Julian

According to rumors the upcomping Sony A58 will get a new 20MP sensor.
This will probably replace the current 16 MP sensor and I would expect new NEX camera's will also get this sensor (except for the NEX-3N, which will be released soon with the current 16MP sensor).
 
I'm really curious how this new 20MP sensor will turn out. I hope it will be as good, or better, than the Toshiba 24MP sensor in de Nikon D5200 for video.
 
A NEX-5R or NEX-6 replacement with this new 20MP sensor would be great if it is on par with the Toshiba-sensor. Especially combined with the speed booster.
 
 

Impossible. The distance from the mount to the sensor is too big.

Oups I'm sorry I bought the last clamp, apparently.... The smallest step up and/or step down ring I've found once for a isco gottingen was 52mm-30.5mm / 30.5mm-52mm
 
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43243778@N04/8368259437/in/photostream

wrap a bit of electrical insulation tape around the thread so it is wider, then screw into a slightly bigger step ring...  the right amount of layers of tape will be nice and strong and the step ring will cut into it and form a thread.

Can you try to Buy this lens of the same seller?? I think that is the lens where was working before...I will regret not bid on this anamorphic lens ... Congratulations on your purchase ... XD
 
http://www.ebay.es/itm/111009462563?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

There it is, the 'Petit-Cinevision'. If I google this, the only hit I get is the eBay auction where I bought it... Could it be something like Angenieux? It also says 'made in Japan' on the side.
 

For good measurements, the Petit-Cinevision next to a bag of Haribo Goldbären. Everybody knows them right?
The Goldbären where supplied by the seller, which is good, so my girlfriend didn't go crazy I bought 'another stupid lens'. She ate them before I could take the picture.
 

The front. The glass looks really clean, in very good condition. The focus ring isn't smooth at all, its bumpy and lacking damping. But the lens elements seem to move fine. Also, it focuses from 0,9 meters to infinity, which is awesome.
 

My baby and the Jupiter 8 50mm f/2. The Petit-Cinevision already came with a Bolex-clamp included, I'll need some crazy step down filters though. It looks like it's made for the Jupiter though.

Just search for EOS M43 and you'll find plenty adapters. Like this:
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-EF-EF-S-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-M43-Mount-Adapter-EP3-GF3-GX1-EP3-OM-D-EFM43-/330821484699?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item4d067f409b

Can you post some footage? If you don't have a problem with your 7D the suspect is the adapter. Try a cheap dumb adapter.

The Anamorphic buying frenzy hit me again :)
I know it's not the smartest thing to buy something when you're not exactly aware of what it is.. But I couldn't let this one pass.
 
I have a big ISCO Optic Ultrastar 1.7x, very sharp, but big... I also have a reasonable sized Kowa B&H 2x, but still I'd like something smaller and I'd prefer a 1.5x anamorphic. I've been looking for the lovely Bolex 8/19/1.5X but the prices are sky high.
 
So I spotted this little boy on eBay and I just won the auction.
It's sold as 'Anamorphot Optic 8mm for Bolex H16' in flawless condition.
 
It definitely looks small, and it's 1.5x. Anybody recognises this lens?
 
[attachment=411:Untitled.png]
 

Simply put:
The number of different colour shades the camera can record. It's bit depth, because unlike a bit-rate, it isn't measured over time.
 
Essentially (as technical as we need to be) 8-bit allows 255 different levels of colour for each channel. 10-bit allows 1023 different levels.
 
Each channel is: R G and B for 4:4:4 or uncompressed, while it's Y (white), Cb (blue) and Cr (red) if it's sub-sampled (like 4:2:2 or 4:2:0).
.
The result is that 10-bit codecs record a greater number of subtle shades, great for skin, the sky, and other subjects with subtle gradients.
 
I say codecs rather than cameras, because most of these sensors convert analogue light to digital data at higher depths, like 14-bits, which has 16384 possible levels per channel. The rather crippled codecs then interpolate (pick the nearest one) out of 256 shades, so you can see how much data you're losing.
 
That's why people are always complaining, because a lot of companies make a conscious decision to cripple their hardware for commercial reasons.
 
There are certain considerations, like processing, heat dispersal and buffer speed and size, but the main concern of certain companies is profit margin. Which is why those companies are so huge.
 
