QuickHitRecord

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1352903616' post='21629'] [media]http://vimeo.com/19736579[/media] [/quote] Bioskop, is this something that you shot with the Widescreen 2000? It looks really, really good. I have only ever seen one of those lenses up on eBay.

Like many people, I am looking at getting a new computer that will work well Davinci Resolve and will reasonably future-proof as the era of 4K begins to descend upon us. As a long time Mac user, the idea of the Hackintosh is growing on me. But I'm a camera guy, not a computer guy. It has been about a decade since I've tried to customize my computer hardware and a lot has changed. A lot of this is looking pretty foreign to me. There's a pretty comprehensive guide at NoFilmSchool that was just updated last month ([url="http://nofilmschool.com/build-a-hackintosh/"]http://nofilmschool....d-a-hackintosh/[/url]), and to a computer simpleton like myself it looks great from performance and cost standpoints. But I have yet to find anyone's firsthand report on just how well this particular setup handles Resolve. Is anyone who is using this particular setup also using Resolve? For a spec comparison, here's a "recommended requirements" link from Davinci that was initially posted in response to Andrew's recent post about the BMCC: [url="http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/media/4805318/Resolve_Win_Config_Guide_2012-08-30.pdf"]http://www.blackmagi..._2012-08-30.pdf[/url]

Andrew, what are the available mounting points on the bottom of the camera? I have not been able to find this info anywhere.

Thanks for the write-up. Is this the same amusement park that was featured in Joe Wright's [i]Hanna [/i]from last year? Really cool location. The BMCC is certainly a milestone for indie filmmakers everywhere. What I am curious about is how long it will take another camera to challenge and surpass the BMCC at this price point. With the way that things have been moving lately, it doesn't seem like it would take long at all. I wouldn't be surprised if we have a new contender as soon as NAB 2013. Also, how are these soon-to-be-released iMacs going to hold up to BMCC workflow? Anyone have any insight?

The key to scoring big on eBay is flexibility, mostly in the form of patience. That has been an expensive and hard-earned takeaway for me.

I enjoyed the film. It was an interesting scenario and your actors fit the part. Here is some critique that I hope you will find to be useful: [list] [*]AUDIO: It seemed like there were some synching issues and I had some difficulty hearing the characters over the music, which I thought was too driving for the scene. [*]It looks like you were able to shoot in an actual diner, or at least you fooled me if you didn't. I thought that it was too bad that you shot it so soft. It looked like a colorful background. I would have liked to have seen more of it. At least for an establishing shot. [*]I know that you were trying to convey the passage of time by showing the art on the walls but it did not work for me. This was the part of the film that needed to show the transformation of the kid. [*]The actors were glistening! Make sure to have somebody standing by with some powder next time. [/list] I hope that this helps. Keep up the good work!

Andy -- Interesting to read Roger Deakins' take. If he's able to create the images that he does [i]without[/i] these filters, then I probably don't need them either. Thanks for sharing. Germy -- I'm getting the feeling that these may be in the category of ultra-nitpicky control filters. It's hard to be too nitpicky when you're running a GH2 like we are!

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I am trying to better understand the difference between of these filters. I have come across several resources: From Tiffen: [quote][color=#000000]Unlike many photographic films, the CCD or CMOS of a digital camera is inherently susceptible to infrared contamination, even when the manufacturer attempts to reduce this problem by adding an infrared absorbing filter on top of the image sensor. Because these filters do not have a sharp cutoff at the infrared wavelengths there has to be a compromise in order not to exclude visible red wavelengths. This results in some infrared wavelengths being allowed to pass. While minor infrared contamination does not normally cause much of a problem for visible images, when using conventional neutral density filters especially denser grades, this issue is multiplied by the filter factor[/color][/quote] From Cavision: [quote][color=windowtext]The Hot Mirror filter reduces the amount of infra-red light entering the lens while having no affect on the wavelengths of light in the visible spectrum. Digital sensors are especially sensitive to IR light, which can cause aberrations and colour shifting in the image. The hot mirror filter is especially useful when using a neutral density filter because the ND filter will increase the ratio of IR light to visible light. The Hot Mirror ND filter accomplishes both tasks in one combination filter, freeing up an extra filer stage in your matte box.[/color][/quote] Is there anyone using IR or hot mirror filters that can clarify? How significantly do these filters improve your image?[/font][/size]

I had a laugh this morning. These were listed one after another this morning. Thought I'd share: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_137851.png[/img] And as far as shooting video goes, it seems like it would be near impossible to mount this sucker!

I love the [i]idea[/i] of these filters but I have yet to see any footage that has compelled me to buy into it.

What a great opportunity. And for free! Thanks for sharing, Karim.

