Zach Ashcraft

Your methods sometimes seem like taking a military obstacle course to work rather than taking the bus.
You do know that taking the bus gets you there faster, right? And keeps you dry when it rains, or warm when it's cold... etc.
I mean, that you want to tinker around with your 6 years old T2i is all well... but to me it seems like a lot of wasted money and energy. And although you claim it to be, it will never reach Alexa-like picture quality. Do you have any actual experience shooting other cameras? If you did, you might realize what you're missing out on. Especially rolling these cameras out in the field. Don't understand why you haven't just gotten yourself a BMPCC already. Or a G6... G7... anything, really. I think in a few years you look back and say 'I was so stubborn, haha, I guess I was just looking for a challenge but ended up limiting myself'. But hey, we all got to make our choices, see how they pan out and learn from them. Though, if I stuck to shooting stills with my 2MP Kodak, I would really be seriously missing out by now and be outclassed by any camera, smartphone and webcam. We're in a digital era. You can't really allow yourself to fall behind. And technologic advancements are not here to hurt us, they're here to make our lives that much easier. I'd embrace it, not fight it. That would for sure leave you with more time and energy for other things... people want to create, be creative... sounds like those people could spend their time and energy more wisely than trying to find cumbersome solutions to problems that could be handled with more effectively. My 2 cts.

Not unless you throw on a couple promist filters to remove any aliasing... and any discernible detail.

When you're shooting with a wide angle lens on a glidecam, its going to come up. 

When you're shooting with a wide angle lens on a glidecam, its going to come up. 

That would be IBS, not IBIS

8k from the 1DC ii?.. 4k/60p from the 1DXii.?. From Canon? The same Canon we all know and sort of love but know move as fast as a 1 geared tank?

The Reverent's Comments on Vimeo:
"Amazing job!"  "Really good stuff"  "This is amazing!" "This is so good!"  "Alexandro does it again!"  "What camera was this shot on?"
 

I quite enjoyed it when all the dialogue faded away and we were left with the survival stuff. Fun to be an observer in that situation, albeit a sadist one!!

Some movies are escapism, warm and comforting. Some try to do the opposite.
Read the full article

Have you tried the clear scan shutter speed mode? Where you dial in the frequency? Not sure if that would help or not. If it persists I'd probably email Canon and see if they can help. Their Cinema line support is pretty great

Welcome to the world of Zach. He has a way with words. 

I'm going to take my time with this. I'm on the same page as you Ebrahim - I love the C100 Mark II image and usability. But right now it doesn't make financial sense for me. I'm going to wait until later in the year to see if business keeps coming in and it drops in price a little. 
I'm going to get myself a couple of M43 IS zooms in the meantime and see how I get on. 
While we're on the subject I wonder can anyone help me - I'm confused about working out depth-of-field equivalence for different sized sensors (i.e. calculating the equivalent f-stop).
Say I buy the 12-35mm f/2.8 for my GH4 - in UHD that's a 2.4X crop. Do I use the same formula for focal-length equivalence to calculate the full-frame depth of field equivalence? E.g. f/2.8 X 2.4 = f/6.7? 
How do you work out S35 equivalent DoF? 
Because I've always used speed boosters on my BMPCC (0.58x) and GH4 (0.71x) and both result in roughly the same (and quite close to S35) 1.7X crop, I've been lazy about understanding this. If I'm going to use MFT glass I need a formula, because without speed boosters the BMPCC and GH4 have less similar (and quite significant) crop factors.
Thanks guys.

So the D500 is always an option... then I wouldn't need new lenses. Maybe get a d5300/5500 then buy the d500 in a little while?
I am really disappointed. Its a crazy issue but upon some other research last night it isn't unheard of for the autofocus to just stop working reliably. And in my case I need it to work for photos. On the other hand the d5500 has flat video. That would be a nice bonus. But at that point I'm not far away from the upcoming d500.. decisions decisions..
Good Point. Maybe d5300/5500 is the way to go. Would be much better on the budget. The question then is do I buy the 5500 from BH or try to find a better deal on ebay. I feel like I already know the answer to this question. On one hand I bought my Tamron 17-50 on ebay for WAY less than BH and it works/functions great. Any deals right now on a 5500 for less than 800?
Also I just read that the d5500 doesn't have external flash control. I use a yungnuo (?) external flash and this is a must use. Looks like the 5500 is out...

