pablogrollan

Yes, that device is a transmitter to turn a dynamic hand mic into a wireless one that can be synchronized with the receiver. There is also a bundle without it (slightly cheaper):
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/618739-REG/Sennheiser_EW_112P_G3_A_EW112_p_G3_Camera_Mount.html
The EW G3 is a single lav mic plugged into a transmitter on the same frequency as the receiver. If you need 4 lavs, you need four sets (from Sennheiser or any other brand) of lav mic+bodypack transmitter+bodypack receiver. The 4 sets would obviously need to be set to different frequencies and the receivers could be plugged into the 4 XLR inputs of the Zoom H6.
I also have seen this bundle:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/877198-REG/Sennheiser_ew_100_ENG_G3.html
There are many brands and many bodypack wireless bundles, but most of them are crap! I would stay with the few reliable brands: Sennheiser, Shure, RODE, AKG... If you have a tight budget you might consider skipping Sennheiser and trying out Shure or the new RODE filmmaker kit, but nothing cheaper. I have tried out some cheapo brands and the difference is so noticeable that it isn't worth it.
 

FS700 + O7Q, FS7? Both cameras can provide a 1.1x crop in 4K (SpeedBooster), the 4K has more real detail than the 1DC, XLR pro audio, tons of fastmo/slomo options, built in NDs, etc. The FS700+O7Q can also do 12-bit RAW, including bursts of 120fps 4K, continuous 2K RAW (up to 240fps), and very high quality 4K and 1080p ProRes (10-bit 422). The FS7 does up to 180fps in 422 10-bit XAVC (1080p), up to 60fps 4K. It also supports ProRes and RAW with the interface unit (extra bulk, but worth it for some productions). The 1DC is only 8-bit with a 1.3x crop, no XLR audio, no 4K slomo, and very large files with an ancient codec.
For faster turn-around, Canon has the best look out of camera- looks the most filmic, etc. However, once the camera is understood, it's possible to do whatever you want in post for a filmic look using 3D LUTs, Filmconvert, from-scratch in Resolve/SpeedGrade, etc.
ARRI/Canon produce the best looks with the least effort so far, however Sony is catching up. Here the F55 matches the Alexa: http://www.hingsberg.com/index.php/2014/06/f55-matches-arri-alexas-color/
Sony cameras do indeed take a bit more research and work in post, but once figured out, do very well against ARRI/Canon, along with many more useful features. At which point the FS7 can closely match the Alexa in post, it will deserve the top spot on any list which includes cameras in the $8000 range.
Things will get interesting when Canon releases a new camera to compete in this space. If they follow their traditional business model, they'll leave out critical features provided by Sony/Panasonic, and thus leave the door open for Sony/Panasonic (and now perhaps Samsung) to get their out-of-camera color science for skin tones closer to Canon (Nikon is also doing well here).
Sony's F65 can look better than Alexa in terms of color, including skin tones (not clear how much work that takes in post). Examples: Oblivion and Lucy. If the F55 can match the Alexa for skin tones using just software (in the test above, I was surprised that the F55 looked better to me), it's clear that the A7S/FS700/FS7 can look even better than they do now with firmware+LUTs-in-post. After many hours of testing the cameras side by side, it's clear that the A7S's sensor (and even the FS700's) are superior to Canon's sensor in the 5D3 (apparent even when using RAW).
If the 5D4 has 4K and a decent codec (422 10-bit), at least 60p slomo, it will be very appealing to be able to use Canon lenses without adapters (and hopefully with high-quality autofocus- extremely helpful in many situations, especially 4K shooting of dynamic scenes). If Canon drops the ball, there's now lots of other compelling options for video. For stills, the 5D3 is currently the best for the money.

First of all, are you the filmmaker?  I'll assume so...?
Anyway, Question:  "What is the point of Zeiss ZF Primes?"
My answer:  People like you use them because they give you unique image quality.
How important is that unique IQ to the overall production?  It depends.  I do believe that if you're capable of creating good content that's engaging (and you are/do) the viewer isn't going to care if one lens is somewhat superior than another.  Is that what you're insinuating?  
Personally, I try to prioritize creativity over intense technicality in my productions.  For instance, I'm far more impressed with your decision to create a beautiful sequence of running shots through the woods than I am about whatever lens or camera you shot it on.
If you're comfortable with the images you get from more affordable lenses and cameras, there's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned.
Some filmmakers (many on this website) prioritize the technical craft, some worry more about the art.  Filmmakers craft with both, obviously, but I tend to think the former is so much more important than the latter.  Neither is the wrong approach though.  If you like twisting the knobs, that's perfectly fine.  Still, I'd rather watch a film by someone with something to say with their images rather than someone trying to show me their most technically accomplished images.
And, of course, if you're working with a crew you can rely on the technical expertise of colleagues while concentrating on the creative, so that's all part of the mix too.  Plus, ultimately, the editor of this film kicked ass.  Great images, yes, but the rhythm and flow of the material was perfect. 

