Lucian

thanks for shooting these.

If we are examining for "shittier DOF" on smaller sensors mentioned by araucaria, i don't see it. When viewing the entire image, especially for moving images, I'm don't think I could tell the difference.

The resolution factor is interesting though , as you said maybe this might be a perceivable factor to consider when shooting at super high resolutions in the future idk.

Your assumption is a little flippant and appears to be lacking comprehension of the subjects being discussed here.  If you are to attempt conclusion of the subject rather than contribute to it please back your conclusion up with some something to fortify your conclusive quotes.   

Rich, I comprehend the subject, but maybe I was a little short.  "pepper out of fly shit"  was in reference to the post directly above it. As Jacek said, the SB is not literally making the sensor bigger so its a good example  and as the reference images show, the difference is negligible (pepper!), for me atleast. 

In addition if you check my following post, I I agree different bokeh can be achieved equiv focal lengths. Using glass designed for the format (i.e 16mm glass on 16mm sensor), amongst other things you will give you a softer dof roll off, where as using 35mm stills lenses just won't, even on equiv focal length on the same sensor.

My conclusion is based off experience, if sharp drop off is an issue then just use lenses designed for the format.

Appropriate format lenses has a lot to do with how the dof falls off. A 35mm stills lens will falloff unnaturally sharp on a 16mm sensor camera, the same focal length on the same 16mm camera using  a proper 16mm lens will falloff in a pleasing manner in my experience, likewise apertures go a lot lower on 16mm glass because it's a appropriate for the format.

If you have watched Malick's films it's pretty hard/impossible to argue they are not predominantly shot on short focal lengths.... sure there is some shallower focus stuff but the style is overwhelmingly built around short focal lengths. I'm not saying its better, but saying full frame is better would be just as silly.

Aren't most motion pictures are mostly shot on super 35mm size sensors which are closer in size to aps-c not full frame? Regardless neither is or has to be "better" than the other so cool ya jets.

And for the record I don't shoot on an "iphone", nor am I some kid with a 5D who thinks more out of focus the background is the more "filmic" and "cinematic" my shot is.

Inversely, Terrence Mallick has shot some of the best looking stuff ever committed to film and uses mostly short focal lengths and deep focus.

Having a specific vision and a good one is really the key not full frame.

This is like picking pepper out of fly shit. Turning your camera 1 degrees to the right or left is going to have more positive or negative effect on your shot than this.

Got mine through his Ebay store:

 

http://stores.ebay.com/rjcameraaccessorystore/

 

@ dhessel - sounds like you're going to be needing a dremel to adjust it yourself!

 

I ordered one and it arrived quite quickly. I have to wait for m43 mount for my digital bolex next month, but looking forward to it.

Also the smaller the sensor, the shittier the DOF behaviour. Someday I will write a text on the reasons because I couldn't find any online. 

whaaa?

64mulford, when you say add weights, did you have to buy additional weights from Glidecam to work with the HD2000, or did you come up with a DIY solution? 

No you need to buy additional weight to add to the camera area (the glide cam comes with it;s own weights for the bottom to counter balance against the camera weight).

I used a couple of cheap cheese plates from b&h.

Damn that is a shame. Fixing the focus throw problem would be the main motivation for me to get the mod.

I spent the weekend on vacation shooting with just a pistol grip and a tiny c-mount lens (no iscorama) and it was quite liberating, pulling focus on the fly and moving/placing the cameras in ways I wouldn't normally. After the "Kendy" thread i feel like I need to bring some of that back to my everyday shooting, haha I spend half my time putting diopters on and triple checking focus with anamorphic... mo lenses mo problems :P

Thanks for posting this!

I'm not clear on what you are saying regarding focus throw. After the mod is the focus throw short, i.e are you able to pull focus from far to near quickly/easily?

Thanks!

The negativity is just jealousy.

Hats of to kendy to playing his one camera and lens like a guitar, instead of doing endless lens tests and upgrades. Love all his work and look forward to him digging into meatier things in the future!

so no Andrew, I wasn't "transported" simply because the filmmaker was telling a confusing tale based on the information the viewer was receiving. 

If you couldn't follow the story you might want to try something simpler. Thor 2 might be more ya speed! Great film, the consistency on Thor's hammer throughout the film is flawless and leaves you feeling satisfied at the end of the film. I thought about his hammer for days afterwards....

A Drop in the Ocean. His wrists are wrapped with yellow tape. An effective graphic design which draws the eye's attention. Then they're not wrapped. Then they're wrapped. Bad continuity, esp. since the yellow tape is meant to draw your visual attention. Look at 1:25. These kinds of errors should have been caught in the process of repeated viewing.

Kurth: Who gives a crap.

One thing i'm curious about with his films, is there is definitely something going on with the motion rendition. I know he time re-maps in after effects, it may just be that combined with the constant micro jitter that it gives an interesting quality to the motion. But it almost feels like there is some non traditional shutter speeds or twixtor tricks being done in addition.

The lighter setups always had trouble with balance for me. I actually preferred using a lot of weights and the hd4000 with my gh2.

between the 1000 and 2000 I would get the 2000 for sure. 

maybe it would be more efficient if you just let us know when it's not for sale.

 

Lucian "but the edit was like a bloated rough cut".Isn't it a wonder that the test screenings didn't highlight that things were sadly wonky.

Test audience aside,  it's surprising it got past the director, editor and producer . I can only assume it was blindness caused by editing such an enormous amount of footage as mentioned above.  imagine what the actual rough cut was like, probably 7hrs long :P

I don't mean to poop on the film entirely though, it's a must see and one of the most interesting films so far this year..

This one sold last night might be reasonable price? Or good deal?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/390822040588

Good deal if it is what people say it is. The plastic does look very sun aged or something but I guess that wouldn't affect performance.

This is either someone reselling my Lomo square front set (asking about twice what they paid me for it about a year ago), or using the images and description from my original listing: http://www.ebay.com/itm/141271312464

Nice case!

Editing was likely a challenge, shooting as much footage in a day as a complete feature:

Interesting, this may have had something to do with it.

I was so impressed and affected by a lot of elements of it,  it was original and like an accessible art film.

but the edit was like a bloated rough cut, like nails on a blackboard after a while. Every shot lingering two, three, four times as long as necessary. I'm not a low attention span blockbuster viewer either, I predominately watch older films and art films so I am all for lingering moments, but if its every shot it just gets grating. People were squirming all through the second half in the cinema I was in.

I hope some day a leaner version of the film gets cut as it could be a classic.

Lovely film yes and the way of capturing the scenes was very good. Was it really necessary to build their own camera for the film? I mean, I think companies are giving us all forms of cameras now and there's certainly one suitable for any kind of film.

I loved this film in many ways, but frustratingly the editing and pacing were an absolute disaster.

Great ! send us some pictures ! :) How much does it cost ?

It costs 1400. I've given up on the idea as it increases vignette and the metal housing doesn't really make it safer since dropping it will be even worse due to the extra weight. The only improvement for me would be the focus throw.

They said they are turning them around in under 30 days now though!

cine lenses are made to be consistent in color, bokeh and look,  setup for follow focus, high quality optics and very expensive.

I've heard nothing but good things about the rokinons, pretty sure they are one of the only ranges of cinema glass that you can affordably  own as oppose to rent.

Congrats!

You may want to state in the listing if it's a 256gb or 512gb version.