Bioskop.Inc

Those are the ones, especially the 105mm f2.5, also it's worth trying the 28mm, but i suppose it's quite close to the 5mm - these really are a great set of lenses. Most people will be put off by the fact that they aren't very fast, but that's just silly & normally it's people following the idiotic rule that you should shoot wide open with fast apertures.
For vintage lenses, 55mm is normally the best due to the fact that the lens recipe is simpler & they perfected it. Have you tried any Tomioka (Japan) made lenses? The 55mm f1.4's are worth a try, very nice for video. They made for various people: Chinon, Yashinon, Revuenon etc.., must have "Tomioka Japan" on the inner ring & have the "Auto" moniker. They did do a 55mm f1.2, which is dreamy wide open & a lot more expensive.
At the moment, my goto lenses have been either the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-28 (the first version is an Angenieaux lens recipe) or the Mir 24m 35mm f2 - for me they are must have lenses.
You're right on the money there - 44-2 is an excellent lens if you get a good copy. Lots of other Russain lenses, actually most of them, give this lovely low contrast - it's why people have raved about them for video for a long time. Dirt cheap as well, but you might need to shop around for good copies

@tomsemiterrific BM's colour science is really good, especially on the P1 & I assume that they will have gone the route of their URSA set of cams for the P2. When recording in their Film Mode (or Log if you prefer) you could pretty much do what you wanted, you don't have to be a genius at grading - just add some contrast & saturation, or whatever your taste is. After numerous firmware updates, their Video Mode was really good if you were in a hurry & just wanted their baked in look (you could push it). One thing I will say is that after shooting loads with the P1, I didn't bother filming in RAW beyond a few tests & some tricky lighting setups. This is because the ProRes HQ coming from the P1 was absolutely stunning - if you didn't have enough latitude in ProRes HQ you simply weren't filming properly, as all you had to do was nail the exposure & in post you could push it by 3 stops either way. The other reason for not shooting RAW was that it produced more noise, M&A, took up way too much HD space & grading took longer. I hope that answers your question & you don't need to be a genius at grading, just shoot/capture your subject properly and the rest is child's play.

If I was being harsh - yet another annoying youtuber click bait rant!
Just look at the facts: they bought a brand new iMac Pro, took it apart & broke it - WTF!? Why would someone do this? It's just pure insanity.
And then look at it from Apple's point of view - someone took apart a brand new computer & say they only broke the screen, but who knows what else they did whilst doing all of this? It could turn out that the damage is much worse than just a screen & as far as they are concerned, it just isn't worth the risk to even attempt a repair - could be it bursts into flames or explodes or whatever, when they try to test the screen repair. They just don't know & knowing what the Health & Safety laws/procedures are like in the UK, most companies will just say no.
There's so much electronic equipment that have tags/stickers etc. that say removing them & opening the equipment will void all warranty (and probably any chance of said company repairing/touching it with a barge pole). If they were so interested in seeing what was inside, then iFixit (or other websites) do exactly this - I bet you they couldn't care less if it gets broke & if it did, they certainly wouldn't ask Apple.
As I said winging click bait BS....

Think Larry Jordan nails it on the head with this on ProRes:
https://larryjordan.com/articles/pick-the-right-version-of-prores/

Maybe not many people know, 16D has its twin named 35J.  

16D usually means Sankor's 16D.  And don't confuse with Kowa 16D, which is smaller lens.

