IronFilm

Analogue was thriving!

Until 1997....
 
 
I tried! But couldn't find in google the quote about the Japanese philosopher on The Great Fire of London

Nikon will carry these on for another generation, I reckon it might even be safe to bet on two more iterations of them happening (although that 2nd iteration might take a long time coming).

And I bet the first release of mirrorless this year (and probably even next year) won't be direct competitors to the D5/D500 either, as those can safely carry on in their DSLR niche for a while longer.  And Nikon is better off putting their focus elsewhere for their first few new mirrorless cameras. 

And it won't just be the D500 and D5 which carry on for at least one more generation (maybe more). Nikon F mount will carry on for a while just like A mount will, even today in 2018 there is still: a99mk2 + a77mk2 + a68

 

So... I've been messing around with making a new add on for my controller system and this is it in its embryonic (cardboard and electrical taped chassis) form.

It has 3 dedicated keys on the controller for incrementing and decrementing in stops (it goes to about 95% total blackout) and a clear function. Though this is not a full clear as there is about a half stop of ND at the lowest position.
The level of reduction is actually fully variable but for the implementation I'm after it makes more sense to control it in stops.
As with the other functions, it can be recalled within one of the 8 one touch recall global presets along with exposure, white balance and picture settings.
I've also incorporated an automatic aperture tracking function.
This means that you set the exposure and ND level that you want at a given stop (say f8) and it will adjust the amount of ND up and down as the aperture changes to keep the exposure constant at any aperture.
Right, thats the good news out of the way....
The bad news is that the surface area is going to need to be a lot bigger (these things are usually mounted at the back of the lens but I'm after a front mounting solution for flexibility) to work properly.
Quite a bit bigger and unfortunately that will mean quite a lot more expensive.
The question is how big and how expensive would this be before you wouldn't want it, if you even want it at all? (currently its part of my controller system but I've already ported it to a small micro controller to have it be a standalone as well).
The other question is would you want it within a lens adapter solution anyway rather than it being front mounted (as per the Lens Throttle EF to MFT) so it could be an electronically controlled version of one of those ?
 
 

Nikon didn't see Sony as its core competitor, rather  its focus was on Canon. (which I suppose makes it stranger they didn't think to make a response to the C100/C300)

But while being focused on Canon the problem is Nikon let Sony grow and grow until they've sneaked up right behind them to be nipping at Nikon's heels, poised to steal #2 spot from them. 

I don't see a problem with the way this discussion has evolved. It has naturally evolved to what it is based on the lack of new info on the Pocket. Let's not be so militant that natural conversation be stifled for needing to start new threads for each and every little tangent that a conversation might go on. I see JB as a BMD ambassador so his input is highly valued here. 

I have no personal experience with that RME product, but a five second google leaves me with the gut feeling that the F series would be better (or bare minimum not worse). 

Take that with the big gain of salt it deserves. 
 
Oh nice, that is a fine old recorder to have. Popular over on taperssection. 
(not one I'd ever use on a film set though as a soundie! As ergonomics is horrible, plus other problems)

Do you already have more than two wireless? 
If in no rush, then I guess Deity should bring out a new wireless kit this year. 

 

If you want to understand what the Execs at Nikon night be thinking, you must get into the Japanese mind-set, one aspect of which is long-term thinking the likes of which the West has never seen.
There was a famous example where someone asked a Japanese philosopher what the impacts of The Great Fire of London was, and his answer (over 300 years after the event) was "it's too soon to tell".  Yes, that's a ridiculous example, but it's indicative of the culture.
So, if you are the head of a corporation that's over 100 years old, in a culture known for 100-year business plans, you're not restricting yourself to stats from the last three years!!

