Bioskop.Inc

I think the death of anamorphic film projection and the resulting appearance of dirt cheap anamorphic projection lenses (e.g. Schneider Cinelux etc.) was also an important factor.  After all, the variable diopter part is easy, its the cylindrical lenses that are hard to make.  It will be interesting to see what happens once the supply of grossly underpriced projection lenses dries up.

OLIVIA Scope was originally going to be a straight clone of an iscorama, just scaled up.  It soon became clear that in order to make something really groundbreaking we had to start out with a blank canvas.  Though OLIVIA Scope is operated in the same way as an Iscorama, because of the wide fov capability a racking adjustable diopter type 'untactful isco copy' focus mechanism would need a ridiculously over-engineered helical to provide shift of a big diopter element.      

 

Here, try this on for size & so you can compare with yours - from my pocket really low light test (its anamorphic so change the vertical height - divide by 1.5). Shot with a Nikon 24mm @ f2.8 & Isco 54. This is stressed & I would never shoot like this, grade or even use this.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/90827273/Pocket%20Low%20Light.dng
I raised the first by 5 stops, raised the highlight compression to 16, moved brightness to 60, Local contrast to 10 & contrast to 5 - all done in RPP. The second, I did the same but took some contrast out. This is RAW so ISO/ASA doesn't count

So many F**KHeads about!
People post sub standard screen grabs & no info about what they were trying to do - unrealistic shit stress test in the first place.
Then you go out of your way to upload a DNG file so that they can compare with what they have. Then you get this sort of shit from them.
Yeah F**K OFF!

So many F**KHeads about!
People post sub standard screen grabs & no info about what they were trying to do - unrealistic shit stress test in the first place.
Then you go out of your way to upload a DNG file so that they can compare with what they have. Then you get this sort of shit from them.
Yeah F**K OFF!

http://www.richardgaleoptics.uk/olivia-scope-15x/
Might have taken one apart & thought it might be easier to just make one?

My guess is that Rich is doing exactly this

From Panavisions site:
"Photographed by Greig Fraser, ACS, ASC with Panavision's new anamorphic ULTRA PANAVISION 70 optics."
http://www.panavision.com/new-rogue-one-star-wars-story-trailer
So I guess they're a new version of the ones Tarantino brought back?

Exposing skin tones by numbers can get one into trouble.  In the first place, skin tone varies.  Consider a shot in which an exceptionally pale skinned person and a very dark skinned person are standing next to each other in the same frame -- which one's skin do you set to 70% IRE?
 
Secondly, what if the shot is supposed to be low key, with the subject darker than normal?
 
Generally, the exposure should be as high as possible to reduce noise, without undesirably blowing out areas and/or without making it difficult to regain normal looking highlights.
 
Use your eyes (and your lighting skills) to determine the relative values of the subject/set, and use the zebras to determine the highest feasible exposure.

Waking this thread since its the place we have talked the most about the D16 and I just thought this looked great.
 

I bought the NX1 pretty shortly after the relese. That was not "years ago" and definetelly not when the GH3 was released. And the NX1 has its own problems. Or is being discontinued a new and fresh feature?
This constant bashing of cameras by people that have never ever used them is getting so old. 
I dont find the 80D all that exciting, but Ive never used it. So I dont bash it until I have.
I absolutely hate my rx100iv, but I still dont constantly post bs in the rx100iv thread. The G7 is one of the worst cameras Ive used, but I let those who are interested discuss it in peace without unfunny jokes and bogus links. I would rather jam a fork in my eye than get a a6300, but I dont feel the need to tell every one that have bought it how wrong they are...
Im out until someone actually has the camera.

They are nice & do their best to solve problems. As with all electronic devices, there's always going to be some bad apples & the internet just makes things seem to be a lot worse than they really are. Just remember that these cameras are not low light monsters, they do need a minimum of light. The image that they produce is really so much better than a DSLR, but they do have their limitations just like a DSLR does & people tend to forget that.

