HurtinMinorKey

at adorama u can Save up to $300.00 with bundle!!!!    BMPCC $495 + Metabones Leica R  Speed Booster $169 or Metabones Nikon G Speed Booster $189   and this is insane:   BMPCC $495 + NEW Metabones Canon EF Lens to BMPCC Speed Booster $659 = $1154 - $300 = $854!!!!!   holy sh++++!

Reasonable arguments.
In practice, however, there is a simple reason why I would like to stay fullframe for ever  - I'm socialized with 24x36 since decades and as a wideangle prime lover, a 20 mm is not only a focal length nor an angle of view, but a special look of exactly that old glas. Allthough I like to keep my gear simple and small, I regulary found use for three totally different 20 mm lenses, for example a modern rectalinear zoom for straight lines (architecture, some landscapes), an old prime with a lot of moustache distorsion that IS GREAT for shooting people and sometimes a 16 mm fish with an 1.4 extender and an extension ring for some special closeups...
Of course the same could achieved with a speedbooster and Super35 might be the future as bigger sensors are disproportionally expensive. But 4/3 is obviously a nogo.
 
 
Regarding shallow DOF, I would agree on using it sparingly - more like an effect. It could be a great tool for portraits in special moments; IIRC both in 'Private Ryan' and in 'Gladiator' for example the DOP chooses to isolate the protagonist for a single short shot in the opening sequence(s). But all this shots are mostly done by at least f=4 and by having a greater distance to the now blurry background, so in short it's for me mostly a question of composition - remove all non-essential stuff out of the frame with an ultra shallow DOF as last resort...  :-)

There is some dodgy stabilisation going on (presumably all part of the charm) but it isn't rolling shutter you're seeing.
 
Creatively I think the video succeeds. Give the pixel peeping a rest on this one guys.

Better camera i guess, but it doesn't look as good to me. 

Honestly I think none of the recent 4k cameras can hold a candle to the image of the BMPCC and the BMCC.  

If you're making an argument, comparing FF to MFT in PHOTOGRAPHY, then you have to factor in the diffraction of light and the width of each sensel on the sensor.  
 
With both MFT and FF video sample sensels on a chip which leads to a trade-off. FF, less diffraction and more DOF, but less sharpness, because pixels are farther apart.  MFT, more sharpness because pixels are closer together, but more diffraction and noise in low light.  
 
If one is to buy this argument, why not go back to camcorders, which use smaller sensors than MFT?  
 
Both the 5D3 and GH4 are camera platforms originally built for photography.  Because the chips are made for large resolution images. Both cameras bastardize the original image for video.  The GH4 is now bastardizing it less by save more of the pixels the sensor was designed to capture. 
 
You don't see the trade-offs in focal reducers when shooting video because video does not maximize the quality of the MFT or FF sensor.  If you were to shoot serious photography, you would see that focal reducers are no free lunch.
 
I agree.  there is nothing "magical" about FF video.  Quite the opposite.  I would take MFT video of FF video because the spread of the FF sensor creates too much aliasing/moire problems.  The calculations you're going through explain why most cameras can take the same image in good light with modest color-depth needs.  When you need really shallow DOF, or less diffraction in low light, then the calculations don't tell the whole story.

Exactly. I think it very neat, but to me IMAX is about negative size, not shallow DOF, so thought the original post a bit misleading.

I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't see how this is any different than the DOF adapters, like Letus, made for camcorders before DSLRs.  You can get a beautiful, shallow DOF, but the image will be very soft.  Don't get me wrong, it will produce a stylized image not possible in post (because depth can't be ascertained from a 2D image).  Still, a one-trick pony.  Am I missing anything?

Have you seen this?
 
vimeo.com/blog/post:626
 
Essentially Copyright Match works like on YouTube where commercial music is matched to a database and flagged automatically. On YouTube the video is not removed, instead a link to buy the music or advertising is added under the player.
 
On Vimeo the match results in the user being marched off to an 'appeals process' where he must prove he has the valid license for the sound track in use, or that the video consitites 'fair use'. There are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes fair use.
 
