dahlfors

Great! Thanks for the clarification, Häns.

Hmm. I have rails already. But in the announcement it says "mounting ring ... with a 1/4 tripod female thread". That won't mount to the rails, which seems to be the handier way to mount something as big as the fm lens module and a schneider / ultrastar. So, Häns Punk. The one you linked, is that a rail mount added to the bottom of the mounting ring that would make it possible to attach it in a similar manner like in the FM Lens Module video? Am I understanding it correctly?

But on the other hand Christina, take a look at this thread: '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> That's one of the things I'd like for xmas :) Seems like it would be possible to get a nice look in harsh light with those filters.

It's a long time (10+ years ago) since Heliopan introduced this filter. Back then, there were quite a few digital cameras that picked up infrared light and didn't have proper filters. Things have improved over time, and today sensors filter out infrared light very well. Photographers who are into infrared photography stay away from the newer digital cameras and instead go for the older ones where the IR filter is a detachable filter placed just above the sensor that can fairly easily be removed manually. I've seen tests where using a UV filter supposedly turned the image a slight tiny amount more yellow than blue - such slight that it could have been a minuscule difference in white balance. In my own shots on Nikon D200 and D800 I have not been able to see any difference with UV or not, and I've had a few different brands of UV filters (Note: D200 is a CCD sensor camera, D800 is a CMOS sensor for comparison). So, not enough to convince me to use a UV filter for any other reason than for protection in rough environments. So unless you have a lot of extra money or shoot film or on a DSLR that is about 10 years old, I don't see a reason to get this filter.

Non-existent so far. I'd be pretty content with: - 10-bit colors - natural colors out of the box, but with high gradability - an efficient H.265 codec - possibility for user to customize output bitrate for different needs: 420/422/444, 8-bit/10-bit, perhaps possibility to set bitrates like 50/75/100 Mbps. - fairly portable camera (like A7S) - 4k and 1080p - high framerate mode around 100-120 fps in 1080p, variable framerates from 1-120. - full frame sensor, performing fine in s35 crop I kinda like the idea of REDRAW compression. You can customize the output format for maximum quality to work with in post, or keep a still very useful image but maximize the compression for storage efficiency. By using H.265 with some ways to tweak the output, I think you could get a format that is compressed yet flexible in post - and that could be tweaked to be less flexible in post but optimized for file size.

Also, If you really want to go the route of using DSLR's / mirrorless cameras, you'd want to get cameras with HDMI out, and then black magic intensity cards for transferring. It takes quite a lot of strain to transcode that video in realtime for broadcasting it, so don't expect power to last for very long on a normal laptop. There is also the possibility with certain camcorders (more common on the old ones that recorded to DV tape) to connect them through usb / firewire to a laptop and then using that video stream to transcode the video for live broadcasting.

I happen to work for Bambuser, a live video streaming service: http://bambuser.com The easiest and cheapest way today is to broadcast live through smartphones. As JohnVid says - you need a whole lot more hardware and good net connectivity at events if you want to broadcast from other video cameras. Which means you need ways to rig up power etc. You can actually do quite fancy stuff with multistream-mixing over 3G/4G connections with only ipads & smartphones already. We have some users who have used recolive and if you want multicam mixing on-the-go it seems to be a great alternative. Here's a stream from a production company that does all kinds of video productions: http://bambuser.com/v/4745696 They use recolive videomixing app (http://recolive.com) and film through iphones in that broadcast. The stream is sent to our servers. I believe it is possible to only use smart phones and ipads with recolive and Bambuser, and that you don't even need to bring a laptop for an event. In the above broadcast they used at least two iphones, and I think they used a laptop for video mixing it live. The absolutely cheapest way to stream would probably be with a smart phone and our Bambuser app. It's free (ad-based) for personal use, while you need a Premium account for companies/organisations etc that are broadcasting an event. Note that our app is not some kind of standalone app for live video streaming - our service is the whole package: smart phone app + server-side video transcoding, video storage and delivery to our site or video embed. Anything you do with our app goes through our servers, and then you can view the videos on our site or embed them on any site you want. I've worked at Bambuser and hence with a live streaming service for soon 4 years. I'm happy to be able to say that I honestly believe that our smart phone apps for broadcasting live video are unmatched by anyone else. And as a snowboarder and mountain biker myself: I don't think I'd want to use my big cameras around for such an event if I had a smart phone with good enough camera. What will make a bigger difference is if you get a solid handle attached to the phone to get rid of shaky movements - and if you hook up some better microphone. Also, the most stable internet connection with the fastest upload is the best choice - and I'd say, considering the quality of modern camera phones, more important than the choice of phone/camera. Which one that is, will depend a lot on where you live. Here in Stockholm you can get fairly nice stable upload speeds around 200 kB/s or so on 3G. 4G speeds far exceed that and performs very well.

