Ben Prater

Found this video, lots of interesting details about the camera directly from Panasonic.
 
One bit that jumped out at me: the new Venus engine is powerful enough to bump up the usable ISO range of the camera (by effectively de-noising, in real time). Can't wait to see if it can match 5D3 in low-light. 
 

I was going to just confirm this, but looking into it, Its actually better than that:  Its actually 4:4:4
 
With 1080p 4:2:2 you have 1 chroma sample for every 2 output pixels for a total of  1,036,800 chroma samples.
with 4:2:0 you have 1 chroma sample for every 4 output pixels for half that amount (518,400) .
 
But since the number of output pixels in quadHD 4K is four times as much as 1080, even with 4:2:0 you still have 2,073,600 chroma samples.
That's a chroma sample for every output pixel when you downscale to 1080.
 
Very interesting.. :)

It's actually 100% the shooter, 100% the editor and 100% the camera :)

It's old news. The technique uses interlacing on the sensor with alternate lines exposed at different ISOs, then blended in post to create the final high dynamic range image.
 
The problem for video is that it creates a TON of moire and aliasing plus a drop of almost half in terms of resolution! None of the headline grabbing articles ever mention this though, because it's click-bate drivel.
 
This technique is more useful for stills, but is it really needed? You can easily just blend three burst mode frames together bracketed at different exposures if you want 15 stops.
 
The latest 1 stop improvement is just a tweak, and it's what engineers like doing best. Maximising every ounce of performance from their code. This is understandable but I'd rather Magic Lantern took a long hard look at usability and implemented new features on that side. For instance putting the Canon menu functionality for video frame rate and resolution into the unified Magic Lantern menus. Have a feature that forces the camera to record to CF card not the SD card slot when a CF card is inserted. Have an option for no overlays like in the 3:2 full screen no-info display mode but 16:9. Little boring things like this would make my life a lot easier when shooting raw on the 5D Mark III.

Most digital film shot today is on the Alexa. The Alexa is not shooting 4k, it shoots sub-2k.  
 
ML on 5D3 is freaking amazing.
 
Properly upscale your 5D3 to 4k and I promise you -- nobody will ever be able to tell you were shooting HD or 4k. 
 
No, the 5D3 is not obsolete. I suspect it'll be an important camera body for budget filmmakers for years to come.

Captain Phillips seemed to have the most disparate use of cameras.  Quickly skimming the Nov'13 ACM it appears they used Super-16mm (Aaton) shooting on the water, especially for the Somali only parts of the film, in the skiffs.  Being so remote without support they didn't trust digital for this kind of shooting.
 
As soon as the Somalis step onto the boat and Tom Hanks' portion of the story starts it switches to 3-perf 35mm.  For the arial stuff showing the extremities of scale they shot Alexa.  GoPros were used to capture the SEAL parachute drop.  VistaVision was used for VFX plates.  They don't mention the C300 at all in the article, nor do they list it at the end, so I'm betting it's inclusion above is mostly about marketing.
 
Wolf of Wallstreet was split 4-perf 35mm and Alexa to ArriRaw.  Here again the filmmakers went with different shooting styles for different stages of the narrative, mainly with different optics, lighting and color.  Depending on the character's state of mind they shot either spherical Arri Master Primes and the Hawk anamorphics, heightening DiCaprio's mania by shooting a lot with the 35mm and 28mm anamorphics, switching to spherical when his state of mind is more clear and precise.
 
For DiCaprio's "quaalude look" they shot 20mm on an Alexa at 12fps with 360 degree shutter, then step-printed to resample back to proper time.  And a prototype C500 was used by the second-unit/VFX to shoot ariel photography.  It was small enough they could rig it to the nose of an RC Octocopter.  The RC copter was necessary because the location in Long Island didn't allow full-size choppers as well as allowing them to get shots that would have been impossible with a full size chopper.

Nothing planned for Blackmagic yet. What do you think guys? BMPCC guide next up?

