tupp

Very nice presentation! The "washed-out" colors from the Fuji files perfectly demonstrate a fundamental imaging principle: Color depth is a direct function of resolution and bit depth. Here is the color depth formula for RGB digital systems: COLOR DEPTH = (RESOLUTION x BIT DEPTH)³ The Fuji color smoothing (or any other chroma sub-sampling method) reduces the resolution of the chroma channels, and, thus, reduces the color depth -- even though the bit depth remains unchanged! The video mentions that Fuji files yield a UHD luma channel and HD chroma channels. However, it certainly appears that the Fuji chroma smoothing reduces the effective chroma resolution to significantly less than HD, which makes your comparisons a dramatic example of how resolution affects color depth. By the way, the reason that the Fuji jpeg stills have better color depth (even with the Fuji chroma smoothing) is likely due to the fact that they have a higher resolution. Thanks for these comparisons!

Thank you for the clarification! I wonder if their licensing of the Olympus trademark requires ongoing payments, which JIP wants to cease.

Did you sign an NDA?

One could ask those same questions if the situation were merely that some marketing person with zero sense of history had a whim to do a "rebrand." By the way, the derivation of the new name is demonstrated by the video at the top of this web page. Never underestimate the incompetence of corporate executives and marketing people.

It seems that one has to register to see the live camera announcement on Tuesday. Hooray for the social media event planners!

Evidently, they will announce a new camera, according to the graphic at the end of this video. That would be my guess. Even the most vapid, short-sighted, self-absorbed marketing person couldn't be stupid enough to throw away a venerable brand name such as Olympus.

@ZEEK just posted another EOSM, Magic Lantern, Super-16, instructional video, involving vintage glass. Magic Lantern offers square aspect ratios, but @ZEEK states that he prefers a wider frame.

Tragic lantern and another special ML build will give you ALL-I H264, as well. You can get continuous, raw, ML video on the full sensor (1736x976), plus a bunch of crop modes with higher resolution.

@ZEEK posted these figures a little over a year ago: Evidently, the 2.8K mode is closest to BMPCC, and it works with Super16 lenses. However, it would be wise to watch some of the EOSM settings videos from @ZEEK , to see how much the resolution must be reduced to get continuous recording. Also, I think that reducing the resolution creates a smaller image capturing area.

The thing is, they don't looks the same. The testers even acknowledge that fact on the video (but they dismiss it). Furthermore, they didn't actually set the cameras to look the same -- they set the cameras mathematically, according to the DOF formula, but they disregarded any inaccuracies in the aperture markings, and they apparently didn't match the effective location of the apertures. Well, there actually seems to be general differences in the DOF from optics designed for different formats. The difference is not in the location of the front/back DOF -- the difference is in how the focus generally "falls off" within and without the DOF range. Unfortunately, like 99.99% of all such equivalency tests, we can't see how the focus falls off nor can we see the location of the front and back limits of the DOF range. Here is what we see in the videos main test : SOFT FG OBJECT >> AIR >> SHARP SUBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT INTERMEDIATE BG OBJECT >> AIR >> SOFT OPAQUE BG WALL Most such tests don't include the foreground object nor the intermediate background object, so I will give them credit for adding those items. However, to properly conduct any DOF or equivalency test there must be a continuous ruled surface (or continuous line of closely-spaced, uniform objects) that runs from the near foreground to the distant background. Such a proper set up will reveal the locations of the front/back DOF extremes and how the focus falls-off at those points and elsewhere.

There are too many typical blunders and erroneous assumptions in this slipshod equivalency test to make it conclusive or worthwhile. Additionally, the testers are biased at the outset. Like almost all other such tests, the results suggest a difference between formats, which the testers acknowledge but dismiss.

Looks like a great mic! Was Line Audio really forced to change the model name because of Olympus?

Cinematographers have long been using vintage lenses with digital on Oscar-nominated films. Only relatively recently have shooters on smaller projects commenced utilizing the beautiful character of vintage glass. Certainly, a lot of beautiful and powerful cinematography has been created in the square format, but it is perplexing why anyone would shoot an entire project with anamorphic glass only to crop it square in post. To make such square imagery impactful, one usually must compose for that for that format while shooting. If they did so using framing guides, then one wonders how they could reconcile all that wasted image space (and wasted sensor resolution). Are linear flares and oval highlights worth the sacrifice? In regards to Oscar-nominated films only using Alexas and mostly vintage glass, here is an interview with the DP of "Ex Machina" (2014), in which he explains why he used the combination of old Xtal Express glass with a Sony F65.

Let's hope that they put more effort and resources into developing, manufacturing and supporting future cameras.

