tupp

A friendly reminder: Keep that infected lens away from your other lenses/gear. Don't put it in the same bag/case that you use to carry uninfected lenses/gear.

If I could collect a dozen of the 1000-krona bills, I'd get an NX1. It's all about the "Hammarskjölds!"

Wow! That's spectacular currency!

Agreed. This is a cool bill. What will be the denomination of the Garbo bill? Thanks for posting that cool, historic photo of Eastman and Edison! By the way, it was shot at a 1928 demo of Kodacolor film (motion picture cameras weren't really "new inventions" at the time). Here's footage of the same event. The camera is a Bell & Howell 2709, which first appeared in 1911. Here's Sam Dodge with a 1928 version of of the 2709.

Don't know if this unit has been discussed here, but I imagine that in the near future we will be seeing a few more of these single-handled gimbals with semi-dedcated cameras.

I was about to make these very same suggestions. The only drawback to this path for the OP is that he is evidently already significantly invested in Canon glass (no aperture control on lens). So, unless there is an option for a powered EF speed booster that enables aperture control, OP would probably have to get/rent new lenses (and sell his Canon lenses).

Don't belittle Lukas' crucial foundation work. He did most of the heavy lifting for those that followed, and he did it only May of last year. Obviously, the NX hacks moved farther because of his work. The Lukas rooting of NX cameras led to this work (and this work), which led to the simple work of your boy on DP Review disabling the video time/file-size limit. Your boy acknowledges the immediate upstream source, and that source acknowledges Lukas. From the comments on Lukas' page, there are evidently others who are also hacking the NX cameras, thanks to him.

"They" got to root level.

Okay. I think we agree that archival optical disks, such as the 1000-year Millenniata disk, will outlast film by centuries and will also survive an "über-sunstorm." Thus, film is already soundly trumped by digital in archival scenarios. However, I would still be interested in hearing about any incident in which a magnetic field from an über-sunstorm has ruined a disconnected hard drive.

You don't have to take my word for it. Just consider this -- how many times have you heard of "sunstorms" ruining DVDs or disconnected hard drives? I can't recall ever hearing of such a problem.

That would definitely have to be a strong "sunstorm." Not only would it also probably melt your film, but people would probably spontaneously combust.

Not exactly. If you keep a hard drive disconnected and in cold storage, the data on the discs should last a very long time, as should the mechanical components. No one knows for sure how long a hard drive will last in this scenario, as we have not yet reached the point of failure in such a case. With a stored, disconnected drive, I would imagine that the capacitors in the hard drive's circuitry will go bad sooner than a breakdown in the mechanics or with the info on the disk. Those tapes are digital, not analog. And that tape suffers the same deterioration problems as regular audio tape -- the magnetic layer separates/flakes-off the base layer as the tape ages. By the way, there used to be countless "digital/analog" computer tape systems. I still have one. The computer encodes digital files into analog audio beeps/tones (similar to modems) which can be recorded almost any audio tape recorder. That system is different than the digital tape system that you mention. With film, the image/dyes still progressively fade during that 100+ years (and the base becomes more and more brittle). And, again, film cannot be copied without generational loss. Actually, there exists digital media that have already lasted for centuries (and that still work!). Music boxes using pins and spaces on cylinders (as their digital "ones" and "zeros") first appeared in the 1200s. By 1800, music boxes using metal disks (with holes and lack of holes) started to appear and became popular in that century. Metal discs from the 1800s are still being played by enthusiasts today, and they sound exactly as they did in the 1800s. So, digital mediums can last for a very long time and not suffer any degradation of quality. (It is also kind of cool that digital audio recording existed centuries prior to the arrival of analog audio recording.) Certainly, it would be cumbersome and inefficient to try to encode video files to music box cylinders and disks. On the other hand, there exist long-lasting digital media that can do so compactly and efficiently. The Millenniata disk is expected to keep digital data up to 1000 years, as it uses microscopic engraved pits to record data, instead of dyes that can fade. Likewise, "pressed" CDs/DVDs use physical pits to store data, in contrast to common "burned" CDs/DVDs which use dyes. Pressed disks are projected to last up to 300 years. Of course, the average eoshd.com poster won't have a disk press connected to their laptop. but some "burnt" optical disks have stable dyes that are estimated to last 100-250 years. And again, it is difficult to know how long a hard drive will last stored and disconnected. However, it is immaterial that all of these digital mediums have a superior lifespan to film, merely due to two facts: 1. digital files can be repeatedly copied with absolutely no generational loss; 2. there is no automatic, progressive fading/degradation of the information as a digital file sits in storage. These two abilities allow digital files to last forever exactly as they were originally. If the same could be done with film, then it could last forever, too.

I think I understand what you are saying, but I am not sure that film is actually more archival than digital. Film ages, and its colors fade. Furthermore, every time an analog image is copied, generational loss occurs, so there is a practical limit to how long film can be maintained. In contrast, one can keep making copies of a digital file on fresh medium, and the copies will be exactly the same as the original -- no generational loss and no aging nor fading. The thing about film is that, when properly shot and handled, a film image can capture an incredibly vast, "fluid" color depth, unencumbered by the incremental bit depth limitations of digital imaging. Having all of that color depth in the original image makes film a little more "future-proof" than digital. So, film has a limited shelf life compared to digital, but a film image usually starts with more color information, which makes it more future proof.

