tupp

@andy lee The new project looks great, too! Do you think that jelly/rolling-shutter on the G7 will be a problem handheld? Also, why are you recording the G7s internally, instead of using external recorders?

Actually, if the X1D lacks a digital shutter function, it would probably preclude using/adapting many other medium format lenses for still shooting. So, you might be on to something.

Thanks for posting all the photos and all the info! Very enlightening! It is really fascinating to see the different colors used, and I would love to see this film! Comparing the BTS shots of the projector scene with the corresponding screencap, the 4000K color temp setting on the G7 is palpable. I do not see any recorders -- did you jettison them? By the way, nice "greeking" on the dumpy apartment set!

I didn't know that this digital model used leaf shutters (inside the lens), but the film Hasselblads (and some other medium format brands) used leaf shutters. One thing that was cool with some of the lenses for the 500C was that the shutter ring on the lens was adjacent to the aperture ring, so that once you set your exposure, turning both rings together would maintain the same exposure while changing to another desired shutter speed or aperture. Why?

If Willis was the "Prince Of Darkness," you (and your gaffer) are the "Prince Of Party Gel!" Seriously, the stylized color in your narrative project is fascinating. I really want to see this film! Some of the images that you posted are impressive, textbook examples on how to peg the saturation and on the use of glints of complementary hues. Please post the main gels you used (I would guess that you used Lee, being from the UK). For those that missed Andy's earlier posts on the project, here are more screencaps. I am very curious to see how daytime exteriors will be handled.

If you just need to view the frame remotely while the camera is recording, you could use the wifi app.

Here's one. I prefer the type that attaches to one of the shoulder strap anchors, as the 1/4-20 mounting thread is always accessible.

Congratulations! Can you confirm once and for all which actual bit depth and chroma sampling is coming out of the HDMI connector on the G7 and GX80/85? Also, what will you do with all of your camera gear after the feature finishes shooting?

To my eye, the G7's CinelikeD profile looks significantly flatter than its Natural profile: Here is a comparison of a few profiles between the GX80, G7, LX100 and the OMD E-M5II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGXsDFfKDxE

Very likely 8 bit coming out of the G7 HDMI, but not so sure as to the chroma sampling. These properties probably could be discovered by someone with a G7 who also has an NLE with a stream capture function

A Panasonic rep at the recent Cinegear insisted to me that the G7 HDMI output was 8 bit, 4:2:0. However, the Ninja Assassin probably records that signal at 10 bit, 4:2:2 Prores.

That's not a problem as there are no filter stages -- you still have to use screw-on filters with this lens shade. So, there is nothing (other than the black doors themselves) that would reflect the "backlight" back into the lens. However, you could use a foam matte box "donut" if you are really concerned about bounce-back from the doors. The doors and eyebrow have saved me on countless occasions from having to set flags.

Nope. I did not say to compare differing formats using identical emulsions. In fact, I specifically stated "when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format," which means using a coarser-grained stock on the larger format. Doing so makes larger and smaller formats more similar in color depth (or more similar "in colour and tonal 'sophistication,'" as you put it). If you shot a 35mm image with Kodachrome 25 and compared it to a 6x4.5 image shot with Kodacolor 400, you would probably find that the smaller 35mm format has more color depth. However, you might notice a slight "improvement" in the DOF roll-off and in focal plane solidity on the larger format, given the same quality of optics on both formats and with DOFs of matching mathematical "equivalence," . To me, that optical advantage transcends a difference in color depth, which in a similar digital scenario is also dependent on the resolution (assuming that bit depth and DR is the same on both the larger and smaller sensors). Certainly, everyone has a right to their opinion, but the overriding difference in look between larger and smaller formats seems to be of an optical quality, as exemplified by the Kodachrome/Kodacolor scenario above and as demonstrated in the many eCyclops/MiniCyclops images captured with HD, CMOS cameras.

I disagree for two reasons: 1. The difference was apparent in the analog days on both 35mm and large format cameras when using film stocks that gave comparable resolution (color depth) from each format; 2. Gonzalo Ezcurra generally uses CMOS/Bayer cameras with his eCyclops and MiniCyclops ultra-large format DOF adapters. As is apparent from this demo shot with the MiniCyclops and a 5D mkII, such a drastically large format (combined with an appropriate large format lens) yields a uniquely rich DOF roll-off and an extraordinarily clean, flat focal plane, regardless of the type of camera sensor. So, a larger format with the appropriate optics does seem to make a difference that has nothing to do with the sensor type. If you can find a Super 16 lens and camera that gives the same performance as shown with the MiniCyclops, I would love to see it. You can even use DigiBolex CCD camera and shoot in Super 16 mode.

For years, I've used this plastic, rod-mounted lens shade.

Fitting your lens with Lux gears might help keep ACs from scratching the housing.

More details would be helpful, such as what type of interference are you experiencing (static noise, distorted signal?) and what bands/frequencies have you manually set. However, it sounds like your camera/lens combination might be generating weak, spurious EMI (electromagnetic interference) that your receiver is picking up due to proximity. If so, changing frequencies/bands might help. If the housing of your receiver is plastic, you might try wrapping the housing with metal foil as a test to see if it reduces the interference (leave a small space between the foil and base of the antenna). By the way, RF means "radio frequency" -- not necessarily "interference." It appears that others have had problems with the EW100 G3. If nothing else works, you might try using a spectrum analyzer to see if the camera rig (or some other source) is generating EMI.

Stacking filters is no problem. I generally put my polarizer's up front for convenience (as I change-out a polarizer most often) and to avoid interaction with the other filters. A variable ND essentially is two polarizers. Can't recommend any adapters nor matte boxes, but it sounds like you are using screw-in filters, at least for the variable ND (77mm). There is nothing optically disadvantageous with screw-in filters that except that filter changes take longer, and you usually have to unscrew and reattach the filters with each lens change. Also, if you stack too many screw-in filters, vignetting can start to appear.

Thanks for posting the specs. Those specs look like the properties of the video file generated by the Blackmagic Video Assist (ProRes, 1920p, 10 bit, 4:2:2) -- not the properties of the signal coming out of the camera's HDMI port.

I never tried the the original CYL anti-aliasing filters, but it appears that a single, variable CYL anti-aliasing filter was recently developed that can replace a whole set of the original CYL filters. Here is a demo of the new variable CYL filter:

No. The Panavision rep didn't say anything about "demand." Panavison does "one-offs." They are known for dong so. They are proud of doing so. There doesn't have to be any huge "demand." An ASC member or some DP with a big project might ask them for something special, and there is a good chance that they will provide it (probably based on whether or not they make it without too much expense). After the customer is finished, they put the part on the shelf, and sometimes it gets rented again or sometimes it doesn't. Panavision can operate in this fashion because they don't have to sell anything. The old Clairmont Camera outfit worked similarly, making specialty items that individuals would request, but Clairmont was a little more active in trying to rent out the special items.

At Cinegear, I asked a Panasonic salesman about the HDMI output of both the GX85 and the G7, and he insisted that both gave 8 bit, 4:2:0 video out of HDMI. Later, I went to the Atomos booth, and asked a rep if any of their recorders could sense the bit depth and chroma sub-sample of a camera signal (to test the outputs of the G7 and GX85). He said no, but after taking a swig from his beer, he boasted that he knew the output specs on every camera and that the G7 was definitely 8 bit, 4:2:2. After I offered a US$5 wager that the G7 wasn't 8 bit, 4:2:2, we went to the Panasonic booth to find out the answer. With the tipsy Atomos rep at my side, suddenly the Panasonic salesman was not so sure as before. He admitted that the output of some cameras haven't been tested, but that the corporate office instructed the sales reps to say 8 bit, 4:2:0 for most cameras. However, he was definitely sure that the G7 output 8 bit, 4:2:0. So, I don't know what to tell you. Hopefully, someone will connect the GX85 to a capable monitor/recorder/analyzer and post the answer here.

That certainly is earth-shattering news... Actually, the fact that Panavision only rents is the very reason why they have more flexibility to make specialty items and one-offs, compared to the other manufacturers who only make money off of sales/service. In fact, Panavision has bragged about that advantage over the years, and, indeed, when I asked the Panavision rep about a special front plate, he smiled and said, "we only rent, and we make what we rent, so we can fabricate whatever we want to fit onto our cameras." Here are just a few of the specialty items that Panavision has made/adapted over the years, which they still rent. If some ASC member wants to adapt his old Hasselblad glass to the DXL for a feature, you can bet tha Panavision will jump at the his/her request. I wouldn't be so sure. Light Iron is a high-end DIT/finishing outfit, and they have just a little bit of experience over the years in dealing with the shortcomings of Red color. If they initiated the collaboration between Panavision and Red and if they were involved in the design/engineering of the A/D converters and/or the color algorithms of the DXL, I would guess that the image from the DXL is a step or two above that of a stock RED unit. Furthermore, even without their Light Iron division, Panavision has been no slouch in regards to their past digital cameras. In addition, I am fairly sure that they still own the Dynamax sensor foundry. I also wouldn't be so sure of that, as Panavision is known for making deals.

I saw the camera at Cinegear yesterday. I asked one of the reps why they collaborated with Red on this camera, and he said that Panavision's newly acquired Light Iron division pushed the partnership (and helped design the camera's color science), because Light Iron was strongly Red oriented when it was an independent DIT/finishing house. It's not just a "rebranded" Red camera -- they evidently put some effort into "Panavising" it and changing not just the ergonomics, but also the image. By the way, the Panavision rep also said that the camera probably won't be available for the plebeians until 2017. Also, when asked about special lens mounts for alternative medium format lenses, the rep said that they might consider making special mounts on a piecemeal basis, but that they would probably prefer to adapt a lens to the Panavision mount and keep it in their rental stock.

Thank you for the first-hand insight into the distinctiveness of the Cyclops' look. Perhaps the "buffer" in the highlights is similar to the "glow" that many enjoyed with 35mm DOF adapters. It certainly would be interesting to see a side-by-side DOF/look comparison test between a Cyclops and a much smaller format camera (such as a BMPCC, a BMMCC or a Digital Bolex). A test of such dramatically different formats might finally settle the DOF/look argument.