Rudolf

Here are a bunch of randoms...  First 2 are Lomo, the rest are all iscorama pre36.







 

Very nice photos there.
 May I ask you guys how do I take an anamorphic photo? I mean do I have to shoot at max raw resolution?
If yes,  how do I go about it in post using a 2x anamorphic lens for example with a such big resolution?
Do I have to apply the same method as in the video? 
It would be nice to hear your workflow on this.
Thank you so much.
 

In my opinion they just wanted to create exactly that look. Vision 3 500 has also much more grain - obviously as 50 or 200t. And the also preserved that rough grain for a reason.
They could have gone even furhter for my taste and shoot that on 16mm - would have given an even "rawer" look to it. I like it very much. It is so refreshing to see film!

In that case I'll be very careful about mentioning the Falklands

Hello Hitfabryk
maybe you are paying too much attention on the camera? I recently discovered my GH3 can shine when paired with the right lenses. And I never really liked the image of the GH3 so much compared to the GH2. Therefore I will upgrade to GH4 as this can serve as a reliable camera for usual hopefully. I just think that the lense has a significant influence on the image and not only the sensor?! 

 

This is so impressive! The technical evolution is just staggering. I remember talking to a freind about 8 years ago and he told me about his 4K camera which was
cutting edge at that time and I had no idea about what 4K was. The price of that thing and the media was fabulous.
 
 

Thanks Rudolf!  You really can't go wrong with the GH4, or A7S too.  They are all good cameras now.
I used to have Contax Zeiss, sold all of them.  They are very "clinical" in rendering and contrast.  I wanted something warmer so I have moved to Russian lenses and now the Tokina 28-70mm.  The only way you can find out about lenses is to use them unfortunately.

One last thought... NX1, GH4 and A7S (4K alternatives to the 1D C) are £1299 and £1899 respectively. Amazing value considering this kind of performance was £10,000 2 years ago!!

​up until recently the argument has always been that using a crop sensor on a lens designed for a bigger format is advantageous due to the fact that a crop sensor uses the best portion of the image circle from the lens, cropping away any edge problems that might have been visible on the original larger frame size. However since we're now seeing crop sensors with very high mpx counts it's important to factor in LP/mm ratings (if obtaining the most from your high mpx count is important to you).
a really good piece about the value of LP/mm ratings is this:-  https://www.schneideroptics.com/pdfs/Digitar.pdf
This pdf refers to high resolution medium format lenses vs large format lenses, but the theories translate into our discussion.
 
 
 
 
 

​This is my test with the GH4 + Tokina 28-70 + Kowa 2x.  I think the GH4 has the most potential, and it works even better with 4K photo mode recording.  The video was shot 3:2 aspect ratio.  I also had a hacked GH2 then a GH3.  The GH4 by far is the best of all them.
 

I also bought the Tokina 28-70 2.6 as Mr. Lee considered (his suggestions are priceless - thank you very much!).
I immediately liked the lens very very much. And it is a wonderful match for the Isco 54.
This combo brought me back from small gauge film to have some (much cheaper) fun with my "old" GH3.
This brings me to a point: There are so many discussions about 'filmic' look and the lack of it - particular with the GH4.
I also think the GH2 looked better than the GH3 but maybe I will buy the GH4 as this Tokina makes me trust more
in the lens for some look instead of the camera.
So with all my old lenses (Canon FDs, M42's) it could be possible to have a nice and warm look (or whatever filmic is...) with such a
modern camera like the GH4 or am I totally wrong?
Again thanks a lot for all the great infos!
 
PS I thought the Tokina is an old lens - but mine (I bought it from ebay) was sold new in a store last year (according to the bill in the box)?!
 
 

I also bought the Tokina 28-70 2.6 as Mr. Lee considered (his suggestions are priceless - thank you very much!).
I immediately liked the lens very very much. And it is a wonderful match for the Isco 54.
This combo brought me back from small gauge film to have some (much cheaper) fun with my "old" GH3.
This brings me to a point: There are so many discussions about 'filmic' look and the lack of it - particular with the GH4.
I also think the GH2 looked better than the GH3 but maybe I will buy the GH4 as this Tokina makes me trust more
in the lens for some look instead of the camera.
So with all my old lenses (Canon FDs, M42's) it could be possible to have a nice and warm look (or whatever filmic is...) with such a
modern camera like the GH4 or am I totally wrong?
Again thanks a lot for all the great infos!
 
PS I thought the Tokina is an old lens - but mine (I bought it from ebay) was sold new in a store last year (according to the bill in the box)?!
 
