Rudolf

Selling one of the babies because I have three and don't really need them all.  Two is plenty for my needs and figure there are eager people out there in need of one.  

Great idea. Panasonic... Listen to that man!

IBIS is a great improvement. But not usefull for anamorphic shooter.
@Rudolf you are right about its like a warp stabilizer or youtube "auto stabilize" weird correction.
If panasonic people can make a mode with only vertical stabilization (like the one in panoramic photo)  would be great for our scopes.
 
 

Some good pictures in thread.

Grimor, thank you very much for your input! Very good to know. The footage looks like warp stabilizer... I was tempted to buy GH5 because of IBIS. But now I will rethink because I'd use it only for video with anamorphics.
The GH4 with Lumix 35-100 F2.8 and Isco 36 seem to work well together. So I think the mesmerizer effect is only with IBIS...

I made a dirty test to show the issue. You can see the whoobling background when IBIS ON under heavy shake: (sorry for the flickering and those no profesional things)
 

Organic is completely different from cinematic I think. I'm alright with us calling House of Cards cinematic, but organic it is not. "Organic" can be shot poorly, in bad lighting, with insufficient dynamic range and resolution, at f8, on a one inch sensor. the important element would be the camera or grade, maybe a nice grain, proper highlight and shadow rolloff, maybe cadence.. "Cinematic" is the production quality argument, with HDR and high res, good lighting, and apparently doesn't need good colors these days (having just watched Sneaky Pete on Amazon)

Millions were making films and taking pictures in the past. Maybe Super 8 was more popular than filming with DSLR? Don't think that billions of batteries and old DSLRs are so environmentfriendly. My cameras and projectors are 40 years old and still work. That's possibly better than buying a new camera every year...
Back on topic: I think it should be mentioned that we are talking about reversal film here. And that is what makes it so fantastic. As for color stock we only have Vision left and you have to go to Andec-lab in order to let them make a positive. As a filmmaker I always prefer the projection. For me that is the point of film... (I am an enthusiast) 

Millions were making films and taking pictures in the past. Maybe Super 8 was more popular than filming with DSLR? Don't think that billions of batteries and old DSLRs are so environmentfriendly. My cameras and projectors are 40 years old and still work. That's possibly better than buying a new camera every year...
Back on topic: I think it should be mentioned that we are talking about reversal film here. And that is what makes it so fantastic. As for color stock we only have Vision left and you have to go to Andec-lab in order to let them make a positive. As a filmmaker I always prefer the projection. For me that is the point of film... (I am an enthusiast) 

Millions were making films and taking pictures in the past. Maybe Super 8 was more popular than filming with DSLR? Don't think that billions of batteries and old DSLRs are so environmentfriendly. My cameras and projectors are 40 years old and still work. That's possibly better than buying a new camera every year...
Back on topic: I think it should be mentioned that we are talking about reversal film here. And that is what makes it so fantastic. As for color stock we only have Vision left and you have to go to Andec-lab in order to let them make a positive. As a filmmaker I always prefer the projection. For me that is the point of film... (I am an enthusiast) 

What's the purpose of telling anything technical related in threads on EOSHD?
I've myself learnt a great deal on EOSHD, and I've myself picked up quite a lot of news that I probably would not have, had it not been because someone had made a thread about it. So, in the same sense, since I hadn't seen it mentioned on EOSHD before, I figured that the topic would interest others than myself on EOSHD!
...and for the film vs digital for myself:
I started out shooting stills on film and I really like the look of film. The practical parts of shooting with digital is keeping me in the digital-only camp for now though. But maybe I'll some day venture back to film - and then I'm really happy if there are some good films left. Hence it makes me happy to read news like this.

I am so desperate of fresh color reversal s-8 stock. I have only a dozen left in the fridge... so this is really, really great news. Lets hope Ferrania will pull out a cheaper option (they will for sure not be on the same level quality wise) like it was in the past with Agfa. Matters: I absolutely agree: I have 4 blurays but 100 S-8 feature films. Projecting a movie is so different and has some magic I can't explain. 
It has c-mount (comes with cheap Ricoh...) but many downsides. I would not buy it. There are enough better and cheaper alternatives. 

Are some of you guys still shooting film? I have recently started to shoot analog stills again after a 10 years abstinence or so and I have to say I am blown away how awesome the stuff is looking adding to this the  darkroom experience. Makes me want to get a 16mm camera or something altough I would feel slightly cuckoo....