All parts are just camera accessories and when its build it looks and works like a professional cage and you have extra mounts to mount more accessories and able to hold it as a fig rig and more. And its affordable as the basic version is only 35USD and all parts can be ordered from Ebay
 
Parts list:
2x $10 Dual Camera bracket - http://goo.gl/b2Lj2z
2x $6 Sponge Camera grip - http://goo.gl/BdgsTK
2x $1-2 Hot shoe adapter - http://goo.gl/epdoXk
Optional:
$10 Manfrotto 323 quick release - http://goo.gl/LGxi3L
$4 Ballhead for top handle - http://goo.gl/CALJCL
$1 1/4" Bracket screw -  http://goo.gl/Dx6P71
 
Watch this link for more info and how to build it up and also why you would need it and what extra use there is for it.

You need to chose your glass and stick with that. If you go Canon, you are going to start building a EF lens set. If you go G6, you're going to build a MFT set. It's almost like getting married!
 
My suggestion: Go with Canon 60d or T2i/3i/4i/5i or 7d. Get whatever you can find cheap, they are all the same visually. Still photos on all these Canon cameras are superb. In fact, to really save money, see if your uncle has a Canon camera you can borrow for a few months.
 
Instead, spend your $800 on getting some good glass. I'd suggest the Sigma 18-50 f1.8 EF. That's gives you a great range on any of the 1.6x crop Canon cameras. 
 
Eventually, when you save up some money, you can upgrade to something like the BMCC or BMPCC or GH3 and get a EF-MFT speedbooster and you'll continue to use the Sigma 18-50.
 
If I were doing it again, that's how I'd play it right now.

Today Metabones release two new Speed Boosters for Blackmagic shooters.

I've been using some demo samples for this special review and I'm absolutely stunned.

Metabones and Caldwell Optics have given us a Zeiss / Kubrick / NASA special! These adapters are completely new and purpose designed to fit only the Blackmagic cameras. Offering super bright apertures as fast as F0.74 and finally some great wide angle possibilities, I put both new adapters through their paces...



Read the full article here

70d is definitely a new sensor.
 
I've watched a bunch of 70d video -- and I generally like the video images it is producing.
 
Pair that with the amazing auto-focus -- and I think you have a camera that an average person can use to create some really great video. 

The first rule of Flight Club is that you don't talk about feature making on the EOSHD forum ;)
 
My future plans involve returning to shoot in Asia. But it won't be a feature, instead it will be pieces of cinematography, portraits of the place and people, with a message behind that. And I will try and make it as innovative as possible, through the visual techniques, the message and the audio. Berlin for me is like a base to refine and hone my technique. When I go back to Asia I'll be a better cinematographer and actually have something meaningful to film. That said, I am still working on music videos & trailers here in Berlin with a cast, and some more to come out in the winter. Here were the last 3:
 

 

 

 
The problem with making a feature is that it would be the end of EOSHD. I'd have to commit 100% of my time to the feature and they are years in the planning & making & promotion. A short narrative piece would be more doable.
 
I don't think people should see 'feature' as the main event anyway.
 
People tend to think of features as the ultimate goal of a filmmaker. Why? It's just one genre. Like pop is of music. An animated short is just as big of an achievement, and can take years to make. Cinematography on it's own is as much of an art form. A sensitivity to the material and personal take on the world has as much meaning as a fictional narrative from the best writers. Then there's the documentary area of filmmaking. For me those are the ultimate goal for me as a filmmaker. To make something like Koyanisquatsi which is basically a documentary told purely with images. A mixture of the art of photography and filmmmaking. Great sound track too, very important.
 
Feature film is just one sub-genre of filmmaking and no more of an achievement, often in fact much less of an achievement if you look at 99% of them!!!
 
Some of my shoots I enjoyed the most creatively and not just technically, were not actually tests although in the context of EOSHD they were presented that way...
 
This one is about the struggle of Taiwanese people to maintain independence from China...And it had a subtext about war...
 
https://vimeo.com/12472000
 
This one was about the disappearance of history from Chinese culture, with the new tower blocks looming over one of the last remaining temples in Shanghai...
 