And to clarify what I mean with not selling the product, but selling the experience / vision of what someone can do with it, here's a metaphore I guess will fit people of this forum: This is where all the searches takes you for A7S if you google for it, scroll down to overview: http://store.sony.com/a7s-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-zid27-ILCE7S/B/cat-27-catid-all-alpha-interchangeable - basically, tech specs outlining. Search for Blackmagic pocket cinema camera, and you end up here: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagicpocketcinemacamera - First a mood image, some text content, then a mood image with street scene of what you could shoot, then some text content. Imagine a person not knowing much about cameras, quickly scrolling through. They will surely be much more affected by the moody shots that tell about what they can do with the product, rather than the more clinical products shots and listing of specifications of the A7s, like it'd be a medical X-ray machine or such... Same thing will apply to the clients you get for a wedding. Most will not have a great knowledge about cameras or how to make a good film. But they will recognize emotions / moods.

Feedback / quick summary of thoughts: - The only colors that stood out from the reel that I'd improve would be the man's face at around 00:57. The face comes out as a bit too reddish in my opinion. - The logo animation: 1) I find the motion of it doesn't fit with the motion / fades of the rest. 2) Even if it matched the motion / fading / animation of the rest, I doubt it would add to the reel. I think an approach that doesn't distract people from the footage itself is better. - I'm a fan of minimalism and functionalism, so in a reel I find it most important that the footage itself stands out, and I find it does in your reel. Good colors, lovely compositions. The reel doesn't get tedious: it's interesting to look at. I find the minimalistic white text and the way it is used together with the footage a good mix. It adds a bit to the story, but doesn't distract the shots. - One thing I'm not sure about: the people speaking in the reel. I don't know if I'd keep it or remove it. It somehow brings me out of the mood of the rest of the reel. Suddenly it's like I'm watching a short film / doc out of the blue in a reel. I suggest testing it with just music and no voice audio and see what you think yourself is better. So as a summary, the reel I'd pretty much keep it as-is: I'd make my stance on the voice audio, as well as see what I can do to have the logo cleanly presented without having it distract from the footage, and I'd try to see if something can be done to the skin color of the man. Website: You are not selling the service of filming at events, you are not selling a 5 minute reel. You are selling the vision/idea to you possible clients of what you can provide to them = their emotions, their visions in their thoughts - what they believe that Matt can do for them. Keep that thought in your head at all times for a company site. If you keep it minimalistic and can manage to sell the feeling correctly in 5 seconds, you're half the way with your sell, people tend to be fairly convinced early on at a site (or early doubtful, first impressions matter). I can imagine a moody photo from behind the scenes at a wedding, as something that could be a great introduction, together with a bit of text and a shorter reel in a happier mood. Remember for such a trailer: you are selling the idea/vision of what kind of film you can make for them, something that should be true to how you work and what you can produce as well as the mood that they will want to associate to their wedding/event (in general tems happy/close/emotional). I've been working with web design and print for a long time now, was in advertising for a while before I headed back out to IT (where I still do some advertising, although more honest such :)). I just can't stress enough how the best tip I can give about selling something is that you should never ever sell a product, you are always more effective at selling the experience/idea of what the product can do. The right photos / moody video sequences, correct music and a little bit of text will get you a long way with that. (and yes, a lot of your footage has such quality, choose the suitable footage, set it with the right music and you'll be able to affect people into the right mood). If you don't have the perfect shot for a wedding, find something else that is emotional, that you think a person will be able to associate with the emotion they want to experience in the video they want. Or if you find you don't have anything fitting - maybe get out and shoot some event / wedding / party or something of your friends and use that. And keep in mind that you should be able to sell the idea of what you can do in 30 seconds. Great if you have a lot of longer material to watch for the people who really want to go through all of your material - but for most people, if you have picked the right things in short form, they will be enough convinced in 30-90 seconds (I wish I'd have the detailed statistics of how many people that just scroll the pages watching the photos of apple.com and how much of the text they read before committing to buy something. Those images that paint the vision of what you can do sell really well). Also, I don't think it's a bad idea at all to have more than one reel on a company/portfolio site. A much shorter one with a bit different mood, as earlier suggested in the thread, is not a bad idea at all if you want to do more shoots of weddings and such. It tends to be good to cater to people who want information quickly: images, video and a little bit of text that. Then there's also the kind of customers that do spend more time, checking things out thoroughly. They are the ones that will sit through a five minute reel, while many impatient people might quit after 20 seconds if you focus on communicating via a long reel. Gosh, wasn't such a short feedback as I thought I'd type. Hope this gives you a few ideas.

