Julian

They already 'sold' a 100 without it even existing (on kickstarter).   Filming in raw isn't that nostalgic. How many options are there for $3K? It's either BMCC or this.   There is a market for small sensor camera's like the Ikonoscop, Si 2K, which are like three times as expensive. Slumdog Millionaire was shot on the Si 2K. The sensor in the Digital Bolex is a bit bigger.   4:3 mode is very nice for 2x anamorphic shooters. There's nothing comparable on the market.   Anyway, I don't think they'll sell boatloads, but do they have to? It's a Kickstarter project after all.

  Both these things I really liked about the movie. Of course I knew about slavery, but I have never seen it depicted in such a confronting way. It was gruesome to see at some points (and no, i'm not talking about gore).   Tarantino's way of presenting it in a form of 'entertainment' is perfect in my opinion. It made it bearable to watch, it made it appeal to a big public.   I left the theatre with mixed feelings. Not about Tarantino, the violence, or the movie. I love the movie. I couldn't care less for this whole debate about violence. But watching this specific piece of history made me feel a bit uncomfortable.   It did that even though the movie is spectacular, very funny at points and over the top most of the time (like Tarantino's movies are supposed to be). And that's exactly what I applaud.

Look at this topic: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/2170-iscorama-vs-iscomorphot-8-2x-vs-iscomorphot-8-15x/ Anamorphic is actually pretty appealing with more depth of field. You still get a very specific look. No need for super fast lenses imo.   Anyway, I'm pretty sure you can get pretty good results with the Kowa B&H and big apertures. I have one myself, didn't shoot much footage with it wide open, but also didn't see much trouble with it. You can find plenty of footage on vimeo. Also see Andrews test: http://www.eoshd.com/content/558/kowa-anamorphic-lens-review   There are different Kowa lenses though, the Kowa Bell & Howell isn't the same as the Kowa 8Z/16D.

1: Just multiply the width of your frame by 1,75x (or divide the height by 1,75x) so in 1080p you should scale to either 3360x1080 or 1920x617, this will give you the correct aspect ratio: 3.1:1. Pretty wide indeed, if you want 2.35:1 you'll have to crop.   3: I'm not sure if the EF 85mm 1.2 has internal focus. If it doesn't that means the front of the lens moves during autofocus, in that case probably the weight of the anamorphic restrains the autofocus from moving the lens?

@JBraddock: it makes perfect sense. The 35mm AF-S will be a bit more cumbersome to use while filming, because you can't change aperture in live view. So the manual lenses are the better choice. The 35mm will be great for photography (autofocus) though.   If I were you I would add a 50mm as well. You can get a 50mm AF-D 1.8 or the small E series 50mm pancake for cheap. Or a nice bright 50mm f/1.4 if you can afford it.   The 85mm is going to be pretty long because of the crop factor. Also you might want a wider lens. 28mm x 1,5x will give 42mm fullframe-equivalent.

Why would that correlate to the M43 Speed Booster in any way? The FAQ says it's due for april.   Was it an official Twitter account? They're not on Facebook (sadly), I follow Metabones Korea (a reseller), which has interesting news sometimes.

Primes. Bright primes.   Cheap: buy an adapter and search on ebay for cheap manual lenses, like a 24mm f/2, 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2 (or brighter... depends on how much you want to spend). Finding a cheap (ultra)wide angle is more difficult. You could go with a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for example.   Reasonably affordable, new: Samyang 24mm T1.5, 35mm T1.5, 85mm T1.5   Pretty expensive, very bright: Voigtlander Nokton 17,5mm f/0,95, Nokton 25mm f/0,95m Nokton 50mm f/0,95   Buy the M43 speed booster (check the topic on the forum)(check the topic on the forum) when it arrives in April, to make your lenses wider and brighter. It won't work on the Nokton's.   The options are almost endless... it really depends on what you want and how much you want to spend. I'd say start experimenting with cheap second hand stuff. If you really like a certain focal length, think of investing in a more expensive (brighter) alternative.

