sudopera

Hey Guys.  Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the kind write up Andrew.
It's funny, this blog post and the comments about the brand name being immature coincide with my current direction as it is.
​I'll answer this rather stale and grumpy response first:) -
1. The name sums up exactly how the lenses would be considered by traditional photographers and technicians.    
2. Yes I guess it was a bit of a joke at the time.  2.5years ago I started offering the lenses specifically to be used with the Iscorama in order allow a more vintage look - since I always found results from my iscorama were a little clinical when comapred to smaller and cheaper optics which might not have had the sharpness of the iscorama, but have a charming quality due to their limitations.  I never intended on making more than about 5-10 of these.  for a few people who shared my own feelings of the iscorama.  I wanted the lomo look, but the sharpness and ease of use of the 'rama.
3. It did get your attention, as well as a load of bloggers.  Though as far as I remember this was never a marketing strategy, but a bit of a childish joke since the concept was never meant to be anything more than that.  If I hadn;t chosen such a ridiculous name, bloggers wouldn't have blogged it and I imagine i wouldn;t be pumping huge amounts of money into developing new optics - I'd be doing 2 weeks work a month making prototypes for dyson vacuum cleaners and doing occasional photography work.
4. As I've said, the name was never a marketing decision.  It just so happens that the majority of users 'get' the fact that they're buying carefully ruined lenses.  
5. The guys who make the effort to look into it deeper are the ones who seem to be enjoying the little lenses I'm making.  This passion meant they were willing to pre order a wide angle attachment meaning manufacture could go ahead.  No other manufacturer would even entertain developing and manufacturing a wide angle attachment of such quality.
6. Not a rebrand, but I believe the 'brand' will likely soon be a lo-fi division of a more traditional company name.  Since the newly developed optics like the FF38 and FF88 as well as the TRUMP lenses I feel deserve to live within a slightly more respectful label since they couldn;t be further from shit IMO. 
 
   

It feels just right, at least judging by this video.

Few days ago I saw this video on Richard's Vimeo channel and I must say that this FF58 Quasi 1.5 ultra low contrast looks beautiful on A7S. The image has enough detail but still has that very soft and organic feel. The other great thing is that this is a rare occasion when even if the image looks almost washed out, to me it feels great just like it is and I wouldn't change it much in post. Great job Richard is all I can say, both filming and enginering.
 

Shooting weddings, events, or Broll for an organization with people in it, I must say, I get more and more tired of people's fear and dislike for cameras. You're an adult, get over it already.
Getting the stink eye gets old after a while. Just because cameras reveal and remind you of how stupid you look and how dumb you sound, please don't take it out on me.

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

They're bloody well made - solid enough to hold my Iscoramas
They're also less common as a set than Zeiss and Leicas, which local DPs have in abundance near me.
Plus they're characterful and cheap, and reasonably consistent.
I've got a wide range of Helios, Tair, Zenit bla bla blas that make a 'set', but they're very wacky, and not consistent at all.
Cameras are for christmas, Lenses are for life.

​Yeah right, we get it. This is a videography forum. F*ck those who might be interested in a camera that shoots very decent full frame video and takes pretty awesome stills. 

This is a test shooting the Samsung NX1 in UHD mode 23.98 FPS and 1080p 23.98 FPS - both in PRO mode to see how it handles rolling shutter and resolution loss. My test chart was one of those magazine insert things that always fall out of your magazine when you are trying to read in the subway and someone comes up to you and says, "hey you dropped your thingy." and they want you to pick it up because it's littering but they say it like maybe you want to hold onto the magazine insert, to avoid confrontation. I wonder if the world still needs these magazine insert thingies? Maybe it's time to stop littering, magazine people? Actually I shouldn't be so hard on the magazine people, I love magazines and I need them to keep existing and if it requires them to have these annoying insert thingies, let them be. I need to accept other people for who they are. I am working on this. But anyway back to the test.
I transcoded using wondershare at -25 contrast - sorry guys I can’t figure out iffmpeg!
Shot at 800 ASA, 1/60 shutter, 23.98 FPS
Shot with Leica R 50mm f/1.4 lens at F stop 2.8. Focued on center text with zoom tool.
I lit it with some weird LED light so that it would flicker a lot and cause even more rolling shutter shenanigans - to see what's going on with the rolling shutter from a scientific perspective. But I'm not a scientist, I'm mostly just faking it till I make it.
Shot at Gamma DR with master per up +10 and contrast down -3.
Then I increased resolution 200% then 300% then 400%
Results - the rolling shutter is so much better in 1080p mode, and the loss of resolution is there - is it enough to bother me ? No, actually I’m not that into resolution anyway - I think rolling shutter is a much greater evil.
How does 1080p affect the image beyond rolling shutter and sharpness - highlight handling looks similar from this weak test. Color looks similar too. Less resolution and maybe edges less defined might make the image more organic and smoother.
Woo hoo
- thanks to EOSHD.com and DVXUser.com for all your work on this matter. Especially Andrew Reid for telling the world about this camera and Samuel H for his work on rolling shutter!
I think we can help make the world love the little Samsung NX1. The little engine that could. The outsider.
Next test - Sony A7S 4k to Odyssey 7q in Full frame mode vs Samsung NX1 in 1080p mode. Resolution and rolling shutter and dynamic range and highlight handling.

