tupp

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.

The reason diffusion is used on Fresnels is probably a combination of "convenience," bad planning and the fact that most people don't know any better. Of course, on many sets its a race against time. Once a light is set up, one generally wants it to live there until it is wrapped. So, a common practice is to use overpowered Fresnels (which have beam controllability), and then scrim/dim them down to the desired level or, if necessary, use the extra output to bang through diffusion/softbox. Often there is a piece of 250 diffusion gel rolled up in the Fresnel's scrim box. This technique often avoids the time sink needed to replace the Fresnel with another fixture, and also having to bring the Fresnel back to the staging area and wrap/head-wrap it. On the other hand, some folks start out with the intention of using diffusion on Fresnels, even though they may have open-faced lights and softboxes already on stands in the staging area. I am not certain that this thread now has a singular topic, nor am I sure on how an LED panel in a softbox cannot "compete" with any other source with any other source in the same sized softbox. On the other hand, compared to a smaller light source, the panel light should give a smoother pattern on the front diffuser of a softbox. At any rate, one could use that panel light in question directly on a middle-aged woman without any complaints from the subject. I was responding to your statement regarding your "1x1" panels not being large enough for a "soft key." Your "1-by" is plenty soft for a lot of subjects. In regards to your original questions, I addressed them here. Well, now you are bringing up cost, and that is an entirely different consideration. I have no idea what the prices are for the zillions of LED fixtures out there. In regards to getting the most output from a "COB" LED source banged through diffusion, it is more efficient to use a reflector on the head and move it close to the diffuser, rather than using a Fresnel (or Fresnel attachment).

Of course. The larger the source, the larger the specular highlight. That's why it is best to light flat art and walls with a smaller source -- there's less chance of glare problems because the highlight is smaller. A big variable in regards to "harshness" and/or contrast of specular highlights is the distance of the light source from the subject. The closer the source is to the subject, the greater the subject's diffuse value relative to the highlight value -- so as you move the source closer, the contrast ("harshness") decreases between the highligts and the subject's diffuse brightness. Thank you for the kind word!

Some open-faced focusable sources can produce a double cast shadow in the outer parts of the beam, when focused to "spot." So, cutting into the beam with barndoors or a flag can sometimes not give a clean edge as with a Fresnel. I tend to use open faced fixtures, as that double cast shadow usually is not apparent, and because they are more compact and lightweight than Fresnels. The Lowel Omni light. A great, lightweight, compact, powerful and exceedingly versatile fixture. It's focusing range is greater than many Fresnels. Always use a protective screen on the front of the fixture. Use FTK bulbs with a filament support, and avoid off-brand bulbs. The focusing mechanism is very fast and can break the bulb's filament if one is not careful.

Not sure what is meant by "doesn't really do a good job in 'full flood,'" A Fresnel attachment on an LED fixture might be disappointing to one having experience with tungsten and HMI Fresnels. Regardless, the range of beam angles from a focusable fixture/attachment depends on a few variables. With Fresnel fixtures, the source is always closest to the lens in the full flood setting. So, if the Fresnel attachment doesn't allow the LED to get close to lens, then the beam angle will not reach its widest potential. Of course, there are safety reasons why the light source should not get too close to the lens. On the other hand, if one can just remove the lens/attachment, then it's best to just use the fixture without the lens, one wants to go really wide and use all of the output from the source. By the way, it is dangerous to run a tungsten or HMI Fresnel without its lens. I don't advocate using Fresnels to illuminate diffusion -- it doesn't make a lot of sense to do so. However, I see it on set often. Fresnels and other focusable fixtures are more than "fun to play around with." If one knows how to use them, they are a valuable tool that "play" often on set.

You call a diffuser a "scrim" -- do you have a background in still photography? Generally, a Fresnel will be significantly less efficient than an open-face fixture. A lot of the light is lost when it strikes the inside of the housing of the Fresnel fixture/attachment. An open-faced focusable source would be better and more efficient in this situation.