QuickHitRecord

The "rant" in this article has been some of my favorite EOSHD material yet. 

No one has mentioned Nikkor AI and AI-S primes yet. I have a set of five, cine-modded by Duclos, and I have been pleased with them; first on my GH2, then on my FS100, and finally on my 5D3. I've also had them on a RED Scarlet, and they looked great at 4K. They are compact but well-built, and the lens characteristics match closely across the set. The only downside that I can think of is that the focus ring goes the other way, making a reversible follow focus a necessity.  

Here's a nice rundown on them by Caleb Pike of DSLRVideoShooter:

Some of the converters have "vertical stripe correction" built in and it seems to solve this issue. The one that I am using right now is this one (definitely works on MLVs, not certain if it works on .raw files): http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=9731.0

It's not the latest one, but it seems to work well.

 

what about this? for the Iscomorphot 8 1.5x

 

The F-adapter connects eyepieces of various optical devices (microscopes, monoculars, spotting scopes) where the outside diameter of the respective eyepiece ranges from 24mm (0.94") to 38mm (1.50"). We have also a large version of the F-adapter -  37mm (1.45") to 55mm (2.16")

The F-adapter can be screwed directly onto the lens/adapter tube with 52mm filter thread, or any other using appropriate stepping rings

 

I used one of these for my old Baby Hypergonar. I do not think that it will be able to grip the Iscomorphot 8/1.5 properly (as I recall you have to secure this lens by the silver portion at the rear of the lens; the black part rotates when focusing). There is not much surface area to work with.

Here's another way to mount it, if you have parts like these lying around: 

NAB is only a month out. I'd wait.

I've tried to use MLV with the recent February builds but I get the sensor pattern lines even at ISO 100.  I thought they fixed that issue last year?

I think that you have to use conversion software with "vertical stripe correction". Not all of them have it.

Could anyone illustrates me or give me all the info about it.

Wow.

A simple search in this very forum will give you all of the information that you need.

Pretty neat. Reading the thread, it looks like there is a new version right around the corner.

I've been using an older converter (with the recursive0.4.command file) to convert to DNGs. It applies "vertical stripe correction", which I assume removes some of the fixed noise pattern that can appear at higher ISOs. Do you know if this one does anything like that?

Most forum users have probably already read Andrew's article on the effects of scaling 8-bit 4:2:0 4K footage down to 10-bit 4444 1080P footage: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>

We in the anamorphic world are constantly rescaling our footage, though only on one axis. What I am curious to know is whether this can affect (positively or negatively) the color space and bit depth of the resulting footage. Also, can we better preserve footage by using wider pixels (as opposed to using square pixels + resizing)? This is new territory for me, and probably for a lot of others as well.

Note: I posed the question in the thread above, but I think that this deserves its own thread.

A great film.

You're watching people that know how to use their tools, so any tools they have would get utilized appropriately to tell their story.

Agreed. The technology is there, and it's accessible. We have already have a slew of affordable ninety-percent imaging solutions out there but so many of us are focusing all of our attention on each new 0.25% improvement rather than putting in the time and effort to master the craft, assemble the crew, recruit the talent, and bridge the gap that imaging technology never will.

Nah, an anamorphic de-squeeze actually adds pixels rather than replacing or resampling them and since it's essentially duplicating the already recorded pixels over to the right it would still have the same bit depth, color depth, color space, dynamic range and latitude.

I can see how that would be the case for a de-squeeze, but how about stretching the image (i.e. enlarging it horizontally)? In the past, anamorphic shooters have surmised that image quality doesn't really take a hit when doing this, but we weren't really looking at it through the lens of this new theory.

Would the opposite be true (i.e. deterioration of bit depth and color space) when stretching anamorphic footage horizontally?

That was really funny.

ML gives you several aspect ratio options, and then resolution options therein. To use as much of the sensor as possible (at least vertically), you can choose up to 1600x1200 (though I have found that continuous recording is iffy at this resolution). The smaller the resolution, the greater the crop factor. Hope this helps.

How do you think the GH4's internal codec (without having to purchase additional equipment to record externally) straight to the SD card will compare to a 5d Mk 3 RAW:

 

 purely on aesthetics/sharpness/filmic look

No one can say for sure yet. Downscaling to 1080P from 4K will definitely give you a sharper image, but not everyone wants a sharper image. Aesthetics are purely subjective. As always, it will all come down to personal preference.

