Lucian

The thing to also be aware of, besides coma, is a noticeable lack of contrast totally open versus a stop up on that 35mm.  My 50mm F.Zuiko has the same issues wide open but this effect virtually disappears with a little micro-contrast adjustment while grading.  

Depends on what you're looking for. The AF-D Nikkor 35mm f/2 is faster than f/2.8 and will perform better than the f/1.4. AF-D lenses have support for autofocus - but can be operated fully manually. The downside is that they don't have the nice fully metal construction like AI-S lenses.
 
Then, for Nikon mount at 40mm, also with 52mm filter thread, there's also the Voigtländer 40mm f/2. A very sharp, fully manual all metal lens. The color rendition of the Voigtländer should match the Nikkors.
 
Either of above mentioned, in addition to the excellent AI-S 28mm f/2.8, are my recommendations for wider than 50mm.

The f2.8+SB becomes faster & you don't get the problems you find with the faster versions.
But as BR says, on a s16 sized sensor the f1.4 might be fine.
 
Conversely, i'm thinking of continuing my Russian obsession & getting a "Meteor 5-1 17-69mm f1.9 M42" to go with my 54 (which were made to be compatable with zoom lenses), but i've no idea if a 36 will behave well with a zoom. They're cheap & have a lever to change focal length, which seems to produce a smooth zoom (see p.10 of the BMPCC c-mount thread for pics of the lens & pics taken with it).

I can concur having seen this in my own 35mm Nikkor copy.  It's slightly less of an issue on MFT but I've shot film with it and its issues fully open are easy enough to see if you look.  I still love the lens a stop or so off the floor though on my GH2.  I fully entertain the notion that I might like it less paired with a Speedbooster because its issues are more pronounced as you get further from center.

I've been using the Nikon ai-s 24mm f2.8 with my Iscorama 54 (no speedbooster) & it works really well!
Think i could go wider to the 20mm or even 18mm at a pinch, but am considering the speedbooster & getting the 28mm, 35mm f2.8 & 50mm f1.8.
My only problem is the ton of complaints about badly fitting Speedboosters on the BM Pocket.
 
I've got the same problem with my Russian lenses too - such a pain that the Speedbooster mount options don't include M42, but hoping that EF version comes out v.soon.

You're suggesting that supersampling introduces aliasing.  Mmm-kay, dubious but playing devil's advocate perhaps bad downscaling can introduce aliasing.  Yeah.  So do it well.  Do it right.  Use quality software.   Work at a high bit depth and use high quality scaling.  Folks wanting to cut corners and finish in their editing software, yeah, they might have some issues.
 
Not only does it not introduce aliasing it contributes to noise reduction as well as artifact reduction in the case of AVCHD footage.  That's not theory, that's experience.  Finishing in something like After Effects from a 32bit linear light workspace does not introduce the artifacts you're describing during down sampling.  Nothing negative is introduced.  I would hope that something like Resolve would be as capable.
 
Upsampling horizontally also is very forgiving.  Even at SD resolutions.   This is the defining exploit in our visual system that made the 16:9 anamorphic DVD the highest quality home release you could get of any film until BD. It's what's behind the color sub-sampling present in all broadcast video formats past, present and, looks like, future.  
 
With full-sample in the vertical field Sony was able to pull off their amazing con of 2001 convincing certain filmmakers that the original HDCAM was somehow the death-blow for film, with all of its 3:1:1 135Mbit 8-bit codec glory.
 
I will agree that optical does a better job, especially if all you're doing is a naive digital scale by comparison.  
 
Saying what you're doing is a viable alternative for folks with 36mm sensors is all fine and good.  I've suggested the same, given that, besides a few of the available adapters, large format cameras tend to have more caveats associated with compatible lenses, etc.  But the provocative title of this thread and several other statements within the thread go above and beyond claims of having a viable alternative.

There is another tool that is being, or will be marketed by a professional colorist.  Shian Storm is also, in a more limited way, doing some empirically derived filmstock transformations in his ColorGHear suite.  It may not always be FC but there is a lot of "film conversion" going on, even in professional circles.  Film and the way it renders tonality and color will haunt digital acquisition for a long time to come.  They've yet to build a digital camera that can hold a candle to the best work being done in celluloid even today.
 
