1tkman

Looks very good ! 
I love cuban themed works, such a great vibe !

This came up on Vimeo and I was really taken back... incredible area. 
 

Seeing a film shot anamorphic on custom built 35mm Panavision Millenium and IMAX cameras will be worth a watch, if not for the spectacle/ geek factor alone. The next film 'Rogue One' will be on Alexa 65 with Tarantino's Ultra Panavision 70 anamorphic lenses.
Regardless of being a fan or not, it's good to see filmmakers are making films that actually bother to bring back spectacle to the cinema experience. 
If it was not for George Lucas' pushing of technology for the original trilogy and the advancement of digital camera technology (specifically Sony) for the repulsive prequel films, we would not be running around with 4k cameras for under $100k right now - or be able to afford any digital post production software (including Photoshop). So directly or indirectly, every filmmaker who shoots digital or uses post production software owes a debt of gratitude to the Star Wars franchise and the bearded cocaine addict George Lucas.

Yes. Opening night I'm sticking to regular format for nostalgic purposes. The next day IMAX 3D.

looking to invest in my first audio recorder... I was about to get the default Zoom H1  most suggest as a starting point 
After looking around there are three I have found within striking distance... they vary from $70 to $110 New
1) Zoom H1            $70 (no tax)
2) Tascam DR-22   $105+ Tax
3) Tascam DR-40   $110 (no tax)
I make mini docs recording interviews and sometimes audio performances (Next project will include recording a bag pipe performance)
The DR-40 is really raising an eyebrow as it's  discount is major usually priced $180+  and has 4 channels... But it is huge compared to zoom H1 ( was looking to mount my recorder on my NX1)
Could you give any thoughts on these choices?
Is there some product I should be considering at this cheap price point that I'm not? 
 
Thanks 

Will get a fake student ID.

Franz Kraus addressed at Conference of the International Association of Film and Television Schools (CILECT) in Munich on Nov 27th, that a s16 Amira prototype has been tested. They are apparently in progress to a feasibility study with an aim to supply film schools/educational market, as many schools still having lenses left over from the SR/ST days. Simplified s16 Amira (true S16 Sensor not a crop) sounds very much in the feasibility stage for now, but could end up being an interesting little camera if produced and made available outside the educational market.
http://if.com.au/2015/11/26/article/Arri-reveals-prototype-educational-camera/IQUTSYTINV.html

Franz Kraus addressed at Conference of the International Association of Film and Television Schools (CILECT) in Munich on the Nov 27th, that a s16 Amira prototype has been tested. They are apparently in progress to a feasibility study with an aim to supply film schools/educational market, as many schools still having lenses left over from the SR/ST days. Simplified s16 Amira sounds very much in the feasibility stage for now, but could end up being an interesting little camera if produced.
Maybe not a time yet to get rid of s16 glass quite yet....glad to see s16 film acquisition is still around too, it really can look beautiful these days when contrasted to some digitally-shot projects. 

first prize winner at the CAMERAIMAGE Festival was a film shot on super 16mm...  (a real cost saver verse the recent 70mm Tarantino film!!!)
the art of cinematography  (in the tool bag)

If you crank the dial to 11 and leave it there, it loses its meaning/impact.  Nothing wrong with using color saturation judiciously, but its ever-presence in season 2 pulls me out of the story. Not so much that I won't stop watching, but enough that I'll complain about it 

There 3 main benifits as far as I can see. 
1. Future proofing as you already mentioned. For example the F35 has an s-gamut colorspace which is much larger than Rec709. Aces is even larger so by going from s-gamut to aces you can retain that extended gamut for future devices that could utilize them. 
2. Ease of export/switching between output colorspaces. you can open a project graded on a Rec709 monitor on a computer with a P3 or Rec2020 monitor and all you have to do is switch the display transform you the proper format and everything will display correctly, same thing is true when exporting for different colorspaces. 
3. All footage starts with a nuetral base. One of the nice things about aces is that it has standard input transforms that are designed to convert footage from a specific camera into the aces color space so you end up with footage that is neutral. There no unexpected results or looks that are transfered from luts. This is mainly usefull for log shooting cameras and you end up with footage that is more closely matched if using different cameras.
 
