tupp

I don't think that there is ALL-I capability in stock Magic Lantern. You can compile a "homemade" version, and try it at your own risk. In addition, you can use the defunct Tragic Lantern, which has ALL-I capability built-in. The first version of Tragic Lantern had more controls for H264, but TL 2.0 gives plenty of control and was developed further than the first version. I believe that there were TL builds for the EOSM as late as Spring of last year, but the TL site is gone. I have TL builds up to December 19, 2014, if you would like to try them.

I used to carry around the 3 1/2"x4" cine swatch books for GAM-color lighting gels to do this trick: These larger swatch books cover the front of many lenses, and they are often handed out free at trade shows. They usually include all of the CTBs and CTOs from 1/8 to "extra," along with the same range in Plus Green and Minus Green. I would sometimes white balance to just 1/8 CTB or to a sandwich of 1/8 CTB and 1/8 Plus Green. Eventually, I put gaffer tape tabs on the edge of the color swatches that I most often used. There are other gel manufacturers that give away larger swatch books. Lee is another popular brand:

@Matt Kieley Congratulations on your new BMPCC. Nice video. A friendly warning, just in case you are unaware: the micro-HDMI connector on the BMPCC is extremely delicate. It can be hopelessly destroyed with the slightest pull on your HDMI cable. Don't use an HDMI cable without some form of serious strain relief on the cable, such as a cage with an HDMI cable/connector clamp: You could also use a flimsy, gimbal HDMI cable tied-off to some part of the cage or tripod head.

@Cinegain Good find on shotonwhat.com. That's a great reference. @Raeuber Kodachrome film/processing was discontinued in 2010, so it wasn't used on the recent "... U.N.C.L.E." film. Kodachrome was a reversal film, with fairly involved processing. Reversal film is usually not the first choice for narrative work, because reversal film is sort of intolerant to off exposure. If you under-expose/over-expose by 1/2 stop, you could be screwed, which is not good when trying to stay under budget and on time in a long, expensive project. The only time that I ever shot reversal film as motion picture footage was for home movies (8mm/Super8mm) and for one high school project (Ektachrome stock). Nonetheless, Kodachrome was an incredibly saturated, snappy vivid film, and it was used a lot in still work.

If one has to shoot a lot of "prismatic" imagery, it is probably easiest to use a prism camera filter. Here is an EOSHD article that features a few of these filters. Here are a few photos shot through prism/prism-filters. This page names different types of prism filters and gives tips regarding depth-of-field, subject distance and sandwiching filters. The look of the images that the OP posted could probably be achieved with a linear prism filter -- if it weren't for the oddly placed window pane overlapping in the foreground. Mirrors could be used, but they are much more of an involved set-up. Unless one wants a kaleidoscopic effect, one would probably shoot away from the subject, into adjacent/overlapping mirrors that reflect images of the subject. To recreate something similar to the oddly-placed, overlapping window-pane image, a piece of clear glass could be positioned at an odd angle in front of the mirrors. By the way, front-surface mirrors will give more clarity than normal mirrors, but, of course, front-surface mirrors are rarer.

I looked at the "Impact" kits at B&H, and I think the fixture reflectors are too big for use with umbrellas. They remind me of the old Smith-Victor units. Also, there might be a better DIY solution than these Impact/Smith-Victor sets. In regards to the LEDs, the battery power capability can certainly come in handy, and LEDs are better suited to battery power due to their greater efficiency-per-watt. However, if you are shooting sit-down interviews and narrative shorts, I really think that you will be better off in the long run getting a tungsten kit. The LED panels in question here are too small to use directly for nicely flattering interviews, and they just don't have the punch needed to enlarge them with diffusion/reflectors to a flattering size. Furthermore, for much of your narrative work, you will probably need light fixtures with a more controllable beam than LEDs. I scanned for a few used kits on Ebay: This one is certainly a deal for US$300-US$400. Here is another interesting one. This kit could work, too. This deal is interesting (it includes a 1k light focusable light), but you would need to add at least one umbrella, and those old stands probably don't work as smoothly as they used to. Adorama is offering this bare bones package that needs at least one umbrella and a set of doors for the Omni light. The stands are no-name, as is the included soft case. For interviews, you might want to eventually add a medium soft-box or a larger umbrella to all of these kits.