 
This was a play on the themes in The Machine by Pink Floyd.... the people obsessing over mobiles, stuck behind a black mirror, trapped in a transport system, the drunk on the U-bahn, a study of Berlin....
 
https://vimeo.com/72605257
 
And this is about the modernisation of a small island in the Philippines (which thankfully survived the recent typhoon intact)...
 
https://vimeo.com/9853081
 
And this is about love lost... but living on in memories... That's what the padlocks represented for me, at that time in my life...
 

 
And my very earliest stuff, shot on the GH1 and 5D Mark II...
 
https://vimeo.com/14534844
 
https://vimeo.com/11349060
 
So if you have only followed my shootouts and tests, hopefully that puts it all in perspective a bit.

"Cinemartin say in their tests a ProRes 4:4:4 video of 590MB was converted to H.265 HEVC with CINEC 2.7 to an output video of 4.9MB with little or no noticeable differences in image quality."
 
That's pretty a phenomenal rate of compression. 600MB to a 5MB file? Wow. Sounds like a game changer in all kinds of places.
 
I didn't think 4k or 8k could happen soon, because of limited bandwidth. 8k world, here we come. 
 
Even poor farmers with marginal internet access are going to be able to access a world of HQ video.
 
It's good to be in the world of video. 

"Cinemartin say in their tests a ProRes 4:4:4 video of 590MB was converted to H.265 HEVC with CINEC 2.7 to an output video of 4.9MB with little or no noticeable differences in image quality."
 
That's pretty a phenomenal rate of compression. 600MB to a 5MB file? Wow. Sounds like a game changer in all kinds of places.
 
I didn't think 4k or 8k could happen soon, because of limited bandwidth. 8k world, here we come. 
 
Even poor farmers with marginal internet access are going to be able to access a world of HQ video.
 
It's good to be in the world of video. 

Lmao. Never drink and blog man:)

If they stopped development tomorrow, the ML RAW hack will stand as one of the greatest free "upgrades" any hardware has ever received. The image is phenomenal, rivaling top-end digital cinema systems. Even when the 5d4 comes out and Canon defeats ML in hardware, people are going to keep using 5d3s. 
 
Any improvement going forward is going to yield limited visual improvements. However, as CF cards get faster, it might be possible that we see the hack allow for overcranking/slow-motion at 1080p. 60fps would be a good start.

http://vimeo.com/77825876

The Sony RX1 has amazing stills but awful video! I began thinking how could I use this otherwise great little camera for video? The answer is to rough up the image beyond comprehension, with trick filters. Here's how I did it.

Read the full article here

you are not taking into consideration the effect they have on the overall picture in general.  resolution gain is null and void since sensors nowadays dont suffer from any crop.
 
the main thing these lenses impart is the feeling of proper cinema.  shooting anamorphic has always been a more complicated affair, requiring greater technical skills,  more time and effort, production design not to mention 4 perfs instead of 3 adding up film costs by 25%, and budget to afford such requirements.  The look of anamorphic is now etched into the minds of anyone who enjoys proper cinema, done properly.  Take Leon (The Professional) for example.  - if it were shot nowadays by typical film makers they'd have said there are too many scenes in confined spaces, too many close up's, etc.  They'd say the aspect ratio is not justified, and that the resolution gain is null and void.  And this is exactly why we see less and less films made that are of the caliber of Leon.  They go for the quick and easy option.
 
The reason people shoot anamorphic is because it allows them the aesthetic edge over the guys who don't see the difference.  It's not that oval bokeh and horizontal streaks look better than round bokeh and typical lens flare,  - its that the subtle difference is very effective in imparting a feel of true cinema, and the scale of a true cinema budget.  even if you cropped the edges off a 2.35:1 movie and showed it in 16:9 or 1.85/1, the subtle bokeh alone will add the look of a film that cost 25% more money to pay for the skills, and production to enable them to shoot in that way.  Are there any flares in Braveheart?  nope.  its not the flares, its the association the lens character from anamorphic has with real cinematic efforts like Braveheart. 