Now, in practice the division of these bits across dynamic range spectrum blah blah is very complex, but it doesn't matter. More is nice.
 
But you can make a movie that gets Oscar nominated, or a promo that makes you a fortune, with 8-bits, so don't worry too much even though it's nice to know and nice to have more.

As an addendum, you can get a lot from 8-bit source in post. Most of those complaining about footage "falling apart" are in fact complaining about the 4:2:0 spatial compression aspect, that destroys red-channel resolution, not the limited 8-bit colour pallete, or the temporal compression of bit-rate.
 
For this reason I tend to avoid capturing 4:2:0 footage with a warm balance. I always head towards green and blue, there's more resolution there, then bring out the red in post, when you work in a programme like After Effects for example.
 
Work in a 32-bit space, and you eliminate compression aspects as much as is possible. Your footage is treated as individual RGB, 32-bit frames, instead  of 4:2:0 sub-sampled 8-bit heavily compressed GOPs.
 
You can't gain back information you lost in capture, because compression is destructive unless it's lossless, but you can get the best from your footage this way since you aren't limited to 8-bit colour values, and there's no need to transcode.
 
If you don't clip your highlights, and keep the lows away from the zero point where the codec compression is worst (Cinestyle does this, and you can do it on sony cameras too) you have a greater chance of achieving a film look.
 
Not clipping and lifting black reduces your range of bits that are used for colour shades BUT i find it far easier to bring in more shades in post, than I do to recover clipped highs and shadows, which is of course, impossible.
 
But of course, if you know exactly the look you want, and it can be achieved in camera, doing it that way when using heavily compressed footage will actually yield a nicer result.
 
Decisiveness and consistency on set pay off...

For 2-megapixel (1080p) you don't need L-glass for the best quality. Samyang is pretty good. Cheap because it lacks AF, but the glass is very good.

http://vimeo.com/57016257

Check out more of Andrew Wonder's work here

Here director, cinematographer and DSLR user Andrew Wonder talks to EOSHD about his latest anamorphic spot for G.E.

The technology behind the shoot is rather interesting. Two Sony F3 cameras mounted on the front of the train, remotely controlled and recording to e-sata drives in the control carriage, kitted out with Joe Dunton / Panavision anamorphic lenses from London.

Joe Dunton is a British Bafta winning camera equipment guy who has always held a great fascination with anamorphic lenses, and was one of Stanley Kubrick's closest collaborators after A Clockwork Orange in the 70's and provided Kubrick with his lenses on Eyes Wide Shut.
 

Sharpness loss at the edge of frame is mostly a function of the lens itself.  It's only apparent to the smaller sensor after using this adapter because it could never see it before, it only saw the "sweet spot".  In point of fact, sharpness at the edge of frame is better through the adapter on a smaller sensor than the same lens mounted to a FF camera.
 
Seems lots of people still aren't bothering to really investigate or grok what they've read so that they can add meaningful discussion.
 
edit: it cracks me up that, even though the adapter IS performing a kind of magick, its critics now feel compelled to criticize the magick itself as if it just weren't miraculous enough for their standards.... 
 
"Yeah, you turned water into wine...but you didn't raise anyone from the dead.  Fail.  You suck."

Geez, why so offensive about a little feature request. 
 
It is not a bug, it is just a very simple software feature that is not there and should be pretty easy to add.
Just like a smartphone, the standard camera app doesn't have exposure lock most of the times. Many 3rd party apps do.
 
Most GoPro users won't care for exposure lock or don't even know what it is. They just want to press a button and end up with a good looking video. Which is what the GoPro does.
 
But if you want to mix GoPro video with your dslr footage it would be nice to be able to lock the exposure. That's all what's being asked for here.
 
With adding exposure lock GoPro is not going to cannibalize any of their own products, it would just make the product better and they'd probably sell more of them. To me for example...

Geez, why so offensive about a little feature request. 
 
It is not a bug, it is just a very simple software feature that is not there and should be pretty easy to add.
Just like a smartphone, the standard camera app doesn't have exposure lock most of the times. Many 3rd party apps do.
 
Most GoPro users won't care for exposure lock or don't even know what it is. They just want to press a button and end up with a good looking video. Which is what the GoPro does.
 
