elgabogomez

Lost in La Mancha is a very interesting documentary/bts of a movie Terry Gilliam couldn’t finish.

Yesterday I unexpectedly shot quite a bit with my FP and 5inch Video Assist. Man, what a combo! It's so small, and lightweight. The person I was filming told me half the time, he didn't even notice I was rolling, and of course when I put it next to my Pocket4k footage, it grades exactly the same, or possibly better. Very easy to match.
I was thinking of selling the FP, because for the types of things I shoot, cDNG is just not viable (longform interviews). But then a deal for the VA12g came up, and I thought it'd give it a try. Now I'm completely sold. With this setup, I've turned a great camera that's was no fun for me to use, into a very fun, take anywhere cine-cam.
My shoot yesterday was very unexpected, but I happened to have the camera in my satchel with a 28mm f2.8 FD lens. It was a dream setup, that I'm basically going to take everywhere from now on.

 

Up by this point in the discussion, I think both of you (tupp, kye) are deep into your own trench and will never settle with the other. Yedlin’s test is for the world he is living in which is of world class feature film budgets, not “everyone’s regular 4:2:0 cameras “ or “monochrome, foveon or ccd sensor cameras”.
Moving pictures have a way of pulling you into a story, engaging the viewer with more than pretty detailed pictures. Once you consider that filmmakers (world class directors, producers, cinematographers) are the target audience for his tests, it gives both of you and your valid points a perspective and a way to back off to more productive discussions. 

The widest I've managed in apsc is 28mm (in video mode and cropped to 2.4:1). There is a guy on the anamorphic shooters group on Facebook that uses a 40mm on fullframe.

Like everything in life, context is paramount. The example of the ursa/a7sII is (without context) quite misleading. First it depends on what Ursa, 4k, 4.6k, pro, g2. Second it’s not useful to compare one shoot with one camera with a shoot (even if it’s the next day) with another camera (unless you are shooting exactly in the same conditions. And thirdly, I wouldn’t use an ursa for any shoot that I would consider using an a7sII, the Sony in log starts at iso1600, most ursas you wouldn’t want to use 1600 for anything. The size and weight of both is a great differenciator for the types of use of each one.
On the other hand, I agree resolution isn’t everything and a 1080p image of anything blackmagic is quite a good image, mainly (for this tread about “k”s and resolution) because it’s not as compressed and in every ursa, it’s downsampled from bigger sensor resolutions. And that’s precisely why I bought the a6300 in 2016 for, it downsampled 6k sensor info to give a 4k image, which at the time I wanted for a 1080/2k delivery. Now the context is this: I use anamorphic lenses and they are not “sharp” and with a 2x lens in a 16:9 sensor you crop a lot on the sides and I wanted as much resolution as I could cheaply get for that. The gh5s was not out yet, the bmpcc4k was very limited in dynamic range or iso, there was no 4k mirrorless canon, nikon or Fuji cameras. 

Like everything in life, context is paramount. The example of the ursa/a7sII is (without context) quite misleading. First it depends on what Ursa, 4k, 4.6k, pro, g2. Second it’s not useful to compare one shoot with one camera with a shoot (even if it’s the next day) with another camera (unless you are shooting exactly in the same conditions. And thirdly, I wouldn’t use an ursa for any shoot that I would consider using an a7sII, the Sony in log starts at iso1600, most ursas you wouldn’t want to use 1600 for anything. The size and weight of both is a great differenciator for the types of use of each one.
On the other hand, I agree resolution isn’t everything and a 1080p image of anything blackmagic is quite a good image, mainly (for this tread about “k”s and resolution) because it’s not as compressed and in every ursa, it’s downsampled from bigger sensor resolutions. And that’s precisely why I bought the a6300 in 2016 for, it downsampled 6k sensor info to give a 4k image, which at the time I wanted for a 1080/2k delivery. Now the context is this: I use anamorphic lenses and they are not “sharp” and with a 2x lens in a 16:9 sensor you crop a lot on the sides and I wanted as much resolution as I could cheaply get for that. The gh5s was not out yet, the bmpcc4k was very limited in dynamic range or iso, there was no 4k mirrorless canon, nikon or Fuji cameras. 

