P337

The 5D was a gamechanger not because it allowed shallow DoF. 35mm adapters also allowed this. It was a gamechanger because all of a sudden thousands of aspiring hobbyists deemed themselves indie filmmakers. A specific look that was - adequately or not - associated with 'cinema' now was affordable (and manageable, because the mentioned  35mm adapters were a pain in the ass, bulky and swallowing light).
 
Did the change bear any fruit?
 
First of all, very many terrible DSLR shots. But also a few very interesting ones.
 
The 5D fulfilled the promise that everybody could shoot attractive video on no budget. And some really did.  
 
This Mōvi (at a price of, say, 2000 bucks) would lead to dramaturgically unmotivated steady shots in heaps. Just as DSLRs led to 99,9% self-related focus transitions and attempts to blur the banality of the motifs. And I don't favor helicopters over cats.
 
None of the steady shots would change the quality of low budget films at all. It causes us to believe we need yet another gyro gizmo before we can express ourselves. It is a change-delayer.

Great product, but they basically priced themselves out of real success. For $15k ( and even $7.5k ) they will only get highend customers who are a very small market and can afford steadycam rental anyway. 
 
If they went for the 5D/7D shooters and lowered their margins they would've become millionaires. This thing needed to cost $3k to be a game-changer and a true 'companion to DSLR revolution'.
 
I'm sure this will become a niche product for action/stunt work in cramped environments and will be used on big budget movies in a shot or two and popular with the rental houses. But they missed the DSLR train, high volume sales ( "to own" customers ) and the chance to truly change the game.
 
Next.

Yeah, jesus huh, yes it's a great bit of kit for some shots, not all shots, it's another tool BUT it isn't a 'Game Changer', it doesn't warrant the build up it's had, it doesn't warrant comparison as a 'game changer' to what the 5D MK II did to the 'industry', shot for shot in a movie how many times use this device, how many times use a 'game changing' camera, every shot.
 
I'm not judging the device based on the videos put up, I'm commenting on the over use if anything, yes it's to show off the device, better will follow but considering they had the heads up, surprised of whats been put up, that's all.

There's something different about the movement feel that I can't place. The GH3 movement reminds me a litle of the smooth-motion TV thing in places, it looks as though there are more interpolated frames there, which is weird since it's I-frame and 25p. It's definitely got more resolution though.Odd...

Inevitable. If analog film was the Titanic, the iceberg had already collided. Maybe you can still keep your balance and insist on taking a quiet walk on the upper deck despite the panic around you, but not for long.

I went down with analog photography, that was more than 15 years ago already. Back then, the professionals detested digital and stated they would never ever use it for serious work. This changed FAST. Like, one day the customer said, don't worry, you're going to handle my stuff forever, next day he said, your job is history.

Last night a Canon rep was telling me that the new Canon 35mm Cine prime had been redesigned for less breathing, but my question to him was if the optics were improved over the rather soft 35mm 1.4 L lol, so I assume it's still their old photo lenses rehoused which I refuse to believe are much better than Samyang ;-P

"Travel costs will be covered"
- YES!
"(Within the UK)"
- F**K!

I don't know about a cheap one but there are a few USB follow focus models for Canon DSLRs that do just that for a couple hundred $.  And Garret Brown's original concepts for the Steadicam actually included a wearable eyepiece for monitoring! lol
 
Here is one story I just quickly found on it:
http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2008/07/18/stead-as-she-goes/

yes.  the fundamental difference is that the log profile is what the sensor see's prior to any processing.  therefore the log profile maintains all and more of the information that would be captures in a non log profile.  
 
with the ridiculously low contrast lenses the sensor often might not even pick up shadow detail due to the lens milking over detail in the darks.
 
the main factor to these lenses is that they are introducing negative effects on the image seen by the sensor.  it is image degradation in the same way shooting high contrast in- camera kills shadow and highlight detail, only in the physical domain instead of with in-camera processing.

Magic Lantern has been working on something similar to this, I had it on a 7D alpha build back in October 2012.  The Magic Lantern implementation saved the LCD's live view buffer files as jpegs(not mjpeg), I recorded 24 jpgs per second for one minute on my card (some dropped frames though) but it showed no sign of stopping on it's own.  My jpeg files were 4:2:2 and 98-623KB, which are 15:1 to 2.5:1 compression ratios of the 1.5MB 422 YUV originals used for the live view LCD.  Except they were only 1056x704 images.
 
I've heard the newer 6D uses 1816x1210 images which is closer to 1920x1080 but the Magic Lantern guys are supposedly having trouble saving these to jpegs on the 6D.  
 
Maybe Canon is working on a way to bring a 1080p60 422 jpeg variant of this to the new model, which would be grand but I'm trying not to get my hopes up.  Even CanonRumors doesn't know how real these specs are. 

I think the appeal of such a modified lens is somewhat related to how we are capable of having a response to any emotion that seems to go beyond the limits of the vehicle of its expression. For instance, the voice that cracks because it is expressing emotions that go beyond the capacity of what the lungs and throat can bear, or the guitar that feedbacks because the emotion expressed goes beyond the limits of amplification, etc. Many of these limits have been overcome with digital technology, creating the potential for anodyne, sterile images. This is one way to throw a little analogue grime back in the mix... it gives the images an authentic, lived-in patina. I like it for the same reason I like antique chairs and pictures of ruins. Nostalgia? Not really. I just like anything touched by human hands that get a little "untouched" by time.
 
Having said all that, I am looking forward to some video samples of the various configurations. I own a pristine (unmodified) Helios 44-M and can attest to its overall awesomeness.

you nailed it in one. "For instance, the voice that cracks because it is expressing emotions that go beyond the capacity of what the lungs and throat can bear". What a lovely analogy.  The limitations of the lens, and the potential for the image to be degraded in a baked in fashion where no amount of post processing can bring it back to how it would look if shot on a set of master primes or cookes certainly imparts a physical aesthetic largely beyond the control of the camera operator and post production guy.  I've not being able to take advantage of this personally (within video terms), but having a raw file with massive information to be pulled around, bring ing back the contrast lost optically by the lens creates a very tangible and physical feel.  
 
The standard Helios is an amazing lens.  One of the best.  And as said in our faq, we are degrading the results from this old benchmark lens, considered by most to be a go-to lens for nostalgic appearance.  
 
here is a direct comparison between a standard helios and a ff58:-
http://vimeo.com/62310544
 
And the new owner took this exact lens out on its first expedition last night, linked to a little kowa 8mm anamorphic lens:-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/_tee/8593794794/in/set-72157633099963600

this new tech that I was talking about:
 
http://youtu.be/7RS-45FXrUE