But if you want to mix GoPro video with your dslr footage it would be nice to be able to lock the exposure. That's all what's being asked for here.
 
With adding exposure lock GoPro is not going to cannibalize any of their own products, it would just make the product better and they'd probably sell more of them. To me for example...

This here's Sheriff Reid's blog, folks, and his reputation for being a serious shooter is well earned. Tip of the hat, Sheriff. And to you, deputy Rhoades.
 
 
THAT just caused a large laugh to roll out across the high Nevada desert. Can never have too much humor on a camera tech blog. Or on a high desert plain for that matter. Also makes the Sheriff metaphor work. Anyway... back on topic...
 
On the road back from Sundance. Must return to editing. Will respond more when I'm back in the home studio. My curiosity about the 1 degree of vertical slant on two particular shots in the trailer is growing. It's an easy enough fix, but was the camera just not quite level, or is it something else? Will carefully check other shots when I'm back. I may shoot a test pattern too. I'm not a test-pattern kind of guy, but they have their place and I'm open to find out. As Burnet pointed out, there are a lot of variables, so I appreciate the community help.
 
Meanwhile, my producer is obliged to keep me on edit and on schedule, but I will get back to the discussion as soon and as often as I can. Hopefully in a day or two.

Indeed, it's funny. I don't get all the confusion either. It is really simple. If you don't understand it, just look at the various tests. You'll see how it works and you'll see it actually does everything it promises. There's not even math involved. On aps-c camera's every lens will give you the same image as it would on a fullframe-camera (same fov, same dof) and you get an extra stop of light. Thats all...
 
Anyway, let the whiners whine. I don't think people will be able to spot the use of a Speed Booster in final results. I'll be extremely happy with mine.

Indeed, it's funny. I don't get all the confusion either. It is really simple. If you don't understand it, just look at the various tests. You'll see how it works and you'll see it actually does everything it promises. There's not even math involved. On aps-c camera's every lens will give you the same image as it would on a fullframe-camera (same fov, same dof) and you get an extra stop of light. Thats all...
 
Anyway, let the whiners whine. I don't think people will be able to spot the use of a Speed Booster in final results. I'll be extremely happy with mine.

I don't see the point or logic there.. if you want to adapt other lenses, the EOS adapter would be the best option.
 
On the EOS mount you can use Canon EF (of course), Nikon F, M42 and Leica R with adapters.
 
You can't use 'whatever format' because the register distance will have to be as long as Canon EF mount at least. Leica M, Canon FD etc is no option.

To be honest, I don't think it will have an noticeable effect on the market.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm super enthusiastic about the Speed Booster and I can't wait to get a M43 version, but right now it mainly applies to dslr film makers. Yes, it does autofocus, but poorly. The big masses of photographers won't be as enthusiastic as I am. If I were a photographer, I'd just buy a Nikon D600 or 5D Mark II if I'd want cheap fullframe.
 
I don't have any figures (who does?), but I think the NEX/M43-users who mainly focus on filming are quite a tiny minority compared to the overall market.
 
People already know the value of fast lenses. They already are highly sought after and in demand by serious photographers/filmmakers. The f/2.8 lenses are relatively abundant and cheap. They will become more valuable to aps-c/m43 users now, but nothing will really change because they already were interesting on fullframe camera's and their market values are pretty settled down I think.

Don't forget the fact that every lens you buy suddenly has a double purpose (with and without speedbooster). And you don't have to buy f/1.4 lenses anymore, you can pay less than half for a f/2 and have the same light gathering capabilities. Even a dirt cheap f/2.8 prime makes a nice f/2.0.
 
For example: I'm interested in buying a reasonably fast (at least f/2) standard lens (50mm equivalent) and a wide angle (35mm equivalent) for my GH2.
 
I could buy a Canon FD / Nikkor 24mm f/2 to get the 50mm equivalent, that would cost €300 to €400 on eBay.
To get a 35mm equivalent, I'd need a 17mm. I could buy some crappy, rare, huge 17mm f/3.5, but that's not fast. The only choice is a Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95, for €1200!
 
With the Speed Booster, I could buy a Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 for €100 to get 50mm f/2 and a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for €200 to get a 35mm f/2.
 