ML raw caused a flurry of excitement last year. Everyone HAD to have it. But the thing about shooting in raw is that it's not for everyone. It's not for casual shooters. The ML frenzy died down when most of those people realized that the workflow takes more time, and the novelty and excitement tapered off quickly. For those of us that stuck with it, the workflow has only gotten more stable and easier with new developments and conversion apps.

You say that you have yet to "dive in" with ML raw on your 5D3. Why don't you go ahead try it out on a project? You'll answer a lot of your own questions. The GH4 isn't available for purchase yet anyway.

Intruiged and hats off how you can buy Cooke LOMO A7R etc as an independant blogger - don't want to ask about your rich Aunty status ofc wish had one! , compared to your ex Sky cameraman Nemesis - doffing my cap to your blog survival minus any free cameras and gear.

What do you hope to accomplish by posting something like this? What is the best possible outcome for you?

For documentaries, I'd probably go with the GH4: longer recording times, flip out LCD screen, easier to nail focus, better stability overall, and the GH cameras are just quicker to whip out at a moment's notice -- maybe something to do with the camera's size and weight.

What do you mean it can't match the 5D III codec? Everybody considers the gh3(and 4 surely) codec to be superior. (unless you're talking raw, which, of course, doesnt have a codec)

I'm talking about raw. Maybe I can't call it a codec. It's more like a lack of a codec. But you know what I mean. 

do you think with the 5d3raw you can up the resolution  to 4k…?  

I haven't tried it, but probably not. But if your main use of 4K is to slightly re-frame your shot and deliver in 1080P, I think that it's fine for that.

Also, using the 5D with anamorphic lenses can offer pretty high resolutions. Using the 1600x1200 crop mode with a 2x lens can give you a 3200x1200 image, in raw.

I'm not saying that the 5Diii is going to be better for everyone. I think that the GH4 will probably be a really nice camera. But even before production models start rolling out, we already know that it can't match the 5D's 1080P codec. So, if you're mostly interested in really good-looking 1080P, I think that the 5D with Magic Lantern remains a strong contender.

I also have a 5Diii running ML. I'm not going to buy the GH4 because I don't need 4K, and with my 5D I'm getting a full-frame sensor and a better codec without the added bulk and cost of an external recorder. Plus, I get NIGHTLY firmware updates from Magic Lantern. I just downloaded last night's and it's hard to believe all the bells and whistles that have been added in just the past week.

In terms of shooting with raw, I use it for the option of matching white balance between shots and tweaking exposure. Then I export them out to 12-bit ProRes 4444 files, and edit and grade as usual.

I don't bother with the KomputerBay cards. To me, the piece of mind that I get from the Lexar 1000x cards is worth the extra cost.

If you are really keen on 4K, then maybe the GH4 is the camera for you. But otherwise, the 5Diii delivers some of the best 1080P I've seen, and you already own one!

That XLR base looks super bulky. Stacked on top of rods or even a quick release plate, this thing is going to be pretty tall. Not sure that I'm a fan. I would have loved to have seen something that was flush with the camera body (even if it meant only one XLR input), or a detachable top handle like the C100's.

Con 5D3: No audio (yet).

The MLV_SND module allows for audio recording as of late December. It is not a part of the nightly builds yet but it can be added to your modules directory and used when recording MLVs. It isn't perfect (I think it's consistently a frame or two early, and it doesn't automatically synch up in Resolve like the BM cameras do), but at this rate it's only a matter of time before it gets there.

I also faced the same decision last year. Sensor size aside, here's how I see it: the 5D has interchangeable batteries, cropped video modes (great for anamorphic shooting like you said that you are looking to do), no issues with moire, a built-in professional stills camera, a high stealth factor, and daily "firmware" updates. Plus I believe that its re-sale value will be higher than the BMCC's because it is and will continue to be a highly-sought stills camera.

And Resolve Lite is free!

I just watched one of my old DVDs this weekend. Not a Blu-Ray, just a plain standard definition DVD on a mid-2000s 720P TV. I got sucked into the movie. Never once noticed the lower resolution. Just saying.