sudopera

Leica colors in video is a complete dream, looks so amazing.

Thanks for this, very good read.

Actually, I always argue with box office, record sales, home improvement design, etc.  Creating materials and content for the largest collection of market requires a certain mundanity that allows for that broad appeal.
It's why comedy slapstick will never go away.  A 5 year old and a 95 year old can relate to it; Rich man or poor man.  It's not anything great, just silly.  Which is fine, but nothing that necessarily needs to be exalted and appreciated on a particularly impressive level.  On the other hand, you can't hand Faulkner to a 12 year old and expect him to have any profound self-reflection after reading through it.  You can't get most people to do that.  It's just beyond their grasp.  Thus, less accessible.  
Which book is more impressive and which has broader appeal:  http://tinyurl.com/ogmx44b or http://tinyurl.com/nc4n33d
Same concept goes for the cheap door you'd buy at a Home Depot or that new Taylor Swift album.
So, no, I don't readily agree that financial success is in any way a marker of creative success.  Not in this society.  The complete opposite.    

Hi Chaps.
I decided to take my FORBES70 camera out to play last weekend.  I'm happy with the results but wanted to ask for some honest critique.
I'd love to hear opinions on the image quality - resolution, perceived dynamic range / highlight/shadow rolloff, colour, and general 'look' of the images.  
Please bear in mind that the current maximum res is full hd, but in terms of full hd res, how is the image looking?  
 
I'd also love to hear some views on the large format aesthetic the camera exhibits.  Maybe in comparison with the recent trailers for Hateful Eight and The Revenant.  Is the added expense over say a full frame camera and fast lenses justifiable?  is the current resolution cap of full hd a real issue?  
curious for your thoughts! - ps.  larger file available for download (and detailed info about the system) on the vimeo page

Couldn't get past 0:20. That guy is seriously annoying.

:O :O :O :O :O
Edit: OMG the soligor is worth so much too!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SUPER-RARE-NM-SOLIGOR-135mm-F-2-0-SUPER-FAST-and-NEAR-MINT-42mm-SCREWMOUNT-/351200815947?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item51c5332b4b
Looks like im getting something better than the a6000

Yeah, people are doing "great" tests these days... you have to download it first, then use Twixtor and then watch it 

Yeah, people are doing "great" tests these days... you have to download it first, then use Twixtor and then watch it 

Hands on review
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/hands-review/hands-review-rokinon-xeen-true-cinema-lenses-full-frame-production/bi/19115/kbid/10779

I don't think price is an issue for what you get with the URSA Mini. Some people are complaining about the price and forget that you get a 4.6k sensor, high frame rates, 15 stops DR, internal raw, ProRes codecs, strong ergonomic body, large 1080p screen, 1080p OLED viewfinder and other things. (all above and beyond in features to other systems in this price range). 
Then consider the Mini doesn't use proprietary media and accessories. Invest into RED or the F55 and you are stuck with the £££$$$€€€€ spent on those items, like REDMags and SxS cards. That's a worthy benefit too. 
Also consider the full version of Resolve 12 you get for free, which does have some significant benefits over the free downloaded version. 
Blackmagic have nothing on the history and reliability of Canon, Sony, Panasonic. But to achieve what they have done in just 3 years is fantastic for this industry. 
 

Or maybe they just like their products? 

Seriously, why are people acting like BM cameras are so unstable? They have some quirks, but as sensors in boxes, they deliver. Not to mention that they have led the charge on providing features via firmware--features which were never promised and they had no obligation to provide. They don't crash like Magic Lantern, the more aggressive GH2 hacks, or even the newer RED cameras. And overheating? Their cameras have some of the best internal cooling of any camera out there. 

In terms of low-light, I'm not sure why people have so much trouble. I can easily push the BMPCC two stops (to 3200) without objectionable noise, and the Ursa Mini is reported to have a stop more latitude in the lows. Combine that with a downsample to 2K from 4.6K and you should be able to get a decent 6400 out of it. If you need more than ISO 6400 and an F/2 lens, your light probably sucks anyway.

Quite a lot of negativity about Blackmagic here, and maybe rightly so. They do deserve credit though for being so aggressive. 
In terms of considering the extra bits... I have V-Locks, a lot of media storage, vari-ND's. Cfast2... bit annoying, but all cinema cameras have very expensive media. 
Low light.... I light everything. Lupolux, Dedolight's, Kino Flo's, Scorpions, reflectors, polyboard... always got it covered.
I built up my video business on a Canon 60d and two crappy EF lenses, so I'm quite proud to have the ability to go for these options today. 
 

Yeah, I saw it mentioned on mirrorlessrumors. With SLR Magic and their CINE APO and the Veydra Mini Primes, this could be another interesting addition worth keeping an eye on.
I think the only one who could pull of rehousing is Sigma (and that's already being done by others, which is also happening for some Tokina and Nikon lenses for example). I do feel like Rokinon would really have to up it when asking 2499 for a lens. Frank appears rather impressed, so that sounds promising. I appreciate these kind of developments, it makes the market an interesting playground.
Actually does sound quite similar to what Tokina is doing with zooms: http://www.tokinacinema.com/lenses.html .
Though, mind you: 'using the successful optical formula'. So, claiming it's not just rehoused (like so) doesn't neccesarily mean they aren't using old optical formulas.