I don't really think "Clean" & "Anamorphic" are really terms that should be uttered in the same breath - unless you've got one of those multi-coloured sterile projection lenses, which you don't have. This is because x2 stretch anamorphics can produce all sorts of strangeness, which is normally down to the focal length of the taking lens - a 35mm can, and normally does, give you a curving effect at the edges (see Blade Runner, it's everywhere), whereas 135mm will not produce this effect (longer focal lengths will give you a better image). Also, the aperture plays a part & I've found the ideal stop is around f4-5.6 - wide open is when you get the really crazy weird shit going down.
A good rule of thumb is that anamorphic adapters play better with simple recipe lenses, which is why the Russian lenses go so well with them - Helios 44-2, Jupiter 9 & Tair 11a (58mm, 85mm, 135mm). They are all pre-set apertures (or fluid apertures, not click stops) & are the classic taking lens set for these adapters - cheap as well.
The Nikon Ai-S lenses produce a great image, as do the Super Takumars (these are single-coated & better for flares, as opposed to the SMC versions). I've seen some good things done with the older Voitglander lenses (not the new ones) & I can't remember if the Contax Zeiss were a good match with the Kowa B&H (I had a set & sold them, but think that was a money thing).
As far as getting the best flares are concerned, the taking lenses to use are those that have a Golden coating. Also, beware if you don't want internal lens flares & especially the white vignetting, then you'll need to use a matte box & even then you might get some strange things going on. Also the light source can change the colour of the flares - under normal conditions the Kowa's flares should be Green & Magenta.
There's loads of video tests out there with the Kowa B&H, so go out there & see what you like.

There are lots of different anamorphic lenses out there & quite a few which don't get much attention. I'm with Rudolf & avoid the coloured Iscos - over priced & really won't give you the look most people are after. As a first stop I'd look into something like a Sankor/Singer 16D or H or an Elmoscope I - they have the x2 stretch, aren't horribly sharp & they will give you those lovely Blue flares that you see from the cinema - they will flare much better than any Iscorama. Yes they are dual focus, but you mentioned getting an adaptor for single focus, so no problem.
Have a look around & you can always post examples to get people's feedback....good luck & don't make a impulse purchases - waiting & looking around is the best course of action.

So you need to use the Colour Board for Rec709 & the Colour Wheels for Rec2020 - both are affected by whatever Apple have done. But if you read through some of Apple's advice, it does state that if you're using Log clips then you should use the Wide Colour Gamet selection - so does that mean that you CC in Rec2020 & then export in Rec709? I've found the colour board almost useless if you try to bring back Log footage, since you really have to ramp everything up to levels that the old version didn't require you to do. Therefore, it does appear that they've really messed things up & they really need to address this in an update.
The other new additions to FCPX are really great & it still is the quickest NLE out there. So DaVinci Resolve here i come.....

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame.
The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1.
SPOILERS, BIG ONES!
There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment.
The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed.
I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment.
I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view.
Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.
 
 

His last comment, on the above video & the title of this post, is the truth - you have to test cameras yourself, do not rely on other people's tests/opinions. However, nowadays people don't/won't just blindly go out & buy a camera. So we look around at uploaded footage & try our hardest to make a decision, which is a minefield in itself. The guy seems to have made a mistake, but what an error, especially if you're blogging - hey, but shit happens. Personally, I loath comparison videos & would rather compare independent clips, but that's just me.
BM cameras get a lot of negative comments & mostly from people who've come from a DSLR background - they simply don't understand that most high end cameras have loads of problems (RED send out technicians to movie sets, enough said). We all now know that BM cameras can produce lovely images, on a par to some of these high end cameras & most importantly, for a decent price. 
Do you remember the marketing lies when FCPX came out? Premiere suddenly became this NLE that everyone was holding a torch to, when the reality of the situation was that no high end company was even using it to edit - the NLE of choice was AVID and then FCP7. It now turns out that the decision to rebuild FCP from scratch was a great idea, because it is now so much better than Premiere could ever hope to be. In fact Premiere now feels like a bad copy of the old FCP7 & brings nothing to the party - on top of this, you have to rent it from Adobe for a monthly fee. The NLE market now has loads of choices available, Lightworks & Resolve both have free editions or you pay a one off fee like FCPX - admittedly, Resolve is still developing, but it's nice to see Lightworks fully staking a claim again. 
So, who do you believe?