So far I have found that this aces techique in the linked blog post produces the most neutral/correct footage from the F35 of any other technique so far. In order from best to worst in Resolve I ranking them like this.
1. Aces 
2. auto color matching via color chart.
3. Slog to Cineon, Arri LogC to Rec709.
 
For me my main interest is having a way of de-logging s-log/s-gamut footage from the F35 and getting a neutral image without adding a look which ACES shows promise. The biggest downside so far is that it appears using ACES doesn't work well with film emulation luts. They are designed for Rec709 and don't transfer properly in ACES as far as I can tell.

Photographer and videographer Mathieu Stern attached a 
french plastic camera lens from the 50s, the Photax Heanar
type V, to a Sony a7II... with a couple of rubber bands.
His article:
http://mathieustern.com/2015/11/shooting-a-video-with-a-1950-plastic-camera-lens

Watch the results:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nMOeJlnlcI
 

Ed, have you tried the Aces workflow in Resolve for the F35 or other cameras with an available IDT (sgamut to aces and slog to linear) and if so, what was your opinion? 
http://www.filmscientist.com/blog/2015/01/29/film-scientist-aces-workflow-revisited/

It is a pretty special camera. Those f#@&in batteries though. Stoked for the Canon batteries on the Micro.

I don't know what I would do without the Cineon LUTs now. I use them for a starting point on the GH4, C100, and BMCC.

I’ve been struggling this year to understand color.  I come from a strictly digital-upbringing.  I have shot some film, but I never understood color timing or even learned how to look critically at color – at skintones, at greens, blues, and red.
And I wondered why I would spend so much time trying to understand it, when I could be spending time practicing lighting and finding angles and watching inspiring films.
But now I kind of get it – since the 90’s – one shoots film, then one digitizes it in (Digital Intermediate) then you would color it in CINEON colorspace (which is flat like log, very similar to the flatness of Arri log-C) and then send it off to film print.  Right now it’s Kodak 5283 or 5293 which respond to blacks, dynamic range, all that differently.
So you would choose a stock to shoot on, digitize it, color it, then send off to a film print.
So colorists have been involved digitally since the 90’s on all major motion pictures shot on film.  They would have LUTs – or look up tables – to emulate the film prints, so they could see what it will look like before they print it.
And also, to keep it consistent when it would go off to DVD or VOD or Blu Ray – so the film looks the same everywhere, with tweaking.
So I started to use Filmconvert to grade my footage that I would shoot as flat as I can with my cameras.  First, it was the Sony F3 and now mostly the Sony F35 and Red One and sometimes the Alexa.  Filmconvert keeps it in REC 709 colorspace, which is the standard for TVs and online. Filmconvert was great, but the curves were aggresive and I found using Alexa dci-p3 worked best with slog1, not just slog2.  Anyway, I found out later to lessen the film curve, raise highlights, etc.
Then Visioncolor came along with their luts that got highly popular – especially the M.31 lut.  I liked it, but it was a little too stylized.  This is when I started to learn resolve.  Before I just used Final Cut Pro 7 and the three-way color corrector.
Resolve I didn’t get for a long time, but read a tutorial by Hunter Hampton and started to understand it.  I also started to mess with DSLRs more fully and learned how to play in RAW there.  All helping out with shooting on Red and understanding its own RAW and why to use Redlog over their Redgammas, to have the most info to play with, out the bat.
And I learned that Red Cine-X was just a simple program that existed before Resolve was made free, and it was good, but Resolve is a lot more customizable.
Then Visioncolor Impulz Luts came out.  And Hunter said it was as close to film as you could get.  I messed with it, didn’t understand it.  But now I do.  You take your footage, and if you are working quick, add a FC (film contrast lut) or a VS (visionspace) lut that has less contrast or can mess with a FPE (film print emulation) lut – that I think brings down the highlights too much.
I would learn to go slog to cineon, then start coloring with the filmstock I like (I like 250d and 200t and 500t a lot – 50d is a little too wild in the blues) – and then once that is good, go off to a Film Print – 2383, 2393, or their custom Film Contrast 1 or Visioncolor or even Fuji print.  And that gets you a good look.
Anyway why is this important?  Because now I can shoot on a log or raw camera, and build a lut, and make sure that the lut looks good and that the final image is going to look good.  No more guessing with shooting flat and finding out later there is too much noise in the shadows or the skintone, how it reacts to light and color looks odd and off.
In essence, it’s What you see, what you get, which is in some ways an improvement over film.  You know for sure, pretty much, if the image is good or not.  With film, the mystery and magic of course is there and it looks the best – how it handles skin and highlights and light, and those dancing frames and how unpredictable, but hey, I can’t afford to shoot film.  No matter what people say, shooting digital is cheaper and you have less chance of screwing it up. Especially if you own the gear already and shoot pro res 4444 vs some insanely uncompressed codec.
The world of digital doesn’t look as nice as film, usually.  But sometimes, if you have the right colorist, it can.  Watching the trailer for San Andreas, I thought it was shot on film.  Same with the Age of Adeline.  Adding power windows, using lenses that have pop and circular rendering of faces.  Using cameras that have nice motion.  It gets you there, kind of close.  It’s not always perfect, but I still think the DP and the Colorist can make a film shot digitally look better than a film shot and colored poorly on film.
I still wish for more and more advances in digital camera technology that can have the randomness of film – the highlight smooth-roll-off – the sharpness and how it renders faces – I don’t want companies to give up and call it a day.  But, hey I’m not an engineer.  I’m just a guy trying to figure things out.
Here’s a clip of how they digitally graded “Oh Brother Where are Thou” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pla_pd1uatg