There's a lot you're missing, yes.
 
The whole image is different to a normal lens.
 
The flare is the tip of the iceberg... And actually, no you can't do it in post. It will look shit.
 
The aspect ratio is not the main thing either. The way it is achieved is far superior to cropping. You get a wider lens horizontally. With a normal lens, you need to get further away from your actor's head, to allow for the crop of the top and bottom. By coming further out, you lose the intimacy and the depth compression of the shot changes.
 
By having a lens that is wider horizontally, you also get more leeway to track a moving body sideways. If you imagine a close up of a face filling the screen in a 4:3 box from top to bottom, you'd have no room at the edges... no safety margin in your pan when the person moves. With anamorphic your pans are more graceful and considered, and you are not 'chasing' the moving actor around - yet still have a close up from top to bottom. You see what I mean?
 
Then there's the bokeh. We're not just talking oval light points. The whole out of focus parts have a different look. Something much more sublime and cinematic, less obvious. Foreground objects and background objects, anything which isn't directly in focus, you can tell there's anamorphic magic at play there.
 
The resolution gain is very real too.
 
If you take a 1920 x 1080 image and crop it, you end up with something like 1920 x 720.
 
Effectively 720p vertically. Not good.
 
With an anamorphic you maintain 1080p, and can stretch or upscale the horizontal pixel count to 2.5K.
 
And an anamorphic lens is the only way to make use of 1280p on the 5D Mark III with raw video without the dopy 3:2 aspect ratio making it look shit.
 
There's a reason top flight productions still spend $$$ renting anamorphic lenses and a reason the Arri Alexa Studio (with 4:3 mode) exists. That should tell you something about the advantages of real anamorphic shoots.
 
Django Unchained - also anamorphic.
 
As for the "everyone's screens are 16:9" argument... so what? For me the wider aspect ratio has nothing to do with historic cinema screen standards or current TV standards. Cinema is wider, because it's more artistic and more immersive and better looking that way. That's really the crux of the argument. Anamorphic is just BETTER.

Engaging the uninterested general public with dedicated cameras was never going to be sustainable - not with smartphones around.

But I think the decline of consumer DSLRs will actually be the best thing to happen to photography and video in the digital era.

Finally companies will have to get innovative, putting more weight behind enthusiast and pro orientated camera line-ups.

[url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years]Read the full article here[/url]

I found this little gem today:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-joFyUcBIqk
 
Get on it Blackmagic! 

Sounds like you definitely need to check out the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera then.

Short film 'Choices'. The hopeful junior filmmaker imagines a battle of the top low budget camera toys, filmed in stop-motion-like animation, using AAEs puppet tool. Dialogs from Rocky? Boxring represented by Andrews table? The Pocket beats the GH3 and the 7D to pieces. The 5D says: 'We won, it's over.' The Pocket answers: 'It ain't over til it's over' - and kicks the 5D over the edge. It falls with the Wilhelms scream, hits the ground and falls apart. The filmmaker takes the Pocket and smiles, the Pocket smiles back. They leave, iris fade-out, THE END. Must find a better ending. 

Milan -- what is it that you really need in a camera? ML RAW or even BMCC RAW isn't the end-all, be-all. If you are shooting a documentary, you likely aren't shooting RAW. You can get a lot more RAW on a SSD drive than a CF card.
 
Do you have a budget for rigging, batteries and SSDs for the BMCC? Do you have a computer that can handle RAW editing?
 
It isn't clear what you really want and need -- so you may have a hard time getting a solid answer from folks here. Are you going to shoot RAW 100% of the time?
 
From what I've seen, RAW images on both BMCC and 5D3 are very similar. However, if you are shooting ProRes from the BMCC versus H.264 from the 5D3, the BMCC wins. 

I have a LowPro Flipside 500, which is huge, and I love it, but I'm not sure It's big enough for all of your gear. It fits a BMCC with it's Switronix battery pack, a 5D3 and 6 lenses.
 
Sounds like a lot of gear, you might consider...