While I mostly agree, I see forums such as these as reference points for the future. Think in 3 years time, someone wants some information about this camera and they have to sift through @John Brawley's great, but off topic discussions. Similarly, if in 3 years I wanted to know the information he's shared here, I wouldn't think to look in a thread about a specific camera. 
Agreed, but it's got to a point where it's much more than that, and having it's own thread would make that information a lot easier to find and would give it more weight. He's not just some guy contributing to a discussion, but he has his own thread dedicated to sharing his insights! In fact, a separate thread about which lenses might be good for this camera was created. That has more connection to the original discussion here, so why not make a new one for John too? It makes much more sense (to me at least)
Or, just an idea, we could just let this thread lie dormant until more information comes up. Most threads sink to the bottom when there's nothing more to contribute, let this do the same until there is footage or whatever. It doesn't HAVE to stay at the top of the first page until the camera is released and beyond.
When I come on here and see this thread at the top, I expect to see something interesting about the P4K, like how it works with a gimbal, or that the release date has been pushed etc. The last thing I think I'll be reading is a discussion about why the LS300 has sold less units than any other camera, and that the mount/sensor choice did or didn't make sense at the time.

Nikon didn't see Sony as its core competitor, rather  its focus was on Canon. (which I suppose makes it stranger they didn't think to make a response to the C100/C300)

But while being focused on Canon the problem is Nikon let Sony grow and grow until they've sneaked up right behind them to be nipping at Nikon's heels, poised to steal #2 spot from them. 

The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) 
And the PL mount to FZ always comes with the camera you buy, so in a sense that costs "nothing". 
Exactly! This. 

We need to judge its "success" in the context of the wider JVC line up / brand , and the LS300 (at least on this forum, and most other such filmmaking forums) is the most "successful" camera JVC has made in recent years. 
 
No. I want MFT (or E mount) cameras so that I have greater choice in what lenses I use. 

Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all!

 

The reason they're so expensive is that anything for the higher cinema market is going to be very crazy expensive by that nature, then on top of that FZ mount is was a very small niche mount (just the three cameras for it, and only one native lens ever made) which will mean anything for it will be even more expensive due to poor economies of scale. (even so, I managed to buy each of my FZ mount adapters for only around US$100ish each) 
And the PL mount to FZ always comes with the camera you buy, so in a sense that costs "nothing". 
Exactly! This. 

We need to judge its "success" in the context of the wider JVC line up / brand , and the LS300 (at least on this forum, and most other such filmmaking forums) is the most "successful" camera JVC has made in recent years. 
 
No. I want MFT (or E mount) cameras so that I have greater choice in what lenses I use. 

Sometimes a native lens will be right (such as on a gimbal, or for run and gun) and other times an adapted lens will be right. It is better to have that choice, than to not have it at all!

 

If it is a new mount then I'm 100% sure it will be "compatible" with Canon EF, but of course we'll need to wait for third party manufacturers to do this. But I bet they'll be very quick and on to it. 
My guess is the 24megapixel mirrorless (or 25MP) will be the mirrorless equivalent of the D600/D610/D750 (or you could see it as the a7mk3 equivalent).
Although I hope they'll at least do a D750mk2 with 4K before they quit that line of DSLRs. 

This makes a lot more sense than making a D5 mirrorless, as they must have an "affordable" mirrorless for the masses (and a 45MP camera is not it!). And on average the D5 owner is more likely to want to stick with DSLRs for another generation than other camera body owners, as the D5 is a specialized niche DSLR camera for sports photographers and the like. 

JVC LS300 did a lot of things right, a few better than anyone else (included the variable sensor) and a few quite wrong. The fact is we still use this camera (together with the GH5), and there are a lot of people using it here and some buying it new.
The fact that is the only modern JVC camera that we know the name of, proves that it was a successful one. Limited success, but success nevertheless.

Plenty of native MFT lenses which cover S35:
Sigma, SLR Magic, Veydra, Fujinon, Rokinon, etc

And it isn't about forcing people to use adapters, but about giving people greater choice of options (you can go native, or not, simple adapters or focal reducers). And who doesn't like more freedom of choices in their life? ? 