You are probably better off getting a tungsten light with a medium soft-box. Not only will the full-spectrum tungsten source likely be more flattering to your interview subjects, but the larger soft-box will be softer (and more flattering) than a smaller LED source. A used soft-box and light on Ebay might save you money, to boot. A soft-box with a separate focusable light fixture is a versatile kit. On the other hand, a soft-box with a built-in light source (such as a Rifa light) is light-weight, compact, quicker to set-up and more efficient per watt.

You probably also could have used a strap wrench, which has less of a tendency than a vise to scratch your tripod head.

Using a given film stock and standard processing, there is less color depth in 8mm as there is in 65/70mm, due to 8mm's lower resolution. Although the latitude (film's capture "dynamic range") will be the same between 8mm and larger formats, the highlight "rolloff" in 8mm will have fewer shades/colors due to its reduced color depth/resolution. By the way, note that with film we have color depth but no bit depth.

I often find that the light controls in front of a light fixture are more important than the fixture itself. There is a barndoor that is designed to fit directly onto those R40 photoflood bulbs. They came out decades ago and were part of the original Lowel-Light. I don't think that they are made anymore, but you might be able to find them used in kits, as kits of that Lowel-Light are included on almost every large truck. I have also seen them employed a lot in department store window displays using track lighting with R40 photofloods.

In addition, Arri had the D21 with a super 35 sensor, and the Dalsa Origin was still available in early 2008. By the way, the F35 was almost the same camera as the Panavision Genesis.

The trail is is being blazed.

Huh? Those who poo-poo the Forbes70 based on its current use of the BMPCC probably have not viewed the results. The BMPCC is a great little camera, and it is easy to understand how it would work well with any enclosed DOF adapter. Love the quality of the focus. Thanks for posting this. Me too! It seems like the BMMCC would be even better for the Forbes70 as it is more compact, symmetrical and it doesn't have an LCD draining power.

I have had a Zoom H1 for years and it has taken a beating and still works great. I have a cheap lavalier and a cheap shotgun mic that I use with it, and the sound has been very nice. IronFilm was spot-on in mentioning the H1's advantageous smallness allowing it to be used in the actor's pocket with a lav mic. My shotgun mic is the Audio-Technica ATR-6550 (US$53 at Amazon). Here is a review of the ATR-6550. My lavalier is the Audio-Technica ATR-3350 (US$25 at Amazon). Here is a recent Frugal Filmmaker review comparing the Aspen HQ-M battery-less lav with the Radio Shack version of the ATR-3350, both used in conjunction with the Zoom H1. By the way, Frugal Filmmaker has a lot of helpful instructional videos. Here is one that shows how to make a simple $3 adapter that adds an attenuated safety track when using a mono mic on the Zoom H1 (which doesn't have a built-in way to independently adjust the two channels). One other thing -- audio is important. It is one half of your movie. It takes a little knowledge to get good audio. Don't just hand the boom to your cousin or brother-in-law and expect the audio to be usable. The person operating your boom (and your mixer) should basically understand how a shotgun mic works and how to optimally use it's characteristics. I can't count how many times I have seen PAs holding a boom close to the subject, but aimed away from the subject (usually at a distant AC unit). Generally, a shotgun mic should be on it's narrowest setting, aimed directly at the subject's mouth. The mic should be positioned so that any distant noise makers (such as AC units) should be off-axis to the shotgun mic (as opposed to positioning the shotgun so that the noise is coming from directly behind the subject). Also, the boom operator should minimize sliding hand movements on the boom pole and avoid any kind of finger impact on the pole. If the boom needs to be rotated back and forth between two actors, it's best to rotate by using one's wrist.

I don't even have FF nor MF. However, if you claim that there is absolutely no focus/DOF difference between formats and their respective lenses, then the look should be exactly the same between s16 and 11"x14". Do you think that a test between to such different format sizes would show no difference in focus/DOF look? Primes of different focal lengths should be used, as the focal point and aperture distance will not change when using the same zoom lens for both formats. I applaud you for taking the time and effort to make the comparison. Very few folks have the gumption to initiate and publish such tests. However, by using the same zoom lens on both images, you are essentially (and actually) using the same lens with the same look (and with the same focal point and aperture distance). Such would not be the case when comparing MF to other formats. Also, it is important in such tests to place objects in the frame at short and regular distance intervals from foreground to background. It is difficult to tell much from showing just one foreground object against a distant background (while using the same zoom lens on all images). Thanks for the link. I dealt with DOF calculations in photo classes, and it seems that he essentially is just adding the crop factor to that formula. I didn't read the entire page, but I think that he is just saying that the DOF range can be equivalent -- he does not seem to claim that the look of the focus/DOF is equivalent regardless of focal length and optical quality. He even mentions that larger formats almost always have larger aperture diameters (in mm) for a given angle of view (with a given DOF). I think this difference is a significant advantage for larger formats, along with the fact that one can use narrower f-stops on larger formats (to get a sharper focal plane) than a smaller format using a wider f-stop to get technically equivalent DOF.

