QuickHitRecord

@PannySVHS Yes, that was the single focus Iscomorphot 8 1.5x. I also had the fixed-focus Isco Anamorphot 8 1.5x at one point (I have some footage from that lens that starts at 00:43). It's amazing to me how much money I spent on anamorphic lenses and adapters during the early 2010s. I could not imagine doing that now!

I had one a long time ago. I did a test with it that was actually featured in a blog post here, though I can't find the link. I found this lens to be terribly soft until f5.6 or so. Mine had the crazy "cleaning marks" on the front element, and I actually spent way too much money sending it off to have the front element resurfaced (and recoated? I can't remember). Which did not help at all. I did some tests with it after I got it back and sold it shortly afterwards.

I've been thinking about this since my first test with RIFE. The problem is that none of the old CCD cameras I would want to do this with can capture more than about 5fps.

Oddly, I found myself drawn to the imperfections of the GH4 in the test, which has never stood out to me at all. Interesting.

The Meikes look very good. I even considered buying a set for my work camera before I sent with the Sigma Art primes. But I am definitely looking for something cheap and cheerful for my old GH1.

I've never owned any of these lenses but I am curious about building a cheap, 3-lens set for MFT (something like a 18/25/50). This would be for casual shooting on my GH1. What are people's experiences with these lenses? Are there any good ones (or lenses to avoid)? At this low price point, I can deal with some softness, CA, and weak corners, but some of these lenses seem to display terrible field curvature issues, so any lens suffering from that is a no-go for me.

@Matt Kieley The shot of the woman on the couch at 1:07 in the first video is really nice. And it looks like there may have been a couple of other shots from the same film as well. Do you recall what lens you were using? The GH1 is plenty for storytelling. Dynamic range is a challenge but I find that I prefer the look to most modern cameras. Here's a test (not by me) that did a good job of showing the why the GH2 (with the same sensor as the GH1) creates a much more emotionally resonant image than the GH5. At least to me:

This. It's more satisfying to get a lot out of a little than a little out of a lot. And this applies in a much more profound way when you're just shooting stuff solo, for fun. It becomes, "Look what I was able to capture -- wow!" versus "This is all I was able to do?" Of course, it all changes in the context of a time-sensitive/high pressure paid shoot, when you need all of the help you can get.

I was way off. A testament to modern phones, or possibly how much footage can be disguised if it's softened and grained out. I did notice the IBIS in some of your shots, which lead me towards the GX85 speculation.

Nice work! GX85?

Me, or the OP? I liked his grade too. For mine, it looked terrible OOC -- it always does with this camera. I just tweaked it until I got something I liked. I think I used FilmConvert on this (probably the second Vision3 option). Heavy grain does wonders to cover up an image that's been pushed beyond its comfort zone. And then I think maybe some flicker and film dust over top to help cover it up even more? I'm pretty sure that was it.

@PannySVHS Thanks. This one was one of my favorites too. She wrote the words and I shot the visuals, and then I did a same-day edit -- it never had a chance to overstay its welcome. The FZ-47 isn't equipped with wifi at all. I was able to get into the service menu once in the hopes of switching it over to a 50Hz/PAL camera (currently, it can only record 29.97, but I wasn't successful in doing that either. If there any avid camera hackers here, it would not be difficult to source an FZ47 to experiment with!

Great to see another FZ47 video! I like your treatment of the footage a lot. It looks different than just about everything else (obviously CMOS cameras, but it also stands apart from any of the HVX/ZIU/etc crowd too). Here's an earlier edit without Topaz: The image quality is riddled with problems, but I still find myself drawn to it. I agree with @PannySVHS; the video on this camera would have been a much more compelling feature with a higher bitrate. I wish this camera had been one of the Lumix bodies to be hacked back in the day.

I have control over AF speed with my Canon 24-105mm f4 ii on the C70. Don't know about the first version of the lens though.

Pretty cool! I had forgotten about that project. I'm glad that they are still out there. I checked their demo footage and it looks great. I went back to the Apertus homepage too. There two updates in the last year, and the most recent was five months ago. Maybe there's more going on than I realize, but they seem to have lost a lot of momentum.

Sorry for the redundant topic. I ran a search for it on this forum but didn't see anything. Maybe they weren't calling it "Cinepi" yet.

