Christina Ava

yes ive seen it, amazing doc. he died in 2007?  :( i really liked shallow dof, but i started to notice that all my favorite directors-dp's shoot with extreme depth, and have very stylized compositions, almost everything in focus. as i said its my personal opinion, that the better you are the deeper your depth is, the more natural your light is, and the wider your lens becomes, then its all composition and meticulus work, 
and to bring things into context, you now have  a 4k camera, i bet gregg toland would have flipped with this tool in his hand..so much detail,to waste in blurry backgrounds and closeups.

A Drop In The Ocean:




Behind The Move:



Kendy Ty shoots with a Canon 550D / T2i and Sigma 30mm F1.4. The results are staggering considering the 'low-fi' performance of the gear. If ever there was a spur to get out and shoot something, this is it...

Read the full article here

yes matt i do. no its not something that just came up in my mind, check the work of lazlo covacs and zsigmond vilmos two of the best DPs still around ,check the work of gregg toland, probably the best cinematographer ever, he is the contrary of shallow depth of field,  noted for his amazing ability to create extreme depth.(citizen cane)
it takes some extra talent to keep everything in focus,and keep it interesting, and no anamorphic is not just to preserve resolution, its an artistic choice, that needs alot of creative talent and expertise to pull through..you have a huge canvas and it needs to be perfect.
shallow dof, is a gimmick that we use to cover up our mistakes (me included) and make it look "cinematic", but wasnt covacs "easy rider" cinematic enough?

Kendy's style initialy is based on "gimmicks" shallow dof, framing low light, lo-fi mood, which are great because he compensates the lack of "high art" expensive cinema gear. (zeiss cinema lenses, arri cams,etc)
as he grows and (money rolls in) i think this will change.
 
Which brings me to the point of "filmic" quality. Shallow DOF is a gimmick, you direct the eyes of the audience to where you want them to look, and hide the (bad lighting, bad framing, cheap ugly backgrounds). The truly great DP&Director, keeps everything in focus, and you look at a moving "painting" where everything is balanced, and of course shoots wide, anamorphic being the ultimate, imo.
 
Lubezki: Many of them were the same rules we had on Tree of Life, where we avoided underexposing the negative and wanted a lot of depth of field. Terry doesn’t tell the audience where to look in the frame — if they want to look at the actors, they can, or if they prefer they can look behind them at the trees. We want complete depth and clarity in order for that to happen, so another rule is to shoot with film that is as grainless as possible — in general, Terry prefers images that are sharper rather than softer.

i want to vote for both lenses and grading.... ^_^
but lenses is no 1, due to the lens lust 

kendy ..pure talent! he has a page where he sells his canon picture style and how to grade it here: http://www.kendyty.com/#!stills/ck0q
 
 

This guy shoots everything he does with a Rebel T2i and Sigma 30mm, all handheld:
 

 
I need to go make a film ...

At the end of the day both the 5D3 and the GH4 represent the best of what is an incredibly privileged time for tiny budget filmmakers. For money that almost any working person could save within a year or so, you can buy a camera that offers a genuinely superb cinematic image. It's insane. 
 
5D RAW is a pain in the neck to shoot with and the GH4 has some image limitations compared to larger sensor cameras - but which one is "best' is a completely moot point. It just comes down to your specific needs and tastes. Employed correctly, each will deliver images that 10 years ago you would have to have been either stupendously rich or a successful filmmaker to even get close to. Now almost anyone can create genuinely stunning cinematic images.
 
It seems almost ungracious to argue over the two cameras - like spoiled children wanting each others toys. We're all brothers here - "soldiers of cinema" as Werner Herzog puts it. It makes sense to take some time to decide which camera one likes best, but no one is going to be right or wrong. No need to argue. 
 
But the 5D is better in low light.  ;)

Dilemma of the century. Do you take the advantages of raw or 4K? Do you take the full frame sensor or the crop? Do you take the DSLR form factor or the advantages for video of mirrorless?

This is something I've been really trying to draw a conclusion on in recent weeks for my own sanity!

Read the full article here

now this is gonzo...

I will  be making extensive posts on lenses.... new... old, vintage... cheap and expensive and what their main good points are and how to get the best out of them.
And also some useful articles on general lens use that will help improve your shooting and make things more dare I say more 'cinematic' and less 'video' which seems to be what alot are asking for.
so say tuned folks and watch this space......

