A Y

The DPR review video of the SL2 is shot with a Summilux-C 29mm T1.4. The image is gorgeous: clean but not harsh. Too bad the lens is only .... $41k! ? 

I wanna see it paired up with those high end gorgeous Leica sumilux C's

I'm curious if anyone has been cross-cutting Nikon footage shot in flat profile and Panasonic Cine-D footage. I've been using the D500, D810, and G85, and will soon add a D850 to the mix, and while the Nikons are relatively easy to match (they're not identical despite using the same manual WB and profile settings), I've had a really hard time getting the G85 footage to match. The G85 is nice because it's small and can be flown easily on a gimbal, but still has great image quality.

Thank you! I found some other 4k clips in the footage thread, and indeed editing 4k isn't a problem for the Mini, at least for simple stuff.

Does anyone know of any sample footage SOOC from the GX80 that I can download? I'd like to see if my computer can handle editing 4k files. It's a 2012 Mac Mini with a 2.3GHz 4-core i7 and the built-in video on that CPU in case anyone is using a similar configuration to edit 4k already. Thanks!

An early self portrait of the young Stanley Kubrick, photographer - Image source: British Journal of Photography

In a 77 minute interview recorded over chess between takes on 2001: A Space Odyssey in the mid 1960's Kubrick describes selling his first photograph, his first short and making his first feature.

Next to Bladerunner, my favorite film is Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia.  I take a lot of heat for that with some of my friends but I don't care, it's beautiful and masterful.  Anyway, I watched it for the first time in several years tonight with a friend that had never seen it before.  I went looking for the trailer to show them and found this:
 
 
http://vimeo.com/56335284
 
 
...his combination of anamorphic photography with steadicam is a favorite facet of mine.

You turn the round knob in front.  There was a discussion about this lens a while ago with bigger pictures of it, too: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1352-schneider-kreuznach-anamorphic-projector-lens/

Maybe he should change the name to The Dog's Bolex :P
 
 

Re. your company's name, did you know there is an audio electronics company named Schiit? :)

Not exactly.
 
First, each Cb and Cr (could also be UV) channel represent the deviation from gray on an axis ( from wikipedia : CB/PB and CR/PR are deviations from grey on blue–yellow and red–cyan axes, whereas U and V are blue–luminance and red–luminance differences.) (The LAB colorspace is using the same principle)
 
So for example, the CB/PB channel representation in 8bit is at 0 - blue full saturated, 64 - blue half saturated, 128 - grey, 256 - yellow full saturated.
 
Second, in the 4-2-2 relationship, the 2-2 doesn't not represent the channels, but samples per row. The sampling formula always seems to be represented on by 4 pixel columns by 2 row. So in a 4-2-2 sampling, for a region of 4 pixel wide (4-x-x) by 2 (the second row - not related to the 2s in 4-2-2), you have on the first row, 2 samples of chroma (for both U and V, or Cb and Cr), and on the second row, 2 samples.
 
So, on a 4-2-0, on first row, 2 chroma samples of each channels, but no sampling on the second row (it is like have half resolution on both x and y axis of chroma versus luma, eg. 1920x1080 luma resolution, 960, 540 chroma resolution).
 
In 4-1-1, you have one sampling of chroma on each row (so for a 1920x1080 luma resolution, you get a chroma resolution of 480x1080).
 
in 3-1-1 sampling, like XDCAM EX and HDCam HD, you have for each 4 pixels of luma in source, only 3 samples of luma at the output, that is why those codec are 1440x1080 with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio.

The AdobeRGB version looks more contrasty to me, but you can also use a histogram to see the actual differences.
 

 
In case you're wondering, I'm using a browser plug-in written by a friend to show the histogram.  It works on almost every website except for Facebook, I think. Get it here for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-histogram/kgefpfienchbbehcjnmbmogdigoedhaj

The AdobeRGB version looks more contrasty to me, but you can also use a histogram to see the actual differences.
 

