Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by richg101

  1. tbh for anything bigger than 4k mode on gh4 and slow lenses there are slim pickings.  Everything available is for small chip use.    Hence why I had to go through all the effort of manufacturing the ff38 and trump38 attachments.  I've been looking at the ultra wide attachment recently released by sony for the 28mm/2 fe lens.  this might be an option for those using anamorphics with small front elements.  however it looks as if the electronic connections force the 28mm main les down to f2.8 in order to stop users trying to go as wide as f2 and getting poor results.  The FF38 and TRUMP38's are the only wide angle attachments that really deliver good performance wide open at f2 (or even f1.4), but the use of the ff38 is limited to 50mm on full frame or equivalent.    

  2. has sony finally made the ultimate vimeo camera test camera? I can't wait to see lots of slow motion shots of grass blowing in the wind or some drab english beach, set to some pirated music. Meanwhile, trying to assess this as a filmmaking camera: all the footage I've seen looks horrible.

    to quote Ricky Gervais...   "It's better to create something that others criticise than to create nothing & criticise others".

  3. shooting magic lantern on the 5dmk3 with sharp and fast primes and using the greatest sensor height you can (ideally the full 24mm height), alongside 2x anamorphics for a 2.75;1 delivery is about as close as you gonna get.  however you'll not be able to match the out and out field of view since most projection anamorphics are not designed for wide angle use.  


    at the moment the closest thing you gonna get to the look of ultra panavision 70 is an a7sii in full frame 4k mode with a iscorama 54 and a fast 45mm taking lens.  this will get you pretty darn wide and with a 2.66:1 ratio and less pronounced oval defocus, as well as fine grain from the 4k low noise sensor.    

  4. Until Canon ditch the ef mount and give us an adaptable mount the real cinematographers will never take to the canon c series no matter how good the image is.  It's about the glass.  Anyone happy with shooting a movie on L series lenses doesn;t put enough attention to detail into the overall image.  The number of wedding videos I;ve seen falling fowl to Canon C series cameras and L lenses is amazing.  This little fs5 will allow a full set of oct18 lenses to be used and regardless of the codec it'll look great.


    The Sony FS7 and now the FS5 offer the most comprehensive optical options for cinematographers.  The e-mount - ef  metabones allows the normallows to shoot with the L Series glass they acquired before moving from 'still photography to video', and the fun adaptors from e-mount to Leica, PL, Oct-18, etc etc etc etc etc allow the cinematographers the ability to shape their image with the nice glass.     





  5. BMPCC is going to be a classic. A second version with the global shutter and a better LCD for $1000 would be great.

    Not close to RAW but try the c-mount adapter on your A7rii with 4k S35 and clear zoom. You can have great 1080p output and stabilize these c-mount lenses... 

    I've been looking forward to trying this - I saw your tests with great excitement:)  Just not had a chance to put it into practice myself yet!  Pixel density, is a close match and since the a7rii has such good iq and colour it's probably going to be a close second against the bmpcc for overall performance.  being able to crank the a7rii up to 6400 withut much noise may well provide some advantages in low light over the bmpcc, and could make up for the lack of 10/12bit colour.      

  6. The  trail is is being blazed.

    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Amazing!  I recon they could get things down drastically smaller with some more refined design.   now that thing could be designed to go straight onto the shoulder without any need for rigs or other stupid expenses.  It seems bmcc must have done a deal with the cage makers (make it appauling to use without a cage so people buy a cage to make it usable)  - the method behind this guys efforts is exactly how the bmcc should have been made originally.  a grip or position to mount a grip, a shoulder support and a flip screen and loupe for shoulder work.




  7. Really surprised they didn't do more with that sensor. I know they had issues wit the supplier early on, I hope that didn't put them off. The 2.5K sensor is incredible. It just needed to be in a different body. Smaller with decent ergonomics and without the need for a brick of a battery.

    BMPCC was a nicer form factor. Great image.

    For me it is a shame Blackmagic haven't brought out a BMCC V2 and another pocket. The Micro cameras are interesting, but they are not really cameras... just a cam head.

    The URSA is pro and not so much mirrorless / enthusiast.

    Bit of a shame really! Because they started something wonderful with the first 3 cameras.

    Now the bmcc m4/3 version seems to be appearing more on the preowned market I recon it could be a rather fun rehousing project - if only I had the time!! - reworking into a more ergonomic setup with no internal battery or screen, in exchange running with a little evf.  the sensor/lens mount is on a ribbon cable so could probably be swung 90degs to give a longer thinner camera rather than a lump of cheese with a lens on the widest face.  


