bwhitz

Man... I'm not sure why, but this stuff looks better than the 4.6k footage I've seen so far. Something seems "off" the Blackmagic-Mojo with that sensor... it looks like high-quality GH4/GH3 footage... not as organic as this stuff. Maybe it's too clean? 

I'm in agreement of what we've seen so far. 
I regard BMPCC footage one of the best Images I've ever worked with. 
The BMMCC looks to have that mojo, whereas the Ursa 4.6k looks very modern - kind of like a "perfect" image rather than motion with soul. 
That said, these cameras can only be judged once you've had a go yourself.  

Man... I'm not sure why, but this stuff looks better than the 4.6k footage I've seen so far. Something seems "off" the Blackmagic-Mojo with that sensor... it looks like high-quality GH4/GH3 footage... not as organic as this stuff. Maybe it's too clean? 

Man... I'm not sure why, but this stuff looks better than the 4.6k footage I've seen so far. Something seems "off" the Blackmagic-Mojo with that sensor... it looks like high-quality GH4/GH3 footage... not as organic as this stuff. Maybe it's too clean? 

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...
 
 

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...
 
 

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...
 
 

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...
 
 

Looks like Blackmagic brought these guys aboard...
 
 

Yea, I need to let him know. He has a huge collection of lenses/cameras. Don't know about Hawks though... he was more into photography. But he loves unique things, like anamorphics, there's a good possibility of more. Just got back to LA... wish I was still back home or I'd go look through his basement!

Anyways, the only downside to this Iscorama is that the 50mm f2.8 Taking lens seems to not open up wider than the f5.6 mark... possibly damaged. Also, what I'm assuming was Pentax threads on the mount have been filed off for a custom mount. So the original taking lens might be DOA.
 
I'm looking at using my Rokinon 35mm 1.5 as my main taking lens, though. Seems to work fine optically. I made a makeshift cardboard-tube mount and tested it out... looks good. Tracking down a 77-49 step-down ring now and a clamp. Anyone else used this in practice?
 
 
Yea, I think definitely will for now. Really could use the $4.5k though... damn. :blink:

*edit

Just did some more night time testing with the Iscorama on the 35mm Rokinon... looking real good! What cinematographers/directors have ever been able to shoot 2.66 at 1.4 with this amount of sharpness! Holy smokes! I'll upload some real footage once I get my real set-up built!

Couldn't believe it at first! Was back at home for the holidays looking through a box of old photo equipment in the basement when I stumbled upon a Iscorama! My grandfather gave me this box of lenses about 6-7 years ago... when I was just getting into filmmaking and didn't realize what anything was. Good thing I decided to rummage through it again over break!
 
 
 
I'm new to anamorphics, but this is the pre 36 Isco right? The picture is kind of crappy, but the glass is perfect on the lens. Any tips for re-greazing these things? The focus is a bit slow... from old lubericants I'm guessing?
 

Couldn't believe it at first! Was back at home for the holidays looking through a box of old photo equipment in the basement when I stumbled upon a Iscorama! My grandfather gave me this box of lenses about 6-7 years ago... when I was just getting into filmmaking and didn't realize what anything was. Good thing I decided to rummage through it again over break!
 
 
 
I'm new to anamorphics, but this is the pre 36 Isco right? The picture is kind of crappy, but the glass is perfect on the lens. Any tips for re-greazing these things? The focus is a bit slow... from old lubericants I'm guessing?
 

Couldn't believe it at first! Was back at home for the holidays looking through a box of old photo equipment in the basement when I stumbled upon a Iscorama! My grandfather gave me this box of lenses about 6-7 years ago... when I was just getting into filmmaking and didn't realize what anything was. Good thing I decided to rummage through it again over break!
 
 
 
I'm new to anamorphics, but this is the pre 36 Isco right? The picture is kind of crappy, but the glass is perfect on the lens. Any tips for re-greazing these things? The focus is a bit slow... from old lubericants I'm guessing?
 

Couldn't believe it at first! Was back at home for the holidays looking through a box of old photo equipment in the basement when I stumbled upon a Iscorama! My grandfather gave me this box of lenses about 6-7 years ago... when I was just getting into filmmaking and didn't realize what anything was. Good thing I decided to rummage through it again over break!
 
 
 
I'm new to anamorphics, but this is the pre 36 Isco right? The picture is kind of crappy, but the glass is perfect on the lens. Any tips for re-greazing these things? The focus is a bit slow... from old lubericants I'm guessing?
 

...yet everyone still bashes the free-market that makes things like Blackmagic possible. Sony and Canon are NOT part of the free-market, they are Corporate-Statist entities. Sorry to take it political territory, but it's important to understand the economic conditions that gives great products like Blackmagic a chance to come into reality. Many Filmmakers, Young-people, Westerners, ect... are voting for more and more socialist policies that are going to DESTROY companies like Blackmagic and kill our opportunities for future innovation in this field. Know the real enemy!
 
