops. 8bit color is becoming a thing of the past for this very reason. The cheapest TFT displays on the market now have contrast ratios of about 1:900, for which you need 10bit (9.8 to be really precise....) + 10 stops dynamic range if you want to display an image without color banding. Plus, as your photographic print example suggested, we need to differentiate motif dynamic range and display dynamic range. Of course you can take a picture of a landscape at noon with 15 or more stops dynamic range in the motif, capture it on negative film or a good digital camera which can hold those 15 stops, and print the recorded image on a postcard (which, btw., if it's printed on a high-quality, 2.3 density paper, will have about 7 stops dynamic [display] range) without the sky being white or the shadows drowning in black - but of course you'll lose differentiation in the midtones. In this respect, photography has routinely compressed dynamic range because our mental image of the landscape at noon always has blue, never white skies, and detail in the shadow, not a pitch-black mass - never mind the fact that, as you correctly wrote, the eye actually only captures 6.5 stops and achieves this 'HDR' picture through quick brightness adaptation and mental compositing. (Our ear can also hear sound frequencies that a speaker cannot reproduce, for example a low note in a symphony playing on a cheap radio, because our brain reconstructs the missing bass frequency from the overtone spectrum. In that sense, the mere physical parameters of our seeing and hearing capabilities literally do not 'paint the whole picture'.)

Further above, you wrote that "the true artist works within 6 stops". This is ambiguous language because it doesn't say whether you mean motif contrast or display contrast. If you mean motif contrast, Ansel Adams would be wrong. If you mean display contrast, your number would neither match the (low) contrast of photographic prints, nor the (high) contrast of film/cinema projection and modern flatscreens. What exactly is your point?

Ansel Adams' zone system has 10 stops and is meant for mere prints, not the extended dynamic range of film projection.

And that's why it's desirable to have 12-15 stops DR in film projection/display (since we perceive, for example, a landscape shot like we perceive a real landscape) which also means that you 12-15 stops camera DR to have an image without color banding.

Yes, read the full paragraph - perceived dynamic range also includes the adaptation of the human eye and composite image created by the brain "The human eye can detect a luminance range of 1014, or one hundred trillion (100,000,000,000,000) (about 46.5 f-stops)".

Not quite - there are three Arri mounts: Arri Standard (abbreviated as Arri Std), Arri Bayonet and, as a vendor-independent standard derived from the previous two, PL mount. Standard and Bayonet are not the same and need different adapters on modern cameras. Most affordable second-hand Arriflex 16mm lenses are for Arri Standard (which did not include any Super 16 cameras or true Super 16 lenses), sometimes you can also find Arri Bayonet (which can be either 16mm or s16, confusingly).

Yeah, but this should be mentioned because people easily get confused over the difference between 16mm and s16, which is comparable, in relative terms, to that between MFT and APS-C. There's lot of 16mm glass on the market, but little true s16 glass (and most of the latter is so expensive, even second-hand, that it's cheaper to buy new Veydras or Lomo Illuminas). When people speak of Arriflex lenses, they mostly mean the classical Arri Std or Arri bayonet mount, both precursors to PL mount. Even on Ebay, a lot of 16mm lenses are advertised, by confused sellers, as "s16", so one should watch out before buying.

On 17-6-2017 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Reid said: Chunkier than BM Pocket/Micro or BMCC recording in ProRes? EDIT: And a small correction of the article - classical Arriflex lenses aren't (officially) for Super 16, but only for 16mm format; i.e. classical 4:3 film format with 33% horizontal crop in comparison to s16, or put in video terminology: 2/3" sensor format vs. 1" sensor format. At 25mm focal length, most 16mm lenses do cover s16 and bigger sensors, but only outside the "official" image circle, with major vignetting and blur in the corners. At 16mm focal length and below, 16mm lenses rarely cover s16. (A notable exception are Cooke Kinetals with 12,5mm and above and all Canon "V" and "TV16" c-mount lenses.) 'Official' s16mm lenses were mostly made for Arri Bayonet, Aaton and PL mounts. AFAIK, Schneider never made s16 lenses.