His last comment, on the above video & the title of this post, is the truth - you have to test cameras yourself, do not rely on other people's tests/opinions. However, nowadays people don't/won't just blindly go out & buy a camera. So we look around at uploaded footage & try our hardest to make a decision, which is a minefield in itself. The guy seems to have made a mistake, but what an error, especially if you're blogging - hey, but shit happens. Personally, I loath comparison videos & would rather compare independent clips, but that's just me.
BM cameras get a lot of negative comments & mostly from people who've come from a DSLR background - they simply don't understand that most high end cameras have loads of problems (RED send out technicians to movie sets, enough said). We all now know that BM cameras can produce lovely images, on a par to some of these high end cameras & most importantly, for a decent price. 
Do you remember the marketing lies when FCPX came out? Premiere suddenly became this NLE that everyone was holding a torch to, when the reality of the situation was that no high end company was even using it to edit - the NLE of choice was AVID and then FCP7. It now turns out that the decision to rebuild FCP from scratch was a great idea, because it is now so much better than Premiere could ever hope to be. In fact Premiere now feels like a bad copy of the old FCP7 & brings nothing to the party - on top of this, you have to rent it from Adobe for a monthly fee. The NLE market now has loads of choices available, Lightworks & Resolve both have free editions or you pay a one off fee like FCPX - admittedly, Resolve is still developing, but it's nice to see Lightworks fully staking a claim again. 
So, who do you believe?

His last comment, on the above video & the title of this post, is the truth - you have to test cameras yourself, do not rely on other people's tests/opinions. However, nowadays people don't/won't just blindly go out & buy a camera. So we look around at uploaded footage & try our hardest to make a decision, which is a minefield in itself. The guy seems to have made a mistake, but what an error, especially if you're blogging - hey, but shit happens. Personally, I loath comparison videos & would rather compare independent clips, but that's just me.
BM cameras get a lot of negative comments & mostly from people who've come from a DSLR background - they simply don't understand that most high end cameras have loads of problems (RED send out technicians to movie sets, enough said). We all now know that BM cameras can produce lovely images, on a par to some of these high end cameras & most importantly, for a decent price. 
Do you remember the marketing lies when FCPX came out? Premiere suddenly became this NLE that everyone was holding a torch to, when the reality of the situation was that no high end company was even using it to edit - the NLE of choice was AVID and then FCP7. It now turns out that the decision to rebuild FCP from scratch was a great idea, because it is now so much better than Premiere could ever hope to be. In fact Premiere now feels like a bad copy of the old FCP7 & brings nothing to the party - on top of this, you have to rent it from Adobe for a monthly fee. The NLE market now has loads of choices available, Lightworks & Resolve both have free editions or you pay a one off fee like FCPX - admittedly, Resolve is still developing, but it's nice to see Lightworks fully staking a claim again. 
So, who do you believe?

Just bought a new iMac, should be with me today or tomorrow, & I think it comes with High Sierra installed - if it does i can report back, unless you are worried how it plays with an older machine.

By defending these sorts of films you are legitimising them & their racisit narratives/ideologies. It's very sad in this day & age - what's worse is that they probably don't consider themselves to be racist, but are quite happy to find excuses to defend racism. If you dig a little deeper into what Griffith said about why he made the film, he stated that he wanted to bring to light the injustices of the Reconstruction Years that followed the Civil War - apparent injustices towards Whites by Blacks. Laughable really when we look at the suffering & degredation that slavery brought down upon a people whose only crime was the colour of their skin. 
I think visually the new film is more stunning than the original, but that might be because it isn't embued with that gloomy darkness of the original. I suppose this difference can be seen as a direct correlation between the themes that lie behind the narratives of the 2 films: the first is a dark & gloomy film (more akin to a film noir type style) that signals the end of an era in replicants; whilst the new one is brighter presenting a more hopeful vision, a new beginning for replicants maybe.