  8. Better then Cavision, or Trump anyways :)

    And you have to be completely retarded to shoot 50mm on 2/3" with WA adapter on

    please share some examples of those small sensor wide angle lenses providing adequate iq on large sensors and I'll eat my head.  you recommend a brand who manufacture attachments for consumer camcorders.  they are not capable of working on large sensors.  Period.  It sounds to me like you googled 'best wide angle attachments' and posted the first brand you found.    http://www.zunow.tv/     

  9. When selecting a taking lens for an anamorph it's worth researching what the original taking lens would have been.  and if there are various options you want to go for the middle focal length or the one the lenses are typically used on.  


    So researching your cinelux 2x anamorphic lens you'll see that there are many focal length primes available for projection.

    as far as I can see, the gold cinelux 2x anamorphics could be paired with anything from 42.5mm/2 up to 100mm/2 from a range of primes.  They'll have therefore designed the lens to perform best at the mid point.  =70mm, (or they may have been designed to work best with a specific focal length to project from a certain distance onto a certain size screen.)


    However lets assume they went with the most obvious solution - design for 70mm primes with enough performance to cater for a different focal length.


    So lets say the best performance can be had from the cinelux at 70mm/f2 on s35mm (aps-c for simplicity)  on full frame to match the performance closely you'll want a 100mm/2.8 on full frame.   


    So assuming you went with something close to a 70mm/2 as a typical lens it would mean you could get away with using it in aps-c for optimal IQ or when used on full frame you could close down to 70/2.8 and get similar fov and perfomance to that you would expect from the schneider 42.5mm/2 prime (which would be considered 'within spec' by the schneider techs in terms of performance. 


    Performance is always better from projection anamorphics with double gauss designs (all of the schneider projection lenses are of this design).  I think the closest 'full frame capable' lens that is affordable and gets close to the optimal 70mm/2 focal length, while also being a double gauss design is a medium format 80/2.8 like a biometar 80/2.8.  You will find 75mm/2 lenses which closely match the criteria but they're rare and often made by collectable brands.  


    If you can live with moderate vignette on full frame then go with a late helios 44 - a helios 44-3 or later will have multi coatings that match the coatings on the cinelux very well.  aps-c with the helios 44-3 will deliver outstanding results only slightly less refined than my estimated optimal 70mm FL



    Thanks in advance for your assistance.  P.S. I will be doing photography as well as film with this setup. 

    this makes performance even more important since viewers tend to need more refined in focus areas when you're shooting stills.  I still think the helios 44-3 is a superb option and only slightly out of optimal spec for aps-c.  and only slightly pushing things on the wide end.  however the drop in iq will be at the edges anyway and will likely be a desirable aesthetic (particularly for portraits) 


  10. I'm a huge fan of the bmpcc.  It's the ONLY camera that fulfilled the needs of my FORBES70 prototype camera in terms of DR, low light performance, resolution, compatibility with adapted specialist lenses, solid codecs, etc.   since the bmpcc's release there has yet to be anything that comes close to its overall performance when paired with fast modern c-mount lenses.


    The sheer number of so-called high end cinematographers interested in FORBES70 but who disregard it based on that fact that the internal camera is a BMPCC is amazing.  Also those who complain about anything the camera does visually are asking far too much.  £800 for the best picture available from any camera in the price bracket where re-mortgaging isn't required to make a purchase.     

    https://vimeo.com/136554487 password : fbs

     I hope the bmmcc does the same amazing job and better!

  11. hahahaha.  it would appear i was (and am) tired and confused.  I've been looking at mtf's for an anamorphic (with 3 charts for points of reference on the vertical plane rather than a single diagonal).  My Y fields have been horizontals of late.

    on the subject of speed boosters...

    What are your opinions of this upcoming kipon medium format focal reducer?  There's been heated debate as to whether it's worthwhile or not.  Are you of the belief that if a focal reducer is designed and manufactured within a typical budget for consumer sale and with enough focal reduction to present the exact same fov it can replicate exactly the look of the lens fitted to its original format?


    for instance..  If you had a 80mm/2.8 planar and took a photo on a 645 frame of full 56mm width, then took that same 80mm lens and put it on a focal reducer with enough magnification change to compress that same image circle onto a 24mmx36 frame, would the two render the fov/depth of field exactly the same?  or would you expect the dof rolloff to render differently?            


    Either you've been over engineering your lenses, or I'm tired and confused:)    I just checked sensor specs and based on sizes of the bmpcc sensor and the area used on the gh4 (UHD, 16:9 mode) I'm seeing a pair of different corner reference points on your chart.  obviously that steep droop towards the farthest edge of the field is still there, but with the two reference points moved to the sensor horizontal edges based on what I'm seeing from the sensor data then things look a lot more promising on both the gh4 and the bmpcc..

    Just to clarify, your Y axis is the horizontal and not the diagonal isnt it?  if so, the new pink line I've added shows 6.25mm from sensor edge (bang on the edge of the bmpcc sensor's 12.5mm width), and the orange line plots the edge of the gh4 sensor area used in 4k 16:9 mode (15.65mm pickup area width).    