In all seriousness, at the time of his postulates, Netflix was rejecting the arri alexa for not being native 4k (and other platforms were following suit) and in Mr. Yedlin’s line of work it was really creating issues during pre production or in pitch meetings. On the high end there was the alexa65 but not everyone wanted the hassle of it (limited sets of lenses, a lot more power hungry) and for many pro cinematographers it felt preposterous for the producers to select the camera package on specs basis instead of them proposing a package based on the artistic look. I think it was not meant for lower budget photographers/videographers/Indy dps to stop us from buying a 4k or higher resolution camera. At least at personal title it didn’t deterred me from buying a sony a6300 at the time his first video came out.

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

I saw his first part video when it came out and liked his theories, then the last Jedi came out, I watched it... by the time the second part of his comparisons came out, I liked Yedlin a lot less 😉

How is the s1h outdated?? Last I looked, movies were shot at 24fps, tv at 25 or 30 depending on region, and in most cases still delivered interlaced. If theater quality still means something, it’s still finished as 2k.
If on Netflix, Amazon or similar, I’ll concede the bump to 4k is a “given” but it’s still 24p, 25 or 30.
How any of that is outdating the s1h?

Three days to go.
The RAW shooting Sigma fp with the Baveyes 645 medium format speed booster is a little powerhouse.
Particularly when you can now add ToF autofocus to that manual Mamiya 35mm lens.

 

Regarding the 180 degree rule... I honestly think it’s best used on 24, 25, 30 frames footage as it gives it the “illusion of movement/blur” that works in our collective memory (and at 30 the motion is already so fluid that it matters less). But on higher frame rates you are already messing with reality and time so if the blur is not there is a lot less objectionable. If you are not slowing down 50 or 60 frames, the motion is already hyper-real so it’s a different aesthetic in itself and the 180 rule can be thrown out the window.

From the people who brought you the blockbuster A7SIII. This fall, the A7III is back! But smaller. Not mightier! Just smaller. And flippy. Not floppy. Sell a kidney. Buy tickets now. Sponsored by Squarespace. 

No way to mount meikes/veydras on the fp unfortunately. M43 also gives access to vazen anamorphics and some cine zooms that are quite small. Also the fp has micro hdmi which is the most beloved connection known to cine standards 😉

No way to mount meikes/veydras on the fp unfortunately. M43 also gives access to vazen anamorphics and some cine zooms that are quite small. Also the fp has micro hdmi which is the most beloved connection known to cine standards 😉

The sigma fp is more appealing/intriguing and a straight competition. I really like small form factors and once Panasonic s5 and this are available and compared, they are going to fight to be my next personal camera.

16mm on veydra covered the 16:9 area on apsc Sony, I saw it on my own camera. On 3:2 full sensor there was vignetting in the corners. I looked for the 2 or 3 shots I took at NAB 2017 but not finding them 😕 so I have no proof but my word.

16mm on veydra covered the 16:9 area on apsc Sony, I saw it on my own camera. On 3:2 full sensor there was vignetting in the corners. I looked for the 2 or 3 shots I took at NAB 2017 but not finding them 😕 so I have no proof but my word.

Great combo
s1h with isocrama anamorpic

Now, if they can get browsers and cellphones use the right gamma and the highest resolution when in WiFi, we are on to something... NLE catching the right flags for rgb wouldn’t hurt either

Agree that camera companies have gotten pretty stale. Panasonic excites me with the S1H and what else may be in that camera.
I would say the Sigma FP is one of the more exciting cameras to be announced recently - at least it is different, interesting, super modular, and can be built out to your liking. Excited for the S1H + FP combo that I'll have soon enough. 

So it seems I’m partial to the full frame look, to hell with the resolution, the one I picked as the one I liked was H... 

The context to that image is that the lens is actually for my JVC LS300 where it becomes a real ENG setup but as it had the MFT adapter on it then it went on the GX80 for a laugh.
Having said that, when it is on the GX80, it actually handles far better than you'd imagine for handheld shots as you cradle the lens and use the tilt screen to do look down monitoring.
It is far from being the most ridiculous lens I've put on a small MFT camera by the way

Although nothing compares to this fella, who really did set the high watermark for putting B4 lenses on MFT cameras.
 
As above, it was just done for a laugh as it was for my LS300 really.
It has a doubler in it so when that is engaged it covers the whole sensor on an MFT camera. As I discussed further on in the thread you quoted, using it with the LS300, the VSM trick of that camera means that you don't have to do that and so avoid losing the light and some sharpness.