Same footage as a few post above, this time with funky color grading (DaVinci Resolve Lite), some grain and unsharp mask (Premiere).   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4uvTbWXhV0

It does 25p, no 50 or 60 though.

My quick try here, grading some night footage I had.   Mostly color curves in DaVinci, added some grain and sharpness in premiere. Used the same grade on all clips.   Couldn't get much blue in it, there wasn't much information in the blue channel cause the original image is pretty yellow and shot at high iso.   Original clip here.

  Ah, I see. I'd prefer 35mm (equivalent) as a general purpose focal length if I had just one option. Completely agree on the need for a nice 18mm-ish dslr pancake. I like the EF-M Canon 22mm f/2, shame there's no such thing for Canon EF.   @Hoodlum: the Sigma doesn't fit in your pocket. So imo you can't really compare it. Instead of the Sigma you could also get a NEX-6/7 with the Sigma 19mm lens. You'd basically have the same lens, an excellent EVF, a fast/responsible camera (the Sigma is truly horrible in that aspect), you can swap lenses, you get usable results at anything over iso 200 etc. The Foveon sensor is great at low iso's.. but it is a camera with so many quirks.   If only it would shoot proper video... ;)

Nice. Surprised by the lack of distortion of the 24mm. I noticed it more in the 50mm shots!

Probably a 35mm f/2 aps-c-equivalent is harder (impossible?) to make in such a pocket-able size.   The Fuji X100/X100S is quite a lot bigger. Although I like the Fuji's, in a way I think they are kinda pointless. They are small, but not pocket-able. So you'd need to carry a bag anyway, which means you could be carrying an compact interchangeable system as well.   That's why I really like the RX100, it's unique because it fits in your jeans or jacket without being cumbersome. The Coolpix A probably qualifies the same, but with this lens it indeed looses most of the advantage of the bigger sensor.

Conorus: Can you give any info on the micro four thirds Speed Booster? what mounts will be available? EOS - M43, active and or dumb? When can we expect it and where can I pre-order? ;)   If there'd be some kind of newsletter which would let me know instantly when it is available.. I'd love to get that! Can't wait to get my hands on the Speed Booster magic.

Nice footage, I love the Speed Booster... the whole concept keeps amazing me even after it's been out for a while. Can't wait to get my hands on a M43 version :)   But... iso 1600/3200 @ f/1 equivalent is not completely dark imo. A f/1.2 lens on a speedbooster (@ f/0.9) on a FS100 @ iso 12.800 by moonlight on a cloudy day, that would be dark ;) Would love to see that.

If you edit red, my gut says go for a high end card like a 580 or 680. I don't have experience with such files, but I suppose you're working in 4K/5K, those benchmarks are based on lousy 1080p ;)

Or a response to the RX100.. at a higher price point and without zoom ;)   I think I would choose the RX100 over this, even if it were the same price. Ok, the Sony has a smaller sensor, but it has f/1.8 on the wide end.   Anyway, it's a good development. After the RX100 the second truly pocket-able big sensor camera. I'd love to see more of those.  

I like the look as well. I'm going to try to do something similar with my n00b DaVinci skills. I think it should be possible with color/contrast corrections.

