tupp

There is no absolute image circle size for a C-mount, nor is there an absolute image circle size for the various focal lengths with a C-mount. Furthermore, one can use an adapter to mount APS-C and full frame lenses to C-mount cameras. You just have to determine the image circle of each lens on an individual basis.

I was getting corrupt file headers, and, consequently, the files would not work on all players. Changing the microSD card fixed the problem. Some have reported that removing or changing the SD card has fixed noise and crackling problems on Zoom recorders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E274Ev6yvJ8

Have you tried using a different microSD card? I was having problems with my H1 and a new microSD card fixed them.

I think that the mechanical shutter makes a more noticeable difference with significant movement and with handheld shots. The mechanical shutter probably also reduces noise. By the way, Panavision modified a few F65s by removing the mechanical shutter. They called the modified version the "F65 Mini," and they usually live in France: http://panavision.fr/produits/sony-f65-mini/ www.vimeo.com/197192795

Okay, but keep in mind that such a treatment of a classic album cut screams "millennial discarding the sanctity of the original," and some in the position to hire might react adversely. It's almost like using hip-hop jargon in business correspondence -- probably not a good idea. ... just keeping it real, Holmes...

That feature has existed in other tripods for a long time. I think that the Manfrotto 058B appeared at least 15 years ago: I think Manfrotto has several models with this feature, including one with video legs. They also have a similar small version of this with separate release buttons at the top of each leg. To release all the legs at the same time, you just wrap your hand around the smaller base, and squeeze all the buttons. I suspect that there are other manufacturers with tripods that have a similar feature.

Nice work! However, please don't speed-up the music of legacy artists, such as Al Green (singing the Beatles).

Determine what your time is worth for each day, and add 10% for contingency. Add/list expenses, plus 10% contingency. Hint: don't list the contingency amount separately -- just include it in the amount you list for your services and also in the amount for the expenses. Have fun!

I included the manufacturing operations in the list. The design costs are essentially the same, as the only extra cost is creating another Autocad file and adding two to eight threaded holes -- the front tube to the EF lenses has to be designed, regardless. Again, your list is fine for those who don't want to stray outside of the box. However, creative pros will often want more versatility than that list (not to mention great Cine lenses which only come in PL. The short-sighted intentions of Panasonic's management/marketing/sales people have no bearing on what they should have done. Furthermore, outside speculation on some company's intentions is not exceptionally relevant. Well, not too typical shooters are putting old Schneider cinema lenses on Alexas either, but they can if they want to! I was helping someone on a commercial a few months ago, and the DP had just hit the big time. She is already sitting in on panel discussions with ASC and BSC members. She was using old Crystal Express lenses on an Alexa, and they were distinctively beautiful. Shooters on that level usually seek alternatives to typical run-of-the-mill EF glass, as they are usually more sensitive to the subtleties of lenses' looks and effects. Then neither is an EF mount. However, cinema lens mounts don't need to be as rugged as PL or PV -- we have lens support for that. Furthermore, Panasonic didn't have to commit to a M4/3 mount. They could have just made a shallow interchangeable lens plate, as I have described. The EF mount offers only a small fraction of the possibilities available with a Micro 4/3 mount, an E-mount (there are ways to make this work) or an EF-M mount. That is a risky adapter as there are plenty of lenses that won't into it. On the other hand, a simple PL adapter for M4/3 will take almost every PL lens. In addition, some M4/3-to-PL adapters also allow TILT/SWING movement!: http://www.ebay.com/itm/TILT-adapter-ARRI-Red-One-Arriflex-PL-lens-for-Micro-Four-Thirds-4-3-cameras-/322240061177 http://www.ebay.com/itm/ARAX-TILT-adapter-ARRI-PL-lens-MICRO-4-3-Camera-Camcorder-pl-tilt-micro-adapter-/271523819029 Tilt/swing adapters are impossible with the EF mount and any full-frame or smaller lens. FTFY: There are countless lenses and adapters that won't work with an EF mount! No. Regardless of speculation for whom the EVA1 is designed, a lot of the top cinematographers use PL/PV glass and also seek out all kinds of unusual optics and adapters (probably not Veydras) that will give them an edge. Panasonic could have easily accommodated such high-end shooters (and even some of the lowly shooters who know better) while also catering to the typical EF people. Actually, I think that every cinematography camera should have either a shallow mount or an interchangeable lens plate. We're experienced and creative pros -- we need versatility, not protection from FUD.

