froess

now because fincher used that technique everybody should do it... they did that, explained by the editor, to stabilize the shots and the ocasional reframing. that doesn't mean that mosts shots didnt end with the initial framing

to me the idea of reframing and punching the frame latter on post production completly defeats the purpose of normal shooting. in that idea let's shoot everything in 60 fps or more, always wide shots and let's decide later what to do. in a problematic shot i can understand that but nothing more.

off course our opinions may differ, that's the whole purpose of this forum i suppose. just as resolution is not that important to some people. personally i prefer the "pros" of the canon c100 mark II compared to the other cameras everybody is talking about, those pros being nice colours, nice lowlight performance, super 35, good audio and nice ergonomics. i do understand people buying cameras that are future proof but i certainly do not agree that this camera will be obsolete by next year. technicologically outdated in it's specs? sure, but the image will still be good in proper hands.

totally agree. it's like comparing 35mm to 16mm and saying 16mm is shit

.

but i still don't understand people that compare a 4k camera against an hd one and complain when the hd camera loses

better resolution than the standard dslr. of course against a 4k picture is loses but i wouldn't consider the c100 as soft picture comparing with the other canon dslrs

Saying it's a dslr killer it's a bit dum as this is on another league in my opinion. It has proper audio, better resolution, canon log and is a vídeo camera, not a stills camera. the examples Shane showed were great in my opinion and a good exemple that the camera in capable hands can produce a very nice image. As most cameras do...

PS: I don't agree just because the other cameras can output 4k or record it internally that are straight better than the c100 MkII.

Great news.

Yes, I hope so aswell.

Ok Quirky,

Hope everything is well with your camera.

Best of luck.

try pressing the power button two times, after last firmware that's how cameras turn on now, at least with my bmpcc and with another bmcc.

lol

helios has also a 28mm 2.8 which is quite good from 3.5 and really good at f4. has some very nice blue tinted flares.

thanks cantsin, what's your thought's on the lens?

shit already found some samples on youtube, sorry 

anyone has tried the cooke kinetal's and can provide some samples? got very curious to the see them with a digital camera...

Hello Josh,

Just download the link at the end of this article.

http://vashivisuals.com/every-filmmaking-aspect-ratio-for-free/

You have all sorts of aspect ratio guides to help you.

All these new anamorphic options are exciting in theory but where is the exciting footage? I think if this and the other newer options want to really move units they should have a DP do something impressive showing the results they can achieve when used well. The bent jello cam tests aren't enough when asking people to part with $800-4000.

 

That never seemed to come with the letus or the slr 1.3x and I don't hear much about those since they have been released except FS posts.

Agreed, too much bad footage just hurts the product. They should show the lenses at their best and not their "ok/bad".

according to your article in wikipedia:

"Anamorphic widescreen was not used again for cinematography until 1952 when Twentieth Century-Fox bought the rights to the technique to create its CinemaScope widescreen technique.^[1] CinemaScope was one of many widescreen formats developed in the 1950s to compete with the popularity of television and bring audiences back to the cinemas. The Robe, which premiered in 1953, was the first feature film released that was filmed with an anamorphic lens."

wikipedia, great source Andrew  B) . Keep up the good work.

I might suggest that you are actually both saying the same thing with different words. If I may:

"To escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring people back to the movies, while avoiding cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio, they designed the anamorphic lenses."

At least, that's how I took both of your comments. One was describing the "why" and the other the "how."

Thank you Damon, I agree with you as we know the reasons of shooting anamorphic nowadays. Those reasons are different from the ones when the cinemascope method was invented.

Nice theory, unfortunately you're wrong and you really need to do some research. Anamorphic was designed to avoid cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio.

Nice theory? It's called history of cinema ;). I think you need to do some research before saying such claims. Yes, in the 1920's people tought of resolution and cropping images like we do now...

Yes but at that time there wasn't that much tought of resolution, they just created the lenses to show movies in a new way, to escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring back people to the movies. That and because cinerama was way too expensive and complicated.

Andrew you state that the anamorphic lenses were made to avoid losing resolution from cropping the super 35mm film but that's wrong, the anamorphic lenses were an invention supported by the big hollywood studios to runaway from the 4:3 aspect ration of television, that way they would gain more audience lost from the television appearance.

Thank you Ken.