No problem @kidzrevil - I think people nowadays really need to have it hammered into their brains that this sort of complicity really needs to be addressed. I mentioned Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will in an earlier post; just because the film looks great (the lighting, camera angles & the Hugo Boss uniforms etc.) & has loads of innovative cinematic techniques can never outweigh the fact that it is a piece of Nazi propaganda - propaganda that enabled a World War & millions of Jews to be exterminated! To state that we know it's racist, but that's ok because of what it might have given future filmmakers just simply isn't good enough. People need to wake up!
You know what, i think the Blade Runner fans are completely befuddled by the new film as they are used to a disposable product that normally doesn't mean anything past the spectacle aspect of a Hollywood film. This new film rests within a more Eurpoean model, where art & ideology mix to form a deeper experience - a film that can be watched numerous times & interpreted on numerous levels - it's a tough film to understand if you were expecting an all action spectacular ride. One thing no one has mentioned is how inportant the 3 short prequal films are to the main film itself - to be watched in the following order: Anime first, then the other two.
As far as BOAN is concerned, no one is saying it should be banned, but just understood within its context of being a racist film. Yes, it uses cinematic techniques that have influenced future Hollywood films, but these techniques helped propagate a racist naarative & that can never be a good thing. Another point to make, is that whilst it might have influenced future Hollywood films, it certainly didn't influence the rest of the world in quite the same way, if at all. In fact, Non-American films have had a far greater influence on modern filmmaking than Hollywood can ever have hoped to have had on the rest of the world. Hollywood has plundered & copied other nations filmmaking styles far more than the reverse, which is the real elephant in the room when talking about film history. If you want to look at innovation in filmmaking, Hollywood is the last place to look for or find it.
There are so many great films that aren't American, films that you can learn style & technique from in a way that you simply can't do with the watered down versions that find their way to Hollywood productions. If your top 5 favourite films have more than 2 American films in it then you simply haven't watched enough to appreciate the magnitude of the world of cinema, or should that be world cinema.

What's really troubling is the way people seem to think that this film's Pros out weigh it's Cons, when really all it's innovation was done in order to propagate & enhance a narrative that is pure & simply racist to its core. It really is of little consequence whether he then made a film to appologise about what he had done. The facts are that he made a racist film & nothing can erase that - you've got to be pretty naive to think that he didn't know what he was doing or what kind of film he was making. You've got to remember that America fought a very bloody civil war over the question of slavery (between 6-800,000 people died, which is more than the other wars America has fought put together) & then 50yrs later a filmmaker makes a film glorifying the south & their ideology!?
As I said before, this film is dangerous precisely because it used innovative techniques to advance its racist narrative - it should be a warning about how dangerous film can be & no excuses can ultimately change this fact. It doesn't matter if this film was the first to do this or that, what is important is that it did it in the service of reigniting & propagating a racist narrative/ideology & only 50yrs after so many people lost their lives in one of the most bloody civil wars in history.
To defend this film is to continue to propagate an ideology that is repugnant, completely out of step & deeply troubling.
Just because something like this exists, doesn't mean we should ever hold a torch up to it as something other than a warning about evil & the means by which dangerous ideologies will go to in order to re-enforce/normalise their message.

Just going back to BOAN quickly, just like to say that I've studied film (to PhD level) and lectured on film at University level & BOAN never came up as a film to be studied or watched as an example of anything worth while. The one time that it did come up was to do with it's blatant racism & not to do with any other qualites that people come up with. Perhaps its held with some regard in the US, but in Europe not really. The one film that everyone cites as the film to watch if you want to be a filmmaker is Citizen Kane - it has every shot type that you could possible ever want to use in a film & that's not even taking into account the editing or narrative construction.
BR2049 hasn't bombed at the box office & it is just about to get released in Asia, so still more revenue to come.
This sums up BR2049 quite nicely:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/oct/09/blade-runner-2049-slow-burn-blockbusters-denis-villeneuve

Just going back to BOAN quickly, just like to say that I've studied film (to PhD level) and lectured on film at University level & BOAN never came up as a film to be studied or watched as an example of anything worth while. The one time that it did come up was to do with it's blatant racism & not to do with any other qualites that people come up with. Perhaps its held with some regard in the US, but in Europe not really. The one film that everyone cites as the film to watch if you want to be a filmmaker is Citizen Kane - it has every shot type that you could possible ever want to use in a film & that's not even taking into account the editing or narrative construction.
BR2049 hasn't bombed at the box office & it is just about to get released in Asia, so still more revenue to come.
This sums up BR2049 quite nicely:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2017/oct/09/blade-runner-2049-slow-burn-blockbusters-denis-villeneuve

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame.
The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1.
SPOILERS, BIG ONES!
There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment.
The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed.
I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment.
I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view.
Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.
 
