QuickHitRecord

This is a big deal.

This lens does not have the focal length to be used with most of the anamorphic lenses floating around eBay. It would probably work on the LA7200 or maybe the Century, but that's about it. However, the upcoming 35-100mm would probably work. And then you'd have a fast, image-stabilized micro four thirds lens to use with your anamorphic. In anticipation for this lens, I tried holding my Iscomorphot in front of the 12-35mm to see if it would flare. It doesn't (or it didn't in my test) and I think that it's unlikely that the 35-100mm will flare either.

Also, some of the camera bodies had significantly less noise at ISO 1250 than 640. But it's not an even spread of noise. There is significantly more noise on the right extremity of the frame. But the rest of the frame is much cleaner than 640. See example: [attachment=297:ISO_1250.jpg] This happened with one of the four unhacked bodies, and then with at least two of the bodies with the Vanilla 44mbps hack. I am not sure why this is happening. Must have something to do with the bug.

I couldn't find the test that I mentioned earlier so I just did one myself with four different GH2 bodies (two hacked and two unhacked). I can report that the bar of death seems to show up at ISO 2500 and will make your video unusable at ISO 5000. Because the unhacked cameras only go up to ISO 2500, you may be convinced that it is not a problem with them. But it is still there. What surprised me is that my camera had this issue start to become a problem at ISO 1250 when I was running the Unified setting. But now that I am using Flowmotion 2.02, it only shows up (and less obtrusively) at ISO 2500. At any rate, I would only recommend shooting at ISO 160 or ISO 320 with the GH2. Anything higher is just ugly. Here are some screen grabs of FlowMotion footage shot with the lens cap on (noise has been enhanced for visibillity with a gamma shift and 3-way color corrector; file sizes compressed for posting here): [attachment=296:ISO-160.jpg] @ ISO 160 [attachment=295:ISO-320.jpg] @ ISO 320 [attachment=294:ISO-640.jpg] @ ISO 640 [attachment=293:ISO-1250.jpg] @ ISO 1250 [attachment=292:ISO-2500.jpg] @ ISO 2500 [attachment=291:ISO-5000.jpg] @ ISO 5000 I have ISO 10000 too, but it's a bigger file because of the additional noise. I'd have to compress it beyond being a useful comparison to post here. With regard to the ISO bug: I started with the higher ISOs and worked my way down to 160 when I was capturing just to be sure. Panasonic really needs to address these problems with the GH3.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1346916978' post='17426'] New rumors from a broadcast engineer who talked to a fellow engineer from Japan (however reliable one finds such rumors): > definitely AVC Ultra @ 1080, Panasonic tries to make new implementations the standard > probably 4:2:2 > possibly (though not likely) 10-bit, because AVC-U aims at 12-bit for the pro-cameras The reported data rates are no hint to the bit depth, frame rate or color sampling ratio, because AVC-U is even more efficient than AVCHD, and it is typical for Panasonics to reduce data rates as much as possible. New sensor may use an entirely new scanning method, which is way faster, behaving like a global shutter. The technique may produce a new class of artifacts though, and one has to wait where the pitfalls are. Banding will be eliminated. This is what I gathered. Don't blame it on me if it's wrong, this is the nature of rumors. [/quote] I really hope that this is true.

ISO bug and workaround: [url="http://youtu.be/N21mzRjJG74?hd=1&t=2m46s"]http://youtu.be/N21m...74?hd=1&t=2m46s[/url] I came across a GH2 test a while back in which someone filmed a black surface (or just left the lens cap on) and enhanced the noise in post, which confirmed that the top line (ISO 160, 320, 640, etc) will result in less noise than the other ISOs. I'll post the test if I can find it again.

You'll get less noisy results if you stick to the top line of ISO options (i.e. 160, 320, 640, etc.). I get those lines too. I think that most if not all GH2s do. Mine start showing up at iso 1250, so as a general rule I only shoot at 160 or 320. Here's hoping that the GH3 resolves this.

Tony, While we are talking about Hypergonars, how does [url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Twentieth-Century-FoxHenry-Creitien-Hypergonar-lens-/110943840229"]this one[/url] made for Twentieth Century Fox stack up to the HiFi-2? Looks like it might be a 1.33x crop...

I have never seen one on eBay. It's dual-focus (not necessarily a bad thing). Definitely could use some cleaning. Does the focus ring turn smoothly? You should hold it in front of your camera lens and see if you can focus with it before you buy it.

Moiré! Well, that makes it a simple decision for me. Thanks for the comparison.

Hollywood uses Panavision and Hawk anamorphic lenses. For indie films, you'll see more Lomo round and squarefronts or sometimes Kowa anamorphics. The next step down are the Iscorama adapters. And then you have Kowa, Moller, Sankor, LA7200 and a couple dozen other lenses which are better suited for budget filmmaking. Zeiss has new anamorphic lenses on the way. Supposedly SLR Magic is developing one for Micro Four Thirds as well. The example above has a 2x crop, a glamorous "washed out" look, and some crazy flaring that is prevalent in Lomos, though these look more purple than what I have seen with mine. But that might be from the color correction. If you're interested in learning more about anamorphic lenses, Andrew's e-book is pretty useful.

Looks like Lomo squarefront to me.

I can't speak for the Tamron but the [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM was my favorite when I was shooting with my 7D. This was the last piece that I shot with it before I sold it:[/font][/color] http://vimeo.com/43008797 Simply a fantastic lens.

It's about time that someone other than Zeiss got back in the game.

A good start. I have a lot of M43 and M43-adapted glass riding on this release.