 
In case you're wondering, I'm using a browser plug-in written by a friend to show the histogram.  It works on almost every website except for Facebook, I think. Get it here for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-histogram/kgefpfienchbbehcjnmbmogdigoedhaj

The AdobeRGB version looks more contrasty to me, but you can also use a histogram to see the actual differences.
 

 
In case you're wondering, I'm using a browser plug-in written by a friend to show the histogram.  It works on almost every website except for Facebook, I think. Get it here for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-histogram/kgefpfienchbbehcjnmbmogdigoedhaj

Y'all know what Darias Khondji and Dean Cundey, Kovaks, Carpenter, Storaro, Toland, Conrad Hall, Harris Savides and pretty much anyone you can think of and dozens you can't, guys who shoot great looking stuff on purpose, not by accident, not because they got lucky but by design and through their own effort and expertise, either for the selfish benefit of the image itself or in service to the story, you know what they did so that they could do that stuff when it count, when they were getting paid to do what they did, when dozens if not hundreds of people were depending on them, waiting on them, when possibly millions of dollars were on the line or potentially rendered forfeit, you know what they were doing so that they could do what they did?
 
They were shooting tests.
 
Every camera.  Every lens.  Thoroughly.  They didn't waste other people's times learning what they could and couldn't do under a variety of common or unique circumstances on-the-clock.  They're smart enough to realize the occasional "happy accident" of a flare or focus pull or color combination or Golden Triangle configuration that just happend to occur at just the right time such that a most amazingly emotional chord is struck when the image is viewed by most humans is great but discovering that that last take, the one where the set/car/character/town is destroyed by fire, the giant monster is blown up, the command shuttle breaks apart the rented helicopter is finally, perfectly aligned with the setting sun to create a perfect silhouette through rippling heat refraction in some exotic locale on their last day of access or visa or the last raw nerve of some local potentate or executive producer isn't wasted because they didn't know WTF they were doing and just hoping for the best.  
 
They weren't satisfied knowing the stuff they were using was expensive, or from a well known pedigree, or supposedly crafted by Santa Claus's most talented, clever elves, or promised in some way to never fuck up, under any circumstance, with any other combination of previous, contemporary or future widgets made by Satan Claus or the Easter Bunny or Baby Jesus.  They had to know.  So they could do it.  On purpose.  On demand.  Repeatedly. 
 
They shot tests.
 
What they likely didn't do, for all sorts of reasons, is share these tests with the world, in a public venue, so that others at, below or above their stature and experience could comment on, learn from, share, ridicule or improve upon.  (this last bit was my maybe cryptic way of saying we should be lucky we're in a community where ideas and techniques are shared openly and not hoarded.  I'm not saying "stop posting tests" and non-narrative videos)
 
edit: TLDR version -- y'all stop marginalizing folks posting test videos because that's how you familiarize yourself with your gear enough to be useful to yourself and anyone else.  It's what the  name brand pros do so snarky comments about yet-another-boring-test-video are really just ignorant.

Roger Cicala does still photo resolution tests on the Speed Booster.  You can see how it improves resolution in the center, as well as the SB's intentional sweetening of bokeh wide open with a bit of uncorrected spherical aberration.
 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic
 
He's going to also try it out on a Canon 50/1.0 just to see what happens, even though the adapter is not designed to work with lenses faster than f/1.2.

According to Metabones, the maximum aperture of the lens being adapted, mostly due to space constraints, is f/1.2, resulting in approximately f/0.9.  Roger Cicala over at Lens Rentals is going to try a Canon 50/1.0 on it just to see what happens.  
 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic
 
The Speed Booster white paper talks about the Kubrick NASA/Zeiss f/0.7 lens, BTW, which used a focal reducer as well.

Brian Caldwell talks more and answers some questions about the Speed Booster here:
 
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php?/topic/47313-speed-up-your-lens/page__st__60#entry378097
 
Look for the "brianc1959" username.

Brian Caldwell talks more and answers some questions about the Speed Booster here:
 
http://nikongear.com/live/index.php?/topic/47313-speed-up-your-lens/page__st__60#entry378097
 
Look for the "brianc1959" username.