​Its pretty crazy, given the more complex design over the 35 I would have guessed a higher price.  I'm not complaining.  I was going to get a 24/1.4L II, not anymore.  Just ordered the Sigma from B&H.

​I think in this case he meant it as a compliment- you're both on the same page. What most of us want are cameras with accurate skin tones out of camera. From there we can more easily match cameras, have no surprises in post, and can tweak color for emotion (ending up no longer accurate/realistic and instead lending to the cinematic mood of the story).

On a more serious note: Andrew, I'd love to read a write up about the new NX1 firmware and your opinion on it vs the GH4.
 

Cinematocrapper sounds like it could be a thing.

​Make a film, a music video or a commercial. Everything else...absolutely everything and anything else...is videography, not matter how "cinematic" it is.
And Rodriguez didn't shoot weddings.

The first music video I shot on FS7 and edited on FCPX is now available to see. 
The features of the camera were to use 4k 50fps to punch in and slow down the footage at certain moments, and use the 150fps in 1080p for dramatic effect. I don't think this video shows off the resolution/colour as such - but the creative options available with higher frame rates (lacking so badly in all things Canon). 
The brief was to go with a unique, dark, grungy, imperfect and grainy look to suit the intensity of the track - this is very much an "editors" video and it might give you a headache - it's flashing all over the place!
The GH3 was used on the projection scenes. We ran out of budget. 
I have a 2nd video being edited now which is a pop track with a Maltese singer - this one is looking beautiful. It shows all the best features of the FS7. Out in 2 weeks. 
My opinion on the camera.... best camera release since I can remember. Still, the menus and buttons are crap. Can't have it all!
Watch now and protect your ears!!!
 
 

I see there are the most votes for a full frame friendly set starting with 24mm at the widest.
So, I assume (wich is pretty logical) that of course the very big full frame crowd (A7s, 5d3, D810 maybe speedbooster users) did their fair share of voting.
Thing is, tis set will cost slightly above 10k$ when released. I don't see any A7s user shelling out that amount of cash, when there is the samyang/rokinon
cinema lenses option around.
The uniqueness of the SLR Magic set is the PL mount. The cheapest new 6 Lens set that has PL mount starts at 20k + tax.
So I see the real customers in those that are used to prices like 20k+ that are now very happy that they don't need to spend as much.
Of course, not only those will buy, but I would say they should be served first.
My preference would be (18), 21, 25, 35, 50, 85. Later I would add a 135mm
 

Right at the beginning he says that he's only including cameras that he's worked with personally, excepting the F35 and C300, cameras that he has written about frequently. I don't often see him mention too FS700+7Q combo, so it makes sense that it wouldn't be included here. Not to say I wouldn't love to see where he'd rank it (I know I'd personally put it close to the top), but it's really not that big of a deal.
 It's not some random list with no context- it's a personal list where he gives concrete reasons for why he chose to place one camera ahead of the other. It's useful because it allows perceptive readers where their interests align and diverge with Andrew's.  We should all come to our own conclusions.
 