Maybe Kodakchrome could come back but it wont. What was it, 7 baths or something to process and an archival lifespan of just 20 years?
I dont know many Hipsters that shoot film. Frankly I dont know any, they are a lazy bunch. It smore for people who really enjoy photography and film making as an art imo.
I believe the reason its coming back is because after all these years digital still can't beat it. Digital is nice but film is nicer. Every time I watch a Blueray of any old movie I blown away of how much digital suck in comparison
Also digital large format doesnt exist and medium format is still out of reach for most. A film MF is $7.
(This of course depended on your definition of "better" and what aspect of image quality you rank highest.)
Ps. Fun fact I heard but dont know if true, Fujifilms Instax division is currently their most profitable business...
I know Im throwing money at them for my Instax printer

Now I got it and I agree! If I get you right you are trying to create an amateurish yesterdays lofi look. Which some people could remind on small gauge film. This approach is often used for documentaries or musicclips I think. And in 20 years you are maybe after that feeling of the beginning of the century with its iphone footage in funny aspect ratio... (Btw the problem is no one can fake the projection. I own two blurays and a shelf full of super 8 Feature films - I am really into cinema)

Now I got it and I agree! If I get you right you are trying to create an amateurish yesterdays lofi look. Which some people could remind on small gauge film. This approach is often used for documentaries or musicclips I think. And in 20 years you are maybe after that feeling of the beginning of the century with its iphone footage in funny aspect ratio... (Btw the problem is no one can fake the projection. I own two blurays and a shelf full of super 8 Feature films - I am really into cinema)

Looks great! Lovely green and the Hypergonar shines.

Shot with Panasonic GH4 in cinematic DCI 4K 4096x2160 in ultra wide 3.31:1 anamorphic ratio.. Lens used were the Baby Hypergonar  1.75x anamorphic with MeVis 35mm f1.6 and the Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8. Rectilux 3FF-S, Marumi + 3 achromatic diopter and Fujinon ENG 72mm close up lens. Edited in Adobe Premiere and colored in Colorista III and Adobe Lightroom. 
 

Exotic and beautiful work.   Were you using a fast shutter instead of ND on this?

I am a die-hard Moeller fan...
For me nothing comes close in terms of sharpness, imagequality, color, flare. These are so versatile and wonderful built. They have so much character. Maybe the difference is they were made for filming and the 16mm version could work on FF like any Kowa. I would definately go for Moeller 16/32 with Rangefinder if I had the money. On the other way they are so easy to handle... you don't need a rangefinder

I don't know the classic anamorphic streaky look. The Helios is great with the Kowa and the Jupiter 85mm is a perfect addition (they are very prone to flares). If you choose a modern multicoated lens there is much less flare. The thing is though that anamorphics were not invented to produce flares or oval bokeh. They determine the composition and you can shoot with longer lens and get more shallow depth. It is a matter of the subject if you go the anamorphic route or not. But nowadays nearly everything is shot/cropped in 2.40. Not sure if even L. Trier does it now instead of his dogmas (didn't he say they are obsolete?) 

I'm shooting on a Kowa 8Z and am currently using a Helios 44-2 58 F2 as a taking lens.  I've found it surprisingly hard to get flares that resemble the classic anamorphic streaky look..  I've only really taken it out on one shoot, but I've had a play around with is quite a bit and a mate mentioned that the taking lenses will (obviously) influence the shot looks, but I wondered if changing the taking lens would change the flare characteristics substantially?   
Like I say, I've only taken it out once and I was pointing it right into the light most of the time (video below), although obviously not on the silly grade time lapses.  
I've been hunting around on ebay and am considering the following, but can anyone tell me how much difference they're going to make, or show me some footage from a similar set-up?  I'm not unhappy with the Helios, and perhaps it's not flaring because of LED lights in squares, instead of one focussed light source...
Potential Lenses:
Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4
Jupiter 9 85 F2
Carl Zeiss Jenna 80 F2.8
Reckon these are worth the investment, or will it make no difference?

I thought I'd start a topic relating to The Hateful Eight.  I'll start with my opinions of the movie...  **I'll aim to not spoil the movie for those yet to view it. But please stop reading if you feel I start going too deep into things**
 
I watched the 4th screening on the first day of opening in the UK, at Leicester Square Odeon, London. - The only theatre screening in 70mm in the UK!  We were sat close to the optimum position - second row of the Royal Circle, 4 seats from the centre position.  The most expensive seats in the house. It cost me £25 for the ticket, £60 for the return train, and £70 for a bed in the hotel across the road from the theatre.  So to view the movie I paid a lot of hard earned cash.  I went in after 3 beers so was adequately lubricated and relaxed.
 