Have a look at the Ikan VK7I, it's quite affordable and seems to have great colors: http://www.learningvideo.com/field-monitor-shootout/

Zak I still have a good feeling about G&G. They told us 3 months ago that BM distributor predicted December. Every other person was saying November. I have a feeling it's coming in the next 2 weeks.

okay, so i'm upping my game here and taking one for the team. before the weekend I switched from renting a Pocket to owning a Pocket. it's shipping from Paris (I got a great deal ($565) from Lovinpix.com on a new one) so I expect to hear my Micro Cinema Cam will ship anytime between now and the day my new Pocket arrives at my doorstep... because again, that's how these things usually work. You're all welcome.

 

I wasn't aware that was the case. I watched a video recently with a guy who has the VA and the Micro Studio 4K and he said he couldn't use the VA to operate the Micro's menus. Have a link or something where you've read that the VA's touchscreen can be used to navigate the camera's menu system, and not just its own? I'd like to read up on that.

Hi,
I'm new to this forum and posted the questions below to the "Lenses" topic already, but should have posted them here (Admins - sorry about that!). Here are the questions:
Andrew's great review has got me convinced that I need this camera because I love slo mo! I'd love to try the hack mentioned in that article about increasing the camera's poor zoom range. Would anyone be able to recommend a teleconversion lens to use with this camera? Or is it just pot luck? Based on reviews at bhphotovideos.com, I can see that some lenses won't even focus properly! Also, these teleconversion lenses only work when the RX100 is already at its full telephoto zoom range, right? What happens in between the max range then? No focus?
Thanks in advance!
K.

Hey Aaron! I appreciate your work and if you are in line to purchase this camera, I am paying attention. 
Curious, do you intend to mostly film in Raw or with ProRes with this camera?
Which of the two do you think would grade better?
 

Just wanted to let everyone know that I've rented a Blackmagic Pocket Cam for the next 10 days which *should* mean the Micro will ship any day now -- because that's how these things work.

I'm shooting a music video with V Log next weekend and I'm stoked on getting some good looking results out there. Here is another good looking landscape video I saw on Vimeo with V Log 10 bit: