Fatalfury

In my experience the Zuiko 25mm F1.2 was a bit soft when the focus was far (in case of full body portraits) but otherwise it was very sharp with pleasing soft micro contrast that is especially useful for portraits. If you have the time, it could be very helpful if you could post two full body or close to full body portait photos with both lenses wide open. 

What about wide open or from F1.2 to F1.8, is the Sigma just as sharp as the Olympus at 1.4 and what about vignetting ? The T-stop is 1.6 for Sigma vs Olympus 1.8 (in contrast the 250 bucks Sony FE 1.8 has the same 1.8 t-stop), but i guess it would be difficult for you to test that since the focal lenght is a bit different. 
I actually like the colours from Olympus more than the Sigma from your video, but i will get the Sigma if it's as sharp as Oly + it's actually a bit better in low light.
 

So DXO just released the zuiko pro 25mm F1.2 test. T-stop 1.8! Really? The same t-stop as lumix 25mm 1.4 (and better overall score for the Lumix). I tried the zuiko 25mm 1.2 for couple and was really impressed by the images, the low light perfomance + the very useful manual focusing ring. It's certainly better than the lumix 25mm 1.4, despite the Dxo score. But if the light transmission actually isn't any better for lowlight video, then i will go with the 30mm 1.4 sigma (t-stop 1.7) or the even cheaper lumix 1.7 (t-stop 2). 
Any idea what t-stop might the speedbooster XL + sigma art 35mm 1.4 combo provide? I want to buy one higher end prime for low light and so far i had my eyes on the zuiko pro 25mm. Not really interested in voigtlander or slr magic at the moment, because the image is a bit soft below f1.8.
I'm also seriosly considering Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4, love the look of the images. Now waitinig if the t/stop is any better than the zuiko 12mm F2.
 

i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
 

I am surprised, not not so many people are as excited about the Panasonic GX85. It seems to have solved two of the biggest issues with Panasonic cameras, namely shutter shock and in-camera stabilization. It will obviously move all these, and add a lot more to the GH5. But, for the $797.95 price tag, for the camera AND the lens, it's a superb deal.
Atleast it doesn't overheat like crazy and become unusable well before 30 mins of continuous use, have terrible rolling shutter, and some curious color science. Though the lack of headphone jack is really a bummer. Panasonic would at best have saved $3 per camera. Like seriously???

I think the IS on GX80/GX85/GX7-M2 is mechanically implemented thanks to the new compact sensor tech. GX8 itself is in difficult situation when the lower end model is in some (actually very important) ways more advanced model. Shame that the GX80 battery is so weak, but that problem will be liquidated in GH5. 

I think the IS on GX80/GX85/GX7-M2 is mechanically implemented thanks to the new compact sensor tech. GX8 itself is in difficult situation when the lower end model is in some (actually very important) ways more advanced model. Shame that the GX80 battery is so weak, but that problem will be liquidated in GH5. 

It seems to be. And it has a plethora of interesting features.
 
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-gx85/panasonic-gx85A.HTM

So it seems that the IS is on the GX80 is more or less on par with the Olympus 5 axis! 
http://www.thevideomode.com/equipment/panasonic-lumix-gh5-2295/
If it doesn't crop too much, then this is quite amazing little camera. Oh and no shutter shock! 
 

It's really hard to take him seriously after what he said about 5D Mark II trashing GH4.

We had a lot of fun making this one, three people in crew in total and a £500 budget for all the extras (props location etc) the kit is our own
Animation took a long time, and VHS style was tough to build! Happy to answer questions on production if anyone is interested!

Many thanks! It was two shoot days, the animation was done over a few months in spare days, and the final post was another few days worth spread out. There was about 6 months between when we shot it and when we actually worked on the edit though as some other projects got in the way.

Very cool! How much time did it take to complete this?

With the exception of the gun being fired down the phone (stolen from Danger 5, a much better low budget retro-genre inspired work about cheesy heroes fighting Hitler, and it has dinosaur-headed people too), all the best gags in Kung Fury fit in the initial 2 minute trailer. And they worked much better in that context.
Kung Fury is nothing more than a technical showpiece. The script is built on the premise that gore, swearing and pop-cultural pastiche is endlessly amusing. If you told me this was written by Seth MacFarlane, I'd have believed it.
I suppose Kung Fury could be thought to have a more realised world than Fury Road if by 'more realised' you mean, 'more locations', but that's about it. The attention to detail and art direction in that film brought a believable and genuinely original vision to the screen. Kung Fury is an amalgam of the last decade of 80s parodies, thrown into an ultra ironic 'anything can happen!' universe. There's no real narrative to ground the nonsense (unlike Danger 5), and genuine wit is almost entirely absent. Better characters? What characters? There is no humanity to anyone. The characters have so few distinguishing features that they aren't even clearly defined as comic archetypes. 