Wow! What a complete surprise!

Wait... Panasonic had to go EF with the EVA1?

Actually, Panasonic would be getting a much more serious and versatile camera for very little extra in cost. There has to be some sort of "tube" or enclosure going from the sensor to the lens mount. So, having that "tube" as a separate piece doesn't require much extra in materials, but it adds a whole heck of a lot to the capability (and maintenance) of the camera. The extra costs would be for: a separate die-cast piece (could be incorporated in the same die as the rest of the camera housing); one to four threading operations in the camera body (about US$2 each); a deburring operation; a powder coating (again, no extra materials here); wiring/contacts for the EF electronics (US$30?). Such a small expense is negligible to such an expensive camera, but a removable front would greatly enhance what lenses and adapters/speedboosters one can use. Who said anything about using Panasonic lenses? That is the kind of narrow thinking that produces cinema cameras with EF mounts! A removable front would literally open the camera up to a whole world of lenses, including professional cinematography lenses offered in PL mount, PV mount, C-mount, Arri Bayonet mount, and it would even allow the attachment of "Minolta, Konica, or FD lenses (which all have very nice optics)." Additionally, such a feature would enable the use of focal reducers (extra stops and wider view angle), tilt/swing adapters, macro bellows, helical mechanisms, and other lens modifiers. Certainly, the typical walled-garden EF shooter is not interested in such versatility, but this multitude of possibilities would be very useful to cinematographers who want to create interesting images and who want to get an edge on the "straight" shooters. Again, the additional manufacturing cost for a removable front would be minimal, and the EF shooters would never know the difference.

Yes. Essentially, frequency separation is wavelet decompression with with just two layers -- the residual layer and the high frequency layer. However, on Photoshop it probably still has to be done manually (similar to the manual procedure given by the OP). Two layer frequency separation sets up a little more quickly in the GIMP, due to the grain extract and grain merge features. Of course, it is even faster to get two-layer frequency separation in the GIMP with either of the wavelet decompression plug-ins, but setting it up manually probably gives one more control over the "frequency." I don't know if Photoshop currently has a wavelet decompression plug-in (it didn't have one four years ago). If it doesn't, manually making five wavelet scale layers plus a residual layer would probably be a long, arduous process in Photoshop.

... Not to mention that Panasonic could customize the external housing of the smart adapters to follow the form of the camera, employing a extra reinforcement flange that bolts the adapter to the camera body. Clueless EF shooters would mount (and electronically control) their lenses with no wobble... and they would be none the wiser that they were actually using an adapter!

[cough] Nikkor lenses [cough, cough] Zeiss lenses [cough] Leica lenses [cough, cough] FD lenses [cough]

After scanning this thread, this method reminds me of the wavelet decompose plug-ins for the GIMP, which is a functionality that has been in open-source software for years. Basically, these plug-ins separate detail "frequencies" into their own separate layers. I use wavelet decompose mostly for skin retouching, but some have been using it for sharpening for quite awhile. One of the wavelet decompose plug-ins can separate an image into 100 different frequency layers, but I can't imagine why that many separate frequencies would ever be needed. I don't think that proper wavelet decompose functionality has yet appeared in proprietary imaging software. Often, advanced features such as this show up in Photoshop years after the GIMP, and these "new" features are usually much trumpeted by the Adobe crowd.

Indeed. For some reason, most manufacturers (and many shooters) can't comprehend the incredible advantages of starting with a shallow lens mount on the camera. All that is needed after that is smart adapters (perhaps with some customization).

@TheRenaissanceMan: Judging from the photos above, do you still think that open-face sources "have hot spots, uneven spread, and a generally harsh quality of light?"

Try that shot with all stabilization deactivated and use only one leg of your tripod (like a monopod).