  13. The 0.58x BMPCC Speed Booster is designed to cover an image circle of about 15mm diameter, which is slightly larger than the BMPCC sensor diagonal.  Aberration correction is extremely good within this 15mm diameter, as is the relative illumination.  However, for the GH4 4k mode you need to cover at least 17.4mm.  Assuming you don't damage your camera by trying to mount the BMPCC S.B. on a GH4, you will encounter vignetting and significant image degradation in the corners.  I do not recommend trying this.  By contrast, the new m43 XL Speed Booster will cover the entire m43 format, not just the reduced 4k crop, and you won't have any problems with image quality.  The difference between the BMPCC and XL is only 1/3 stop.

    I think you should be more trusting of your superb optical work:) - particularly when in the context of what we're discussing here.  My personal opinion is that the advantage of pushing your bmpcc sb glass beyond its limits offers a shooter quite drastic fov imprvements for shooters of the gh4 in 4k mode who use slr glass.  And a 1/3rd of a stop gain in transmission is also a great advantage in keeping iso's lower on the gh4, or the abilty to close a lens down even by 1/3 of a stop is advantageous when it comes to feeding such densely packed pixels on the gh4.  Obviously i understand criteria for the speed boosters would have been initially to deliver an optic capable of providing as close to the full frame look on aps-c as was possible.  The original critique from reviewers would have been to compare a full frame camera vs the nex7 and the original speed booster and if the original sb for nex-ef had fallen short the sb range from metabones would have fallen flat at the offset.  

    With regard to video I think the moderate drop in iq at the edges just from my experiences with the sb ultra, the bmpcc 0.58x unit and the bmcc unit, pushing them beyond their intended uses, I think the degradation (if visible) is nothing that will get in the way of story telling and the above advantages I mention I think are worth taking risk and a hit on optical quality for.  I mean ultimately the centre performance remains more or less intact.  and a change from 15mm to 17.4mm diagonal is also such a small amount, cropping the 16:9 sensor area to 1.85:1 will take the diagonal closer to the ideal.

    Just my open minded, care free opinion from a video pov.  I wouldn't use such techniques for a wide landscape shot where edge performance was of importance to me - nor would I use a focal reducer in any case for such activities.  But if someone gave me a gh4 and the option of both the XL and the 0.58x unit and a limited range of lenses in the wide end for a video assignment where lighting might be on the cusp of pushing it too far I know I'd always reach for the 0.58x knowing it would do more than adequately.  conversely if i were a stills photographer looking to use a nice set of contax zeisses (the 21mm/2.8 for instance) on a gh4 for stills in full sensor mode the Xl would be my first choice since i'd be very near the same fov and performance of the 21mm/2.8 on a full frame sensor.





  14. Why risk damaging your camera when you can get the Metabones Speedbooster XL?

    because in 4k mode the 0.58x speed booster gives almost half a stop more light and quite a lot more fov for the same lens.  in 4k mode the sensor crop is about the same size as the bmpcc sensor.  There's only a risk to those who use it without the shutter disabled in silent mode.  on paper and if the performance is similar to that from the 0.58x unit when used on the bmpcc.  the gain would be pretty great and the risk is minimal if care is adhered to.  

     Hell, if I had a gh4 and the sb 0.58x unit I;d probably have pulled the shutter leafs out of the camera already!  

  15. There is no way of doing this without pissing off many, many Atomos Shogun owners. Also, would you be happy knowing you had a 4K body all this time, but were "locked out" of the feature?


    when sony developed the internals of the A7S, and priced the unit to cover their development expenses and earn a profit they will have also factored in that the tech from the first a7s could be transferred into a new model.  If the a7S had all of the features of the A7Sii then it would have had to have been priced higher to accommodate for their inability to sell as many a7sii's later down the line to recoupe initial development costs.

    The only people who suffer from product disabling are those who buy an initial unit and watch the rumours sites for the next model rather than going out and using their purchase and enjoying it and/or earning money from their work.  The idea is that you buy a piece of equipment and use it enough to warrant the purchase for the year it is current.  if being at the height of technology is important then the £500 loss from reselling a year down and getting the next model is worth it.  Unfortunately it's no longer the consumer products that are pushed and sold to us liike consumers (most of us here are consumers - A consumer is someone who spends more money/exerts more time on the act of buying an item than they do of acting out the endeavour that they planned to use the item for).  You just have to see how much consumer marketing is used on the RED Raven.  it's the price of a mortgage deposit on a basic property, yet from the marketing it feels like they're selling a computer game to a 15yr old or a bottle of aftershave or a gym membership to a ponce in his mid 20's.


    The key to happiness in all this is to stop reading the rumours sites.  you'll make a lot more use out of your camera since you'll never know the latest model has a new feature purposefully placed their to appeal to the consumer within.