85 and 50mm are focal length were you don't have to spend a lot to get good images. The samyang 85 1.4 is the best performance/price wise, and for 50mm there are billions of cheap options.
Of course you can also go out and buy a summilux-m 75 1.4 but...

I like this one because it doesn't require anything placed underneath the camera like a lot of flip-up loupes do, which allows me to use a quick-release plate of my choosing (in my case, I like the low-profile and anti-twist features of the Really Right Stuff arca swiss plates).

I liked the posts of Matt James Smith. He challenged Andrew. He's gone.
I like your posts. You challenged Andrew. Please don't leave

A while ago EOSHD had dissolved into a non-productive confrontational forum. Other forums bashed EOSHD and personally insulted Andrew Reid. I suggested to Andrew (as did others) that he use moderators to help clean up the forum: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/5456-potential-changes-to-the-forum-to-prioritise-good-content-suggestions-welcome/?page=3. I was a moderator at Cinema5D but stopped going there after it moved to Planet5D and died (I made it clear I didn't have time to be a moderator again).
Politely challenging someone with facts and logic and focusing on what is being discussed is not confrontational. It's how we learn and grow. I learn a great deal doing research in these discussions. I share the results with everyone.
When one runs out of facts or logic, many times they turn to emotion and begin personal attacks. In debate, this is called ad hominem, and is an instant fail.
When the site owner is participating in ad hominems with antagonistic and confrontational interactions, that sends the wrong message to the rest of the moderation team, and also encourages members to exhibit the same behavior. Leading by example is important. Is this post confrontational? It's critical and fair given what has transpired in this thread.
Perhaps the current moderation team doesn't have time to help out. If Ebrahim has time, I think he'd make a great moderator. Perhaps there are others.
 
 

What JCS said was challenging, but lafilm has made it much worse with his comments, there is no need for such confrontational attitudes from anyone. Especially in that tone. It's fair for people to judge from their own conclusions, different eyes see different things. At least be civil about it. 
 

For video, Canon rates the 1DC at 12 stops. Sony rates the A7S at 15 stops. In lab conditions with the Xyla 21 chart, the 1DC gets around 12 and the A7S around 14. For useable DR Samuel and MacGregor got 12 for the A7S and by their metric of useable DR would expect the 1DC to be 11 stops (dropping 1-2 stops measured for useable DR).
Asking us to look at your examples without modifying them to explore useable DR doesn't make sense, as we'd most certainly make changes for any real work. Even so, your examples generally show more useable DR with the A7S.
Comments that imply our eyes don't work are unprofessional, immature, and antagonistic. If you'd like to create drama for page views vs. an honest search for truth, wherever it may lead, how can we take anything you say seriously?

I think if you're still developing I'd recommend a cheap M43 Panasonic body with a set of used M43 fast prime lenses; 12, 24, & 45mm.  Small, affordable, and will cover just about everything you might want to shoot except for extreme wide and long.  Good for video and stills.  I believe primes are better for learning how to shoot.  Zooms allow you to develop too many bad habits at the beginning.  
Or, maybe an Olympus body; depending if you think the 5-axis stabilization is a big value for whatever you're doing.
​

It looks nothing like film. It looks to my eye like a C100. If someone showed me the footage, I would assume it had been shot on a C100 or C300.

I tried posting some images, but the forum won't let me? :/

Anyway, there's a roll of with Alexa highlights, it's not straight clip - on the 5D, even the highlights that are close to clipping are not rolled off in that way, and you end up with slabs of pure white, or near pure white. Plus, I find the Alexas colours to be more filmic - maybe I wouldn't say 'more accurate' but they're more accurate to how some film stocks would see the colours in the shot. The skin tones on Alexa are 100x better than skin tones on the 5D. I find skin tones (and colour in general) on 5D to be way too warm, and often at the expense of the other colours in the scene.
That wildlife footage is quite nice, but in general, I've never seen colours from a 5D that I've absolutely loved..
They're better in raw than H.264, but not that much better
Plus, I would say the Alexa has more colour gradation - it might not have the same bit-depth, but there's more colour information there, and there seems to be more shades (comparing, for example, hair).

