Julian

Squeeze factor changing because of the focus distance? That sounds quite inconvenient... Is it possible at all?
If I squeeze the still to 3,55:1 (16:9 x2) it looks more natural.

Very nice gear. Love how those lenses look.
The aspect ration in the still with Lily & Niklas seems a bit off though?

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350306538' post='19779']
quick question,... sensor size and crop factor wouldnt affect how much of a squeeze we get would it?
[/quote]
Nope, it doesn't.
Nice lens you got there. Looking forward to see some footage.

Is'nt the 50i footage 25p in a interlaced wrapper (from 25p sensor output) by any chance? Then you can just treat the files as 25p, it works like that with my Panasonic GF3.

/Edit: I'm pretty sure it's just the wrapper. Downloaded some interlaced footage (60i) from [url=http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-rx100/sony-rx100VIDEO.HTM]here[/url]. Just loading it into a 30p project works fine.

I see in the specs there is a 1440x1080 30/25 fps mode, in MP4, with a whopping 12 Mbps.

But the pixel aspect ratio will probably be 1,33x so it gives a 16:9 ratio anyway. Would it be possible to change those pixels to square and get 4:3?

The 2336 x 1752 4:3 mode is nice for anamorphics.

http://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/qa/2012_3q/index.htm

Q: What can you tell about the sales of the Nikon 1 series?

A: Although we received some negative feedback in connection with the size of the image sensor for Nikon 1 at the time of launch, as customers experienced the quality of the AF response time, movie recording, picture quality and body size, the Nikon 1 has been highly appreciated. As a result, the J1 model achieved top market share in the United States, from 11 countries across Europe and in China for the month of December and we believe this product will trigger steady demand in so-called mirrorless interchangeable lens camera market. We plan to continue to expand on this market by adding more attractive features and building on our product lineup in the future.

Anyway.. I'd love a beefed up Nikon 1 for video. At first I was disappointed with the crop factor, but actually it's pretty fun with C-mount glass and other exotic stuff. If it would have the video quality of a GH2 or video specs like this new sensor it would be killer :)

More likely is a V2 with some fancy art filters and minimal updates :(

[quote name='sanveer' timestamp='1349768791' post='19510']
Unfortunately, the Aptina Sensor found itself on the 'Nikon 1' Series, which has cameras, which shoot pictures, comparable with the earlier generation of smartphones and videos, which are pretty lousy too. Also, the price tag, would make one wonder, why Nikon even bothered to try and compete with far better cameras around.[/quote]
Thats what we photographers/filmmakers think of it.. Soccer mom's have no idea, the Nikon 1 is selling very well. 55% CSC market share in the Netherlands (according to Nikon's own figures).

Doesn't look good indeed. But i'm guessing it's a standard picture profile with sharpening turned on.
Anyway, I'm probably buying a GH2 instead of a GH3. More value for money I think and I like the multi-aspect sensor...

[quote name='mbartov' timestamp='1349681296' post='19472']
So, given the 40% off price difference - would you recommend the NEX 5N or stick with the GH2?
[/quote]
I would choose the GH2 because I really like the sharpness of the image. I've been using a borrowed GH2 for a while and once you have seen the 1080p images straight out of the camera, all other hdslr's look like crap. A friend of me has a 5D Mark II and was really surprised by the level of detail and the sharpness.

On the other hand, people make fantastic things with Canon EOS 550D's, NEX-camera's etc. While watching those video's I never felt like was watching crap. In the end it's just what you do with it.

Ergonomically speaking the GH2 is a bit better for both video and photography I think. The electronic viewfinder and tilt screen (more flexible than the one on the NEX) are very use full in both fields.

In the end it depends on your budget and what you want to spend of it. I think the GH2 is a great deal for what it does. If you're on a very tight budget, $300 could be a lot of money. The choice is up to you :)

For Sony NEX (E-mount) there are many adapters indeed. For Sony Alpha there are not (A-mount)!
It's because of the distance from the mount to the sensor. You can't add negative space and many lenses need to be closer to the sensor than the A-mount possibly would let them. Mirror less systems such as the GH2 and NEX don't have this 'problem', because the distance between the sensor and the mount is very small. Adapters just make this distance a bit longer.

The sensor in the Sony is much better for photography, the sensor in the GH2 (hacked) is much better for video. You can find plenty of GH2 vs Sony videos (if you can't find A57 just look for NEX 5N, it's the same sensor). The GH2 will give much more detail.

For video autofocus should be no issue. For serious video you'll want to use manual focus anyway because autofocus just doesn't look smooth.

For video the lens compatibility of the GH2 is a huge plus in my opinion. It's very difficult to adapt older lenses to the A-mount. For the GH2 you can get plenty of great glass for next to nothing. Lenses are a big part of the actual image, so that's something to consider.

One of the big pros of the GH2 is the ability to mount almost every lens onto it with cheap adapters. The Canon 60D is much less flexible.

I'm using old Minolta glass I bought on eBay: 58mm 1.4, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 2.8, 45mm f/2, 135mm f/2.8, 50mm macro, 300mm f/5.6. I paid like $250 for everything...

The GH3 will cost 1299 body only, the GH2 is already much less, I don't think it will get much cheaper.