 

for utmost resolution you wont really gain anything better than the slr magic lenses you currently own. particularly from 135mm format lenses like the contax g series.  this is because the contax leses are designed to deliver their resolution onto a 35mm frame so you'll only be using a small proportion of that area.  a good investment would be a speed booster since this will compress more of the optical capabilities of contax zeisses into the smaller area.  -and will equal a higher resolving power onto your m4/3 sensor.  the resolution benefits depend on the quality of the optics in the speed booster so I would suggest waiting for the ultra version in m4/3.  this in combination with a zeiss 50mm f1.4 will outdo the contax G 45mm in resolution terms, and will allow you to run at f2.8 rather than wide open for the same light transmittance and with a slightly wider fov than the 45mm on its own.  £1000 should just about buy a 50mm f1.4 contax and a speed booster ultra..

Good ambition.  You're onto something, you just need to refine it. I also did sketches (a looong time ago) for fun.  My ideas and my comedy were pathetic, but the process of making mistakes while filming was invaluable. 
My advice is this:  you're trying to fix the wrong problem.  If you want your work to look better you need to worry about a bunch of other things before lens selection.
And, honestly, a slightly wide lens is ideal for comedy stuff.  You're already set.
I'd fret most about lighting and knowing how to create strong balanced exposures on subjects.  Your lighting is uninspired and kind of distracting.  If you can't learn to do it well, maybe hire someone that can...or is at least willing to try hard to figure it out.  It's heavy lifting, so you need to love the challenge or find someone that does. 
I can't emphasize it enough.  The thing that separates good shooting from bad shooting is not the gear, it's using whatever gear you got with the right light.  Good shooters chase good light or make good light.  They combine it with numerous others imaging skills to make something special.
This is why, in filmmaking, you'll see a talented 17 year old kid with an old Canon Ti making films incredibly better than some camera-gear-head with a brand new [insert latest expensive and popular technical camera here] and every lens at his/her disposal.
The deal is simple, if you want to get better than everyone else running around with a great camera these days (aka: everyone with a vague interest in DSLR/mirrorless video), then get better where it actually makes the most difference.  No lens can salvage a poorly lit frame.  And in case it needs saying:  exposure is not about pumping enough light into a shot, it's knowing how to place or remove the right amount of light where it needs to go for pleasant shots to result.
It's like music.  You don't make nuanced music by playing a cacophony of relentless sound.  Good music happens in the space between notes.
Lenses?  A very important tool, however they're only a part of everything --And this only addresses the simple technicalities of production!  Governing the artistic performance side of it all is another consideration altogether...and your camera is one of the main characters!  
 
...Of course, you could be like many and just buy camera gear as a catalyst to some creative motivation.  I've done it...

I give you a ton of props for making this.  As hard as it is (yeah I feel your pain on working with diopters) I think this is a good effort.  Any type of filmmaking is very difficult.  You got that vintage look and I think it works.  Like the church interior scene, looks the best wide.  The office scenes are all skewed, wish you got those right because the bokeh from the city lights is nice.  Keep working at it!  I think you have a good eye, just get a friend to carry stuff for you or help position lights.

Please have a look at the music promo I made using a kowa 8-Z anamorphic adaptor, mounted on a voigtlander Nokton 35mm F1.2, using a Lumix GH3.
 
I also had a Tokina .4 achromat and a Cokin Diopter +2 for the Close ups.
 
It was all shot at night which presented problems as the Lumix isn't very good in low light. I was shooting at 50fps which reduced the amount of light I had even further. I also found that if the lens was fully open it was difficult to get a focus. Not because it was too shallow, but because it wouldn't focus on anything!
 
As you can see I over-cranked the ISO on occasion, but I couldn't set lights up on the banks of the Thames at 3am, as we didn't have permission  to be there. I wish I'd got someone to stand close by reflecting a bright torch off a white shirt though. I can only hope that I get away with the graininess in the spirit of low/no budget film making, and it looks like 16mm!
 
Staying close to the subject, using the diopters, gave me a picture I liked the most. The bokeh looks lovely and soft and cinematic. Shots where I had to focus to infinity were difficult - the bokeh is ugly in those shots (in my opinion), taking the shape of a kind of horizontal tear. But I couldn't film the whole video in close ups!
 
It was difficult to shot this as a one-man-band. Having to screw two different diopters on or off every time I wanted to change my proximity to the actors made it quite fiddly. I was also moving lights (I had x3 LED panels). I had some other taking lenses, but it wasn't practical to change during the shoot.
 
Lastly, I know its normal to crop the super-wide picture you get from shooting 2x anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor, but I decided to embrace it. It's fun, and a bit silly, but its a music promo, so why not.
 
Hope you enjoy. The track by Durlston George, his debut single, is lovely.