To my eye, the Alexa just looks much, much better. That's not to say the 5D isn't useable, or that it doesn't create good looking images. There are a number of issues in the 5D footage that would not be present
Just that in general, the Alexa is a better camera with a better image... which is to be expected as it costs a lot more.
 

In your video above where the 5D is compared to what I assume is 5213 and the RED Dragon, the 5D easily comes off as third best. Keep in mind, that the test is lit to within those cameras' dynamic ranges.
If you remember back to the Zacuto shootout, where a whole bunch of cameras were compared, you can see that if you light to a cameras dynamic range, you can get similar looking images out of any camera.
That doesn't mean a 5D is the same as an Alexa.
 
Yes - but that is not the same as dynamic range. In practice, it's all about useable DR, and it's theoretically possible that a camera with less DR but more information captured can have the same useable DR as a camera with more DR but less information captured. I'd be interested to see someone compare useable DR on both cameras.
 
That sunset is beautiful. But man are the colours off here. Not sure if that's a result of grading or not..
 

Why would we? I certainly don't want to use all available DR! I want to light my scenes to optimise them for the dynamic range of the camera - which is part of why I do camera tests. I don't necessarily want something exposed in every step of the DR! It depends on the scene - perhaps you mean that we want to keep the lighting contained within the available DR of the camera, but doing so is not always possible..?
 
See, I don't personally think they do cut all that well and don't believe they ever have - though there are many who can't pick the difference even when comparing H.264 5D footage in big movies.

I think the most important point to make is that any camera will give you a pretty good image these days if you know how to work it..
So get out there and shoot, rather than sitting talking about specs all day on the internet ;)

Use what you like, what you have, what you can afford. The less time you spend attempting to justify your choice and attempting to prove that a 5D is as good as an Alexa, the more time you have to actually shoot :)

Maybe a Sony A5100 and an E-mount to Nikon F speedbooster? The camera is really cheap, with a great 24MP APS-C sensor, XAVC-S codec for video, and the speedbooster would allow you to use those lovely legacy Nikkor lenses and get the full frame look. There is also a cheap but supposedly very good Commlite adpater for EOS glass in case you need to use stabilized lenses, and even some decent and affordable native Sony glass. Add a kinotehnik or zacuto loupe and you have quite a versatile camera for about 1000$.

I've never seen "showscan" so I have to reserve judgment, but despite how much I respect Douglas Trumbull, I think we part ways on the HFR passion.. interesting video nonetheless:
 

True, they even get to say that is not fit for pro use and disappointing for enthusiasts, but when it comes to video using autofocus is an oddity. Sure, the new autofocus systems for video will improve and become common use, but as of today I still have to witness a professional shooting environment where autofocus is even taken into consideration.
 
Ondrej, if you plan to are going to be video-centered, the a6000 makes more sense in my opinion. It'll just take a little time getting used to the small form factor coming from a 7D, but functions such as zebras and focus peaking make up for it.

Academic education is paramount in filmmaking. Any of those names that supposedly didn't go to film school actually did. Just, not the kind of school that gives you a degree in the end.
 
Many succesful directors and cinematographers have built a career without going college or any "formal" film school. You can skip it if you read tons of books, attend seminars and experiment a little. You need to crawl before you walk, let alone run... Nowadays you can get the education without going to school (the Internet has made available many study programs an bibliographies that can serve as a guide), but you need to get the education anyway!!
 
Making a feature with that money would probably a waste of money (one that I've seen more than once). Taking time to study and learn, and then spend money on some film (preferably not a feature) would be more sensible. I've been working for almost 20 years and you can easily tell the difference between the formally trained professional and the self-taught through experience. The latter is a one-trick pony, effective in his/her task but easily confused when taken out of his/her comfort zone.
 
You see, the thing is that not only should you know HOW to do a task, but also WHY is that task performed in a specific way. The phrase "because it's always been done that way" or "that's way everyone does it" is sadly quite common and reveals a professional with shallow knowledge and little ground for improvement or evolution. Some gaffers will always be gaffers and some get to be DPs. And it's not beacuse of their "talent", that's a made up word which means "lots of hard work, perseverance and continuous study".
 