 
I've tried to explain this before, but I'll go again, because we seem to be seeing this from two completely different perspectives:

1) people talk a lot about this camera because it has a MFT mount
2) people don't buy it because it is a JVC brand (which has almost no brand recognition whatsoever in the filmmakers world in this day and age)

That makes logical sense to me as why the LS300 wasn't a massive success. (but having a MFT mount did in my eyes surely help with its sales a little, not having a MFT mount likely would have lead to ever worse sales than it already had)

You seem to think it is the other way round?
1) people talk a lot about this camera because it is a JVC camera
2) people don't buy it because it is a MFT mount camera

That to me makes no sense at all. 

Thus I prefer believing the first explanation than the second way round. 
 

So, after 129 pages long thread we started to be permanently learned about all kind of professional life experiences, thoughts and achievements of respected member @John Browley - about his personal views about art of directing, blocking, etc., about (congruencе and suitability of) cameras and mounts, about TV shows, about his ideas/comments regarding future producing-perspective of different camera makers, little bit about resulted destiny of different kind of directors, as well about some important  memories, friendships and personally relevant encounters... It seems that, without doubt, for all Eoshd members it is extremely important to read and learn these precious insights, but - wouldn't be better to open a new thread just about mr Browley's advices, tips, suggestions and opinions, where it would be possible to pose similar questions and follow free branching of topics and comments?

There is a famous book in software engineering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mythical_Man-Month
https://www.amazon.com/Mythical-Man-Month-Software-Engineering-Anniversary/dp/0201835959

Keep in mind also that productions often have target deadlines to meet. 
But was that the fault of sensor/mount matching?
Or the fault of the brand name it was released under? (JVC)

None of us here would disagree that the JVC LS300 saw only limited success. 

But the question is did it see more or less success because of its mount/sensor combo?

I'd say clearly it saw more success due to its mount. Often the only reason we talk about it is because of its MFT mount!! The LS300 would never ever have such a prominence n our minds if it had been just yet another EF mount camera wannabe. 
 
Not at all. You could override it manually if you wanted to capture more. (maybe say if you plan to do a wider crop in post than 16:9, or if you want the extra vignette as part of the look)

Plus it is very very very common that cameras can crop in. So there is nothing "backwards" about offering the extra functionality of using a variable amount of the sensor. 
Often slow motion for instance is a crop of the sensor. 

Or look at the a7Rmk2 which offers a S35 4K crop as a way to get better quality sampled 4K video from the a7Rmk2

Or the fact that all Nikon FX DSLRs offer a DX mode as well. 

Plenty of examples of other cameras offering a cropped mode to give the user extra functionality!
Sony FZ mount. 
 
The JVC LS300 wasn't only made to be used with adapted lenses, in fact I think in all the promotional material I saw for it from JVC it was always pictured with native mount lenses?

It has arrived! :-o 
 

A bit of a rubbish video by myself, but meh! 

And my girlfriend, bless her heart, but I think a tripod would have done a better job as a camera person than she did! :-/

Nikon Rumors would be the most reliable site on the internet for Nikon rumors, 99% of the news you see on english speaking photo websites probably originally sourced their Nikon rumors from NR beforehand.

NR has been around for many years, I follow the website fairly closely for news when I have spare time, as I'm a Nikon user. 
Color Science. 
Ability to extract the max out of a sensor (look how Sony and Nikon would use the same sensor, but Nikon would do it that little bit better).
History of a deep understanding of photographers' need thus good ergonomics / design. 
Excellent design of lenses together with a massively massive back catalogue of lenses (although this will be less of a factor once they go with a new mount, unless they pull off a fabulously awesome implementation of their Nikon F adapter for their new mirrorless cameras. Which I'm sure they'll be trying their darn hardest to do!).
NR says:
"(some numbers could be slightly off or rounded)"
Also stated: "Two mirrorless cameras: one with 24-25MP and one with 45MP (48MP is also a possibility)."

So yeah, could very well be carrying on with using existing sensors. Which makes sense! One less crazy variable to try and control for as they embark on their most important roll out of new cameras they've done in decades and decades. Probably the most important launch of new cameras for Nikon ever in the entire digital age.  This is do or die for Nikon. 

If Nikon gets it right they will cement their place in history as the #2 brand, maybe even grab the #1 spot if Canon screws up their mirrorless big pro launch and Sony's growth stagnates. 

But if Nikon fails at a mirrorless launch then this is doors shut on their camera division, and even Nikon's entire business. 

Who knows, maybe all this would be a reason why they'd go for a new sensor? So they can make the biggest splash possible with their new mirrorless line up of cameras. 

And it wouldn't be odd to me if their brand new sensors stuck with the roughly 20 ish and 40 ish megapixels size. 

As for people who don't obsess with megapixel count, then 20 something megapixels is a nice sweet spot of giving you very nice images that is plenty overkill resolution but still small ish file sizes. (as we saw with the D500 and D7500 even going "backwards" with their sensor resolution, as resolution doesn't really matter so much now for stills as we've got plenty of it!)

And for the number geeks who do obsess about megapickles then even for them 40 something megapixels is a pretty good sweet spot. Do we really want a 60 megapixel full frame camera?! Certainly not for a mainstream launch, no. 

I knew it!  The A7SIII will shoot MEDIUM FORMAT 8K RAW!!!
....the delays in announcing are just them working out how to stop it catching fire ????

I'm not so sure about that.

The Hasselblad Lunar had a fully capable E-mount.  Also, the physical E-mount has already appeared with at least two other camera systems, and that physical mount has been offered separately online for some time.
 
No doubt, it has occurred to Sony's camera division that they could sell more lenses if the E-mount were widely adopted.  In light of the Sony CEO's recent declaration that the company is moving away from manufacturing "gadgets" (apparently including digital cameras), it certainly is conceivable that their camera division might consider selling more lenses, in deference to their scrutinized bottom line.
 
 
I did not know that there are that many EF lenses.  That's incredible.
 
The EF scourge is even more prevalent than I realized!
 
 
So, if I want to get serious, I should ditch my set of M-mount Summicrons and get a set of PL Tokinas?
 
 
Does that include the PL rehousings of FF (and MF still) glass, especially those that are being used with the recent large format cinema cameras?
 
Or, is it just using an adapter with a stock still lens that is amateurish?
 
 
Well, I suppose some folks are more "adaptable" than others.  I have done okay changing between different mounts and adapters in fairly rapid shoots.  With a couple of ACs, usually one of them knows how mount a speed booster, so it makes things much easier.
 

It seems to me that "futzing" is sometimes a part of filmmaking, especially if one is trying something completely new.  Furthermore, if a little futzing adds some distinctiveness that sets my work apart from the run-of-the-mill, I will gladly futz.
 
 
Huh?  If you are referring to my earlier mention of the JVC LS300, I brought it up because it merely proves that an M4/3 mount works fine with a S35 sensor.  I would not know a show shot with that camera nor with most any other camera.

On the other hand, I have seen some good footage from the LS300, including clips shot by our own @Mattias_Burling
 
 
I would guess that we differ slightly in regards to the notion of what constitutes "amazing creative work" (not that one notion is better than the other).
 
I am not familiar enough with most of the existing footage from the LS300, but I think that it's special capabilities shine if one shoots with a set of lenses made for different formats or if one uses focal reducers or tilt adapters with a S35 sensor.
 
 
I'm sorry, but I have to disparage some camera manufacturers for their arrogance and short-sightedness (who are possibly unlike the two manufacturers that you disparage).
 
Outfits like BMD, Red and Canon, etc. are not interested in the fact that what I advocate does not preclude the use of EF lenses to their full capability, nor are they interested in the fact that what I propose requires ABSOLUTELY NO FUTZING for EF users.
 