Very nice! Glad to hear that Leica is receptive. Leica (Leitz) also makes two lines of cinema PL-mount lenses: the Summicrons, which run about US$100,000 for a set; and the Summiluxes, costing about US$260,000 a set (and which have a 2-year waiting list).

I would like to see such a test, too. However, why limit the test to two formats with close crop factors? If there is absolutely no difference in the DOF of different formats and if we can exactly match the DOF look between any two formats, then why don't we compare two dramatically different format sizes, such as s16 and 11"x14"? If what you say is true, we should be able to match the DOF look exactly between two such vastly different format sizes. I disagree. The DOF "range" might be technically equivalent, but it will look different in how the DOF rolls off and in the softness of the out of focus areas. Also, the flatness and sharpness of the focal plane will probably be different. Wait -- is there or is there not difference in formats in regards to DOF and background separation? Also, the format size doesn't really have anything to do with bit depth. I assume you are referring to what has happened historically. Furthermore, bit depth is not color depth -- bit depth is merely one factor of digital color depth, and resolution is an equivalent factor of color depth (in both digital and analog). If anything, the dynamic range of sensors has much more to do with photosite size than it has to do with sensor size, but there certainly are other variables that significantly influence dynamic range. Color depth in digital mainly involves bit depth and resolution. Format size in digital is irrelevant color depth (unless it influences resolution). Again, dynamic range has more to do with photosite size than it does with format size. Color depth in digital is determined by the resolution and bit depth. Agreed. That is one of the advantages we've mentioned of using lenses for larger formats that have longer focal lengths. The focal plane is sharp and flat.

Generally there are differences in the look of larger format DOF vs. smaller format DOF, even though their DOF range can be made technically equivalent. I can see differences in the examples given in the link provided by jcs, even though the author of that page failed to provide images that were anywhere close to full res. The discrepancies are more subtle when comparing images from formats which differ by a factor of only 1.5 (FF and S35), but the discrepancies often exist, nonetheless. In digital, the main differences appear in how cleanly the DOF, focal plane and blur/bokeh are rendered. To illustrate this point, let's consider two dramatically different format sizes -- ultra large format (11"x14") and S16. This is an early test of Gonzalo Ezcurra's "Mini" Cyclops DOF adapter with a 14"-wide ground glass. To me, the very shallow focal plane looks extremely clean and "solid" edge-to-edge, while the softer FG/BG blurs nicely and smoothly without abruptly going into complete mush. I don't think that a S16 lens exists that can give the same clean/solid look in a shallow focal plane with such a smooth, gently soft BG/FG. Just the same, one wonders about the potential of mounting the Kipon/Baveyes medium format focal reducer to a MetaBones BMPCC speed booster. Can't wait to see the results of that combo! Of course, when shooting a given film emulsion, the differences between format sizes are even more dramatic. Larger formats have less grain, more resolution and more color depth.

Not sure what is your point here. At any rate, Blackmagic, Panasonic and JVC don't make any DSLRs. Again, not sure what is your point. I agree with you on the advantages of mirrorless. However, I don't think most still photographers share that view -- they generally want the viewfinder. Anyway, many DSLRs have a "live" mode in which the mirror locks up. Of course, a lot of DSLRs have a "video" mode, too. I have never had an adaptor "fail." I've had cheap adapters that rattle, but they never caused any problems. The only problem that I have had is that my current focal reducer accepts Nikkor G lenses as well as Nikkor F lenses, so it has it's own aperture adjustment ring, which can inadvertently get bumped and change the aperture. However, one piece of tape and "problem solved." Well, I have done one or two corporate gigs with a few different cameras, and I would probably get a camcorder with a fixed zoom if I had to do such jobs on a regular basis. That choice has nothing to do with reliability -- it has to do with speed and ease of use. Zoom camcorders are more than sufficient for most corporate work, and there is no need to constantly change primes. You keep insinuation that using a variety of equipment can result in reliability problems and "surprises." I have been using a variety of cameras, lenses and adapters for a while, and I have no idea as to what you are talking about. Yes, there is a market for such consumers and newbies, and it is already thoroughly addressed by Nikon's existing product lines. Again, Nikon can make a mirrorless camera with a shallow mount and one could still use F-mount Nikkors. If you are concerned about "reliability" and rattle, Nikon could use a shallow mount and have an adapter that additionally "bolts on" snugly with a outer flange and a few screws (although that really would be overkill).