Redheads and blondes generally provide a very wide, smooth beam, more so than many Fresnels and other fixtures with refractive optics. Lekos (ellipsoidals) aren't necessarily smoother than Fresnels nor open-face lights. Lekos are certainly limited in their application, as their beam is relatively narrow with a hard cut at the edge, and as they are significantly less efficient than Fresnels and open-face lights (especially open-face lights) with comparable wattage. On "full spot" open-face lights are give almost exactly the same results as those of Fresnels, but the open-face fixtures generally have more spill outside of the spot with a more gradual pattern fall-off. Below are three images shot with direct light from either a Fresnel fixture or an open-face fixture of comparable size. I shot at least one of these pictures. Can you tell me which ones were lit with a Fresnel source and which ones were lit with an open-face source?

That explains why we use Fresnels to illuminate smooth cycs and green screens instead of open-face cyclights and open-face flood washes specifically made for that purpose. /s What?! Open-face sources have "hot spots" and "uneven spread?" ... compared to Fresnels?! Please explain. Too busy right now to respond to the rest of your post.

Don't confuse "photon shot noise" with the noise generated by a digital (or analog) system. This type of noise is the random photons that strike the film, sensor, video tube, retina, etc. Since photon shot noise is something that applies equally to almost any type of imaging system using electromagnetic waves yet is not inherent in any of these systems, this type of noise is irrelevant to a discussion on the noise produced by a camera, sensor or digital system. SNR in imaging is not based on RGB values, and it is a metric that is used in analog imaging systems that might not even have RGB values. SNR is essentially the ratio of a signal's amplitude to it's noise level, and SNR is usually expressed in decibels. Dynamic range is a similar metric that also applies to both analog (some without RGB values) and digital systems. Not sure how that would work. Sounds a bit shaky. Yes. You can. The noise floor within an imgaging system can usually be determined fairly easily, Just look at any proper dynamic range chart/test. Keep in mind that the increase in photon shot noise with greater exposure is not inherent in the imaging system itself. No. You are describing bit depth, which is not color depth. Color depth in digital systems is simply the resolution multiplied by the bit depth to the power of the number of color channels, so for an RGB digital system, the formula is: COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH x RESOLUTION)³ Also, keep in mind that we can have great color depth without any bit depth, as in analog imaging. In addition, because resolution is a fundamental factor of color depth, we can have great color depth in digital imaging systems that have a bit depth of "1," as in digital screen printing. Agreed. We don't usually separate the noise from the color depth of a system -- even the noise has color depth.

Ouch! ... and yet, DxOMark gives color depth scores in "bits" (bit depth?), implying a fundamental misunderstanding of digital color depth. Their explanation of their color depth metric is somewhat vague and based on a dubious characteristic, which they term as "color sensitivity." There is a mathematical formula for absolute color depth of a digital system. A fairly accurate figure can also be given to represent the absolute number of shades above the noise floor (effective bit depth -- not color depth). Don't know why DxOMark doesn't use these basic metrics.

Actually, resolution is a big factor of color depth, and color depth is mostly an independent property from ISO (the DxOMark "sports" score). On the other hand, the DxOMark "color depth" rated as "bit depth" is dubious (to say the least). Most do not realize that resolution and bit depth are equally weighted factors in determining color depth in digital systems. The actual formula to determine the color depth of digital RGB systems is simple: COLOR DEPTH = (BIT DEPTH x RESOLUTION)³ The bit depth is the number of values per channel, so 10-bit=1024, 12-bit=4096, 16-bit=65536, etc. The resolution is usually that of one color channel of the entire frame, which would yield the absolute color depth of the entire digital image (ie. with 1920x1080 RGB pixel groups, the resolution of one color channel would be 2,073,600). So, given resolution's equal weighting to bit depth as a factor of color depth, DxOMark use of "bit depth" figure to express color depth seems fundamentally flawed. DxOMark's explanation of their color depth metric is vague and apparently involves a characteristic which they call "color sensitivity," but they give no information on how this property is derived.

Thank you, but my points were so cromulent that I fear I might have given them a little too much covfefe.