There are several inexpensive ways to make such a versatile front end, of which EF users would be completely clueless to the fact that the EF front is removable for those who need a shallower mount.
 
The simplest example that I can give is to merely imagine a Red camera, but with its lens mount plate set further back to accommodate a shallow mount (such as the E-mount,  M4/3, EF-M, Fuji X,... whatever).  If such a camera is shipped with a smart EF lens plate already bolted on, the clueless EF users won't notice any difference, and such hidden versatility won't affect sales figures at all.
 
In regards to your mention of Kinefinity, a typical shooter might consider them marginal.  However, Kinefinity has already beat the larger "non-marginal" BMD (and several others) to a few important milestones, including offering a raw, M4/3 4k camera and offering a raw, FF camera.
 
 
Well, the market has also said that it prefers Miley Cyrus and Justin Bieber over the Beatles.
 
 
Those two scenarios are not exactly what I am advocating, but I would certainly be fine with either.
 
Again, with the right front end design, most would never know that a camera has (or can have) a shallower mount, and the camera manufacturer would not even need to supply an E-mount -- it would not be "commercial suicide."

Furthermore, the notion that a S35 sensor is "LARGER" than an M4/3 mount is completely arbitrary -- especially since the LS300 (and other camera/adapter combos) proves that such a configuration works.
 
 
Actually, it doesn't (not that I find anything wrong with using adapters).
 
 
I have heard that excuse before, but if the front end is properly designed, there is no problem.
 
Also, even if such a camera only has an M4/3 mount, a prominent qualifier in all literature and on all pertinent web pages should prevent most such problems.
 

This is possibly worth its own thread. According to Nikonrumors (no idea how reliable they are), Nikon mirrorless is coming and coming soon (possibly later this month.)
https://nikonrumors.com/2018/07/03/first-set-of-rumored-specifications-for-the-nikon-mirrorless-cameras.aspx/
The specs sound very similar to the Sony A7iii and A7riii. (Which sounds good to me.)
The big surprise (at least to me) is that it will supposedly have IBIS. It appears to have a new mount which will take an adaptor for f mount lenses.

Not just Kinefinity and JVC, even the behemoth that is Sony used the FZ Mount which made it a breeze to swap over your main mount during a shoot. (for instance you might use mostly PL lenses, then just for that one shot or two switch over to a DSLR mount so you can get that super macro shot, or that super long 400mm tele shot)

Although sadly it seems Sony has killed off FZ Mount (as I own a fair few FZ adapters :-/ ah well), but still is holding true to the same general principle of including a shallow mount option on their cinema cameras by having a locking E mount in their new VENICE camera. 

 

JVC had smart scaling with their LS300 so you could use native lenses which only covered 4/3"

Plus there are numerous MFT mount lenses which do cover an entire S35 sensor, such as the Sigma MFT primes, Veydra primes, Fujinon MK zooms, etc
 

All Kinefinity S35 cameras use a KineMount (and thus can have an E mount). 

And I expect the new Kinefinity MAVO LF will also use KineMount. 

While so few cinema cameras lack a shallow sub mount (like Kinemount or FZ mount) then hopefully we'll see more cinema lens manufacturer's over lenses with swappable mounts. Although often it will be options like PL or EF, still leaving Nikon out in the cold. 

Nikon needs to make a "N100" or "N300" cinema camera (their take on the C100/C300 that is) to keep themselves relevant. 
 

Thanks, imagine if a few companies banded together on a new shallow cinema mount standard such as KineMount. Perhaps if Z Cam, AJA, and BMD had got on board. 

It would be like MFT is with their wide ranging support of manufacturers which helps makes MFT one of the most appealing mirrorless systems to invest into. 
 