If only I were in London, I would love to try these out. Have you shot any more test footage?

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1352488356' post='21416'] [/quote] Now that's a short video skit just [i]begging[/i] to be made.

I'd be inclined to agree with you, but when I placed my preorder for the MFT version (same day that it was announced), the reseller cautioned me that Black Magic has slipped release dates several times before, with one (media storage solution?) taking a year from the original release date to hit shelves. If that is true, I find it hard to believe that this is purely the result of a manufacturing problem with a sub-contracted company. But even after hear this, I still put my name on the list. The MFT version's ship date is not yet upon us, but I expect delays. I won't be up in arms about it. Either I'll get a great camera from BlackMagic, or a great camera from another company if they take too long. I will not participate in any name-calling.

I am trying to get a price for the mod but the company rep I have been talking to hasn't committed to an amount just yet. However, Andrew Wonder replied to me that it cost almost as much as his Iscorama, which he purchased for $1500...

Apefos is in the final stages of developing this lens with a goal having the first batch ready to sell by the end of the year. He is now taking donations on his website: [quote]Hi, I am developing the Apefoscope Anamorphic Adapter Project and I got 145 usd donation until now. I just need 105 usd more to reach the 250 usd goal to try the lens coating options, the last task. vimeo.com/52515544 I am begging here for a small donation, any amount welcome, so I can try the coating options to show on vimeo and finish the project. So people will can buy it. to do donation go to: [url="http://www.apefos.com/"]http://www.apefos.com[/url] If you prefer to stay anonymous in donation it is ok, if you prefer to say in the main topic you did the donation it is very helpful. Thank you very much![/quote]

Very nifty. If the price is right, I expect that Van Diemen will be getting a lot of business. I still think that the Lomo square fronts create a more appealing image than the Iscoramas (and I can finally say this now having used both).

It's a private video. I can't watch it.

It wouldn't be hard to find out! Just leave your lens cap on and record a bunch of 5-second clips starting at the ISO 12800, then enhance the noise in post.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1352386633' post='21311'] very interesting to see this ! thanks for doing this... what picture profile are you set on? [/quote] I should have mentioned. I am in 'Smooth'.

[quote name='pietz' timestamp='1352386028' post='21308'] please QuickHitRecord check that myth of having to step down to get lower noise. [/quote] I already have: [quote name='QuickHitRecord'][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I did a full-range ISO test of my GH2 with the Flowmotion 2.02 settings, starting at 12800 and working my way down to 160. I did this after reading a little more about the GH2 ISO bug. Initially, I had read that if you wanted to use ISOs 320, 640 or 1250, you had to switch the camera on and first go to [/font][/color][i]any[/i][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif] higher ISO, and then back to one of these three to minimize noise. Then I did some more reading on Personal-View and apparently what you want to do is go to the next ISO increment up, and then back down to the desired setting (so if you want ISO 320, go to ISO 400, then back to 320; if you want 640, go to 800, then back to 640). This seemed to result in a MUCH cleaner image than my initial tests with the first image. The footage is pretty usable up to ISO 1250, at least with the Flowmotion hack.[/font][/color][/quote] It's in the resulting images above as well. I started at the highest ISO and worked my way down to the lowest, accommodating the ISO bug.

Nice footage. This is such an underrated lens.

A monitor with peaking will help you nail that sharp focus a lot better than the GH2's viewfinder or LED screen will. If you're concerned about having a problem lens, I'd suggest composing an image with multiple subjects at varying distances, putting the lens in T1.6, and then capturing a rack focus from one extreme to the other. You'll know right away when you watch it.

Haven't heard of that one either, Axel. I will give it a try. Anything for a clean image. In the meantime, this was bothering me so I did a test which I am going to put in a more appropriate thread: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1299-gh2-iso-tests-rethinking-the-iso-bug-iso-320-cleaner-than-iso-160/page__hl__iso+test"]http://www.eoshd.com...e__hl__iso test[/url]

I haven't seen a side by side test like this so I decided to create one. The video is uploading on Vimeo but I suspect that the compression will make it difficult to gauge, so here are some screen grabs. Please click to view full screen: [center][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_61391.jpg[/img][/center] [center]*I should also add that each stripe was sampled from the center of the image.[/center] [center][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_298073.jpg[/img][/center] [center][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_670092.jpg[/img][/center] My previous tests concluded that ISO 320 was the sweet spot. However, when I did the same test this time, ISO 320 gave me a lot of macro blocking. Bizarre! I don't believe that I changed anything between last time's test and this one. To me, these images suggest that you'd be best off parking it in ISO 640 and leaving it there. It's also interesting that different ISOs seem to have different color casts.