 

Yeah it does look nice - makes it smaller & the close focus sounds good, but for the price you could buy some high quality Diopters of differing strengths & still have some change from £2.5k (lots of change).
The only thing i'd worry about is needing to see samples of the image it produces with the close focus - deal breaker if you're flying blind on that.

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame.
The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1.
SPOILERS, BIG ONES!
There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment.
The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed.
I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment.
I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view.
Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.
 
 

Why would anyone want to do this? It's an all metal lens, unlike the the 36 that is housed in some lovely plastic - the plastic is the reason people wanted to have the 36 re-housed in the first place. There's simply no need to re-house a 54, it's perfect as is.

Bit of a cheat as it's a zoom - Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 f2.6-2.8
A prime - Mir24M 35mm f2

Co-sign on the PMD661s MKI and II (NOT the 620s tho!). As for the MKIII and the newer PMDs, Marantz is owned by a completely different company now, so I'd be wary about recommending anything beyond the PMD661 MKI and MKII until actual tests and real world reviews come out.
The PMD661 is a bit bulky compared to the newer portable recorders but imho it's best bang for buck if sound quality is your priority and you don't need multi-track capabilities. I've seen several go for $300 (even less) this past year alone. And that's in Canadian dollars! 
I was skeptical about the Zoom F4 and F8 at first but I've heard nothing but great things about it lately. The pre-amps are supposed to be pretty good! Which actually makes them an anomaly compared to previous Zoom products (which the Marantz PMD661 would still beat hands down). But they're obviously pointless to compare to anything other than other multi-track recorders like the Sound Devices stuff.  Also at the price they're going for right now, I'd just pay extra for a used Sound Devices recorder.
I'm also hoping people aren't using audio opinions/recommendations from his forum as their primary gauge of what type of portable recorder to buy. That would be as troubling as getting video camera recommends solely from people on Gearslutz. There are sooo many great audio forums out there with amazing tests, comparisons and advice from career people who live, eat, sh*t audio and nothing else. And what's cool is the raw data from the old tests can still be used to compare the older recorders to the newer ones.
Here's a good example of some raw data that still holds up imho: http://www.theatreofnoise.com/2015/03/portable-audio-recorders-2015-update.html
It's broken up into Pocket, Hand held and Shoulder portable recorders. They're listed in order of size NOT overall quality rating. The Marantz PMD661 still holds up pretty well and even though they're referring to the MKII, the original 661 honestly isn't much different (they actually have the same EIN value of 125).
Funny enough I learned that lesson about old blimps just today. Was looking at some older Rycote blimps that were going for reasonable prices and after doing some research realized why I should just save up for one of the newer modular ones. 

In all this discussion no one has mentioned has even remotely mentioned Marantz, which is a big mistake. People just seem to get a hold of names & think they're the best - Zoom & Tascam are pretty average & that's why they're cheaper. Sure Sound Devices are king, and for a price you get real dependable excellent quality - but they're really for people who earn their bread & butter recording only sound. Marantz are a step down from Sound Devices, but they are worth checking out as a much better alternative to Zoom/Tascam - remember, just because loads of people have them doesn't make them the best, just makes them cheaper.
A Zoom H5 alternative has to be the Marantz PMD661 mk2 or 3 will absolutely shame anything from Zoom period - at £500 it's more expensive, but you'll be glad in the long run. I've been using the MK2 for a while now & it produces great sound - I even use it with my old SD field recorder in order to record the sound digitally, blows me away everytime. You can find 2nd hand one for around £300!
And have noticed that they now do a model for DSLRs similar to the Tascam - Marantz PMD706 for only £300! I have no experience of this model, but if it's anywhere as good as the 661, then it'll be much better than the Tascam.