"Get ready for this" - I remember liking that song as a little boy... Didn't expect to hear that song today :) I like a lot of what I've seen from the A7S. My main nitpick with that camera is the Sony color science. When I compare the Sony colors to the Nikon colors that I'm so used to - there is something odd with the color science of Sony Alpha cameras. I've struggled with trying to get same color and same white balance out of my NEX-5R as I do with the stills from D800 or the near ancient D200. Since the struggle is there with raw, movie mode and jpegs, it's some other processing characteristic of the cameras that is the issue. With raw stills I've found that no matter what I do, there's some kind of cast that just isn't there on my Nikons (not even on the old D200). Colors seem off compared to what I saw when I captured the still and compared to the Nikons not mattering how I adjust the white balance in Lightroom. If I shoot a portrait on D800, I find in most light situations that I can tweak it and say that is very close to what I saw with my eyes at the scene. In good light / low ISO, D200 is usually not that far from what a D800 can achieve colorwise, I can get fairly close to natural colors. What I find with the Nex, is that I either have a magenta cast for the whole face, or I lose the reddish colors that you often find in shadow areas of a face as well as the reds for lips. Instead, the whole face has a uniform yellow/brownish skin color and a lot of skin color nuances are lost. If I want skin colors close to natural skin color, I'll have to resort to a lot more post-work than just adjusting a few sliders in Lightroom. Also, in dramatic/high contrast scenes, containing higher dynamic range: you just can't adjust white balance and expect the shot to look good all the way from deepest shadows to brightest highlights. You'll have to pick best white balance for midtones + highlights, or best white balance for midtones + shadows. I assume Nikon does some processing to create a better color / white balance output for the full dynamic range in their processing that Sony does not. In Brandon's video, as well as in many stills and videos from Sony alpha cameras, I can recognize these color tendencies that I've struggled with: getting skin tones natural looking in a variation of light conditions, getting nature scenes in dramatic/high contrast light to not have extra color casts. Don't take me wrong on this one. I like the A7S and what it can do. But I'd really love it if it came with Nikon colors out of the box. My ideal camera at the moment would be some kind of mirrorless blend of D750 and A7S, although the A7S as-is comes close. EDIT: Oh, and I forgot why I got interested in commenting in the first place - great shots Brandon! I really like the camera movements, brings such a natural organic feel to the footage. Is it mostly handheld? Monopod? Are you using stabilisation in post? I need to learn :)

I thought the original one was intended to be a parody? That's how I interpreted it at least.