 
"BM like cameras do not have mass market appeal and never will."

Not yet, but they are going cult-status as we speak. They're a "word of mouth" product. They don't "need" mass-market appeal, because like Grant Perry said, they are not in debt... they don't need to move 10-million units to pay back loans. And, BTW, is that what you really look for in a camera? Mass market appeal? Who gives a crap about "how popular" something is... I only care about what products can deliver. Let the "fad-chasers" wallow in the misery of their overpriced, 8-bit, 2005-codec, technology forever if they like... 

Almost every film-person, here in LA, that sees my Blackmagic in use orders one. They're only going to get more popular as the other companies continue to under-deliver.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

It only took a year of living in LA to understand why the industry is headed in this direction: nepotism. And not so much literal nepotism... but more-so the broader idea of "who you know-ism". Your only chance of landing a job in Hollywood is through a "connection"... ESPECIALLY in the business/executive roles that make the financial decisions.

It's all very simply. The people in charge are the kids (and friends of kids) of the last generation who only learned THE BARE MINIMUM requirements to take over these positions. Now that there are so many other options for entertainment... and the system has to be reworked to adapt... nobody has any clue as what to do. Basically, these people have learned how to do a "job"... not how to "make films". The couldn't innovate if they tried.

But, hey, it's not all the execs faults... there is a such thing as "workers greed" as well... and it also runs rampant through Hollywood. Let's say for a minute, that somehow a producer or executive DOES have a genuinely good business idea... can he/she execute it? Nope. Not really. The unions are still going to demand the picture be made to union standards... i.e. hiring 8 people for a 1 person job. Why do the unions do this? Well, obviously, the more jobs they can keep around... the more pockets they can take union dues from. And the longer it takes to make a film... the more they can justify taking. Unions benefit from throwing wrenches into the machine, and then demanding you hire "thier workers" to pull it out... for you know, oh, about 100x the labor value. This is why the execs are taught it's better practice to kill films... then to green-light them. It's a circle of destruction from both ends.
 
It's top-to-bottom corruption... and the ones who are getting screwed are the audience, the next generation of creatives who might actually be able to make better material for 90% less $, and the industry/art form itself. The film execs want million dollar salaries for having nothing but their arbitrary titles they earned for networking/sleeping their way to the top... and the union workers want $1000/hr for jobs, that more often than not, don't need to exist. Things have to adapt. They're basically using the same film-making model since the last overhaul in the 70's. Innovation needs to happen. We have the technology and capability to make films for about 80% less money and require 80% less labor... better start putting it to practice soon.

I agree. These guys have not been supportive of RAW or other creative technological breakthroughs unless they are on $20,000+ cameras that only they can afford. They're either: A. Are getting paid to tote the C series cameras B. Don't like the competition
Or C. Don't want to put in the extra work to required for RAW workflows (and therefore don't want anyone else to either)

All reasons are bullcrap. I know Ive stopped listening to those guys a while ago. This is just icing on the cake...

I agree. These guys have not been supportive of RAW or other creative technological breakthroughs unless they are on $20,000+ cameras that only they can afford. They're either: A. Are getting paid to tote the C series cameras B. Don't like the competition
Or C. Don't want to put in the extra work to required for RAW workflows (and therefore don't want anyone else to either)

All reasons are bullcrap. I know Ive stopped listening to those guys a while ago. This is just icing on the cake...

"In no way is the Metabones adapter giving us a poor man’s full frame image here."
 
Uh oh... just wait for it. :)  You know this is going to be the talk of every indoctrinated 5D fanboy on the planet. "Don't let those speed-booster shooters fool you... they're not shooting on REAL FF cameras!"

Anyone want to take bets on when the "real full-frame look" cine-meme will show up? I say 2 months.

"In no way is the Metabones adapter giving us a poor man’s full frame image here."
 
Uh oh... just wait for it. :)  You know this is going to be the talk of every indoctrinated 5D fanboy on the planet. "Don't let those speed-booster shooters fool you... they're not shooting on REAL FF cameras!"

Anyone want to take bets on when the "real full-frame look" cine-meme will show up? I say 2 months.

I don't exactly understand what you're really trying to say here? This is how many undiscovered directors have got their start. Crews of 100+ are not WHY films are good. Good films come from talent, not crew-size and money. Well produced films typically HAVE allot of money and crew, but it's not "why" they are good.
 
Seems like you're bitter about something. Threatened by the innovation and falling costs/sizes of production? But then again, maybe some people should be... the days of hacks who could never make it in the creative aspects of film-making, yet still getting paid $1500 a day to hand people lenses, are coming to an end.
 
Technology is finally freeing the creatives from the "brush-holders" of the industry. This is great! Should be celebrated!