I agree, their cameras are cheap and they have the best image available, even spending 3 or 4 times more you can't have that look.
Anyway their customer service seems very friendly and helpful, maybe my camera is more prone to that problem, I hope they can fix it or replace it, we'll see.

mmmmm tasty diffusion... nice blooming highlights...Now that's a battle! Tomas Bangaltar vs Ice Cream Coney.
On another side of things, the super 8 revival is looking really interesting with the Logmar and Kodak (coming in 2016 supposedly) cyborgs! It seems that the film scanning technology is getting really good and affordable.
Kodak is claiming they will provide 4k or 5k resolution for super8 scans when you use their film stock!

No there's nothing wrong with you, i'm LMAO most of the time!
Its a shame sarcasm doesn't really translate online...
But seriously, this function is an idiot's wet dream, it beats 4k 8bit recording technology hands down.
 

I love the Coney Island video above...but i'll raise you that Ikonoskop video, with this one - made by one of the guys from Daft Punk, just...
 

Glad you like it.
Postproduction is almost done. Pictures are less green and dark now. :-)

Think this is the thing with the Micro - everyone's just got straight to shooting something, cheers.
1. Used worse screens & with a crude viewfinder, I've never ever missed focus.
2. Yes, yes & yes - stopped using RAW because of this & only vintage lenses + anamorphic lenses (also avoid moire creating things like the plague!).
3. Not a problem - swap the SD card, swap the battery.
Pocket has/had the best image out there, hands down, no question about it!
Just hoping that BM announce a camera that lies inbetween the BMCC & Pocket...

I've hardly even had time to test the little camera.  It's soon to be fitted into forbes70, and I'm hoping global shutter gets enabled.  from some of the footage I've shot I have noticed more obvious fixed pattern shadow noise than I have seen from the pocket.  @Zak Forsman have you noticed this?

Think this is the thing with the Micro - everyone's just got straight to shooting something, cheers.
1. Used worse screens & with a crude viewfinder, I've never ever missed focus.
2. Yes, yes & yes - stopped using RAW because of this & only vintage lenses + anamorphic lenses (also avoid moire creating things like the plague!).
3. Not a problem - swap the SD card, swap the battery.
Pocket has/had the best image out there, hands down, no question about it!
Just hoping that BM announce a camera that lies inbetween the BMCC & Pocket...

If the ebay listing didn't state that it had fungus, contact the seller & get your money back.
Ebay defends the buyer & not the seller - make sure that you don't have to pay the return postage (they duped you, so they should pay).
Had this happen to me a few times & they normally don't argue, since if you complain to ebay they defend you. Also, bet you they say something on the lines of "Oh I didn't know it had fungus...blah blah blah!"

This forum is all about filming & so the 80D offers absolutely nothing new - we all know this and there are far better options out there for video, at a cheaper price. You can buy a secondhand T2i for £190 (30k shutter count), but not everyone wants to do this - they want something new.
But as its been said, time & time again, Canon make photography cameras with video bolted on. If you want to film something, then they have the C series (still 8-bit, which beggers belief in this day & age), so they are never going to release something that steps all over their other camera lines - it would be absolutely crazy!
The one thing Canon has going for them is that they are a well known brand - their colour science is great & their cameras just work straight out of the box. People are going to buy the 80D regardless of what people say - you stick with a trusted brand, because they are a trusted brand. Look at Kendy Ty, when he moved away from the T2i, he upgraded to a 5D! He could have gone to so many other makes of camera, but stuck with Canon.
The Moire & Aliasing debate is only cared about by us - there are so many Films/TV series that have it. Try telling someone you know, who is clueless about camera tech, about M&A and they just won't have a clue about what you're on about - they don't notice it or care. The thing i'm finding funny at the moment is the absolute lack of BMMCC footage out there - strange, no?

Cry all you want... canon have nailed the vlogger market with this one .... great AF and beautiful footage with minimal/no need to go to post. 
Want Canon for cinematic needs? Use ML, the C line or the 1DX II... Can't afford it, not really Canon's fault now, is it?

Yup, its actually one of the corner stones in their entire business model. To reuse parts as much as they can.
You find the same exact components in all of their gear. Plugs, sockets, displays, etc, it sits in their cameras as well as studio gear.