Looks awesome! Make sure to keep us updated on this project :)

Unrelated to the A7S camera discussion - but great video Andrew! It's just interesting to keep watching the video for the effects. I find that it fits well together with the type of music. The editing and mixing in different speeds of the footage (the low shutter speed effect vs normal speed vs slowmotion) works great.

I've shot with AF-D lenses on D200 and D800, and if I bump the aperture from the smallest aperture I can produce that error message in certain modes as well (at least on the D200). Yet it works fine to use the aperture ring in fully manual mode (M). The error message should not affect the M mode, unless Nikon has on purposed disabled the lenses for Dxx00 series of cameras. The AF-D lenses work perfectly as mechanical lenses on older fully manual analog cameras, so I can't see why they would restrict them from being used fully manual on a D5300. If you can verify that the D5200 doesn't function in fully manual (M) mode with AF-D lenses - then D5300 will likely behave like D5200. I haven't shot enough with AF-D lenses on Nikon's lower end bodies to know their behaviour.

It's not about believing, it's about their testing methodology. Noone else on the net keep it as unbiased as dxomark. You can read about their methodology here: http://www.dxomark.com/About/In-depth-measurements/DxOMark-testing-protocols Keep in mind that the advantage of Sony sensors in DR is at ISO100 to ISO800. Quite a lot of people seem to miss that. Unless you shoot at ISO100 to ISO400 you won't really find huge differences in DR between a Canon and a Nikon (or any other camera with Sony sensor, except A7S which seems to be unusually good at keeping a high DR together with low noise at higher ISOs). Also, if you want maximum DR for stills on a Nikon, expose for the highlights. From the shadows you can pull a lot of detail without getting noise if you shoot at low ISO, while you can't get that much recovered from the highlights.

Really. Got something to back those words up with or are you just throwing out words? :) I have a lot of friends into photography / filming. I have yet to see one of them having a Nikon break down. Yet I have seen at least 20-25 Canons ranging from 550D and upwards to 5Dmk2 fail. Often within their warranties or just outside their warranty period.

D5300 will definitely have the best stills quality of all of those cameras. The key to the Nikon route is to find the right lenses. For video use, avoid the Nikon G ones. With other Nikon lenses you can change aperture at any time. Since it's an APS-C Camera I'd recommend getting the following set for video: AI-S 28mm f/2.8 50mm f/1.8 (either manual focus only AI-S or the autofocus version AF-D, both are great) AI-S 85mm f/2 All of these have filter thread at 52mm, which makes it easier when using polarizers, ND's etc. Since you can buy all of these lenses used, it is quite affordable - and all of those lenses are great. If you need an even longer lens, there are many good 105mm lenses. The difference between Nikon G lenses and the others that fit on the camera (AF-D, AI-S, AI) is that the G lenses lack aperture ring; aperture has to be set electronically from the camera body. On the AF-D, AI-S, AI lenses you control aperture mechanically on the lens. Also as Inazuma says - loupe is certainly needed on Nikon LCDs in sunlight.

It's silly when a gimmick like this is the whole concept of the film. The technique itself isn't bad, if you find a way to use it so it adds to the storytelling of a film. But used like in the trailer, it just feels like a scripted 3D shooter game - where you don't even get to control the character. I personally love the way Aronofsky used Snorricam in the film Pi, although I probably wouldn't want to see a whole film using only Snorricam. Filming with POV could certainly be used to enhance one effect or the other. One film that comes to mind is Being John Malkovich. Instead of having the black vignetting when people are inside John Malkovich, a POV camera angle could have worked well.

Oh how I wish this camera would have had some higher frame rate mode, a 96 fps mode like GH4, or a 120fps 720p mode like the old LX7. I'm considering getting the RX100 mk3 thanks to its 120 fps mode, but this camera is so much more tempting for using as a constant camera companion in all other aspects. Guess overheating is an issue when packing quad-core chip and the sensor in such a small body. But I can only hope they could enable a higher fps mode through firmware update, even if it would only be in 720p and limited to shorter sequences...

