Tim McC

if the BMPCC speedbooster fits, like it does on the GH4 for those brave enough to try it, that'll get you to a 1.10x crop.

But will I be able to use my Blackmagic Pocket Speedbooster on this one like with the GH4?

But will I be able to use my Blackmagic Pocket Speedbooster on this one like with the GH4?

"6K/24p Anamorphic Video Mode, while fun, is severely hampered by its 4:3 aspect ratio"
UM!
That's what an anamorphic mode is - 4:3
Someone let our dear friends at Cinema5D know.

Its marked in feets

I couldn't agree more.  The reason why we wring our hands over tech talk, specs, gear porn, etc. is because we are so tantalizingly close (or maybe we're already there) to having tools at our disposal to make the kinds of poetic images that once could only be made with 35mm motion picture cameras and all the support systems they required.      

Films are not going away...far too much money at stake...what has changed considerably is the content created for television ( at the same quality level as any feature film now)...but sticking to movies...many links in the chain that either makes or breaks a project....and success depends on an audience member being able to completely immerse themselves in a film...hard to happen when you're watching something shot on an iPhone with little or no production design, bad sound and of course poor acting and directing...sorry....a little off topic, but read a post a while back saying in a 100 years there'll be no more movies made...as long as humans are around, we'll be hungry for the escape movies/television can bring us...as far as cameras today go...we're more than there and I think Andrews point is well taken...smartphones are the new point-and-shoots that consumers want and you can now use an actual point-and shoot as a crash cam or in a difficult to fit place or a drone etc....

I don't understand the video and don't understand why it is being given as a good example of cinema.
This is mainly a cinematography forum, about cameras and shooting images.
It isn't a content lab.
OK you get 5,674,515 people to endorse your message, you move some of them, you get 48,000 likes and 179,000 re-tweets. I am sure the content must have some merit. But I am equally sure that it won't be remembered in 30 years like the work of great cinematographers is.
There is poetry not just in faces, words, music, dialogue, messages, content, stories...
Images are poetry.
If you cannot grasp this point and think that images are meaningless without shoving some kid's story in front of the camera, then reconsider and go and see Koyannisquatsi immediately. Cinematography in the purist sense IS content and HAS a message. Incredible camera work, beautiful rendering, the lenses used - the medium is the message.
Cinematography can also elevate almost ANY kind of content so that it has more impact and is more memorable.
I am SICK TO DEATH of people saying that boringly shot content is all we should aspire to because hey... it works... of course it does... but it doesn't mean to say a cinematographer should stop speaking the language of cinema and go and become a writer or a one-man filmmaker instead.

Maybe not so soon. But we are definitely heading that way. Check this out. 
https://light.co/technology

Damn so close to the end of the article. One day you will bother to read the last 1%.
Had you done that, you'd have read that I described Canon as "boring", that they will in future struggle to sell us the next improvements, that their approach to apps and Magic Lantern was complete wrong, and that it "pains me" to see the enthusiast market moving to higher-end longer release cycles as pioneered by Canon with the 5D line.
Actually I am spending 90% of my time right now with a Panasonic costing under $800. Alas you were not to realise that, because you just seem to make assumptions without knowing very much and never ask or bother to find out what the person who writes EOSHD is really doing behind the scenes.
Geeez.
What an idiot and a troll.
Carry on and you will be banned. Final warning.
****************
 
Exactly, and good riddence to them. It's GREAT for the people who are actually interested in photography and picking up the skills necessary.
No longer do we have the masses convincing the manufacturers that there is money to be made in crappy low-end DSLRs with food and baby modes.
Look how much more they have concentrated on enthusiasts since the consumer market shrank.
Look how many great enthusiast cameras we've got now and how many mid-range models have stepped up to be better featured.
This is also a good illustration of why pros have a bright future.
Before, everyone and his cat was shooting photos like the one on the left with their own Rebel DSLRs.
Now they are stuck with the crap on the right and have to pay someone to do better.
They have all sold their old cameras on eBay!