For anyone who wants to learn more about this project, here is the development thread: https://forums.raspberrypi.com/viewtopic.php?t=296776

Someone has been working with a Raspberry Pi high quality camera module to make their own 1/2"-sensor open source, raw-capable cine camera: Placed into a 3D-printed body, the components reputedly only cost $200 (this probably assumes that you already have a monitor of some kind). The demo footage is surprisingly good:

There aren't that many. Off the top of my head: Sony F35 - Super35 Sony SRW-9000PL - Super35 Sony Genesis - Super35 Digital Bolex D16 - Super16 Ikonoskop A-Cam dII - Super16 And then you get into 2/3" CCDs, and there are a ton of those. Here's a good place to look for the Sony models. On the Panasonic side, there were the HPX and Varicam bodies. Toshiba, JVC, and Ikegami also had 2/3 CCD cameras, but they were mostly standard definition. There were a handful of 1/2" CCD camcorders, mostly from Sony as I recall. 1/3" CCD sensors were mostly found in fixed zoom lens cameras like the HVX200, FX1, Z1U, DVX100, Canon XL/XH cameras, and some of the JVC GY cameras. But 1/3 sensors are pretty small. Compared to today's mirrorless cameras, these cameras were mostly very large and meant to be operated on shoulder or tripods. The smallest and most manageable of the bunch was the Digital Bolex, which now goes for around $7K used. The Sony F55 is a MOS sensor with global shutter, not a CCD camera. If you'd like to have a small CCD camera to try out, I'd recommend the diminutive and inexpensive Lumix FZ47 (FZ48 in the UK). It's fixed lens and can't record in 24P or 25P, but it does shoot in 1080P and the 1/2.3" sensor is larger than any of the 1/3" cameras. And the image stabilization is surprisingly good, which is useful for the ~600mm equivalent zoom. Here's some footage I shot: I personally love the camera, but I wouldn't say that the grain is good at all. If you freeze-frame the footage, you'll see a ton of temporal ghosting and macroblocking. But in motion, it's one of my favorites. And here are some of my photos with it (JPEG only, the camera does not shoot RAW): https://distanceandelevation.com/blog/2021/8/9/bandontoportorford

That was smart! I wish I had purchased more than one roll. It looks like B&H are sold out again after less than a week. Last time they were without for at least six months.

I love film too, though certain stocks are too grainy for me. Now that it's finally back in stock after months of waiting, I just bought my first roll of 250D. Now I need to find something worthy of $150+ for 2.5 minutes (and it's a test roll, since it will be my first time using my new Kodak K100). From other tests I've seen, 250D is the ultimate, perfect grain character.

Here are some C100 (i) tests I did that give an idea of the grain (download for a less compressed experience):

My 5Diii with ML Raw suffers from dancing green and magenta blocks. It's unchanged between ISOs 100 and 400, so I always shoot at 400. When I'm not pixel peeping or trying to bring up the shadows too much, I'm always happy with the overall image. I haven't used a 5Dii yet but I really liked some of the 50D stuff I was seeing back in the day.

I haven't gotten my hands on an R6 yet (and may not, due to overheating), but I saw a side-by-side comparison with the older EOS-R and the grain was MUCH nicer. And the C70 has the best noise/grain of any Canon I've used. I am very pleased with the noise up to ISO 800. At 1600, I can start to see just the faintest hit of vertical FPN. But 800 is plenty. And it's much better than the C200, which had horizontal FPN even at ISO 200 when shooting in CRL. I had a shoot with a Komodo and my R1MX last Fall. I really liked the Komodo for the most part. I wish I'd had it for longer so that I could have compared the two cameras, but the grain seemed very pleasing and well-controlled. But there's still something unique about the original MX that I didn't see in the Komodo. And it only cost me $3K for a complete build with batteries and media. Yes, the Alexa is very good in this regard. Interesting. I'll have to look into this further. I did a shoot with the 6K and remember it being a bit too noisy for my taste. But Blackmagic is all over the map. The BMPC was the worst I have ever seen. The BMMCC was pretty decent. It seems like pleasing grain is an often unsung benefit of higher-end cinema cameras, though I am secretly hoping that someone will tip me off to a consumer-level sleeper.

This is clearly a subjective question. To me, pleasing grain structure is well-defined, tight/small noise with no fixed patterns and as little green and magenta as possible. But please share your observations, even if your criteria for pleasing grain/noise is different. For me, I'm really liking what I'm seeing from the Red One MX. Unsurprisingly, none of my other recent or current cameras (C70, C200, EOS-R, 5Diii with ML Raw, G85, or EM10iii) comes close. It meets all of my criteria for pleasing noise/grain. But I'm also curious if there's anything smaller that does well in this area.