It would be really useful to have one. Then I could really perfect the lighting [i]before[/i] my talent shows up. But why do they all look like Kim Kardashian? http://www.mannequinhub.com/female-mannequin-head-en.html My girlfriend would kill me.

[quote name='KarimNassar' timestamp='1346690501' post='17226'] interesting setup thanks for sharing would matte box that hold filters be an option too? or would the filter be too far away from the lens [/quote] I suppose it's possible, but the LA7200 already has sort of a matte-box shape, so it might be tricky to get the filters close to the front glass. Also, do they even make square close up filters? Mark at EyePatch films did a YouTube tutorial about using a Cinetactics Anamorphic Matteblox a while back. I've tried it out and I much prefer the solution above -- it is much cheaper and you can get the diopter closer to the glass.

[quote name='Inean' timestamp='1346670037' post='17214'] Hello, I'm a little doubt arises, The Cokin Close Up +1 A101 are too small right? And these ( [url="http://www.ebay.es/itm/KOOD-P-Series-Close-Up-1-Macro-Filter-Fits-Cokin-/200608019419?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item2eb52b73db"]http://www.ebay.es/i...=item2eb52b73db[/url] ) are well-adjusted? Regards [/quote] I have never used with a Cokin A-series filter, only P-series. The item in your link seems like it would work since it seems to be P-series size.

I have not seen this posted here yet. From Sony Alpha Rumors ([url="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr5-full-a99-specs/"]http://www.sonyalpha...full-a99-specs/[/url]):[list] [*]24.3 Mpx Full frame CMOS Exmor sensor [*]SLT technology [*]New Bionz imaging engine [*]14 bit RAW recording [*]10 fps [*]ISO 100 up to 25.600 [*]50 ISO extended (with lower dynamic range) [*]102 AF point AF (11 cross). [*]AF range [*]MF assist [*]Dual Phase detection system (with AF phase pixels on sensor) [*]30 sec and 1/8000 maximum shutter speed [*]Time Lag 0.05 sec. [*]Shutter life guarantee of 200,000 cycles [*]2.360k OLED electornic viewfinder [*]3″921k LCD with same tilting system of the A77 [*]Full HD video recording at 1920×1080/60p AVCHD format [*]HDMI output [*]Built-in stereo mic [*]Built-in flash with guide number of 12 [*]Auto HDR capability [*]New multi-segment low pass filter [*]Photodiode expansion technology [*]Light concentration technology [*]Selective noise reduction [*]Ultrasonic anti dust system [*]In body image stabilization [*]Two memory slots: SD and SD+MS cards [*]USB: 2.0 [*]Announced on September 12, 2012 [*]Available in stores in late October 2012 [*]New accessories to be released with the a99: battery grip, flash, remote control, microphone etc. [*]Very light, weather sealed magnesium alloy body.With 730 g this is the lightest FF body on market! [/list] Speaking of full-frame, the same site is reporting rumors of a full-framed E-mount camcorder called the VG-900, to be released at Photokina as well (this was briefly discussed in one of the current GH3 threads): [url="http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/filmmaker-will-not-beleve-me-on-this-nex-vg900-full-frame-e-mount-camera-for-a-tiny-bit-more-than-3-000-euro/"]http://www.sonyalpha...han-3-000-euro/[/url]

It is a legit Panavision [i]projection[/i] lens, not a Panavision [i]cine[/i] lens. This is the one to get excited about: [img]http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/primo1.jpg[/img]

[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]But if both the cameras (GH2 and 5D3) were priced equal - theorically - which one would you prefer QuickHitRecord?[/font][/color][/quote] Priced equally? I may catch hell for this on these boards, but I'd go with the 5Diii. It is not a camera that I am excited about, but it is pretty stable. No banding (that I have seen), better low-light, built-in headphone jack. The fewer camera quirks and shortcomings, the more attention that I can pay to actually shooting. But the fact remains, they aren't priced anywhere near the same and I do have high hopes for the GH3.

Very nice, Rich. It doesn't get much more cinematic than that. The flip of the actress's hair to bring color to the scene was a wonderful transition. I feel like the anamorphic look is better suited for shots of timeless subjects (i.e. no iPhones!) and this is certainly timeless. Also shot with a Red and Lomos, I offer: https://vimeo.com/13422656 It's films like these that make me glad that I am lucky enough to have a pair (of Lomos).

I ditched Canon and jumped on the GH2 bandwagon a few months ago. At first I was very pleased, especially with the legacy glass options that it afforded me. But the GH2 (or at least my GH2) often has color banding in the gradients as can be found in smooth bokeh or the sky. It's not in every shot (maybe 1 in 10), and YouTube and Vimeo compressions will cause this as well so most web videos end up with it anyway. But it has been ruining the party for me lately. If the GH3 improves on nothing else, I hope that it resolves this issue. At this point, I would not recommend the GH2. I have also shot with the 5D Mark III. You can get a nice cinematic image out of it. But it's pricey for what you get. I'd wait until Photokina in September. They will be announcing some new cameras that should be better than what we have now.

This is great, Rich. It looks like it would work well. Thanks for the concept and sketch. It's really great to get someone else's eyes on this, especially someone of your machining abilities. If I am able to execute something along these lines, I will be sure to share it here.

I'd really like to find a good, economical solution to put ND filters in front of my set (75, 50 and 35mm in OCT18). I know that a matte box with 4x5.6 would be the most elegant solution, but I can't justify the cost since I wouldn't be using it use it with my other lenses. I use a fader for those. I have contemplated trying to trap a large-diameter ND fader in a lens collar (mounted to a rail block) and then sliding that in front of my lenses. But that seems like a disaster waiting to happen. Surely there must be a better solution. Anyone have any ideas?