Xavier Plagaro Mussard

its all basic cinematography stuff I learnt while shooting film all those years ago - I worked with some great DP's like Tony Coldwell who I learnt alot from when I first started Directing - all those lens focal length choises carry forward onto digital cameras - its all still very releveant in todays world for keeping that filmic look we all are used to from when we used to shoot film stock .

Hardly. 35mm 8-perf (film runs through gate horizontally, not vertically, the frame size equals full frame 36mm x 24 mm) could have had perhaps 5k, but never a theater print (4-perf, with considerable widescreen-crop), and definitely not when projected, because all those little analog tolerances added, and what was left was way under 1k.
 
Digital projection in 2k meant an immediate improvement, though not a very spectacular one. And that 4k means four times the resolution of 2k doesn't mean that the images now look four times as good. It's rather that you recognize limitations of resolution caused by too big images later. 4k images can be projected bigger, that's all there is to it. Take 640p as an example: If you watch a Youtube clip in this original size - according to the pixels of your display - it looks the same as the HD-version. Only if you toggle it full screen you will see the shortcoming of the smaller resolution. But take the appropriate resolution as a given.

4k is another marketing strategy to increase price, it won't bring anything to the movie experience. With motion blur, 99% of the time you won't see any difference, if it is even possib to see. What it will do is show all the flaw of set, props etc. 

Thank you!! Until now I just worked as operator with professional lights that a DP puts on the set and when I work alone the only lights I have at my disposal are 1 little LED lamp and 2 work lights :)

In LOTR a hobbit was a hobbit. In The Hobbit a hobbit is an actor dressed with make-up to look like a hobbit.

To the OP, I have a couple of Yongnou YN300 daylight. I am very happy with them. They may not be the most colour accurate lights in the world, but they can work. You will probably put a film emulation or CC anyway. If you want the purest skin tones, you should better work outdoors. 
 
I also have a soft box with Ikea LED lamps. I work for a meat company and meat needs to be cold or it change colours. But the soft box is a PITA to move, transport, etc. The couple of YN300 with some serious batteries (than seem to last forever) just take like 20% of a normal backpack. 
 
To JazzBox, lamps produce lumens, not watts. It also depends what you must do with the light. When they use a lamp to fake the sun, they put a 5-10KW HMI. That's a lot of light! 

I read somewhere that you can't charge the LX100 by USB.

The Japanese might like it. They love higher frame rates in their motion pictures...

But for the rest of us, Peter Jackson looks to me like he's turning into his generation's George Lucas; employing technology "just because" and that's ultimately detrimental to the storytelling.

Of all the types of narrative genres that benefits from the alternate reality 24fps envokes, you'd think fantasy would be the most logical choice.

I don't get if either. But it hardly looks cheap. The cinematography us too 1st rate professional for that.

However, from what I understand, the shot frame on these films is 48fps which means that distributing it in 24fps for those that prefer it is an easy alternative...on the other hand, the loss of edge motion blur inherent in shooting native 24fps is a shame. I like that effect. Not good for green screen of course, but still that effect offers a great disconnect from "reality."

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible.

Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens.

I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time.

Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs.

I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package.

What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

On the multirotor forums people were salivating over the possibility of flying this; GoPro fisheye gets old, and flying a gh4 sized package requires exponentially larger and more expensive rigs. I've got a copter I built just for the gh4 but I just don't want to deal with the stress of flying $7500 worth of equipment around if I don't have to. WiFi operates on similar frequency to my control radio so there's no way I'm flying an active WiFi transmitter around. Anyway end of detour

I'm trying to fly less weight☺ I was actually thinking of trying a small board cam mounted behind the lx100 and shooting the back screen of the camera. I don't need HD, just enough Res. for framing and a reasonable idea of exposure.

Since LX100 uses the same sensor as GX7, I was able to convert LX100 raw after running exiftool (download from http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/) on raw files tricking it thinking those raws comes from GX7: exiftool -model="DMC-GX7" <raw_file_name> Then you could use raw converter of your choice which supports GX7(I think all do).

I would never put a camera into my pockets, that place is full of dust and you won't get it out a camera with fixed lens. You also don't want to stress the aligment between lens and sensor.

Can't say I am noticing any moire so far with mine.
 
Review soon.

Panasonic LX100.

Yes, either that one or the Red Dragon. It's definitely one of the two ...

just as a point of note on lenses for films :
David Fincher shoots most of the time with the same lens focal lengths even when he changes his DOP
so even if it is Jeff Cronenwerth, Harris Savides or Darius Khondji on camera for him he is still using a 27mm 40mm most of the time and a 75mm for the close ups , at f2.8 with nds and at f2 at night , thats about it , most of the film is shot on those 3 lenses thats all he needs
(page 162 of the book 'New Cinematographers' gives you a look at Harris Savides note book for the film 'The Game' he lists scene by scene what lens he uses and its f stop ....its mainly all 27mm 40mm 75mm at f2.8 or f2....
 
The late great Gordon Willis shot 90% of The Godfather series for Francis Ford Copolla on a 40mm f2.8 lens - if you get this months American Cinematographer magazine OCT 2014 its a special edition all on Gordon Willis - The Prince of Darkness and it reveals all on how he shot these great films .
 
Then you have Paul Greengrass who uses long zooms all the time and the late Tony Scott who shot almost always on long lenses and used x2 extenders too, thats his 'look '
 
And then the great Sergio Leone shot all those Clint Eastwood 'Dollar' series films on a single Angenieux 25-250mm f3.5 zoom
 
So my point is you dont always need very wide lens to make great films .....
 
as long as you have in Super 35 field of view a 28mm. 40mm and 70mm which the Nikon zoom gives you ,you can make a film.....what camera you use to get those lengths is upto you , you may need speedboosters or adapters but those are the numbers that work for me most of the time.

Aouch.

On the lighter side, it's probably a great offering to Neptune!

thats for that will buy new one tomorrow !!
big thanks

Butcher and old DV camera and tape it on to your gh4.

Would the upcoming SLR Magic anamorphic adapter work with the LX100 or is the adapter too big/heavy for that lens?

Did they add some more framing guidelines for 2.35:1? 

I continue to steal rubber band from my daughter's bracelets, but I really miss this function on screen! :)

With the success of the the GH4 all over the world as Panasonic says especially in Europe can y'all imagine how good the next GH camera will be. Good job Panasonic for at least listening to consumers and trying to give us what we want. 

Wow, Panasonic really wants my money!!! It's so positive not only from a features/price ratio, but from the fact that they are finally listening what people wants!!!!!!!  :P  :lol:  :D  ;)
 
I had the LX100 in my radar, but this could change everything!!!

Wow, Panasonic really wants my money!!! It's so positive not only from a features/price ratio, but from the fact that they are finally listening what people wants!!!!!!!  :P  :lol:  :D  ;)
 
I had the LX100 in my radar, but this could change everything!!!