There is a lot of choice nowadays, but actually isnt the 5dmk3 still the ultimate allrounder? For the price I'd like more dynamic range in stills, sure, but thats really this cameras only downside...I have wasted about 18 months (as I am new to this stuff) wasting time and money on other things and have now realised this is it...

where did you remember this movie "the room"? you know they hold screenings in cinemas to go see this epic cult, probably one of the worst movies ever made... as for the gh4 footage, everyone can have a pencil not everyone can write a book.

Out of curiosity I purchased one of these to measure the computers/electronics around me: http://www.amazon.com/Trifield-100XE-EMF-Meter/dp/B00050WQ1G/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398562001&sr=8-1&keywords=radiation+meter . I ended up moving some equipment around so that I would only be exposed to 2-3mGauss (some UPSs were outputting 100+mG). About a year later I purchased a new MBP and got the meter out to check it. I turned the meter on and the meter was pegged (100+mG, perhaps over 200mG based on the increasing scale). I thought, wow Apple, that's not cool. Then figured perhaps the batteries were low or the meter was bad, since as I walked away from the laptop, the meter didn't drop. I put a new battery in it- same issue. I tried another meter (had also purchased a directional meter)- same issue. I noticed as I walked away from the window the meter dropped a little. So I left the apartment, and walked down the hall. The meter slowly dropped. I left the building until out in the middle of the street- finally back down to 2-3mG. Then a lightbulb went on- about 6 months after I purchased the meter,  SoCal Edison had upgraded the power lines by my window. I had measured right at the window when I got the meter to check the power lines- it was 3mG. I returned to the same window position and the meter was pegged- 100+mG (guessing over 200mG from increasing scale).
 
I had developed this weird shoulder issue where the muscles always stayed contracted- it was my right shoulder and figured was due to mouse/computer use. However every time I left the apartment for a few days or more, my shoulder got better. I never put 2+2 together regarding the upgraded power line. So, I moved everything out of those rooms away from the power line as much as possible (new locations were about 15-30mG, still too high but much lower). My shoulder got better in about a week. I asked my MD if this could be psychosomatic- he said, probably not, he's heard from plenty of patients whose issue(s) got better after reducing EMF exposure.
 
I took the meter with me when looking for a new place to live. I was surprised how bad other places were, but none as high as the old place (top floor, right by power line). Surprisingly, landlords and real estate agents said other people did this practice as well (brought meters with them). The new place I moved to reads less than 2mG in most areas.
 
High EMF is linked to brain cancer, ALS, Alzheimer's, and leukemia, however the evidence is not yet strong enough for the EPA to regulate it and/or politics and influence from the power companies: http://www.epa.gov/radtown/power-lines.html. They suggest moving away from the source of EMF, which I did. Another weird symptom was strange allergies- was it something in that apartment other than EMF? I don't know, but I brought all my equipment and furniture from the old place- so far no more allergies.
 
Regarding ionizing radiation. What does it do? It damages your cells and DNA over time. The good news is if you're eating healthy, exercising, and getting plenty of antioxidants, your body can repair the damage (including DNA) if the doses aren't too high. The problem with studying the health risks is the wide level of variables. Cancer from low-dose long exposure radiation is hard to prove a source of the cause. Smoking won't kill you right away, but it may lead to lung cancer, heart disease, and other diseases. Some folks won't get cancer because their bodies can handle the toxic smoke. Others who only got second hand smoke will get cancer. It took a long time to overcome politics, etc., for the truth to get out and for warning labels to be required. That said, people smoke anyways, some still smoking after getting cancer/emphysema, as nicotine is so addictive. Many people think they are immortal or don't think they care about living a long healthy life. However after getting sick some decide they want to live and radically change their behavior.
 
I used to snicker a bit about the 'tin foil hat people'. Now, if there is a known risk and it's easy to avoid, I don't think twice about avoiding the risk. The only issue about the new Faraday cage-like place is I can't get OTA digital TV signals and Verizon coverage is poor (I'm using ATT, some friends use Verizon and their phones don't work very well) :)
 
I could go on about heavy metals, but that's further off topic and a story for another day (short summary- avoid mercury and aluminum in vaccines, don't drink tap water (use RO or distillation and add trace minerals), remove amalgam fillings, skip gadolinium contrast if you ever do an MRI, limit large fish consumption (except perhaps wild salmon), don't drink bismuth (Pepto Bismol etc.)). Two books which can be very helpful:
http://www.amazon.com/Amalgam-Illness-Diagnosis-Treatment-Better/dp/0967616808/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-1&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler
http://www.amazon.com/Hair-Test-Interpretation-Finding-Toxicities/dp/0967616816/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1398564805&sr=8-3&keywords=heavy+metal+cutler

Now, if only we can get a fear-monger campaign going that convinces people the Iscoramas are radioactive...