Plot - Basic and simple.  But I didn't feel it lacked anything in the way of entertainment.  
Characters - Very Very good indeed.  Every character was loveable (in a QT character type of way).  Each were given superb amounts of great dialogue.  The dialogue felt very theatrical.  The dark humour and dialogue drove the movie for the duration of the 3hours and I didn;t for one second start wondering when the movie would end.  The Goggins/Jackson building of friendship and trust throughout the movie stole the show for me.  
Aesthetic - Stunning.  IMO I felt that the overall resolution was somewhat limited.  It certainly felt as if the Panavision lenses weren't quite sharp enough to fully take advantage of the 65mm format.  I've seen 2.8k Alexa acquired movies projected digitally that felt higher resolution and more refined.  I felt the 65mm non anamorphic imagery from 'The Master', 'Interstellar' and '2001' totally outdoes the overall image from The Hateful Eight.  HOWEVER! - in no way did the perceived lack of sharpness affect the viewing experience.  if anything I think it added to the feel.  I expect if the film had been shot 65mm spherical and delivered in native 5perf/65mm 2.2:1 the overall image would have looked 'technically' superior.  
If anything I'd have liked to see a little more variation in the landscapes.  Visially the whole movie felt very much like a homage to John Carpenters 'The Thing'.  The isolation, the bleak and unvarying landscape, the small shooting quarters where most of the film takes place, the characters and the ending too.  The lack of trust between characters and in particular Goggins and Jackson dieing on the bed at the end was very similar to how Childs and MacReady go to sleep in the snow. 
Music - Ennio Morricone's music was superb - they even used one of the themes from his soundtrack to The Thing -and it felt so right!.  The way only a small amount of Ennio's music was used in a looping fashion felt a bit like Tarrantino had told Ennio that he was going for some type of humorous reference to the way John Carpenter only used limited material from the soundtrack Ennio wrote for The Thing.
Visual Effects - Practical.  Lifecasts of heads full of pig guts being blown up.  The gore effects were second to none.  
Dialogue - too much of the N word IMO.  I'd have liked to hear a bit more variation.  I'd have used c**t a few times to break things up a bit.  Goggins' friendly line to Jackson "I'm not dead yet you black bastard" was very funny.    
    
Comparison to Pulp Fiction - I know it wont have nearly as much rewatching potential as Pulp Fiction does.  My viewing made me come away knowing it was meant to be a theatrical type experience rather than a watch at home type of experience.  Pulp can be viewed on a pc monitor without the overall experience being harmed.
Comparison to Inglorious Basterds - Better characters but lacks the varied scenery and very very refined lighting of Inglorious.  If anything its a shame Inglorious wasnt shot in Ultra Panavision 70.  I felt budget of The Hateful Eight was consumed by the logistics of 65mm.  The need for way more light, the snowy locations, etc.  Some of the side-on shots of the stage coach going through the snow looked like they cost a fortune, but don't have the impact that some of the scenery from Inglorious has.
Comparison to Django - About on a par overall.  If I gave Django a 7.8/10 i'd give The Hateful Eight an 8.4.  I bloody love Christopher Waltz, but felt Tim Roth in some way filled the gap playing a role I feel Waltz would have filled very well.  
 
Intermission - Perfect.  without the intermission the movie would feel too long.  It was a refreshing change to be able to stretch legs, grab a fresh coca cola and talk about the movie.  
 
Overall - One of the best cinema experiences I've ever had.  On a par with my childhood/teen cinema experience of Jurassic Park, Independence Day and Titanic.
 
 
 
 
 

BTW: To slow down the 5dIIraw euphoria a bit…

Moiré and Aliasing is unfortunately as bad as we know it from 5d-h264. 

The VAF Anti Aliasing Filter comes with the limitations that Andrew pointed out (a bit less overall sharpness, less sharp on the edges with wide angle lenses, focus point changes during zooming…anyway I would recommend it!).

Independently of this, the max. resolution with my 5d2raw setting is:1872x850 (aspect ratio 1:2,20).
So you have to upscale it to HD.
If you want to shoot in 16:9, the horizontal resolution is reduced even more.
 
Nevertheless I love the image quality, for several years.