Get some vast base -not basic- knowledge, either going to school or by your own means, watch and analyse as many films as you can and then go on screw up some minor production. If you've done the former, you'll be able to know why you failed and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them systematically. And ten years from now you won't have to watch the expensive pile of crap that you shot when you were not ready. I don't mean to offend anyone or be patronising, but I've seen that mistake made so many times... and not once have I seen anyone spend their "college money" on a feature that was even watchable. And the worst thing is that not even they knew why it was so bad.

Academic education is paramount in filmmaking. Any of those names that supposedly didn't go to film school actually did. Just, not the kind of school that gives you a degree in the end.
 
Many succesful directors and cinematographers have built a career without going college or any "formal" film school. You can skip it if you read tons of books, attend seminars and experiment a little. You need to crawl before you walk, let alone run... Nowadays you can get the education without going to school (the Internet has made available many study programs an bibliographies that can serve as a guide), but you need to get the education anyway!!
 
Making a feature with that money would probably a waste of money (one that I've seen more than once). Taking time to study and learn, and then spend money on some film (preferably not a feature) would be more sensible. I've been working for almost 20 years and you can easily tell the difference between the formally trained professional and the self-taught through experience. The latter is a one-trick pony, effective in his/her task but easily confused when taken out of his/her comfort zone.
 
You see, the thing is that not only should you know HOW to do a task, but also WHY is that task performed in a specific way. The phrase "because it's always been done that way" or "that's way everyone does it" is sadly quite common and reveals a professional with shallow knowledge and little ground for improvement or evolution. Some gaffers will always be gaffers and some get to be DPs. And it's not beacuse of their "talent", that's a made up word which means "lots of hard work, perseverance and continuous study".
 
Get some vast base -not basic- knowledge, either going to school or by your own means, watch and analyse as many films as you can and then go on screw up some minor production. If you've done the former, you'll be able to know why you failed and learn from your mistakes instead of repeating them systematically. And ten years from now you won't have to watch the expensive pile of crap that you shot when you were not ready. I don't mean to offend anyone or be patronising, but I've seen that mistake made so many times... and not once have I seen anyone spend their "college money" on a feature that was even watchable. And the worst thing is that not even they knew why it was so bad.

My feeling is you should either go to film school, or spend those 3-4 years crewing on films, gaining experience and working in the industry.

I have never been a fan of this 'don't go to film school, just shoot a feature!' mindset, as without some basis of training (whether that's learning from those better than you by being on a set, or in a film school environment), you're making a film blindly, and whilst you will learn some things from it, I see it as much more of a waste of money than film school itself.

Moot point? Apart from you mathematical DOF equivalence -which sounds accurate- the look and feel of a larger sensor is very different. Try to shoot outside on a sunny day and get shallow depth of field with a M43 sensor. On full frame you would need ND filters to be able to open up to f5.6. On APS-C you probably need a stronger ND filter to open to f3.5. Can you imagine the kind of filtration you need to shoot under a summer sun at f1.8? Unless you are using good expensive filters, you'd need to correct IR and color shifts. The "character" of the lens would probably be lost under layers of filters, and the rig would not be so convenient.
 
No matter how you look at it, a bigger sensor has a different -IMHO more cinematic- feel that cannot be so easily compensated. It helps both in bright and darker environments. Wether you consider it fundamental or not is a matter of taste or the specific look you aim for, but the difference between APS-C and M43 is an important factor, just like perceived resolution, dynamic range and color science.
 
And by the way, there are wider aperture zooms that you can use on E-mount. That's one of the particular strengths of the system, that you can easily adapt lenses from many other mounts, or even use native primes, which is the ideal way to go if circumstances allow it.

In LOTR a hobbit was a hobbit. In The Hobbit a hobbit is an actor dressed with make-up to look like a hobbit.

...Or you could wait until this is available:
 
http://steadxp.com/
 
If it works properly, we'll see different versions from different brands, different prices and, as most software related tools, with bigger room for improvement in following generations.

just as a point of note on lenses for films :
David Fincher shoots most of the time with the same lens focal lengths even when he changes his DOP
so even if it is Jeff Cronenwerth, Harris Savides or Darius Khondji on camera for him he is still using a 27mm 40mm most of the time and a 75mm for the close ups , at f2.8 with nds and at f2 at night , thats about it , most of the film is shot on those 3 lenses thats all he needs
(page 162 of the book 'New Cinematographers' gives you a look at Harris Savides note book for the film 'The Game' he lists scene by scene what lens he uses and its f stop ....its mainly all 27mm 40mm 75mm at f2.8 or f2....
 