I'm fairly new to video, grading etc. I haven't done any heavy grading since I got the card, so can't give you the best advice on that.   According to the benchmark topic you can run DaVinci with 4 blur nodes at 24 fps, 8 blur nodes drops to 19 fps. I've never even used the blur node, it's a complicated node that requires a lot of gpu power I think. With a GTX 580 you can run 24 fps with 16 blur nodes. I don't think i'd ever get to that amount of nodes anyway...   I think the Geforce 5 series have about the same power as the 6 series for GPU computing, but the 6 series run with less power, which means less heat = less noise. The 6 series don't use much when idle, you can any of them real quiet if you invest in a good aftermarket cooler I think. I'm running a MSI card with standard double fan. In most reviews it is rated as pretty quiet, but it is the most noisy component of my system (i5 2400 with Scythe cooler, 16GB, 2 HDD's and 1 SSD)   If you're getting a GTX 580/680, also take in account the heavy (and reliable) PSU you'll need. I'm running my GTX 660Ti on Seasonic M12II 520W. When choosing a PSU, don't just look at the watts, the efficiency is more important (80 Plus rating). What PSU do you have now?   If you don't mind the cost and the power consuming, the 580/680 is of course the better choice. If you really need it, I don't know... :-)

What's the pricing gonna be? I see an offer for 10 gbp off on facebook, but 10 off what? :)

I understand that, but how come in photography we have iso 100 - 6400 (or something like that) as native iso values, and in video there is only one native iso setting which is somewhere halfway the iso range? In photography the 1D C (or 1D X or any other high iso camera) doesn't suffer from bad quality on lower iso values. It's the opposite: the lowest values are always the best. Even on low light kings like the Nikon D3s etc. How come it doesn't work like that for video?   By the way, this new sensor has a pixel pitch of 19 microns. If it is fullframe, i'd say the sensor is 36mm wide. That would be 36000 microns. Divide 36000 by 19, and this sensor will have about 1895 pixels? I suppose they could stretch it a bit and fit 1920 pixels inside of it. But the max. resolution will be 1080p it seems.    I double checked this math with the numbers from the C300, 3840 pixels x 6,4 (pixel pitch) = 24576 microns = 24,576mm.

I have a GTX 660Ti 2GB, it's reasonably quiet (when idle) and rather cheap. The performance of this card is below the 580/590 etc, but the price/performance is quite good. It can be had rather cheap (€250). For me a more expensive card wasn't an option.   A lot of cards aren't officially compatible with Adobe Premiere CS6, the whole GeForce 6 series isn't certified (yet) by Adobe so it won't run GPU accelerated by default, but you can easily fix that by changing a config file.    Here you can find a lot of benchmarks with different cards: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/277/20501

Shot some more with the Anamorphic lens cap. Still experimenting. Tried some focus pulls.   http://vimeo.com/61045763   Panasonic GH2 - Driftwood Moon Trail 5 hack (HBR 25 fps) Minolta 58mm f/1.4 - mostly at f/2.8, some at f/2 and f/4. ISO 160 - 2500. Footage is ungraded, I did apply unsharp mask though.

  I come from a photography background, so this whole native iso thing confuses me a bit. In photography, the base iso is always 100 or 200. You will get the best result on such iso values. Best dynamic range, least noise, etc. Some dslr's you can pull to iso 50 (or 100 from 200) and indeed the quality on such values is worse than the native iso range. This is more of an issue at higher values though, the usual 'high' or 'extended' iso-ratings.   I've seen this 'native iso' term being dropped more often. It's like in video you only have one native iso setting? In photography you would say you have a native iso range of 100 to 6400, and you can pull to 50 and push to 12800 and beyond, for example. But I get the understanding that for video you have only one native iso value and that every other value is just pushed or pulled (on the BMCC for example). Why is that?   It especially surprises me that you mention the 1D C in this regard. It has the same 18 megapixel sensor as the 1D X, right? The 1D X surely gives the best results at it's lowest iso values. How would that be different with the 1D C?

This is both on the GH3? The second video looks perfect. The detail at T1.5 is fine, don't you think? Yes, it gets a bit better / more contrasty at T2, but that is normal.   The first video doesn't look very sharp indeed. Fact is that if you dial down sharpness all the way on the GH3 you get a softer image, but still, it looks a bit too soft maybe. It could be that the focus is a little off. Since your second sample looks fine, I don't think there's anything wrong with the lens.   So you say on your Canon 7D it is sharper?