Recently I noticed some widescreen tft lcd's being announced. Looks nice for us Anamorphic lovers :-)

For example:

[url=http://www.dell.com/content/topics/topic.aspx/global/products/landing/en/ultrasharpmonitor?c=us&l=en&cs=04]Dell UltraSharp 29"[/url]
[img]http://i.dell.com/images/global/products/monitors/monitors_highlights/monitor-ultrasharp-landing-page-banner_930x400.jpg[/img]

[url=http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/30/lgs-ea93-29-inch-display-hands-on/]LG EA93 29"[/url]
[img]http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2012/08/lg-21-9-dsc08402.jpg[/img]

[URL=http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1346397612]Philips 21:9 monitor[/url]
[img]http://www.flatpanelshd.com/pictures/philips219monitor-1.jpg[/img]

They are all 29" with 2560x1080 resolution, so probably the same panel.
The resolution isn't very impressive since a proper 27" 16:9 monitor does 2560x1440, although for anamorphic video it could be pretty nice (as long as you shoot with a 1080p camera) I suppose.

Agreed. The light looks completely different in both shots. Was the white balance fixed on the camera or on auto?

Thanks! I'm using the SPT-1, no need for rods right now, but If I do I know what I should get :)

Buy the Tokina 11-16mm for Nikon and a cheap Nikon G-adapter to MFT with aperture control.

RED is releasing an Epic-M with monochrome sensor.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?85214-EPIC-M-Monochrome
[list]
[*]Newly Developed Mysterium-X Monochrome Sensor.
[*]Native ASA 2000.
[*]Increased net resolution ( Removal of the debayer process, so every single individual pixel is used for luminance / image data )
[*]New Low Pass Filter with to accomodate the reduced pixel pitch ( 1x1 vs 2x2 Bayer )
[*]$42,000 ( brain only ) includes upgrade to Dragon Monochrome Sensor spring 2013.
[*]David Fincher is shooting his current project solely on Epic-M Monochrome cameras as we speak.
[*]Pre-orders open on RED.COM Monday.. Ships October 1st.
[/list]

My question: Why!?

Yes, I get it. Much sharper image. And I can understand the Leica M Monochrome in this way. Leica M camera's already are a niche and they'll find some people who'd like to spend thousands of euros on a b&w camera.

But a $42K Epic that only shoots B&W... Why? The revival of B&W movies?

So yes, I'm a bit sceptical. What do you think?

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1347014162' post='17523']
The Nokton 17,5 equals a 45 mm and is wide no longer.
[/quote]

But it's still very bright and will give small DOF. There is no such option for EF.

With MFT-mount you can use C-mount glass with an adapter. Not everything will cover the sensor, but it just opens up a lot of cheap options.

It seems a lot of GH2 shooters here are interested in the BMC, now they don't have to invest in new glass.

I'm not very impressed by the way it handles highlights. For example at 1:54. But that could be grading...

Very interesting. I'm surprised the discussion is turning into 'wider than 1,3x and 1,5x' on Personal View though. Not that I dislike the wider anamorphics, but the reason i'm using a 1,75x projection lens right now is that it's just damn difficult to find a 1,33x or 1,5x adapter for cheap.

A dedicated 25mm f/3.2 1.35x or 35mm f/3.2 1.35x (like they suggest) sounds lovely to me.

The GH2 is from 2010, photography-wise (noise, dynamic range) it's not on par with the best dslrs. If you look into the same price category though the difference is not that big.

Recently the new Olympus OM-D showed big improvements in still image quality, the dynamic range is on par with high end aps-c-cameras and for noise it's almost the same.

If you want the shallowest DOF you need full frame. You're never going to beat full frame combined with a 35mm or 24mm 1.4. You can get a voigtlander 17,5mm 0,95, that gives the equivalent of 35mm 1.8. For the 24mm there is no substitute.

The sensor size isn't much smaller than S35 used for cinema though. So you can get the cinema look without any problems.

The expensive glass isn't Plastic and toy like at all. Performance is outstanding, corner to corner. Often better than full frame. The Olympus 75mm 1.8 I would never buy, but read some tests, it sets benchmarks. For me a big plus of MFT is the ability to adapt almost any lens. Just buy some cheap old manual lenses. You won't mis autofocus when filming and optics from decades ago are still great.

Compared to full frame MFT is cheap. The GH2 already beats the 5D II and III in resolution for video. There are plenty of test videos where you can compare. To me the difference is pretty amazing. And were talking $700 GH2 against $3500 5D.

Wait for the GH3... Read the article on the front page.

Personally, I'd say fullframe is still the best for photography (I like small DOF), for video or as a hybrid cam, MFT is great. Right now I have a 5D mark I (no video). I'm going to change it for mirror less, probably the GH3. Mainly cause my growing interest in video.

If photography is your main thing, MFT is not going to beat the 5D 3 and D800 (and probably A99) on that aspect. Probably the GH3 will beat all of those hands down in video though.

Sounds like this is going to be my new photo and video camera.. Cant wait!

Why wouldn't it be 2880 x 1080 for ProRes?

Sounds like a good deal to me, have fun with it!