The late great Gordon Willis shot 90% of The Godfather series for Francis Ford Copolla on a 40mm f2.8 lens - if you get this months American Cinematographer magazine OCT 2014 its a special edition all on Gordon Willis - The Prince of Darkness and it reveals all on how he shot these great films .
 
Then you have Paul Greengrass who uses long zooms all the time and the late Tony Scott who shot almost always on long lenses and used x2 extenders too, thats his 'look '
 
And then the great Sergio Leone shot all those Clint Eastwood 'Dollar' series films on a single Angenieux 25-250mm f3.5 zoom
 
So my point is you dont always need very wide lens to make great films .....
 
as long as you have in Super 35 field of view a 28mm. 40mm and 70mm which the Nikon zoom gives you ,you can make a film.....what camera you use to get those lengths is upto you , you may need speedboosters or adapters but those are the numbers that work for me most of the time.

I had recently 2 awful experiences as a buyer, with this quite new "shipping+taxes" option (or "Global Shipping Program") that eBay uses:
 
I bought the first item and eBay's shipping company had it for days in their storage place, without never contacting me for delivery. I tried to contact them, and I had to pay for the call €5 (~$6.5), as they charge €1.34 the call, then 0.36/min and they have you waiting for at least 10-12min, without finally accepting your call, with the excuse that the lines are too busy and that you'll have to call later again...
Finally, one day, they came to deliver, but without even ringing my bell, they put it (a signed-for shipment) inside my box...
 
The second one, they never delivered any parcel, but their tracking status indicates that they did delivered to my hands and that they've put my name as the person who received the parcel... When I opened a dispute on PayPal for this, Paypal in dt time, closed the case, with the excuse that they can't help on this and that I have to find a solution with the seller!... In any other similar case, if the seller had shipped via any other carrier, they could ask him to show them (to PayPal) the proof of delivery, asking this from the shipping carrier... If the shipping company couldn't prove that they had my real signature, then the money had to be returned to me. But as this new company is eBay's (so & PayPal's) business, they of course closed their eyes, as they can't blame their own company. SO, I lost $273.76...
 
I will NEVER-EVER buy any item from sellers that they are using this "Global Shipping Program" again! NEVER! I've found though that there are hundreds of others with similar, like mine, problems...
 
If you are selling on eBay and you want to avoid any negative feedback caused by similar cases, never use this option again please.
To be able to do so, please follow this next steps, to block this shipping option from your sales:
Your ebay>>account>>site preferences>>posting and packaging preferences>Offer the Global Shipping Programme, then on the right hand side of the screen change yes to NO and save changes.
 
By the way I have to say that, with this "Global Shipping Program", buyers are paying more on import taxes, than if they had to pay straight to their customs...
 
That's all from me.

Moot point? Apart from you mathematical DOF equivalence -which sounds accurate- the look and feel of a larger sensor is very different. Try to shoot outside on a sunny day and get shallow depth of field with a M43 sensor. On full frame you would need ND filters to be able to open up to f5.6. On APS-C you probably need a stronger ND filter to open to f3.5. Can you imagine the kind of filtration you need to shoot under a summer sun at f1.8? Unless you are using good expensive filters, you'd need to correct IR and color shifts. The "character" of the lens would probably be lost under layers of filters, and the rig would not be so convenient.
 
No matter how you look at it, a bigger sensor has a different -IMHO more cinematic- feel that cannot be so easily compensated. It helps both in bright and darker environments. Wether you consider it fundamental or not is a matter of taste or the specific look you aim for, but the difference between APS-C and M43 is an important factor, just like perceived resolution, dynamic range and color science.
 
And by the way, there are wider aperture zooms that you can use on E-mount. That's one of the particular strengths of the system, that you can easily adapt lenses from many other mounts, or even use native primes, which is the ideal way to go if circumstances allow it.

Also, moire is a naturally occurring phenomena in all optic systems, even biological.  We can see it visually with our naked eye. Indeed, I saw it a few weeks ago in the grating on the heater of a subway car.  
 
For cameras that have line skipping the aliasing problem is lumped into the "moire" problem by most people, though they are a bit different.  

Pretty much on the contrary. E-mount is one of the most adaptable mounts, allowing you to use both cine lenses and stills lenses from Canon, Nikon, etc. including legacy lenses. If PL is what you are after, it is simple:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/808236-REG/16x9_Inc_169_CLM_PLE_Cine_Lens_Mount_PL.html
 
As an added plus, you can use a speedbooster if you want a "Full Frame" cinema camera.