Personally as an artist who likes to mix my cinematography with the best possible music, I see this as severely limiting my artistic freedom. I also see my personal work on Vimeo as purely artistic and not in any way 'for profit'. They are part of EOSHD's editorial but a completely separate entity to any part of the blog which makes money such as the Shooter's Guides and I don't run any advertising.
 
This decision by Vimeo means I will seriously have to consider removing 90% of my artistic work from Vimeo and placing it only on my local hard drive offline.
 
Copyright issues on the internet are universally dealt with by DMCA takedown notices and where money is involved, for example where someone is blatantly making money off the back of somebody's else's music in their commercial wedding videos, the issues is dealt with through the legal system.
 
I don't see why Vimeo need to get involved at all.
 
I also don't like how a company seemingly has the final say in what artistic expression I am allowed to make.
 
Also for those who use The Music Bed, the problem doesn't go away. Vimeo will still Copyright Match tracks on there. All music, at the end of the day, is copyright material. So everyone whether they have a license or not will have to go through the appeals process and risk the appeals people at Vimeo disagreeing.
 
Say goodbye to your Vimeo portfolio? Personally I am seriously considering moving out to YouTube or an alternative site. I didn't sign up to this shit!

Wow, this thread is fired up.  I really think the GH4 looks good, maybe surprisingly so, but then so does the GH3. Both cameras can hang with the 5D3R raw if you put them in the right setting and use them in the right way.  I see the GH4 as a nice improvement over the last generation, but it's lack of raw support means it's not for me. 

Wow, this thread is fired up.  I really think the GH4 looks good, maybe surprisingly so, but then so does the GH3. Both cameras can hang with the 5D3R raw if you put them in the right setting and use them in the right way.  I see the GH4 as a nice improvement over the last generation, but it's lack of raw support means it's not for me. 

Well, yes, this was to be expected, wasn't it? I have been dealing with focus compromises most of my professional life. Unless you pay thousands of dollars, you have to live with visible tolerances, but tolerances (which in a perfect world would get infinitely close to zero) are everywhere.
 
First, when I saw your images, I thought, fock, I didn't see this yet, if it's there with my Sigma & SB too, this may be the last straw.
 
Of course I made the test. It wasn't easy, because it's a sunny day, and not many things in the city are far enough away as to be focussed on with ∞.  And also, the sky was so bright, I had to darken the (Tiffen) ND-fader so much that I got a vignette at open aperture. I show you not the worst frame, but the best under the circumstances:

Vignetting, washed-out colors, and the power pole as well as the gas plant in the background look out of focus, whereas the trees on the left appear to be relatively sharp.
 
Maybe my "tolerance" is positioned on the right side  :wacko:
 
Of course it is not wise to shoot this wide shot that way. Most lenses have their best performance round about f4 - f5.6. If the goal was to capture a lot of fine detail - motif detail, not texture detail ! - I better close the aperture at least two stops. Done:

 
There is an improvement, but what you could see if the image moved a little was another nail in the coffin: *Moiré*
The white clinker brick wall on the left - see my corresponding thread, a no-go for me.
 
As I wrote there, I considered the Metabones plus Sigma the ultimate Pocket lens set up, allured by Andrews >article.
 
What it turned out to be good for: Low light shots of interiors. Full stop. It isn't an allrounder set-up, as our experiences show.
 
> It's not good for panorama shots, and particularly not for low light or high key panorama shots!
> It's not good for any long shots, because it obviously has a serious backfocus-problem.
> It's not at all good for detail (though the Sigma is sharp), rather for playing with sDoF.
 
What part is to blame? 
 
Additionally to the Speedbooster, I have a Novoflex-adapter for Nikon. I put this on with the Sigma. First thing I noticed: Whole thing suddenly seems to have more (as they say in STNG) "structural integrity". I shot stopped down about one-third (the Novoflex has no markers):

 
What happens? I don't see moire (BTW: Don't compare the colors, that was hastily done in ACR. Speedbooster was close to sunset though, Novoflex 'blue hour').
 
Next: Novoflex wide open, zoomed in. Note, how there actually is a horizon, not just a watercolored background ...

