Bioskop.Inc

Kidz - buy a pocket & a cheap speedbooster (RJ are the best - don't get sucked in to the marketing of spending the same amount of money on the metabones) and if you don't fall in love with the footage, then you'll be forever chasing that camera which doesn't exist. Honestly, with the pocket you don't even have to use RAW - if you can't shoot & grade ProRes HQ 10 bit footage then you should put down your camera & walk away! Also, ML will crash & when it does you'll curse the day you ever thought that it was 100% stable (it did it to me on a paid job & I was lucky the client was understanding - it fucked me & fucked me hard!). What a lot of people who rave about ML won't tell you is that the ML developers have pretty much stopped developing RAW on Canon cameras, as they are doing so much work on another camera's firmware. One of the ML developers or ex-developers is on this forum & raves about the Pocket - enough said. I was like you at one point & I just stopped searching after using 10bit footage - the only camera that will replace my Pocket is the soon to be released Micro version & even then I'll keep my Pocket cam. Suck it & see - wait a little as the prices will drop once the micro comes out!

This article might be of interest, if you're after uncoated lenses & Duclos will uncoat lenses: http://nofilmschool.com/2012/12/whats-special-about-uncoated-lenses However, you might be on a Holy Grail quest that could send you down a rabbit hole that you can never get out of! Rich's DS lenses are probably the best option, if Duclos charge too much.

Have you tried using the profiles for other cameras on your NX1 footage? I use a BM Pocket & have not used the BM profiles for a while now, since I much prefer the ARRI profile from FilmConvert - it seems to deal with skintones & colour much better (you do have to turn down the settings from the default 100% or lower the contrast on your clips & raise the saturation). I've also had good results with using the FC default profile as an Adjustment Layer. Well worth experimenting a little with FC profiles!

I'd follow Rich's advice & stick with what you have, since you'll almost certainly ruin your lens. Your lens does have character & most people tend to think that horizontal flare is the only thing anamorphic lenses are good for, which is completely false - there's so much more to using anamorphics, you just have to experiment a little harder. I've got MC anamorphics to flare just fine, eventhough I don't particularly like horizontal flare This was a quick'n'dirty flare test that I did with a MC Isco 54. My personal favourites are examples 9+10 (9 was a vintage Tomioka with Gold-ish coating & 10 was a new MC Zeiss ZE).

I found that timelapses are difficult with the BMPCC & simply resort to using a DSLR, but that looks fine. What I meant about focusing wide open (or there abouts), was just about getting critical focus - once you achieve that, then you stop down the taking lens. The problem with trying to focus when your taking lens is at f8 is to do with depth of field - there are more things in focus. For example, if you set your lens @ 10m & stop down your lens, then the area of what's in focus could be between 8-12m (this is not exact, but an example), as opposed to if you shot wide open, where only objects @ 10m will be in focus. So you never try to focus with a lens stopped down, simply because you'll never be able to achieve critical focus - you stop down once you achieve critical focus. Hope that makes sense.

This can be tricky, what i've done in the past is to focus on an object in the distance (use the zoom function on the pocket) & open up the taking lens aperture (you'll need an ND filter or just fiddle with ASA/shutter speed & then change it back). You either set the taking lens or anamorphic and fiddle with both like crazy until the object in your sights is in focus - this is why people say that dual focus is a PITA. IMHO, for landscape shots, just set the anamorphic to infinity & then focus with the taking lens (remember to open up the aperture whilst doing this & then when you have infinity focus, stop down your lens to f8 or whatever you want). Dual focus anamorphics take a while to get used to, but its all about practice! Just remember that you're not going to get critical focus with your taking lens stopped down & forget about focus peaking - your eyes will do a better job.

Yeah that thread, but better than talking about Tarantino - the most over rated director out there, who just steals from others & doesn't really have any original ideas of his own. I like David Lynch's approach - he doesn't really talk about his films, just lets the audience [try to] figure it out for themselves.

That's what a PhD in Horror films will do to you. Got to remember that intentions of a filmmaker & audience/critic interpretations can be different, normally are.

Do you think that the problem might be the fact that the camera is downscaling 6.5k to 4k and that creates this sharpening effect which you think is being done in-camera? So using high contrast sharp lenses might just make things even worse. Have you used a really soft lens on the NX1 yet?

I thought that this was amazing & achieved exactly what it set out to do - you all seem to have recoiled at the images & knew that it was presenting absolute cruelty towards horses. I also felt that the use of slow motion & the soundscape to be an inspired twist to the norm that we associate with their use - as Hans said "Cinematic language has taught most audiences to associate slow motion and ambient soundscapes as depictions of beauty...". The application of this technique was surely to implicate the audience as an accomplice to such acts & by doing so makes their reaction to these "beautiful" images even more intense - you recoil twice as hard precisely because of the dichotomy of the images (beautiful & grotesque). Also, the PACMA badge was presented throughout & so wasn't hard to realise that this wasn't a glorification. If you felt that it was, then the filmmaker did his job as he placed you into a position that was contrary to your sensibilities & his manipulation of you was complete. The crucial moment for me was when one of the horses fell over in the middle of the fire & it jerked me back to reality - he made me an accomplice, but allowed me to come to my senses. This is what animal rights is all about and sometimes its best to just show something in order to let the audience decide.

This is an Exakta mount - quite a few lenses were made in M42 and/or Exakta mounts. I googled & found this page about compatability etc... http://vintage-camera-lenses.com/exa-exakta-mount-adapter/

I saw a similar effect in the film "The Duke of Burgundy" & in the extensive director's notes, Peter Strickland stated that his DP set up 2 mirrors & shot the reflections - you could use 1 or 2 mirrors depending on your desired effect. The resulting in-camera effect was stunning!