You are probably better off getting a tungsten light with a medium soft-box. Not only will the full-spectrum tungsten source likely be more flattering to your interview subjects, but the larger soft-box will be softer (and more flattering) than a smaller LED source. A used soft-box and light on Ebay might save you money, to boot.

A soft-box with a separate focusable light fixture is a versatile kit. On the other hand, a soft-box with a built-in light source (such as a Rifa light) is light-weight, compact, quicker to set-up and more efficient per watt.

Saw it yesterday and enjoyed it. I felt Inniratu did a great job with subtext, stuff that doesn't show up in a script. Nature itself as a character, and the "reach" of nature, from the settings and power (rivers, storms, wind, animals) to the native "savages", to the barely-more-advanced trappers, up to the fort where one guy is trying to hold on to more evolved concepts of honor and compassion that are (ideally) the heart of a technologically based civilization. I was able to completely enjoy the movie as a visual commentary on humanity's rise from nature, with the sheer power of nature still having sway over technological advancements . Like some of you guys, my wife compared to to "gladiator", but to me Gladiator was a slick hollywood product; and I found this flick to be much more. I found the plot to be secondary to the experience, but… I kinda like Kubrick too.
He also has a great way with action scenes, and a verisimilitude that action usually lacks - a more honest sense of the horror that, say, an indian battle would have been. I thought it was a great balance of a much, much larger story told with visuals that could weave back into dialogue or plot. 
Ain't never been to no college, but the film did work on me in a more between-the-lines way, and I found it one of the most effective things I've seen in ages at that level. (I'm always curious what the people who diss a movie like this consider a "good" film - I sat through like three Super-Hero-Marvel trailers and just thought "Who watches this lame-ass childish shit?? Six year olds??" But the world would be a dull place if we were all the same… and I thought "Batman Begins" was crap and "The Dark Knight" didn't deserve Heath Ledger, so what do I know anyway?)

I expect they were using the older System65 hasselblad lenses - and I expect most future productions using the alexa65 will also since the modern hasselblads that the new Arri65mm lenses are based on suck.  Most of the newer hasselblad lenses don't cope with full frame medium format digital backs and will also be pushed beyond their capabilities on the alexa 65 when using the full sensor width.  From the trailers I;ve seen it looks like they used the 50/2.8 and 40mm/4 a great deal.  I know that dof rolloff of these like the back of my hand.
 
 
 

the "ignore user" feature on this board is really great

thank you for pointing this out. didn't know the site had this. cleaning house.

Looks like footage shot on a vintage iPhone app 

I'm certainly biased as a lifelong outdoorsmen and hunter, but I enjoyed every second of the landscape shots. I completely understand how many may find those sections to be slow paced. I agree there may have been one or two dream sequences too many.
The reveal of Glass killing the officer was the one underwhelming point of the film for me as well. Even with the cultural implications of killing an officer to save the life of a native american, the moment just seemed to come and go without much weight to it, and seemingly without consequence to him. 

How one can come onto an internet forum and claim that a massively successful film by any measure was a "Bad Movie" always blows my mind. 
Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I loved every second of it, truly

I thought the lighting, acting and cinematography was fantastic. If I shot this or had anything to do with this movie, I would be proud.

Saw it last night. I loved it. The images were breathtaking as was the action, which had me tensed up quite a bit. Lubezki is at the top of his game. I liked the fogged up lenses on the closeups. The bear scene was awesome, as was the horse jump. Leo did a good job. I'm excited by these guys, the films they are making.

Warmer white balance and some soft lighting is probably a good place to start. What kind of conditions are you shooting in? 

I actually think it's genius what Kodak is doing. They're self aware of their legacy. Instead of competing for an overcrowded digital sensor market, they start with entry level film in hopes to spark a new generation of film users. I could see them rolling out this service to 16mm and 35mm in the future.