Literally just bought this gem not more than a week ago. Much more simplistic and way easier to use than a Sankor I had before even though housing construction was nicer of course.  Just chasing the kids around with the holiday lights keeping everything decently lit.  Super exciting for me right now and brings joy again with single focus. 
 

I also enjoyed the tiny Hypergonar but it has it's quirks: At first you need DIY mounting and filterthread solution (there is non)
And you definitely need diopters for sharp image. Maybe you can ask the Van Diemen "rehouser" for a special edition ;)
It is also rather expensive...
In my eyes the small Moeller has the advantage: Very appealing super sharp image, no diopters. Mounting is easy with Redstans clamp. 
The dual focus on the Moeller is also a piece of cake. You can even manage focuspulling with some practice.
For me that small Moeller is better than my Iscoramas :) 

Well, I found that shooting digital is tiring for me. And that characteristic isn't minor but major to me!

I admit, that for example BMPCC is great. The RAW image looks great. But it's way to clinical! Sterile. Yes, its matter of tase, and I love the filmistock imperfection. Thats something digital will never have! It's too good. And it's funny how many videos around try to fake the imperfection and film look. 

Probably digital is already superior to film quality wise but... there is so much more about film:
Well stored film lasts for your whole lifetime and can ever be reproduced (also with a device built of LEGO :) )
Shooting film is totally different as you have to think twice. David Lynch pointed out that actors seem to work more determined/concentratde when shot on film
For my latest Super-8 project I shot 10minutes of footage which cost me more than €250,- So this is something worthy and that makes it special. When I capture video it is always too much. I am tired of watching hours of rubbish. For some reason film is more artistic for me. I also like to cut with scissors and project film (just watched a great documentary from 1971 - even my 18 year old son was impressed).
 
The most important thing is maybe that my brain is analogue and analogue is more pleasing to me. I also prefer records instead of CDs :)
 
Regarding the above mentioned new camera - There is such thing: It is called "Logmar" and produces stunning images with Super-8.
This looks absolutely like 16mm when you choose some of the new negative stock. And there is no (NO!) flicker at all  :o
 
But sometimes I also like digital and it is fine for me but at least I have to use some less sharp lenses and some anamorphic glass to reduce the cold clinical sharpness. 
Just a matter of taste  :)

Correct, commercial work = paid work. Reward the musician not just yourself :)

I am in talks with some professional musicians and film scorers here in Berlin and have discovered some real talent... The average quality of their work far exceeds the current music licensing libraries and it is more original, more interesting.
  I am thinking therefore some kind of music licensing service might be useful to offer on EOSHD especially with the Vimeo copyright problem filmmakers are facing. I don't want to see people sued for copyright infringement when they are just trying to express themselves and their art.
 
Some of the pros I know here are doing really high end audio - we're talking Hans Zimmer & feature film standard. However these are professionals and we need to pay them. It is simply not going to wash using a track for free that took them 6 months of recording time in studios that charge $400 per day.
 
I'm wondering what a fair and acceptable rate would be for licensing? I want it to start low to be accessible to artists but scale up to commercial work in the right way. Typical prices at the Music Bed range from a minimum of $50 for non-profit to $399 for commercial work and for larger scale commercial work custom quotes are required.
 
EOSHD music licensing would be different.
 
For personal work or zero budget short films on Vimeo / YouTube (non-commercial)
$19 - 1 track
$50 - 5 tracks
$99 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - small clients (<10 employees) and non-profit organisations
$50 - 1 track
$99 - 5 tracks
$199 - 10 tracks
 
For commercial work - large clients (>10 employees) and advertisements
$199 - 1 track
$399 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
For features, documentaries and short films with a crew
$199 - 1 track
$499 - 5 tracks
Custom quote - 10 tracks
 
Of course before you buy you can play all tracks in full on EOSHD to see if they are what you need.
 
I'd like some feedback on this first before I decide to go ahead with it or not as the amount of work involved here is very significant.
 
In particular what do you need from such a service?
What projects do you need music for... And what do you think of the pricing?
 
Cheers!

I love the look of film, sadly I've never been able to make a production with it. I've put countless hours into digital production and post processes, just to try and emulate the look and feel, because I love it's non-linearity, spirit and heart.
 
I do shoot still photographic film though and love it. One hopes that somehow, film motion picture will have a resurrection outside of Hollywood, and become more convenient to use somehow, by way of new technologies...

I'm quite determined to shoot something on 16mm this year, directing not operating. I will make it happen! I love a bit of gritty 16mm

maybe you'd like to check this out: http://savefilm.org
 
I now this is a forum for digital cameras but maybe here are some filmshooters as well...?
However I apologize if you consider this as spam and if not thank you very much!
I love film :)