Anyway, yeah, people asked for "raw" but people don't ask for the highly imperfect and incomplete log-to-lin setup that's most commonly being used.  There is too much effort spent simply trying to manage up an honest and true rendition of what light the camera saw and the relative values present in a scene.  Getting to an appropriate linear representation so that you can then grade from a place of awareness and creativity, a place where you can make meaningful decisions that are more than just trying to get it to not look like shit anymore, shouldn't be an ordeal, it should just be.  It should be the first thing you see when you look at your footage.  
 
Seeing a meaningful representation of what you shot doesn't mean baking anything in or losing anything in the raw data. 
 
I got my first taste of that swapping over to ACES on this short I'm doing VFX for that was shot on the Epic.  It's shocking how a manufacturer IDT that's universally regarded as "horrible" is still so much better than their own ability to meaningfully render their own native footage to the monitor.
 
Anyway, the type of techniques that make FC possible are what will make mixing multiple cameras from multiple manufacturers on the same film as close to seamless as you will get until hitting their relative limits.

Honestly guys this percentage breakdown thing is ridiculous. If you're a shit shooter accounting for 20% of the overall look, your overall look is going to be zero percent good not 80% good thanks to a camera and set of lights.
 
And if your camera and lens looks horrible and can't deal with the scene or the light, then even a good shooter will struggle.
 
Back to the original question of why some cameras are more filmic than others...
 
It's a combination of some key things but not exclusive to this list only -
 
Motion cadence, 24p
Dynamic range
Colour
Compression and codec and the effect that has overall especially on grain texture
Lens
 
If your right brain loves the D600 then it's probably due in part to the footage and the way it's shot, also the sensor size and lens used. Because nothing else in terms of the D600's image is more filmic than the GH3. It has more compression, more weird digital artefacts, more moire and aliasing. It's just easier to make full frame look like film because of the lovely rendering of optics at that sensor size. GH3 needs fast optics to really shine.

For Sale LOMO Anamorphic roundfront F = 50/2 type 35BAS22-2 , ser. # 780005 ,  PL mount stainless steel , lens has ARRI Standard 32 pitch Focus gear ring . Focus scale available marking in Feet or Meters . Lens in excellent condition , after service , has no fungus or dirty inside , lens clean and clear , multicoating fine - not damage , has front and rear caps .
Price $ 5950 + shipp.
'' target='_blank'>>
'' target='_blank'>>
'' target='_blank'>>
'' target='_blank'>>
 
P.S. - it is possible to fit on lens Canon EOS mount
 
Best regards
Sergey
sergastr@list.ru
sergastr@yahoo.com

I haven't tried it, but probably not. But if your main use of 4K is to slightly re-frame your shot and deliver in 1080P, I think that it's fine for that.
 
Also, using the 5D with anamorphic lenses can offer pretty high resolutions. Using the 1600x1200 crop mode with a 2x lens can give you a 3200x1200 image, in raw.
 
I'm not saying that the 5Diii is going to be better for everyone. I think that the GH4 will probably be a really nice camera. But even before production models start rolling out, we already know that it can't match the 5D's 1080P codec. So, if you're mostly interested in really good-looking 1080P, I think that the 5D with Magic Lantern remains a strong contender.

I also have a 5Diii running ML. I'm not going to buy the GH4 because I don't need 4K, and with my 5D I'm getting a full-frame sensor and a better codec without the added bulk and cost of an external recorder. Plus, I get NIGHTLY firmware updates from Magic Lantern. I just downloaded last night's and it's hard to believe all the bells and whistles that have been added in just the past week.
 
In terms of shooting with raw, I use it for the option of matching white balance between shots and tweaking exposure. Then I export them out to 12-bit ProRes 4444 files, and edit and grade as usual.
 
I don't bother with the KomputerBay cards. To me, the piece of mind that I get from the Lexar 1000x cards is worth the extra cost.
 
If you are really keen on 4K, then maybe the GH4 is the camera for you. But otherwise, the 5Diii delivers some of the best 1080P I've seen, and you already own one!

Very nice work!  This is the first footage from this adapter that has impressed me. Great job with focus too!
 
The flares look silly to me, but I guess it's personal taste :P
 
Well done man 

No, putting different specs into the same hands will not change anything, and you hardly will notice any difference in IQ, especially on the web,
if only buying Christopher Doyle camera would make me Christopher Doyle,
that would be nice.