You've got everything you need to make the Kowa flare (Helios is the King), but not with that square light (as Hans has stated) - you'd get better results with the light on your phone. The best light source to make your lens flare (like the ones in Star Trek), is to use a high powered torch. A few pointers about flare: ISO/ASA & F/T Stop can all play their role (some cameras produce better flares with High ISO & some with Low ISO - you shouldn't stop down too much on your taking lens). You can actually focus on the flares (ie. make them sharper/stand out more) & you'll notice that there should be 2 sets of horizontal flares (one closer to your camera & one further away). You don't have to have the lens pointing directly into the light source to create flares (so the light creating the flare doesn't have to be in shot). Lastly, practice, experiment & get to know your lens set up. Oh & if you do start buying other lenses, buy the ones with the Golden-ish tinted coatings for the best/craziest flares.

Use a longer taking lens & a +1 or +2 diopter or both!

Its JJ Abrams, so if Star Trek is anything to go by then it'll be good - can't see him messing up, can you? But i've still got in the back of my mind that its Star Wars & so nothing will top the first film or the sheer wonder/impression that viewing it at the time had. The only film of that era that absolutely topped Star Wars was Alien. In the end, its going to be what its going to be - some will love it, others will be dissappointed. Its going to be interesting though & probably the best Blockbuster there's been for quite a while or will be for quite some time.

Would be interesting if you could also upload a jpg as well

As Hans has said, its difficult to tell with your clip (might be slightly misaligned, which is what Hans was getting at?). Maybe use a longer lens, so when you do zoom in to check critical focus, it'll seem much closer & so be easier to tell. For me, the real test for Infinity is something way in the distance - that seemed to be about 10-20m away. Is that what you wanted/meant when you said Infinity? If so you're pretty close. What did you do to the lens?

Yes would be very interested to see the results you got.

Don't do that, you'll end up destroying it & it produces such a nice image. If you want or really need infinity, then use one of those Lomo's you were talking about, shoot that stuff normally or just work within its limitations - again it would be a real shame to destroy that lens.

The fixed @ 4m comes from the lens itself (on the top it just has 4m written in white letters) & extensice testing has shown this to be absolutely true - its at its sharpest when the taking lens is set to 4m. All this info is based around the Iscomorphot branded s8/x2 & maybe the Animex version was an earlier incarnation, where they thought you could project between 3m to Infinity and then changed their minds with the Iscomorphot lenses (finding 4m to be the optimum). You've got to remember that these are s8 projector lenses & I would hazard a guess that you wouldn't need to project the image at a distance further than 4m. As far as filming is concerned, 4m is a pretty good distance away from your subject & I would say that you could try pushing it to 5m (you'll need to test this yourself). To focus through the lens, I can only suggest what I do with the Isco Widescreen 2000 - stop down the taking lens & put a weak diopter on the front, in order to sharpen the image a little (you'll only get about a 2m racking distance, if you're lucky & it'll be more discrete). If you do want to try to shoot at Infinity, you'll have to close down the aperture on the taking lens (quite a bit actually) & that would mean low light shooting is completely out of the question - unless you've got really strong lights to counteract the f stop. Your purchase of the s8/x2 has encouraged me to go back to some footage that i shot a while ago & I am now in the process of editing it up into a short film. The video below was the first test sequence that i put up - Canon 60D, Helios 44-2 (shot wide open @ f2), Iscomorphot & some diopters (the de-squeeze is all wrong, should have cropped): https://vimeo.com/41213761

This is interesting, especially if you consider shows like 'The Walking Dead' are using ARRI s16 film cameras to shoot with. I wonder if ARRI are seeing that there are further opportunities to be had in the low/lower budget arena? However, I don't think this will be cheap (BM cheap), but more in line with RED maybe? It'll be interesting to see what sort of resolution they will give it - 2.5k or 4k.

What editing program are you using, because when i've cropped anamorphic footage using FCPX it stays exactly the same sharpness. What you need to do is make a custom timeline & then stretch the footage by 200% - the timeline will cut the edges off for you & you should still have the option to move the image from side to side to re-frame. Personally, i'd stick with your Animex & the Pocket. If you need slow-mo, then you could always ramp the fps to the max & still achieve something ok. I've tried the slow-mo feature in FCPX with 24fps footage & its not too bad - but i hate slow-mo, its over-used & most of the time it doesn't add that much (its become a gimmick at best). Anamorphic obsession/curiosity can take you to interesting places & you can spend way too much cash just experimenting on failed projects. You've already got a good set up, so use it - it really isn't going to get better than the BMPCC, with or without an anamorphic lens.

Yeah, just made very little sense, but the way I look at it is: when you need to change the SD card, you just change the battery at the same time & if you're indoors, you plug it into the mains. Going to buy me an external soon, probably the Anker & keep it in my pocket!

And the great thing about the Pocket is that you don't even have to shoot RAW (& if you do, its a lot less hassle to process than ML RAW), as it provides you with a very healthy 10bit ProRes HQ mode! You really need to use a BMPCC to understand why its so good at its price point & most people (professionals & amateurs alike) think it produces the best image of all the BM cameras. There are so many BM haters out there & they simply haven't a clue of what they're missing out on!

I seem to remember that it was Nikon that started off the video function in DSLRs, so it would be nice if they had the last word with this Samsung tech.