  16. My tests were conducted in US with 110.

    The charger you linked on Ebay is slightly different from the one included with the A7SII.  The form factor is similar, but the one included in the box has an articulating mains plug built into the unit -- as opposed to a receptacle for an appliance cord.

    It does seem like an unreasonable amount of time.  Maybe I have a bad charger.

    Anyone else seeing similar charging times with the 

    very interesting.  as I recall...

    nex3 - came with the charger i linked to on ebay

    nex5 - as above

    nex5n - as above

    a7r - the small unit as shown on the sony store link (i think it may have been powered by USB - this was horrific)

    a7s - as the a7r but with a proper 110/230v ac plug on a wire, and with two batteries 

    a7rii - charger the same as the ones I got with the NEX's.


    It's worth trying the one on the ebay link.  I recon it does around 1hr from 'battery exhausted' to when the orange charge light turns off and you're at 100%.


  17. But isn't that showing how small the differences are between S35 and FF? 

    Especially with the shallow DoF that adds to the FF "look" you would be hard pressed to find any differences at all. 

    What am I missing here Rich? 

    my point of focus was the 'zenit' text on the camera body.  at 100% the difference in refined sharpness is pretty drastic.  assuming that was a shot of a face where the eyes needed to be tack sharp while still with the same background defocus then the full frame shot owns.   It's the fact that the in focus area is twice as refined, while the amount of defocus is the same.  


    it's also very clear how the step between the foreground and the background is a lot more crisp and abrupt meaning the objects in the foreground pop out of the frame a bit more.  It is slight but the difference is there to see and is enough to warrant going a7sii if it means enough to a video shooter looking for the ultimate refinement in fov/dof control.  

    The shot was a contax cy 50mm/1.4 at f2.8.  So on full frame it was a 50mm/2.8.  and with the speed booster it was a 35.5/2.  I had to crop the edges of the frame on the full frame shot too (since it was still wider by quite a margin due to the sb ultra still not delivering a complete reduction of crop factor)  



  18. I think I have a different point of view.

    The A7R II is really a Super 35mm camera.

    The A7S II is really full frame.

    The 4K in full frame on the A7R II is very poor in low light, can't even do ISO 3200 nicely and the moire & aliasing will always bite you when you least expect it.

    So Super 35mm vs full frame, very different look.

    Speed Booster Ultra is a good solution for the A7R II but I still think it looks pretty different.

    Looking deeply into it at the moment with some real world shooting.

    I agree.

    Speed booster on my a7rii is close to full frame but not the same.  I can live with the slight drop in overall 'full frame magic' in video mode, but whenever taking stills I'd always go full frame.  Would be nice if the a7rii full frame video mode was as good as the aps-c mode!  



    one shot is full frame, the other is aps-c.  the one with the more refined focus is the full frame mode.  being the SB Ultra I expected the aps-c mode to outdo the full frame mode but as you can see..   









  19. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Genuine-Original-SONY-BC-VW1-Charger-for-NP-FW50-Battery-NEX-3C-NEX-5C-NEX-5-/251487959645?hash=item3a8dd9ba5d:g:62QAAOxy0zhTNFeB

    I've never timed the charging, but I estimate around 1hour from completely discharged to full from this charger.  I have four of these units running off a 4 way ac plug.  I'd never look back.  This was the unit they originally supplied with the NEX cameras.  

    the current charger http://www.sony.co.uk/electronics/interchangeable-lens-cameras-batteries-chargers/bc-trw is a significant step down from the original.  I used it once and decided to keep using the older chargers I'd acquired with my NEX's.



    Have you tried the older unit?  Looks like the supplier above has a batch of new old stock..  worth grabbing!  





    Sony Charger Included with A7SII Camera:  Free
    Charged via AC Power Mains
    Time to Full Charge:  3 Hours 50 Minutes


    interesting! - are you running 110vac in the USA or 230vac in EU?  I get an hour from this unit from 230vac.  I wouldn't have thought it would make a difference though! 

  20. That's actually great work by Sony, surprised it was even possible. It really does narrow the gap between the A7SII and the A7RII though. Video wise, the A7SII has better ISO performance and SLOG 3, the A7RII has two 4k modes and better auto focus.

    true,  but I'd go on step further and say that 25600 on the a7rii in s35mm mode and a speed booster will actually outdo the a7sii at 25600 with the same lens in terms of overall image quality since for the same exposure the said lens could be closed down by one stop (to gain an optical advantage) or the a7sii would need to be set to 51000iso to match the exposure- I find with my a7s that 25600 is generally the top level I'd wanna go for good images.  I can't think of an instance where 25600 wasn;t enough. generally 12000-16000 is the peak I;ve ever had to go.    

  • Create New...