For the price of the Voigtlander 17.5mm, you could buy the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 and the Speed Booster, and get pretty much the same effect: 35mm f/1.0. Plus the added bonus of all your lenses suddenly behaving the same as their much more expensive counterparts.
 
It is not cheap. But if you are in the market for a a few fast standard/wide lenses like me, then the Speed Booster instantly pays itself back. Plus you get options that aren't even possible without the adapter.
 
To me this actually is the most exciting product I've seen in years. Yes, we have seen a lot of technical developments on the camera side. Better sensors, cheaper camera's... Nice, but glass always stays the same. Nothing changes physics. Good glass is expensive. In a way it's nice that this doesn't change, lenses retain their value.
 
But now Metabones manages to come up with something that turns this very fixed part of photography/filmmaking upside down. If I were Sony (CaNikon are too slow anyway..) I'd instantly buy out Metabones and release this technology inside a mirrorless camera (with A-mount, just fit the element in place of the SLT-construction and use Phase Detection pixels) That would be the break trough cheap 'fullframe' camera and stir the market :)

Don't forget the fact that every lens you buy suddenly has a double purpose (with and without speedbooster). And you don't have to buy f/1.4 lenses anymore, you can pay less than half for a f/2 and have the same light gathering capabilities. Even a dirt cheap f/2.8 prime makes a nice f/2.0.
 
For example: I'm interested in buying a reasonably fast (at least f/2) standard lens (50mm equivalent) and a wide angle (35mm equivalent) for my GH2.
 
I could buy a Canon FD / Nikkor 24mm f/2 to get the 50mm equivalent, that would cost €300 to €400 on eBay.
To get a 35mm equivalent, I'd need a 17mm. I could buy some crappy, rare, huge 17mm f/3.5, but that's not fast. The only choice is a Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95, for €1200!
 
With the Speed Booster, I could buy a Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 for €100 to get 50mm f/2 and a Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 for €200 to get a 35mm f/2.
 
For the price of the Voigtlander 17.5mm, you could buy the Samyang 24mm f/1.4 and the Speed Booster, and get pretty much the same effect: 35mm f/1.0. Plus the added bonus of all your lenses suddenly behaving the same as their much more expensive counterparts.
 
It is not cheap. But if you are in the market for a a few fast standard/wide lenses like me, then the Speed Booster instantly pays itself back. Plus you get options that aren't even possible without the adapter.
 
To me this actually is the most exciting product I've seen in years. Yes, we have seen a lot of technical developments on the camera side. Better sensors, cheaper camera's... Nice, but glass always stays the same. Nothing changes physics. Good glass is expensive. In a way it's nice that this doesn't change, lenses retain their value.
 
But now Metabones manages to come up with something that turns this very fixed part of photography/filmmaking upside down. If I were Sony (CaNikon are too slow anyway..) I'd instantly buy out Metabones and release this technology inside a mirrorless camera (with A-mount, just fit the element in place of the SLT-construction and use Phase Detection pixels) That would be the break trough cheap 'fullframe' camera and stir the market :)

Yes, it's a language thing... of course it doesn't physically change the lens, but you get exactly the same image you would get with a wider lens.
 
By extender I mean a teleconverter (which also works with the light exiting), which works the same but the other way around.

 
@Richg101: Yes indeed. Extra speed, better quality in theory (downscaling the lens faults) and same dof as on fullframe. Just imagine the exact opposite effects of a 1.4x extender.

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=4]This is my most recent experimental short. The objective of this short is to reveal an object. Hope after watching you'll guess what that is. This short is more like an homage to analogue photography.[/size][/font][/color]

[size=4]Directed, Cinematography, Edited, Scored, Mixed by Mida Chu.[/size]
Starring Megan Walters.

Shot on Sony NEX-FS100 (AVCHD), with Canon 55mm f/1.2 FD, Zeiss 28mm f/2.0 ZE, Zeiss Flektogon 35mm f/2.4 M42, and Sony 16mm f/2.8 E-mount.
Some shots were done with a 58mm vid-atlantic cinemorphic filter for the stretched bokeh.

Most shots were converted via 5DtoRGB Batch.

Hope you'll enjoy this.

[url="https://vimeo.com/53764371"]https://vimeo.com/53764371[/url]