I believe that the Novo 4K is a GoPro 4K modified for C-mount lenses. Radiant Images has also modified earlier GoPros to take interchangeable lenses.

I imagine that if you dropped it on the pavement that it would be groundbreaking. Seriously, I think it is a great product, but it seems more of a natural phase of the evolution and miniaturization of balancing/gimbal/camera technology, rather than a major breakthrough. Gimbals certainly are helpful tools, but they can never replace the precision and artistry of a good Steadicam operator. Furthermore, both a gimbal and a Steadicam give a dramatically different look/movement than a camera on, say, a Fisher 10 dolly. Dollies give a more solid and controlled feel.

+1 Nikon F mount can be physically adapted to almost any camera, but keep in mind that the electronics (AF, image stabilization) may not work.

This argument assumes that one is using a full-frame lens along with a typically sized focal reduction element. As David Bowgett mentioned above, one could start with a medium format lens and also use a larger focal reduction element (perhaps something like this). Not sure if such a large focal reduction element would have to be positioned inside the camera, but both pros and "amateurs" have modified Canon HDSLRs to internally accommodate larger optical systems.

You can use a wide angle adapter that fits on the front of the lens, but you won't get a gain in brightness. The cheaper wide angle adapters sometimes exhibit a slight loss in sharpness, but a few brands such as Century Precision Optics (now Century Schneider) have very sharp adapters.

Evidently, this guy made it work. Of course, you could also dual boot.

Not so sure about that. There have been many tests between the two modes, and the results are inconsistent. Some tests show bigger differences than others. Here's one in which there seems to be very little difference. I agree that, generally, the raw looks a little sharper than h264 when both are shot at the same resolution. However, a lot depends on how the footage is handled. Good results can be had with h264 by setting picture style sharpness to "1" while giving a slight sharpness boost in post. Of course, doubling the h264 bit rate and shooting all I-frames with TL/ML additionally cleans up the look.

I think the shuttle bug problem only occurs with EF-M lenses, but they are working on it. Ahem... The C-mount adapter and an extension tube was included with my Fujian 35 -- all for $28. Might be possible as the flange focal distance of the EOSM vs. M4/3 is 18mm vs. 19.25mm, respectively, while the throat diameters are 47mm vs. 38mm, respectively. So, a slightly recessed adapter is possible, especially if the M4/3 lens release lever is on back/inside face of the adapter.

I just remembered a couple of caveats. To boost the bit rate and/or use all I-frames, the audio has to be disabled -- best to do so in the Canon menu. So, you have to sync the sound the old fashioned way -- no Pluralize or other such software. With a fast card and with sound disabled, you should have no trouble getting a stable 2x bit rate with all I-frames. Also, use a flat picture style, such as "Cinestyle" or "Flaat 11," but don't push things too far or you could tangle with FPN or banding in parts of the frame. Again, try setting the sharpness to "1" instead of "0," which requires a lower sharpness boost in post, hence, avoiding noise.

International Space Station... with the way the fan is mounted it looks like you're "floating" upside-down.

Never tried the 3x crop on the EOSM (nor on the T3i), but I can't imagine that a pixel peeper would be happy using the RJ focal reducer in crop mode. Lenses only have a finite number of resolving lines within their image circles. The more one crops into the image circle, the more one reduces the number of resolving lines in the frame. Focal reducers squeeze more of a lens' resolving lines into the frame, but at the same time the focal reducer causes a slight loss of sharpness by introducing another piece of glass into the optical chain. If the focal reducer is high quality, this tradeoff is optically "equitable" and no loss of sharpness is noticed between the images with and without the focal reducer. I don't know if the RJ focal reducer will hold up to such a crop, but if you like the look of the Cosmicar 12.5mm-75mm in 3x crop (I love it), it might be okay. Also, the RJ wouldn't bring the 3x crop close to APS-C size. The RJ focal reducer crop factor is 0.72x, and the crop factor of the EOSM's crop mode is 3x: 0.72 x 3 = 2.16 So, the effective size of the frame in 3x crop mode with the RJ focal reducer would be 2.16 times smaller than (or slightly less than 1/2 the size of) an APS-C sensor.

Your videos are inspiring and informative. The "Angry Toddlers" video is what induced me to get the EOSM along with the Fujian 35mm -- that's a magical combination! For those unfamiliar with the Fujian 35, it is an inexpensive C-mount lens that has a wonderful "wonkiness" in its plane of focus, and its image circle covers the EOSM's entire APS-C sensor. Using the Fujian with such a large sensor maximizes its focus wonkiness so that it "pops" across the frame. I avoided raw with ML and TL, as the "work flow" early on seemed to be a little tedious. It was okay to sacrifice a little dynamic range and sharpness, for ready-to-use files that are full HD with all I-frame, high bit rate h264. Setting the picture style sharpness to "1" (not 0) and then boosting the sharpness slightly in post gives clean/flexible camera files and plenty of sharpness in the final image.