pask74

Anything that adapts to EF mount works. I've tried M42, Contax Zeiss (CY), Nikon, OM, etc.

Thanks for the clarification, Andrew - sounds good!

Sorry for the dumb question, but is this good news "only" for Canon EF lenses owners?

What other lenses with an EF adapter would work with the SpeedBooster (even in passive mode)?

 

Thanks,

Thanks for your answer and advice, Roberto.

 

My plan: like you said, work on the script, pre-prod, etc. and follow BMCC and DigitalBolex d16 development.

The latter offers 4x3 sensor if I'm not mistaking (on top of being sexy)? I'd be interested to hear your opinion on this project.

 

Now, regarding LOMOs and anamorphic: I understand anamorphic is a whole family of lenses that are made to shoot those beautiful large landscape-like pictures and have a different flare than non-anamorphic. But, flare aside and ease of use + budget in mind, would the end result be that different than if shot with regular non-anamorphic lenses and crop/add black bands in post? (probably sounds heretic ;-).

 

A last question: your steadycam 75mm shots of that lovely actress in Lyon are absolutely beautiful! I was just wondering how difficult it has been to get stable shots with the equivalent of an approx. 140mm lens?

 

Thanks again for sharing,

 

Pask

Roberto,

Congrats on what seems to be a very promising and exciting project!

I am currently writing the script of what would be my first full-length feature film and would be interested to know if you've been as happy with the GH2s as with the LOMOs.

I own a few OCT-18 (non-anamorphic) LOMOs that I like a lot + a hacked GH2 but I'm wondering if going the RAW route with the BMCC would not be a necessary upgrade to do all the pre and post-shooting work justice.

What do you think?

 

Cheers,

I don't see the point or logic there.. if you want to adapt other lenses, the EOS adapter would be the best option.

 

On the EOS mount you can use Canon EF (of course), Nikon F, M42 and Leica R with adapters.

 

You can't use 'whatever format' because the register distance will have to be as long as Canon EF mount at least. Leica M, Canon FD etc is no option.

 

OK - so basically we'd be stuck with EF lenses? (sorry for my slow brain)

Metabones seem to be making Leica R adapters, so let's assume they'll produce a Leica R to m43 speedbooster.

Would that work to get an adapted m43 lens to m43 speedbooster?

 

m43 camera > Speedbooster Leica R to m43 > m43 to Leica R adapter (passive) > whatever format to m43

 

A bit complicated, I know ...

That's not how it works. It provides more light to the sensor by virtue of taking the larger image circle and compressing it (intensifying) to the smaller sensor size. You can only compress lenses that provide a larger image circle. So FF to APS-C (or smaller), or APS-C to mFT (or smaller).

 

I was actually thinking of using my old Lomo oct-18 (that would cover 35mm anyway if I'm not mistaking) with this to get a bit more light/larger FOV...

I understand that "native" m43 lenses would not benefit from this adapter.

Imagine a version of this with only the speed booster : MFT camera > speed booster > MFT lens.

Those would be killer!

I've never like 3D, personnally - just because I need to wear medical glasses and don't feel comfortable with another thingie on my nose to watch a film. On top of that, the 3D effects work half of the time because of my corrected sight and those glasses make the whole picture darker/less punchy than what is actually is, so I usually find myself splatting those glasses on my eyes when a 3D scene comes ... absurd!

I don't believe I'm the only one in this case.

 

Secondly, we've seen a similar situation in the audio industry a few years ago. Technology enabled us to mix surround sound (i.e. 5.1) but all what people wanted was free music, with little regard to the audio quality, so this format is now dead (for music, at least).

 

I'm wondering 3D's fate is not going to be the same ... Is 4K the equivalent of an audio-phile multi-$ music über-hi-fi?

My impression is that most of the people on the planet prefer eating more than eating well = watching more films in a lesser quality than less films of a better quality.

 

We live in an era where technology would allow us to produce amazing quality media, but most of the people go for the cheap-'n-easy instead... what a pity.

 

Just my 2 cents.

... Ubuntu can be used for certain things but I wouldn't recommend it as a general OS for everything.

 

That is my problem.

Linux is a very tempting route but I definitely need an all-in-one machine for both editing, grading and running audio apps.

My core business being audio, running Linux unfortunately sounds like a no-solution due to the limited plug-ins availability.

It's a real shame as I would definitely prefer Linux over Windows in terms of philosophy.

I'm coming from an Apple background but I'm also quite used to Windows.

Seeing Apple going for the consumer-electronics market more than for the media professionals, I'm considering switching to Windows ... even though I much prefer the look and feel of OSX.

 

Reading this article, I'm wondering if investing in a proper PC would not be an easier solution. Recommended and tested configurations are available for Resolve - wouldn't this be the safest route?

Am I the only one wondering how to focus when both your hands are handling those lovely wooden thingies ?