Personally if I had $1000 in budget for camera + $150 for lens as you have mentioned, I'd either do as tosvus say: 1) Get LX100 with an allround lens bundled with the camera, or 2) just buy the cheapest camera that has good quality video & photo mode - like Panasonic G6. Then I'd spend the rest of the money on lenses and other equipment.

There are photos of Rob Bannisters Iscorama after close focus mod: > I think both Rob and Rich have footage shot with the close focus mod on their vimeo accounts. This is the original thread for close focus mod, at least some sample shots at close focus in there: >

yoclay, Rich might be a bit busy and perhaps not reading this forum at the moment. But you can try and contact him at: http://dogschidtoptiks.co.uk/contact.html He has experience doing service and close focus mod on his own Iscorama and the Iscoramas of a few others in this forum. There is not that many people that have experience servicing Iscoramas. I know if I'd want some service done to mine, he'd be the first one I'd check with.

The sensor spot issue seemed pretty widespread and serious on D600, yes. If you for real consider a D600, I'd suggest reading up on the end result of that debacle on dpreview, nikonrumors and other suitable forums. I have a memory reading that some D600 users had to send back cameras many times - and after the 4th time Nikon sent out a D610. Perhaps that's Nikon's procedure, perhaps not. Expect that there could be oil spot issues with a D600 at least. I love full frame as well, but I'd personally suggest waiting for used D800 prices to drop (they are low already for what you get, but not at D600 price levels). Or perhaps wait for the prices of D750 to come down a bit and go for that one.

Seems like the T4 comparison is not made equally if I'm not mistaken. Check '> vs '> Look out the window at the tree and look at the plant to the right. This does not look like focus is "slightly off" as stated in the article. It rather looks like you are comparing them with the lens set at different apertures. If aperture actually was the same in your setup, there's some serious softness in the Lens Turbo. No wonder the sharpness seems to be the same in the 400% closeups either - they both link to the same photo. Also: I'd turn down the digital sharpening in camera when comparing sharpness of focal reducers, I can see that it's still on, producing halos. Edit: I noticed that the 400% file for the lens turbo is actually uploaded to your site if I change the URL manually... It's just your page that links the same image twice. Interesting test. I was in the same boat and didn't want to skimp out on optics, so I went for the speedbooster when I got mine. Looks like the Lens Turbo holds up nicely for 4K resolution and is a viable affordable alternative.

There's a lot of dual focus lenses that look good. But to me it was too much extra in the workflow for alignment, dual focusing. Not the kind of fast workflow that suits me. 1) The cheap solution: Get some affordable 2x anamorphic adapter like the above-mentioned Sankor, Schneider Cinelux or Isco Ultrastar. The FM lens module that comes out soon should make these a bit easier to handle thanks to rail mount system and single focusing. 2) Expensive and rare/hard-to-get solution: The Iscorama 36 is wonderful. 1.5x anamorphic adapter. Very hard to find a replacement if you'd damage it. 3) Solution if you're patient: If you can wait for a while, there's also the SLR Magic 2x anamorphic coming in the near future. Andrew had an article with test footage from an early prototype if you check the archive on EOSHD. Personally I really love the look that you get out of 2x anamorphics. Nothing bad about the 1.5x image out of the Iscorama - it's lovely as well, but the 2x look is something I tend to prefer. Hence I'm considering getting the FM lens module as well... And I really recommend finding some way of buying the anamorphic guide. The guide + this whole forum + the anamorphic lens-yclopedia that this forum put together are the best resources I've found on anamorphic lenses. Here's a link to the anamorphic lens-yclopedia: https://drive.google.com/a/bambuser.com/folderview?id=0BzVcUB-5ReiZajVncE9rYU9heDQ&usp=sharing#