Bioskop.Inc

I've shot quite a few live music events & I always get my shots - never even thought about reframing, not once. In fact, most of the time i'm able to sync stuff from one song to make it look like it belongs to another - perhaps I'm just used to knowing what will work & what won't. And yes the Pocket's DR in ProRes (RAW's a luxury one can't afford when filming live stuff) is exactly what makes my task that much easier when editing it all up. That's the other thing as well, if you film but don't edit, you tend to be out of the creative loop - I'm always thinking about the edit when I film stuff, it would be stupid not to.

Just on the over inflated prices thing because people are falsely claiming B&H are better (they've said this when they were cheap) - probably minute differences to be honest & not worth getting worked up about.
I don't use step rings to attach to my taking lens - Redstan Clamp gets it up close & personal.
Personally, I don't abide by the getting the rear & front optics as close as possible - I love the light bouncing around inside, it gives you extra internal lens flaring.
Also, don't forget about the coatings on the taking lenses - Gold is what you're ideally after.

So true. I share the exact same opinion. the race for resolution is somehow a non-sense. For cinema most of the times we deliver in 2k dci standard (flat or scope). So 4k maybe it's good for reframing, digital pans and tilts, but not much more.  I rather  have a camera with good motion color science dynamic range, etc than this resolution race. 
 

Ive had the same cameras as you use to wow your friends. I've also had several 4K cameras that outshoot it in every way. Still 4K isn't anything more than a feature in my book.
Dontvsee what exactly it is that I/we don't get? 
Isn't it just that I/we have a different opinion than you? Isn't that OK?
I just don't see how you could be "right" and we just "don't get it".
(speaking of blind tests  )

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.
On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.
As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......
If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.
On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.
As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......
If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.
On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.
As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......
If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

I wear glasses - if I want things smoothed out, I just take them off.
On a serious note, until TV is properly 1080p, I'm just going to stick with a HD TV - 720p upscaled to 1080p looks fine & Blu-Ray is about as sharp as I can handle. Also, 4K TVs are waaaaaay more expensive than HD TVs.
As far as filming things goes, BM Pocket produces one of the best images that I've seen/used for quite a long while (10yrs or so) - it's not about sharpness, never has been, never will be. Look at what most DPs say - they're trying to soften the image & that's for cinema, which you would've thought needed a bigger/better resolution for the bigger screen. So you can take your sharpness and.......
If you buy a 4K camera to re-frame & then downscale to 1080p - what a complete & utter waste of time. Learn to frame/film properly & appreciate the beauty of a great camera. I'd prefer to rent a proper 4K camera with a decent codec, instead of using something with a crippling 8-bit mess.

Colour rendition and broad dynamic range trumps higher resolution needs every time....especially if the goal is to achieve 'filmic' results.
 
 

For me resolution is nowhere near the top of the list of what makes a good image.
When I compared the 4K NX1 and RX100iv to the 5Ds HD Raw, the Canon won.
The BMPCC or Bolex runs circles around GH4s and Sonys, imo.
Same thing happens with still cameras.
Plus I don't know how many times I've done blind tests and not even the biggest 4K evangelists of this and other forums can tell the difference.
Now, if we have HD vs 4K and all else is equal, both shooting Raw, wide DR, nice color science, etc.. Then 4K might come in handy. But its not needed for any of the work I do personally. Not until its a standard, and thats years from now.
So with that said, I still buy HD cameras and have gone back and forth from 4K many times.

I've got the RJ Focal reducer M42 to M4/3 & its just fine - no blue spot that everyone goes on about & have even fooled people thinking that it was the official SpeedBooster.
However, I've heard/seen some pretty awful example footage of both the Mitakon & RJ - so all I can think is that QC isn't the best or that some lenses don't play well with these cheaper versions. Personally, i'm using Vintage M42 lenses in combo with Anamorphic lenses (Isco 54 & WS 2000) with no problems encountered (perhaps they hide the ugly stuff?) and I do believe that the newer sharper lenses just exaggerate all the defects inherent in the cheaper SBs. Or are the M42 cheap SBs just not experiencing the troubles - don't know.
Then again, people have had issues with the official SpeedBoosters too, so go figure. Are the official SBs worth so much more, that's between you & your wallet.
I need a Nikon to M4/3 version for my Tokina AT-X Pro/Nikon Ai-s lenses & am on the fence between the Mitakon & the RJ - so much debate about which ones are better & it has become soooo confusing.
Anyone had experience with Nikon to M4/3?