OK, people voted for him because they just LOVE racism.
Joking aside, I think our western society is verging on having a dangerous love affair with celebrity and consumerism.
That's why, when a well known blogger insults your favourite camera brand, people flip out.
People need to realise that it's ok to disagree.
I was watching the US election closely and know exactly what happened. Trump won due to a depressed voter turn out for Clinton and a wave of popular support in the rust belt states from mainly working class white voters who felt left behind and distrustful of the mainstream media to give them objective information. So they sourced their information from a Facebook echo chamber instead and from fake news articles, all the while believing Clinton was corrupt and Trump as a 'successful' businessman = the answer to the US's economic problems. If anything it is they who are painfully oversimplifying the world and politics, not me. And it is the same with cameras. I can give you my opinions, and the facts, but people already have their own conspiracies of information from the pro-Sony or pro-Canon echo-chambers online, and it is becoming increasingly hard to put good information out there in the face of such indifference. Click-bate and heavily biased camera review sites would not exist if the audience wanted for better, or knew any differently, and it is the same with Trump.

To those critics in this thread - that you see my opinions as unworthy because I'm not inside the film industry doesn't surprise me, because most of the same people just voted for a US president based on how rich he was. It's a bit of a sad situation in 2016 where such a consumerist mindset exists that only pros shooting paid gigs are considered experts. Time and time again in Berlin I have turned down paid work to focus on my own creative projects and self-employment. It's my choice. EOSHD has been a success. I could have been slaving away, climbing the ladder professionally shooting one advert after another and being bossed around by clueless clients. Again, I have chosen a different path. I'd much rather be doing my own thing day in day out. It doesn't take much to click through to Vimeo and see my last 5 years of cinematography and personal work. And even if that isn't to your taste, your taste is not the universal blueprint by which everything film-related is judged.
This article comes from the heart. Maybe I didn't get across the capabilities of the 1D X Mark II in one go, maybe I'm rusty. The footage isn't my best. It is 120fps with a heavily stylised grade shot handheld on holiday. It isn't meant to be Citizen Kane. It was just to show the 120fps. The way some people are going on about the image quality of that video as some way indicative of the overall quality from the 1D X Mark II is really stupid. The 4K looks very different. That is coming next in part 2. I also have shot with the X-T2 and G80. Great alternatives for less money. The 1D X Mark II was meant as a replacement for my 1D C and it succeeds in doing that. I paid £5k for the 1D C used back at the start of 2015 and even though it came out in 2012 the image is still better than the A7S II, Sony FS5, etc. No it is not a £500 camera. I never said it was good value for money in that respect. Pretty obvious really.
The skintones -
I think side by side with the Sony picture, the Canon one looks too extreme and you cannot really judge either image from the web or blog post page.
In isolation at full 20MP resolution on a large print or a large 4K monitor, the Canon looks more natural and true to nature, whereas the Sony looks dead. Also the Canon flatters skin, whereas the Sony exaggerates any imperfections even on a very good looking subject. See the following 2.8K JPEGs instead, full screen -

This looks really good, Jeff!  I shot a feature ten years ago for about the same budget and I WISH I'd had the set up you have here (that was back in the days of mini-DV). 
If you want some constructive criticism, I'd say start your trailer with some wider shots to establish the environment and mood before cutting to close ups of people talking.  (Unless of course, it's a famous person, then absolutely start with them.)
Audio is a beast all its own and will probably take more of your time than the edit.  I'd suggest enlisting some experienced help as soon as possible, especially if you don't feel like you have an "ear" for it.  The audience will totally look past imperfections in the photography, but they are absolutely unforgiving on the sound...

I really don't get why people are complaining about these lenses.  This is some of the most "cinematic" footage I've seen come out of the GH4 yet.  And I think it looks better (in a purely subjective sense) than the mini Hawk tests.  Am I going to trade in my Iscorama for one of these?  Probably not.  But if I had to go on a shoot with this set, I'd be more than happy to do so.

I really don't get why people are complaining about these lenses.  This is some of the most "cinematic" footage I've seen come out of the GH4 yet.  And I think it looks better (in a purely subjective sense) than the mini Hawk tests.  Am I going to trade in my Iscorama for one of these?  Probably not.  But if I had to go on a shoot with this set, I'd be more than happy to do so.