 

I told you FCPX is a beast! 
I know you mentioned in the article that it's way different than FCP7 and other edit programs, which put you off, but the way it's different is the best thing about it. It's actually modernised where other programs haven't dared to change with the times.
FCPX was an idea ahead of its time on release, and now it's matured into the edit program of the future. In comparison, FCP7 is a rotting old dinosaur... It feels really, really old now. 
You can also work a lot faster on FCPX than other edit programs. The design is so simple and intuitive, making changes is an absolute breeze and you can focus on being creative. On top of that the features are very well done - syncing, multi-cam, media management, transcoding.... And if you don't like the magnetic timeline you can just do it the old boring way. 
Plugin support is also immense. Pixel Film Studios, MotionVFX, Crumplepop, Red Giant... Just to name a few. 
Those who dismiss FCPX need there head feeling. I learnt it in an hour. So can you Andrew. There is no going back.  

It's unfortunate not to see any mention of Final Cut Pro X in this article. 
The release of the new design troubled many Final Cut Pro 7 users, but the majority who were annoyed at the drastic changes seem not to have experienced what it is like today. 
You should definitely try FCPX as it's grown into an incredible program that is very intuitive, easy and fast to use, has top notch pulgin support and most of all - makes editing fun and leaves more time to be more creative.
I've also heard several editors mention that the quality of the exported files from FCPX are much better than those from Premiere. I know that Noam Kroll did a blog post about it. 
I recommend that you get into FCPX Andrew, as it sounds like you are not satisfied with Premiere. The bad press it got on release is irrelevant now. It is absolutely fantastic now. More editors need to wake up!!  

The important thing is the way it renders when reaching the extremes of the DR and that's where most cheaper cameras have a lot of trouble.

Andrew, following your logic, this years' best camera BY FAR is Sony's F35, as there's some available s/h for the same amount you paid for your 1DC (£5000). So actually, you got a terrible deal.
Therefore, the Rating should be:
-1) Sony F35 (from a quarter of a million down to just £5000)
and at a VERY long distance, everything else.

I just want to add, the D750 is the best stills camera I have ever used. Shot a wedding with it last week and I am just blown away with the file versatility and high ISO performance. Nikon knocked it out of the park. And the video quality has been a pleasant surprise. I feel like the D750 is everything the 5d3 should've been when it came out. 

Last night I watched the much anticipated conclusion of the Hobbit trilogy. And sadly I have to concur with all the people who said, that 3D HFR looks absolutely dreadful.
Look, I have been a huge fan of "Lord of the Rings", I love fantasy, I love the feeling to be swept into another world, taken to another time and led to magical illusionary places.
The Hobbit fails on all counts, at least in 3D HFR.

For the whole movie I was so distracted by the technical aspects that I couldn't build any "relationship" with the protagonists. Whereas in LOR I would tend to empathize and even cry, many scenes in the Hobbit are rather cringeworthy, even those that were probably meant otherwise.

The look reminded me of computer games which might be the reason, why younger movie goers I spoke to, showed a distinctly different response. But the overly photorealistic, plasticky impression makes me concentrate on the tons of make up instead of the facial expressions, on the visibly artificial scene and furnishings instead of the grand (?) tale, on the sheer plethora of detail and resolution instead of the plot.

The 3D distracts from the main things happening in the movie, instead leading viewers to get lost in the multiple planes of view.

The HFR destroys the filmic impression, by taking away 24p motion blur, which really lends itself to fantasy and accentuates its magic potency.

Besides that, The Hobbit is also a rather mediocre motion picture IMHO. Flat, almost comical dialogues, very few unexpected turns and a main actor thats simply not as likable and convincing as in LOR. And of course, the trilogy could and should have been conflated into one movie.

Now, why am I posting this? Just to vent? No, because, as many camera nerds around here, I was so excited to read all information about the new 4K cameras (especially the NX1) and got all worked up about getting more resolution. But after watching The Hobbit I have concluded that more resolution and sharpness is mostly not needed (at least not for fantasy, drama, comedy, maybe for documentaries, news and porn) and that it can actually subtract from the viewing experience.

Insofar the Hobbit has been an epiphany for me: I will now concentrate more on color science, dynamic range, lowlight abilities, stabilization, handling and highlight roll off among other things.

4K is certainly not dead, it has many uses, especially as an aquisition format (in-post stabilization, zoom, downscaling, green screen work), but I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of cameras.

End of rant.


 
 

new firmware is on my nx1 - was so simple to install.  It has enabled 6k IMAX recording and global shutter and 14 444 pro res files and slo mo up to 400,000 FPS and made the camera say "nice shot" everytime I get a good shot.  I highly recommend upgrading.

Still waiting for Panasonic to surprise us with AF100 successor.

Still waiting for Panasonic to surprise us with AF100 successor.