For M42 lenses, there are plenty that have clickless apertures (they call them Pre-Set Apertures), mostly the Russain lenses, the classics - Helios 44-2, Jupiter 9, Tair 11a etc...
It depends where you are in the world, but in the UK this guy de-clicks lenses to a very high standard:
http://www.thelensdoctor.co.uk/index.html

Will this ever end?!
When I first got introduced to Digital Editing there were only 2 NLEs being used - Avid & FCP. Avid was the weapon of choice for the high end stuff - Natural History & Drama. FCP was used by everyone else. Premiere - never even got a look in (never mentioned, didn't know it existed at first).
The problem has become the importance placed on After Effects, by small independant companies - the new build Motion is either on a par or just behind it, but not enough to make it redundant. In Big companies, the titles are done by one team (outsourced) & the Editor actually spends his time editing.
The real difference between FCPX & Premiere - one you pay a one off fee for & the other you pay monthly for. And if you really wanted to go that step further - one works better with Macs & the other with Windows. They're NLEs, nothing more & you use the one that gets the job done best for you.

Well if its Tyres you're after, then watch a film called "Rubber"
 

The Killer (Dir. John Woo) - mind blowingly amazing & a must if you like action/gangster movies (American films just pale in comparison).
Best action sequence - the opening 10mins of 'Hard Boiled' (John Woo again). Don't know how many people die, but its a lot & the gun play is out of this world.

I started on FCP5, then 6/7. I've used Premiere (yuck!) & AVID (yummy!).
I'm now on FCPX & basically it does everything in a more logical way - compared to Premiere/FCP7. Yes it takes a bit of time to adjust (not that much of a learning curve), but most of the people who claim they tried it & don't like it, probably are talking about when it was first released. It is soo much better now & I can edit at least 3/4 times faster than I could on FCP7/Premiere - what most people see as problems with FCPX, I see as logical improvements for editors.
If you're on a Mac, it's pretty much a no brainer (& Motion is much improved to or should that be completely different now).
Try the trial version (but for more than 5mins).

Nice, a little too shakey in some places for my taste, but the piece as a whole really works.
If the past can teach us anything, its that there are no rules to music videos - everything goes. Its a music video & as long as it keeps your attention for the whole song, then you've done your job.

Nice, a little too shakey in some places for my taste, but the piece as a whole really works.
If the past can teach us anything, its that there are no rules to music videos - everything goes. Its a music video & as long as it keeps your attention for the whole song, then you've done your job.

Nice, a little too shakey in some places for my taste, but the piece as a whole really works.
If the past can teach us anything, its that there are no rules to music videos - everything goes. Its a music video & as long as it keeps your attention for the whole song, then you've done your job.

Me too

As Jim said, you can edit ProRes but not the DNG files.
However, I use "Raw Photo Processor 64" (its a free download) to convert the DNG files to 16-bit TIFF files. RPP has the best Highlight retrieval of anything that i've used, it has 4 different curve types (Film-like, L*, Gamma & Colorimetric Gamma), Custom or Auto White Balance (which is v.accurate), a load of TruePaper & TrueFilm simulations and so much more. Oh, did I mention that its free!
So no need for Resolve...

In the end, its up to the person shooting. IMHO i prefer to do as much in-camera as is humanly possible - whether that be choice of lens, filters etc...
Yeah, there's always going to be a program/app that can do this or that - great marketing, gotta love it! But why not see what's available in your NLE already, because lets face it, that's what these people are using as a baseline anyways.
Testing is really the way to go - look at how most films choose their cameras.
In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO

You are right. I just wanted to stress that one shouldn't make a dogma from anything. Artists have been performing "post" long before computers were invented. Surely the most fun comes from finding, making, forging things to become worth filming. 

In the end, its up to the person shooting. IMHO i prefer to do as much in-camera as is humanly possible - whether that be choice of lens, filters etc...
Yeah, there's always going to be a program/app that can do this or that - great marketing, gotta love it! But why not see what's available in your NLE already, because lets face it, that's what these people are using as a baseline anyways.
Testing is really the way to go - look at how most films choose their cameras.
In the end, in-camera effects were around for 100yrs before digital came along - its all been done & tested for you (there's certainly a youtube video or two, or even a Book on the subject). Paying £200, instead of doing some research & then picking up a few secondhand filters is simply pissing your money up against the wall - IMHO