Thanks Julian, this is exactly what I was hoping would be the case. You gain a stop of light without increasing softness so to speak.

Not so strange.  Coke has embraced multiculturism in their marketing going back to at least the 1970s.  This is basically a variation on something like this:
 


 
...which were very successful ads here in the USA.  They represent people of the world but that's what makes up America.  Some people here forget that, which isn't too surprising since these folks, who will most certainly be right of center also get The Bible wrong and have a poor understanding of the "Founding Fathers" as well.  Everything is twisted the further you get to the right. 
 
But enough politics, Coke has a tradition here which the latest Super Bowl ad is consistent with and it was the prettiest ad for the whole schebang yesterday which will likely go down as one of the most disappointing Super Bowl commercial years ever.

I am shooting with my new Iscorama 36 (non MC) together with a C100 in Tokyo now and all I can say: WOW! It's just mind blowing. 
I have used so far my good old Helios 44 (non MC) and my new Zeiss Flektgon 35mm 2.8 (declicked) and thats just... hands down... on of the best lenses I have used for anamorphic shooting yet. 
 
So that tiff is 300mb??? 
 
and: do you recomment the Sonnar? I am looking for a longer lens as well. 

http://www.amazon.com/Silica-Gel-Desiccants-Inches-Packets/dp/B009NH5S8U/ref=lh_ni_t?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=AR8XJJ19SNPNX
 

I agree, I bought the dell myself and a color munki. It's a decent poor man's grading setup if calibrated correctly.

Very cool!
 
what is the florescent light? is that a portable tube?

Hello,
Long time lurker, finally decided to register to learn and contribute.  I've been doing a little testing with some of my Contax Zeiss glass as a taking lens to my Iscorama.  Previously, I've only used a Helios 44-2.  The Zeiss is noticeably sharper and seems to work well.  Sorry, no lens flares here - just a quick test of overall sharpness and bokeh.
 

 

 
I tried using a Contax Zeiss 45mm f2.8 pancake, which made a a nice, compact setup, but it unfortunately wasn't as sharp and I'd hoped for.
 
Drew

Also, I think the academy has a very limited scope on cinematography.
 
The master says best:
 
http://sea.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/874483/christopher-doyle-interview-part-2-life-of-pi-oscar-is-an

thanks for the comments guys.  all noted.  and additional focal lengths are in pipeline.  I'd hoped for them to be available sooner, but it's taking longer to develop than I'd expected.  looks like possibility of a 40mm and a 25mm, both in f2 aperture in the next few months.

thanks for the comments.  does the single focal length pose a big turn off?  
 
-please bear in mind the key criteria is to develop a full frame friendly outcome, with possibility of using the crop modes in ML to obtain various field of views.  and for use with speed booster or not depending on fov required when using on smaller sensors.

Interesting post Kays.
I think this camera actually sounds really nice. While there certainly seem to be some shortcomings, it sounds far better thought out than the Blackmagic CC/PCC in a number of ways. The ability to see how much storage space and battery power is remaining, and the choice to use an internal four hour battery (rather than necessitating the use of a lot of small swappable batteries) make it seem far more usable, especially for shooting without a rig.
The Pocket is very cool tech but in a number of ways it's a bit of a muddle design wise - what's the point of a pocket camera that's not really usable without a rig? Yes, it's cool that it can be rigged up in any way you choose, or go stealth with it, but I would prefer a consistent design vision and a commitment to a workable form factor.
 
I would say though, these cameras sound like they could compliment each other really nicely. Why just use one body or film stock all the time? Different shooting situations call for different tools, and after the passive M43 mount for DB is released, these two cameras could make a great raw shooting kit for use with a single set of lenses.

Yes, I usually find f/2 plenty enough myself!
 
A few notes:
 
The Pre-AI/non-AI lenses works as-is with adapters on m4/3 cameras. For Nikon DSLR's you need to modify them, otherwise a piece of protruding metal can destroy the lenst mount on camera.
 
The AI/AI-S lenses work as-is on any F-mount camera or adapter (no metering on lower-end Nikons, but that really doesn't matter when filming).
 
I've been considering quite a few of these old Nikkors as well, but so far I've been happy enough with the 16-35mm f/4G VR lens. The 28mm f/2.8 in particular is interesting, since it is one of the sharpest wide-angle Nikkors ever.