Announcement is scheduled for August 10th. The price should be around 2500$.
http://cinescopophilia.com/xeen-cinema-lenses-from-samyang/
Frank Glencairn has them for testing and says that it is a brand new optical design not just rehoused old optics.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?134751-New-line-of-pro-cine-lenses-by-Samyang
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/uploads/FileUpload/65/e486e45341e036bcbc5a202df2a759.jpg
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/uploads/FileUpload/2a/edc6aaabaeb3ba0e4b6c4231fd6618.jpg

Announcement is scheduled for August 10th. The price should be around 2500$.
http://cinescopophilia.com/xeen-cinema-lenses-from-samyang/
Frank Glencairn has them for testing and says that it is a brand new optical design not just rehoused old optics.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?134751-New-line-of-pro-cine-lenses-by-Samyang
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/uploads/FileUpload/65/e486e45341e036bcbc5a202df2a759.jpg
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/uploads/FileUpload/2a/edc6aaabaeb3ba0e4b6c4231fd6618.jpg

I disagree. Shoot this on IMAX film and it would look similar, especially once you downscaled to put it on YouTube (the grain would be very, very fine). Although, I'd probably go ahead and say the focus wouldn't be as perfect if shot on IMAX film these days (just look at Interstellar)!
IMO, something looking video vs film is partly to do with dynamic range - as film has amazing dynamic range and contains much more information in the highlights than shadows - as evidenced by the fact that it's general practice to over-expose film by up to a full stop. It's also about colours as unlike a bayer pattern sensor that cuts up your sensor into 1/3d blue, 1/3d green, 1/3d red, you're getting full resolution of each colour channel. In addition, the 'noise' (or grain) is not colourful, and much less distracting.
They're perhaps minor things, but it adds up to a 'noticeable' difference, even if you can't necessarily put your finger on what that difference is.
I also think a lot of the time people confuse lack of production value with looking video. If I pull out an Alexa, whack a cheap lens on it, set the exposure somewhere that looks okay, frame up some average looking shot on an average looking day and then only put a REC709 LUT on it and upload to YouTube or whatever, it might even look nice but I bet you wouldn't pick Alexa if I asked you what I shot it on. It would still look somewhat 'video-ey'.
If I light my scene, after testing the Alexa for what I think is acceptable usable DR, test ISO settings to get me the exact result I want - light creatively, get a professional Production Designer in to dress the set appropriately, get a costume designer in to design the costumes, beg the rental company for a good deal on nice lenses, and then send it off to be professionally sound designed and mixed, suddenly my film is looking a lot more like 'film' than 'video'.
But the motion cadences, highlight fall off, etc etc. was all developed to be that way because of the way that film handled such things, and how we were used to it. If film had never existed, digital would probably have never even attempted 24p - in fact, we'd probably be very used to watching things at 48fps with that motion cadence (like The Hobbit tried). If we never had film as a benchmark - if film never existed, would we have put time and effort into developing large sensor cameras? We may never have had experienced shallow depth of field in the same way, or had large dynamic range to view on screen. So is there a particular reason that we would ever have developed past 1/3 or 2/3" 3-chip arrays - especially as a 3-chip prism produces better colour than a single bayer pattern sensor (you have one chip for each colour, versus one sensor sliced up in a way that eventually makes 1/3rd of the sensor for each colour). We may never have seen wider dynamic range as pertinent, or important to video cameras.
Indeed, the whole idea of a 'cinematic' look is one that involves being captured on celluloid film. This idea we have of what 'cinematic' looks like is developed from what film looks like on screen. 
So by definition, having a cinematic look, in the way you describe it, is to look as much like film as possible - of course in addition to the production design, costume design, sound design, direction etc. etc.

We had a lot of fun making this one, three people in crew in total and a £500 budget for all the extras (props location etc) the kit is our own
Animation took a long time, and VHS style was tough to build! Happy to answer questions on production if anyone is interested!

Remember that with the Ursa, you'll need a battery solution and (unless you already have an SDI VF) their $1500 EVF looks like a must-have. Throw in the shoulder kit and realistically you're around $8k for ready-to-run - still an impressive value though.
The 4.6 camera really looks like your next 5 to 8 years worth of camera. Hard to say that for anything else on the market, but what else is coming that will be a must-have feature? 6k? 8k? 6k 3D? 18 stops of DR? 1000 fps at 6k becomes a staple of corporate videos and TV spots?
Am I missing something or is it viable to think the 4.6k mini would get one out of the yearly "do I upgrade??" agonizing… I think I'd even stop reading reviews for at least three years.

I would like to see a direct comparison between A7R II and A7S with the same picture profile(Slog2 with the same LUT applied) in terms of color. IMO it would be good to have something yellow and something red in the same shot(probably some flowers would be the best choice because of the natural colors) because from what I've seen A7S has greenish yellows and magentish reds.
Personally I think that is the main reason why it's hard to correct A7S colors because you have two color casts that are opposite to each other in the color spectrum at the same time... and I don't think that the whole image is affected by those casts, just certain colors(IMO yellows and reds).

I believe you are both on the same page here really... I think Ebrahim what you really think(correct me if I'm wrong) is that some people tend to crush not just deepest blacks but shadows also so they lose all information in shadows and that looks like crap. I agree that the deepest blacks are mostly crushed in movies but the shadows are just pulled down a little to obtain more contrast but not so much to loose all information, what is the point in high dynamic range then if you throw away all that information in the grade.

I would like to see a direct comparison between A7R II and A7S with the same picture profile(Slog2 with the same LUT applied) in terms of color. IMO it would be good to have something yellow and something red in the same shot(probably some flowers would be the best choice because of the natural colors) because from what I've seen A7S has greenish yellows and magentish reds.
Personally I think that is the main reason why it's hard to correct A7S colors because you have two color casts that are opposite to each other in the color spectrum at the same time... and I don't think that the whole image is affected by those casts, just certain colors(IMO yellows and reds).

You put a 30000$ camera in place to shoot lions or hyenas(or what not) at night and pray to God that an elephant or a rhino doesn't come by 

You put a 30000$ camera in place to shoot lions or hyenas(or what not) at night and pray to God that an elephant or a rhino doesn't come by