Ha, ha, ha! I think that you have "defied the moment!"

Okay, but this vague, flimsy marketing announcement has all the hallmarks of "penny wisdom and pound foolishness" that is typical of venture capital brand acquisitions. No doubt, the Japanese V.C. firm didn't write those shallow, "archy" lines -- they probably hired an American PR firm. Hopefully, they will put a lot more resources into development. manufacturing and support than they put into their marketing.

Well, perhaps the 150g stipulation is a bit arbitrary (and rather low, considering that fast superwides require bigger, heaver glass, and need bigger heavier housings to hold that glass). Remove the 150g stipulation, and solutions appear.

Let's not go anywhere that might be inappropriate for this forum! Incidentally, allowing the use of a wide angle adapter is a trick question!

Oh, I missed the 150g.

Simplistic tough talk and hyperbole fill this apparent announcement page. No doubt the marketing person who wrote this is a thoroughly experienced shooter.

This is the only one?

Did you mean "tele-adapter" instead of "speedbooster?" Using speedbooster on his EF-S lenses will make their APS-C image circles smaller.

I am ignorant of C-stand weight ratings, but I doubt that there is much difference in weight capacity between a plain C-stand and a C-stand with the typical "Rocky Mountain" leg. On the other hand, one should never get even close to loading stands to their rated capacity. Putting too much of a load on a C-stand might not end well (nor will it start well if the grip arm gets bent). If one is not sure the stand can take the load, use a bigger, stronger stand.

Yes, set electricians (but rarely the gaffer) arm-out lights from C-stands. There are three common methods for arming-out with a C-stand: Mount the item on the grip arm and extend the arm "righty-tighty;" "Cantilever" the grip arm with a ratchet strap or a trucker's hitch; Boom the grip arm, using a sand bag as a counter weight. It depends on the size of the stand and the load to be armed-out. A junior/combo stand will be capable of a larger footprint than a C-stand, and they are much stronger than a C-stand. A typical baby stand might not be as good as a C-stand for this purpose. There are countless ways to arm-out a light, and there are many booms and cantilevers designed especially to do so. It's a large and involved subject. There are just as many ways to suspend diffusion in front of a light. Here is a basic primer on setting C-stands. In my opinion, booming is the best and most versatile way to arm out a fixture with standard gear, but the cantilever method is most often seen on big sets. The problem with the cantilever method is that the strap or trucker's hitch has to be reset every time you want to move/adjust the height/angle/extension of the arm. Since there is always downward stress on that arm, it is a hassle to reset a cantilever. Again, there are plenty of specially made boom rigs that fit on combo stands or C-stands. A popular such rig is the menace arm. Relatively recently, versatile cantilevers rigs have appeared, such as the Matthews Max and Max Mini. By the way, if you are not familiar with the set lighting hierarchy, you should know that there is usually only one gaffer on set. The only exceptions to having more than one gaffer occurs when there is a B-unit or C-unit, or when there is a separate rigging crew. Likewise, there is only one key grip if there is only a single unit and no rigging grip crew. Here are the typical ranks regarding lighting personnel in most big, departmentalized shows with separate electric and grip rankings: GAFFER (Electric Department); - BEST BOY ELECTRIC; - THIRD ELECTRICIANS (usually 3 or more); - KEYGRIP (Grip Department); - BEST BOY GRIP; - GRIPS (usually 3 or more). Essentially, the electricians do anything that directly involves lighting fixtures and power on set. The grips are in charge of "outboard" light controls that do not touch the lights, such as flags, scrims, silks, frames, etc., and they also provide some set rigging for fixtures and set pieces. Grips are also in charge of camera support when it involves a dolly (hence, the dolly grip). Most grips nowadays will dispute that they take orders from the Gaffer in regards to lighting, but it certainly was that way for a long time. Until a few decades ago, there was no such position as a "Best Boy Grip." The "Best Boy" was only a management position in the electric department. Grips eventually realized that they also could benefit from a middle manager.

Nikolay Bauman is certainly a well done and engaging movie. In the shot you mentioned at 28:49, it's a very nice, beautiful touch to have the light beams through haze/smoke/steam/fog to accentuate a large space. However, it's not as if that lighting gag hadn't been done a zillion times before (nor since) 1967. In regards to the off-shot/off-scene dialog pickups, they are certainly effective and add interest. Of course, those audio editing techniques were in use well before 1967. As for Soviet movies from 1967, there was a small project that year that had some interesting cinematography/editing. Here is one scene from that film that I think does a decent job of utilizing "the language of the camera," although there is nothing particularly special about the lighting. There is a nice little crane shot at the 03:23 mark.