Kung Fury is lazy, coasting by on its concept. Fury Road is one of the most brilliant pieces of fantasy filmmaking to make it to the screen in the past decade. One is seeing a brief burst of viral interest, and the other is going to be talked about for many years to come.

Thanks, will check the making of asap, should be interesting. 
Saw the film yesterday. Id give it a solid 8, but i did go in with sky high expectations after witnessing all these ten out of ten reviews. The film is certainly much better than Age of Ultron or Furious 7 and probably will be the best action blockbuster of 2015. Feel it's slightly overrated but not as much as the first Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Id rate it equal to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 
I was floored at the beginning of the movie and especially at the first carchase setpiece but the latter half of the movie failed to sustain or outdo the assault on the senses i got in the first hour. The second half was really good but it definitely peaked early for me. The last setpiece was more of the same and the sense of danger was somewhat lost sadly. The baddies could have easily won in the end if they had put some thought to their actions. But i guess logic doesn't apply anyway to film such as this.
One nitpick - the high shutter speed in action scenes was way overdone and made the movements too jerky and less realistic.
Overall the design and the world itself was simply amazing and quite mad indeed, if a bit comic book alike compared to earlier films. Tom Hardy was good but he doesn't quite have that fierce look in the eyes like Mel Gibson. Gibson could have still pulled it off imo. Theron was awesome if underdeveloped as a character, but we all now the drama isn't the main attraction in a film like this, so it's all good. 
Soundtack was nothing special, fitted nicely on action but not as much during the quiter scenes, overly pathetic. 
Big respect for Miller to pulling it off, Fury Road is a stunning action movie with incredible visuals and style but not quite a flawless masterpiece. Look forward to seeing it again. 
Id like to add that i secretly hoped for a cameo of Bruce Spence. I don't know if it's just me, but the film seemed to aim for PG13 like Prometheus.

Thanks, will check the making of asap, should be interesting. 
Saw the film yesterday. Id give it a solid 8, but i did go in with sky high expectations after witnessing all these ten out of ten reviews. The film is certainly much better than Age of Ultron or Furious 7 and probably will be the best action blockbuster of 2015. Feel it's slightly overrated but not as much as the first Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Id rate it equal to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 
I was floored at the beginning of the movie and especially at the first carchase setpiece but the latter half of the movie failed to sustain or outdo the assault on the senses i got in the first hour. The second half was really good but it definitely peaked early for me. The last setpiece was more of the same and the sense of danger was somewhat lost sadly. The baddies could have easily won in the end if they had put some thought to their actions. But i guess logic doesn't apply anyway to film such as this.
One nitpick - the high shutter speed in action scenes was way overdone and made the movements too jerky and less realistic.
Overall the design and the world itself was simply amazing and quite mad indeed, if a bit comic book alike compared to earlier films. Tom Hardy was good but he doesn't quite have that fierce look in the eyes like Mel Gibson. Gibson could have still pulled it off imo. Theron was awesome if underdeveloped as a character, but we all now the drama isn't the main attraction in a film like this, so it's all good. 
Soundtack was nothing special, fitted nicely on action but not as much during the quiter scenes, overly pathetic. 
Big respect for Miller to pulling it off, Fury Road is a stunning action movie with incredible visuals and style but not quite a flawless masterpiece. Look forward to seeing it again. 
Id like to add that i secretly hoped for a cameo of Bruce Spence. I don't know if it's just me, but the film seemed to aim for PG13 like Prometheus.

Thanks, will check the making of asap, should be interesting. 
Saw the film yesterday. Id give it a solid 8, but i did go in with sky high expectations after witnessing all these ten out of ten reviews. The film is certainly much better than Age of Ultron or Furious 7 and probably will be the best action blockbuster of 2015. Feel it's slightly overrated but not as much as the first Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Id rate it equal to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 
I was floored at the beginning of the movie and especially at the first carchase setpiece but the latter half of the movie failed to sustain or outdo the assault on the senses i got in the first hour. The second half was really good but it definitely peaked early for me. The last setpiece was more of the same and the sense of danger was somewhat lost sadly. The baddies could have easily won in the end if they had put some thought to their actions. But i guess logic doesn't apply anyway to film such as this.
One nitpick - the high shutter speed in action scenes was way overdone and made the movements too jerky and less realistic.
Overall the design and the world itself was simply amazing and quite mad indeed, if a bit comic book alike compared to earlier films. Tom Hardy was good but he doesn't quite have that fierce look in the eyes like Mel Gibson. Gibson could have still pulled it off imo. Theron was awesome if underdeveloped as a character, but we all now the drama isn't the main attraction in a film like this, so it's all good. 
Soundtack was nothing special, fitted nicely on action but not as much during the quiter scenes, overly pathetic. 
Big respect for Miller to pulling it off, Fury Road is a stunning action movie with incredible visuals and style but not quite a flawless masterpiece. Look forward to seeing it again. 
Id like to add that i secretly hoped for a cameo of Bruce Spence. I don't know if it's just me, but the film seemed to aim for PG13 like Prometheus.