Well, I just got back from the theater. Needless to say, the high frame rate and 3D were not the true problems with this film. I'm still not sure what I just watched, but it wasn't Tolkien's The Hobbit. 

sad

LOL

Diffusion is so 80s ... makes me want to watch those old "Dallas" episodes again ;-)

What a great topic!

 

Aesthetically, hiding stuff is sometimes more artistic than displaying them in the open light.

After all, it's the same for me with scenography : I much prefer a love scene where things are suggested than put straight into my face without any room left for imagination. And I must admit it's also the case in real-life ;-)

 

Similarily, I like those Super8 videos from my childhood, etc. It translates reality in an imperfect but vibey pleasant way.

In photography, a portrait shot with a high-ISO film usually looks so much more poetic than an uber-clean digital picture. And so many times b&w feels much better than full colour... even less "realistic".

Maybe that's one of the reasons we now feel that we "must" edit/correct/perfect-alize any digital photography before it comes to our eyes : the technology at our disposal is showing too much of the unpleasant truth.

 

Is the quest for "perfection" about to turn obsolete?

So, obviously you wouldn't mind not aligning with DaVinci's official recommendations?
(ASUS P9X79 PRO Motherboard + GeForce GTX 580 + 12 GB RAM or higher)
By the way, from their documentation it's quite unclear if a second graphic card (Quadro 4000 etc.) is actually required or just a plus...

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353964223' post='22358']
Sub $700 is:

Intel 3.4Ghz i7 2700K
8GB RAM
GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1.5GB
USB 3.0

Those are the bits that matter. The rest doesn't need to be anything special.

This should all come to under $700 and if you can't build it yourself, buy one second hand on eBay. Mine is a Dell XPS 8300 of similar spec to the above and it cost me 600 euros.

If you can stretch another $200 for an SSD, that is a good idea. Put a 2TB hard disk in there (that is OK for editing raw footage off), but also an 240GB SSD for the main OS, apps & boot drive.
[/quote]

Thanks a ton, Andrew !

Slightly off-topic : Andrew, you're talking of a $700 PC that makes it possible to run Resolve - could you please elaborate as I haven't found any config sub $1500.

Thanks for your tireless blogging!

And by the way the only bug I've encountered with any hack is the need to power off/on (takes 3 sec. max) to be able to play certain video files.

Just to clarify : I find this GH3 very interesting and there seems to be noticable improvements over the GH2 on a few important aspects.
Any of my dream-list points would have made me pull the trigger but I'll wait for the next model instead.

fair enough but that was said about the bmcc that could not deliver as much for 3k

and now the gopro hero 3 delivers 2.7k at 24fps for 400usd with a lens...

times of companies holding back on technology to maximize profit are now gone and the ones still playing at that game are loosing a lot of money.

you can up your expectations now

we seem to be on the same page here.

You were dreaming of a $3K-$5K camera delivered by Panasonic for under $1.5k? Easy to be disappointed with such unrealistic expectations.

I'd be ready to pay the amount of a Black Magic Cinema Camera for my expectations.

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Thank you for this review Andrew but I must say I am quite surprised at your conclusion.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Stills aside, since most of us care about video, where are the improvements?[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]How can you say the gh3 is a successful upgrade?[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]-"same" insane detail / so no improvement there and I would like to see a side by side comparison that shows that there is indeed the same detail as on the gh2 because I personally doubt it. And even if it's there, we should be happy they did not make it worse?[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]- [/font][color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Better colour and dynamic range / really? is there really a [b]significant [/b]and more importantly [b]usable in post [/b]increase in dynamic range?[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]- [/font][/color][color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Best ever codec on a consumer camera / fair enough, but does that translate in a visibly better final image than on the hacked gh2?[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]- clean hdmi / sounds good but then you say yourself "[/font][/color][color=#333333][font=Helvetica, Arial, FreeSans, sans-serif][size=3]I can’t see there being much advantage to external HDMI recording on the GH3"[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I feel that the gh3 is the new mark III, definitively improved in the stills aspect but definitively not in video.[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And with the introduction of moire and aliasing it just gets worse.[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]No improvement in resolution, no high frame rates, no 10bit...[/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Better stills, better ergonomics, sure. [/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Video wise? there is nothing [b]significant[/b] compared to a hacked gh2 imo...if I am missing something let me know.[/font][/color]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]I know you are much more knowledgeable than me Andrew but no matter how I spin it I don't get how one can call the gh3 a "successful upgrade" at least when considering the video aspect?[/color][/font]

... my thinking, too!

I think the GH3 is not significantly better enough to be worth upgrading from my hacked GH2 that already (and still) performs very well.I was dreaming of Panasonic releasing a mind-blowing GH3 (2k, virtually no moiré/aliasing, 10 bit - etc.) and taking the market like a storm...

Wow ! All this sounds fantastic.

10 bit 4:2:2, focus peaking, 60p, weather sealing alone would be great.
More than 1920 would be a dream...

I'd prefer them to keep the small form factor, though. I like it's "tiny but powerful" pedigree :-)