A setup is anytime the script supervisor changes the ID on the slate ?
That's a lens change or a substantial change in storytelling shot construction.  On take 1 of a setup, if there's something blocking and screwing up the shot and you have to move the A camera six feet to get around it, then the shot is considered the same shot, you go to take 2 and its the same setup because the intention is the same.  Kind of the same if the lens change is from a 27mm to a 24mm because you're not quite fitting everything in.  
Sometimes though on take 3, the B camera has gotten what they need and you give them a different shot to do so that would generate a new setup and a new ID on the slate. (don't get me started on the differences between US and AU slate ID's.
The lighting is always being tweaked to each CAMERA (not shot) so that's constantly updating in small ways.  I tend to have some go-to ways to light for cross shooting and it's established often on the first setup and then tweaked to each subsequent setup.
Kubrick seems to have the reputation of most number of takes.  
"For The Shining I spent two weeks on the set in Elstree. My scene with Jack Nicholson lasted about eight minutes. We shot it 50 or 60 times, I should think - always in one take. Then Jack Nicholson, Stanley and I would sit down and look at each take on a video. Jack would say, 'That was pretty good, wasn't it, Stanley?' And Stanley would say, 'Yes it was. Now let's do it again'."
 
I always wanted to be in the camera department.
My first job was working for a camera rental house but the owner was a working DP.  He shot a lot of documentary work and TV promos. I was his full time assistant for nearly 5 years. It was really like going to DP school for 5 years.  But being his assistant meant you had to record sound.  So I learnt to record sound ?
He was by far the biggest single influence on my working style  He taught me the importance of a bedside manner on set, he taught me to pull my own focus when shooting (when necessary) he taught me how to test, how to be hungry, to learn.  He was a technology innovator and a true pioneer. One of the first to embrace HDTV in Australia.  One of the first to buy RED cameras and advocate them.   I wrote about his passing here. https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/the-passing-of-john-bowring-acs/
It's never too late to change ?
I'm not sure what you mean when you ask "finish an episode".  It NEVER goes longer than the number of days.  It's scheduled within an inch of it's life and if the schedule isn't make-able then it's re-written ?
TV drama and Docos are where I've trained in.  The pace is not new.  What's gotten better is the production standards generally.  We've gone from using 2/3" video cameras to S35 sized sensors and cinema style framing and editorial style.  
Streaming services and VOD has lead to a new era of "elevated" TV drama.  It's shot like a movie, it's got MOVIE actors and directors working on it and it's visually told in "movie" style choices.
Except we have to still shoot it as fast. Yeah I know time is always the enemy.
Typically a movie, even a low budget one, aims for 2-3 mins of screen time a day.  TV drama is typically 6-8 mins on location and 7-12 mins in a studio.  I like shooting with more cameras (three full time) because it gets me more shots from the same number of setups.  More shots = more coverage. Simple maths.
Some shows are different.  A show like stranger things shoots an episode every 14 days. They shoot it "one camera" style and this takes longer.  I know some crew on that and they tell me that they never make their days and that the directors on that can pretty much do whatever they want and Netflix don't care much about the show's budget.  But that kind of "auteur" perspective in a TV show is pretty rare and unusual and is only permitted because of the show's great success. Arguably this could be why it's successful too.   Most directors would be fired or never re-hired again if they didn't deliver an ep in their allowed days.
When I look up directors I'm about to work with, I look at how many episodes they've done on a show.  If they've only done one and never gone back, it's a pretty good sign they're going to be....difficult.
I know a great director who started doing TV drama. He loved big architectural wide shots.  We shot a few scenes without ANY close coverage.  I begged him to shoot close up passes "just in case" and he was adamant.  Nope.  If we shoot those shots they'll use them !
He got reamed in the edit when the producers screening happened.  They asked for closeups on his edit and he said he didd't have any.
He's never been employed again by one of Australia's most prolific producers.  If any other producers call him to ask for a reference guess what he's going to tell them.
TV truly is a "producers" medium and these days, most of the producers are really writers.
JB