Again, using a shallow, versatile mount does not negate the use of their old lenses, and there is no need for a distant F-mount with a mirrorless system. So, (if they are smart) they might want to change that so that they have a compact, versatile camera that sells more units and that could "change the game." They would still sell "a ton of" lenses for their DSLRs. Making a fat mirrorless camera might not sell, and thus would not sell many F-mount lenses anyway. A shallow mirrorless camera would probably sell more. Blackmagic, Sony, Panasonic and JVC have been very successful selling cameras that make it easy for people to swap different brands of lenses. Don't know if the Nikon folks are smart enough to realize all of these points. Tell that to the pros who are using Blackmagic M4/3s cameras, Sony E-mount cameras and Panasonic M4/3s cameras with various lenses. By having a shallow mount, nothing is stopping consumers from using "whatever lens came with the camera." Nikon could make a separate lens set if they really wanted to, or they could just make a fancy adapter for F-mount lenses. Furthermore, consumers can keep using the pre-existing DSLRs and mirrorless and compact Nikon systems. Ultra Primes with a $1000 precision adapter aren't reliable? Also, if you are thinking of the still photo market, the still pros are probably not interested in mirrorless. I am afraid that they might see it that way, as most corporations these days are myopic, driven mostly by immediate sales and short-term bottom-line. In regards to pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikkors, I am one of those. I have seven Nikkor lenses and two Nikon cameras. Do I want a camera with a Nikkor F mount instead of with a very shallow versatile mount? -- HELL NO!!! I use lenses for their look and performance, so I want a camera that can accept as many different lenses and adaptors as possible! Not really. Not if they are smart (and not as desperate as you seem to portray them to be). Again, it is doubtful that most pro still photographers would go for a mirrorless system at this point in time.

Some have spent $4000 apiece for full frame Zeiss Compact Primes, and these folks use them with speed boosters on smaller sensors. Would you say that these folks are not professional because they cannot afford to use the lenses that were made for the specific camera that they are using? Should they throw away their CPs and speed booster and instead buy "proper" Lumix lenses for their GH4s?

Wish they had chosen Sony batteries instead -- larger capacities available. I used this XTPower battery on BMPCCs. The 9-volt setting is better than the 12-volt setting -- the higher the voltage, the hotter the camera/sensor.

It's not hard to understand. It is a very simple notion. Regardless, it is just an opinion, and there are a lot of valid and beneficial reasons why "professionals" use lenses with larger image circles than the sensor's diagonal. In that case, perhaps we should all just use cameras with fixed lenses optimized for the sensor. Not exactly. There certainly are tradeoffs. Some of the benefits have already been listed in this thread, but, in regards to sharpness on a given sensor, a good speed booster will give essentially the same resolving power from a lens as if one used it with a dummy adapter. So, the sharpness stays the same while one enjoys all of the speed booster benefits. Not really. However, again, if we follow this reasoning, we should all use cameras with fixed lenses. Furthermore, you might not be aware of this fact, but some professionals use certain lenses because they like the way they look.

So, now you are saying that Nikon should use the NX mount and that professionals should throw away all of their full-frame, Nikkor F lenses? So, professionals who own L glass should throw it all away and get EF-S lenses?

A speed booster in front of an APS-C sensor allows the sensor to utilize almost the entire image circle of full frame lens -- that means you are getting the full resolving power from that lens, plus you are getting shallow DOF on wider views, plus you are gaining about one stop in exposure! If you use full frame lenses on smaller sensors without some kind of speed booster or focal reducer, you are just throwing away resolving power of the lens. Also, as many have stated in different ways, shallower mounts on the camera allow a lot more versatility.