mtheory

I designed the ULTRA Speed Booster optics, and work with partners to manufacture the optical subassembly.  Currently our only customer for ULTRA optics is Metabones.  I expect that Kinefinity is sourcing cheaper glass from another company.

I picked up a 1D C.

Forgive me, I fell for the hype! (looks amazing)

​But I did not know Macbook Pro can use GPU, did I misunderstand something?

​Don't like Macs, don't use one, so this news isn't relevant to me. Am I still a photographer/videographer?

Well, in reality the equivalent DoF aperture is 6.4. I would rather shoot 6.4 on FF with higher iso than 4.0 on APSC (and benefit from higher sharpness from 6.4 vs 4.0) especially with a body like the A7S that is SO good at high ISO that the image would be even cleaner. 

So I answer you, why would you private yourself of amazing FF possibilities for creativity (super swallow DoF), amazing high ISO, and way better stills capability, STILL HAVING the opportunity to match 1.6 crop mode, and DoF (by stopping down the lens as said above) ?

EDIT: I am not trying to flood here, I am just trying to understand people arguments for going APSC. For now my point of view is that those people are conservative and reluctant to accept benefits of FF (because they can't afford it or don't own it or just convince themselves they did a good choice going APSC, or some other reason). 

So for photography everyone agree. 

For video, you all seem to point one advantage of S35 over FF : DoF because FF has too swallow DoF. 

But wait, can you not just change your lens aperture ...? You want more DoF well shoot F5.6 instead of F4 and this is it ... This allows you to have the same DoF of APSC but at the same time have : more sharpness, less vignette, .... You will tell me what about low light and I will answer you that considering Full Frame is better at high ISO, just bump the ISO to compensate the aperture and you get exactly same speed and same DoF as APSC (with equal noise because you augmented ISO but FF is better than APSC for that). 

So I don't understand your argument at all. FF offers you very swallow DoF when needed, and just stop down the aperture when you want as simple as that (and compensate exposure with ISO). 

Then there is only the lens size argument left. We come again to what I said, if you want absolute smallest size get M43 like black magic pocket or LX100, etc. Otherwise an A7S even with FF lens is not big, especially for filmmaking. Not to mention bigger cameras where the lens size does not matter. 
But APSC you get still big lenses (Sigma 18-35) ... Almost same as FF. Plus most of the people on APSC use FF lens because they invest in lens (like all canon famous lens, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm ...) so this argument is again, a non sense for me. 

What do you guys think?  I've read major differences of opinion as of late on-line.

Do you really need to shoot 4K if you're making a narrative feature?  (to have a realistic shot at distribution?)

I'm not talking about "self-distribution" here.

A film distribution company purchasing your film for either Theatrical or VOD/Cable.

Are we at the point now of 4K or bust?

Thanks for any advice.

​What I find the most fascinating about this site is that I think you Andrew started it because you were tired of your treatment on the other sites, including DVXUser.com - amongst others - so you wanted to start a fresh positive thing.

But much like Cuba was started with wonderful ideas, soon it became rules by moderators who became just as callous as those you rebelled against.

It's a beautiful thing, the cycle of life.

Fuzzynormal is one of the smart caring emotional posters on here, and if he wants to make a post about learning how to create rigs to make your camera better, why shouldn't he?  

Check out these rigs from the 70's - http://www.tonyhillfilms.com/rigs

so creative!

​True, but he does make a fair point about EOSHD not covering art related aspects of filmmaking and focusing only on gear. May be you don't want to cover art stuff, but it'd be great if Andrew/you address that suggestion directly. No Film School has a decent balance of the two, for example.

Well, I've been qualifying my post with some existential dilemma​, so that's pretty much spot on; except for the kid part.  I wish that were true.  

​Two things. First of all, you are right. Then, just like in my 'being careful'-thread, your tone seems to me somewhat patronizing, if not self-righteous. In the Adobe thread in your conversation with Mercer, I suspected my untrained english ear (excuse the awkward idioms). 

If I got fuzzynormals point, I am in a similar situation. It became clear to me recently that my time is too limited to live a family life, meet friends, go to work (not film-related), follow my creative plans and discuss gear in minute detail. The latter clearly is procrastination to a high degree (again, obviously not for everyone who reads this, so don't feel addressed).

That's coming out, confessing, debating a personal concern with others who might (or not) share the problem. It was no request for a sanctimonious and simplified answer. So please don't offer more of those platitudes. Nobody expects a tutorial how to be creative, and certainly nobody wants to hear The Secret of how to experience life more deeply.

Other than that, you are right. It's only my problem if I act like a consumer, if I spend my precious time with calculating future gear purchases and what I then could do with them.​

And I find your tone somewhat entitled, if not self-pitying. I've never found victimhood comfortable or noble, and when someone delivers a dose of sobering criticism to me, I am humbled but grateful if I agree with it deep in my heart. Im noticing that some members on the forum are (ab)using this forum for personal psychotherapy, channeling their personal emotional and political grievances into rather straightforward discussions, it's sort of strange to me, though it's not what irritates me.

What irritates me is how casually this very site and its owner gets bashed, and it's happening more often now...perhaps, in the midst of all the self-pity and victimhood you guys should consider that your own comments might be quite hurtful and abusive towards the person who single-handedly runs this site and who is decent enough not to cram 50 banners down your eyeballs because he is trying to maintain honesty without conflict of interest?

I've seen a great forum like cinema5D ruined by a bunch of hacks who couldn't wait to sell out, and I don't want to see this one fail the day Andrew gets enough of this negativity and decides it isn't worth it. I don't know how it doesn't get to him, because it's starting to get to me. I'm being dead serious here, please pause to consider this : your words have impact...when you bring your pain here it creates a toxic environment...no need to hijack a thread about ML raw and turn it into bash-EOSHD fest...no need to turn your personal creative crisis into bash-EOSHD fest..remember, creatives CREATE, not destroy...let's detox the forum with less negative posts and less drama from now on please. 

End of rant, this was more of general address than specifically at you Axel.

We need more of this:

We don't need, don't need, no haters
Just try to love one another
We just want y'all have a good time
No more drama in your life
Work real hard to make a dime
If you got beef, your problem, not mine
Leave all that BS outside
We're gonna celebrate all night
Let's have fun, tonight, no fights
Turn the Dre track way up high
Making you dance all night and I
Got some real heat for ya this time
Doesn't matter if you're white or black
Let's get crunk cause Mary's back

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread.

I like new cameras.  I own way too many of them.  But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much.  We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft.  And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression.  It's engineering.  Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect.  (not succeeding yet, but trying)  

As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients.  This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear.  Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons.

Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all.  This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era.  Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer.  Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority.

Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt?  His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling.  Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear.  Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging.  It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication.  Quite the opposite.

On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers”

It’s a CGI masterpiece.  By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons.  His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration.  Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA.  With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film.

These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there.

When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites?

It's such an exciting era of film making!