I really don't get why people are complaining about these lenses.  This is some of the most "cinematic" footage I've seen come out of the GH4 yet.  And I think it looks better (in a purely subjective sense) than the mini Hawk tests.  Am I going to trade in my Iscorama for one of these?  Probably not.  But if I had to go on a shoot with this set, I'd be more than happy to do so.

I really don't get why people are complaining about these lenses.  This is some of the most "cinematic" footage I've seen come out of the GH4 yet.  And I think it looks better (in a purely subjective sense) than the mini Hawk tests.  Am I going to trade in my Iscorama for one of these?  Probably not.  But if I had to go on a shoot with this set, I'd be more than happy to do so.

EXACTLY!  One of the reasons anamorphic is the go to for a true big budget looks is because it tends to only be advocated by the best DOP's, with enough professional brunt to demand shooting in anamorphic, and dedicating greater budgets in doing so.  Watch how each shot is framed in Django, Casino, Inglorious Basterds, etc.  They've been perfectly frames on set.  the set is moved to accommodate the desired frame.  Its been so meticulously crafted to accommodte for the limitations of optical resolution of the wonderful panavision anamorphics that even if they switched to spherical at the last minute, selecting wider FL's to suit a post crop, the image would have almost the same power as with the anamorphics due to the production value the meticulous shooting process adhered to and demanded by films who can afford to shoot 4 perf anamorphic.
 

​Because, traditionally, making a movie requires several different focal lengths ranging from wide to long. Shooting without a wide angle option can be both creatively stifling, as well as impractical if you find yourself in a confined space.
Secondly, at least to me, something magical happens when you put on a wide-angle anamorphic lens, particularly around the 35-40mm range. Look at Wes Anderson's use of the 40mm Panavision C-series. Or the wide-angle 'Scope work in the films of John Carpenter or Brian DePalma. It's a look that you can't replicate with a spherical lens. A wide-angle spherical lens has a completely different geometry. On a spherical lens, lines recede into the distance and the edges are stretched out. On an anamorphic lens, the foreground bulges forward and the background wraps around as if it's being projected on a globe. This shot from The Royal Tenenbaums is a great example. Even though it's a wide angle lens (40mm), and the subjects are arranged in depth from front to back, they appear stacked as if it's on a telephoto lens. It's like multiple portraiture. It's an effect that can only be had in anamorphic.

Lens will be out this summer and there will be a front attachment too making it a single focus anamorphic. I shot this short with the SLR Magic anamorphot 2X.
Different taking lenses. Voitlander 17.5mm, SLR Magic 35mm, Canon FD 50mm 1.2, Helios 58mm. Diopters used. 
 

The best way to "fake" the oval aperture is to have an actual oval aperture, one of the options for DSO's FF58 lens.  
Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_MZDAgkR_4
And that's just the 1.5x squeeze.  Also available in 2x. 

I don't know if this has been posted before, but here's Mauri Galiano's very nice test which compares the GH4's various aspect ratios in 4k "Photo" mode using a Bolex 16/32 1.5x, an Isco 1.7x and a 2x Proskar.
 
This sealed my decision to finally pull the trigger on a GH4. 
 
The only limitation I see right now is it's only in 30p and 25p.  Apparently someone within Panasonic is pushing hard for 24p.  Otherwise the GH4 (except low light) is an embarrsment of riches.
 

 
eris
 

Screen grabs from a short sci-fi film I'm directing.
 

 
http://alexeymarfin.com/blue-eyed-me-coming-soon/
 
Can you can tell apart which shots are real anamorphic shots and which are spherical + pseudo-anamorphic aesthetic done in post? ;-)
 
Any feedback welcome :-)

Sorry guys, been on shoots. Will upload the videos tomorrow.

Hi guys,
 
We just shot this video with the BMCC, Metabones Speedbooster, Nikon Lenses and Iscorama 54MC.
RAW files were developped in After Effects CS6 (with Camera Raw) to Prores444 2400/1350. Color grading was done in AE.
 

 
Please let us know what you think, we'd love to get some feedback.
 
Cheers,
Mihnea