Thanks, will check the making of asap, should be interesting. 
Saw the film yesterday. Id give it a solid 8, but i did go in with sky high expectations after witnessing all these ten out of ten reviews. The film is certainly much better than Age of Ultron or Furious 7 and probably will be the best action blockbuster of 2015. Feel it's slightly overrated but not as much as the first Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Id rate it equal to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 
I was floored at the beginning of the movie and especially at the first carchase setpiece but the latter half of the movie failed to sustain or outdo the assault on the senses i got in the first hour. The second half was really good but it definitely peaked early for me. The last setpiece was more of the same and the sense of danger was somewhat lost sadly. The baddies could have easily won in the end if they had put some thought to their actions. But i guess logic doesn't apply anyway to film such as this.
One nitpick - the high shutter speed in action scenes was way overdone and made the movements too jerky and less realistic.
Overall the design and the world itself was simply amazing and quite mad indeed, if a bit comic book alike compared to earlier films. Tom Hardy was good but he doesn't quite have that fierce look in the eyes like Mel Gibson. Gibson could have still pulled it off imo. Theron was awesome if underdeveloped as a character, but we all now the drama isn't the main attraction in a film like this, so it's all good. 
Soundtack was nothing special, fitted nicely on action but not as much during the quiter scenes, overly pathetic. 
Big respect for Miller to pulling it off, Fury Road is a stunning action movie with incredible visuals and style but not quite a flawless masterpiece. Look forward to seeing it again. 
Id like to add that i secretly hoped for a cameo of Bruce Spence. I don't know if it's just me, but the film seemed to aim for PG13 like Prometheus.

OP is very wrong, aps-c and m43 aren't going anywhere in the next few years. True, the 35mm bodies are getting cheaper and smaller but it's a different story with lenses, which are still expensive and humonguos especially compared to mft. How come there are no pancakes  for Sony A7.
We all know that S35 is a standard for cinema and it gives plenty of depth of field control. I really dig shallow depth of field for photography but excessively thin dof doesn't make a film more cinematic, for me it can give the opposite effect. Often it gives a cheap student film/youtube look. Dynamic range, colors, compositions and the set design are what result in cinematic bliss. Many of the best classic cinema feature fuck all of thin dof. I felt that Upstream Color which was praised for beautiful imagery often featured too shallow dof for my taste and it was shot with a GH2.
So very wrong about m43 being garbage for photography. A talented photographer should have no issues with m43, the system can truly shine with certain lenses and will prove limiting only in the most extreme situations.
 

OP is very wrong, aps-c and m43 aren't going anywhere in the next few years. True, the 35mm bodies are getting cheaper and smaller but it's a different story with lenses, which are still expensive and humonguos especially compared to mft. How come there are no pancakes  for Sony A7.
We all know that S35 is a standard for cinema and it gives plenty of depth of field control. I really dig shallow depth of field for photography but excessively thin dof doesn't make a film more cinematic, for me it can give the opposite effect. Often it gives a cheap student film/youtube look. Dynamic range, colors, compositions and the set design are what result in cinematic bliss. Many of the best classic cinema feature fuck all of thin dof. I felt that Upstream Color which was praised for beautiful imagery often featured too shallow dof for my taste and it was shot with a GH2.
So very wrong about m43 being garbage for photography. A talented photographer should have no issues with m43, the system can truly shine with certain lenses and will prove limiting only in the most extreme situations.
 

OP is very wrong, aps-c and m43 aren't going anywhere in the next few years. True, the 35mm bodies are getting cheaper and smaller but it's a different story with lenses, which are still expensive and humonguos especially compared to mft. How come there are no pancakes  for Sony A7.
We all know that S35 is a standard for cinema and it gives plenty of depth of field control. I really dig shallow depth of field for photography but excessively thin dof doesn't make a film more cinematic, for me it can give the opposite effect. Often it gives a cheap student film/youtube look. Dynamic range, colors, compositions and the set design are what result in cinematic bliss. Many of the best classic cinema feature fuck all of thin dof. I felt that Upstream Color which was praised for beautiful imagery often featured too shallow dof for my taste and it was shot with a GH2.
So very wrong about m43 being garbage for photography. A talented photographer should have no issues with m43, the system can truly shine with certain lenses and will prove limiting only in the most extreme situations.
 

Yeah, it kinda looks like a mashup!

Not too shabby though!
And yes! I agree. Looking forward to the GX8! Hopefully it's going to be everything the E-M5II was supposed to be...

​Thats really why I like it. Sometimes I find the less plot or story the better. (loved Sucker Punch for the same reason) I don't think Mad Max 2 had much of a story either. Loved it as well. Don't think the new one ruins the old ones at all.

From the DP. Alot of great information.
https://vimeo.com/127381179