The problem with an NTG2 is that it is not very sensitive, so you will need to increase gain on the Zoom H6, which will increase background sounds. It will work better than on a Zoom H4n, because the impedance on that unit was only 2k iirc (H6 is like 6K maybe?, so you won't lose as much volume from your mic source b/c of a poor impedance ratio). Also, I don't know the specs,  but I assume the H6 will provide better phantom power than the H4n. 
 
The main thing is getting your mic close to the talent. If you have a mic attached to a dslr, then your screwed. No matter how much money you spend you will be screwed. If you are a one man show, then go with a lavaliere. A $100 lav will sound better than a $1,000 mic attached to a DSLR. If you need a shotgun, I'd get an MKE 600.

Nice work, that sigma is a beast. 

If it's a consistent whine there should be a straightforward solution. Most noise reduction program's allow you to take a sample that includes only the background noise (it doesn't need to be that long) and it will take it right out. 
 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/noisereduction
 
^ this is overpriced but you should be able to find the older versions for free on the internets (if you are on PC).  They are just as good.  Also, A version of it may come bundled free with SoundForge which is now available on MAC. SoundForge is fucking awesome, btw.  Adobe Audition (which you get with creative cloud) also has a version of noise reduction that uses the same technique
 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/easy_noise-nuking_with_sound_forge_9
 
^ This describes the process. 
 
Either way it will probably take some finagling.  But i've used Sony Noise reduction and SoundForge to save takes for lead vocals that sounded like absolute crap because of terrible background noise.  If you want to upload the audio (or small portion of it) i'd be willing to take a crack at it. 

I had my GH4 with me Friday night at a concert and shot some semi low light footage. Most shots are C4K scaled to HD with a 2.35:1 crop. A few shots are FHD 60p slowed down. Shot in Cinelike D -5,-5,-5,-5. Graded with FilmConvert. You might see a few strobing lights due to dimmed LED's on stage. It showed up no matter what shutter speed I used. Overall I'm loving it.
 

I don't use resolve but It's highly likely it's image caching based on your viewer settings.. if you have to load frames before you get realtime playback, probably that's it. 
 
well hot damn.. check it out:
 
from the davinci resolve website
 
"Real time On-The-Fly extremely high quality proxy generation without disk cache."

I've decided that my next camera is going to be medium format. I don't care if I have to wait another 3 years. I want it. 

Huh? The image quality looks pretty meh to me. 

Good move, but guys, I have been using forums for 15 years and one thing I always noticed was that the forums with high levels of moderation became boring, and the ones with light moderation were always more fun.
 
I think that banning somebody should only be done as a last resort when somebody REALLY crosses the line, not just for one or two offensive posts. Otherwise this forum will have a reputation for being up-tight (like the RED forums) and not free-flowing and fun.
 
Just my two cents...

Huh? The image quality looks pretty meh to me. 

You might want to wait until the end of the year. There is always a chance that Canon might do something awesome with raw in the 7Dii, but i'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about it. 
 
You also might want to try renting the 5D and seeing if you like(or can handle) the raw workflow. 

This is my fifth attempt to find an affordable stabilization solution for the BMPCC, particularly for the heavy setup with Speedbooster and Sigma 18-35. It works perfectly, and the only two things that are missing are
1. Pistol grip to be clicked underneath the cage with a quick release plate and
2. Lanc-controller with button on top of the grip for START/STOP.

 
It consists of an old, self-built shoulder pad with counterweight (aluminum rack, ~$ 5,- , bent in a vice and padded with foam rubber, ~ $ 2,-), a micro goose neck with 3/8" connections, ~ $ 7,- , filled with a steel rod, ~ $1,-) and a ball head (~$ 30,-).
 
The ball head allows for fast height- and angle-adjustments. I found this to be the most crucial aspect of all shoulder supports. You both stress your neck with only half an inch of unergonomic proportions and run the risk of unintentionally rotating your frame. Not with this ball head.
 
If you loosen the ball, you can screw it on or off the cage within 10 seconds. 

 
The counterweight could be substituted with a battery pack, and the rod that helds the goose neck stiff could also be a steel tube (well, perhaps, it could turn out to be too weak then) to hide the cable.
 
The shoulder pad doesn't look particularly elegant, I'm sure you can do better. 

I'd take a crack at it. 

I'd take a crack at it.