Canon FD 24mm f1.4 - anywhere from £500-800 on ebay (you could be lucky & it has the red ring you're after!)
 
The Lens Doctor rates it, but his price for having converted it is £995 - interesting info on his website about the lens (scroll down)
 
http://www.thelensdoctor.co.uk/page13.html
 
 
This is an interesting/extensive list about M42 lenses & whether they hit the mirror on a 5D - but forget that as its quite list of lenses on offer!
 
http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/

boils down to 2 choices imo
 
- want cinema housing on your lens, better suited for video, at the expense of losing autofocus for photography : samyang 35mm cine lens
 
- want excellent price/performance, no cinema housing, with autofocus for your canon camera when taking pictures: sigma 35mm 1.4

What about the Samyang 1.4/35?

I assume when you say you've got a Canon FF, you're talking about a 5D & they are pretty damn good in low light.
But it all depends on how low light you want/need to go.
As you already know a v.good fast 35mm will cost you an arm & a leg.
So you either bite the bullet & spend the cash or buy something cheaper/slower (f2/2.8) & get Neat Video to clean up your footage (NV really is that good & its sharpening tool is the best).
 
The problem with a lot of the lenses mentioned is that they aren't great wide open, hence why they're cheaper.
The Nikon 35mm f1.4 ain't great wide open, but the f2 is much better.
I've got the Zeiss ZE f1.4 & have gone Russain @ f2 across the board for video, except the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 - i really like my Mir-24M f2.

Very happy with the recent EF 35mm f2 IS, it recently dropped in price too.

Since you're looking for a lens that does video, and all video shooting on Canon is MANUAL, look at good old manual lenses in your focal length/f-stop range for options.
 
Lots of glass to consider.  Anything from Pentax to Hasselblad could be used.  Nikon lenses, especially the famous 35 1.4 from the 70's/80's (and still made today), looks good insomuch that it has the visual traits of that era of lenses, for better or worse depending on your subjective opinion.
 
And since you're in the market for a lens with character as well as affordable... Think about it, borrow one and try it.  It's around $500 used.
 
Otherwise, the Sigma or the Samyang/Rokinon is probably the best bet for a new lens in the budget cost/performance range.

Plastic fantastic? Do yourself a favour and check out the lenses of the new Sigma Art series. Their build quality is as good as it can get. I only got to check out the fantastic 18-35mm f/1.8 Sigma Art lens but the 35mm f/1.4 is very similar. The build quality is fantastic. 
 
Compared to the Canon 35mm f/1.4L, the Sigma is supposed to be better in almost any regard and it's cheaper, too. There are tons of reviews of the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4, you should check them out. Bottom line of almost any review is that the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is as good, if not better than the Canon at a better price point. 
 
If you can live without AF, you should definitely check out the Walimex / Samyang / Rokinon (different brands but they're all the same lenses) 35mm f/1.4. It is fully manual, focus ring feels great and it also has an aperture ring. It also comes in a cine version with built in gears for a follow focus. And it's less than half the price of the Canon. Covers full frame, too, and the build quality is very solid as well. Optically it's supposed to be on par with the Canon. Build quality of the Canon is a bit better, and of course the Walimex lacks autofocus or any electronic connection to your camera. But for around 350€ used, this is the 35mm lens you should get when you're on a budget. 

One great alternative is the Canon EF 28 1.8.    It only costs 1/3rd of the 35 1.4, is just a little bit wider and almost as sensitive.  
It's a great lens for video too (I shoot weddings too during summertime).
 
Not the best test I could find, but gives you an idea : 

...yes but radiation acts accumulatively, so travel to japan+daily radition from all electronic devices+a few trips with an airplane and x-ray 
add a few radioactive lenses lying around the house..equals who knows what
 
dont know about you but if you have small kids or any pregnant ladies around, i wouldnt be so keen on keeping them.
and i think people should know which ones are radioactive...please add more in the list if you know any.

I have to agree that Nikon isn't caught up with Canon where video is concerned. I think they're killing Canon in stills, though.