tupp

Well yeah, that really shows that I'm wrong when I say that films reflect the social mores of the societies that make them. Doesn't trade on sexist or heteronormative tropes in the slightest!

Here's what I think we should do for the next one:
- Large sensor challenge for under $150 (minimum size Micro Four Thirds)
- Shoot the best possible looking PHOTOGRAPHY or video with it
(I am personally happier just to shoot photos for some relaxed fun this time. Video more of a job in current covid infected world)
- Use any existing lens you like, bonus points for unusual stuff
- Must be new camera you don't already own and under $150 maximum (have fun searching)
Winner is:
- One who finds best bargain on eBay for under $150 with best image quality and ergonomics, the most interesting, or most imaginative choice
- One who takes the best shot with it (just one amazing frame or moment wins it all)

A female VP in 1989? UNTHINKABLE! 

Oh wait, except in in 1953 we had a film with a female President:
"Project Moonbase"

(to give but one example of many)

Size matters in my setup, but I got the 58mm BPM 1/8 so that's fine.  Those Harrison and Harrison filters are fascinating - a couple even look like they have bubbles in the glass.  I'm not familiar with them, but for $500 US I can buy half a P2K, so that's where my money would be better going!
In terms of having a set of filters, I know it's typical to add more diffusion on longer focal lengths, but I looked at the tests and found that the black levels typically get lifted almost the same amount from a 1/8 and then I can add extra diffusion to longer shots in post if I want to, with the 1/8 taking care of the things you can't do in post.
I've seen DIY videos of people making their own with UV filters and black spray paint, but the 1/8 is ok.  My concern with the BPM was that it would be too strong near the hot spot and too weak further away, and I'm sure that I can make a diffusion filter, but I'm definitely not going to be able to control the distribution of that diffusion across the frame.
Why?
I frequently follow a subject and am panning and pan from almost flat-light to back-light and the sun in frame.  
It's all well and good if you're shooting something where you get 20 minutes to set up for 5s of footage, but some of us struggle to get 5s to setup before a 2 minute shot.  Sometimes I feel like the pros would recommend a C500, wide cine prime and Ninja recorder to a skydiver who wants to shoot POV video mounted to their helmet on the way down!
True, but lifting the blacks in post also lifts the noise, which is great if you're trying to create an alien fog full of angry nano-bots who randomly self assemble in squares, but it's not an aesthetic I'm really looking for.
Doing it physically raises the black levels optically, which then enables you to lower the exposure to put them back to black and get more highlights, increasing the DR, or for you to have higher black levels in the file, which gives you a softer look without having visible noise.

Just ordered a 1/8 Black Pro Mist filter.
I searched and couldn't find Low Contrast ones for sale in the size I needed anywhere on earth.  So I reevaluated, and looked at some tests I've been doing that have the sun directly in shot with various lenses, including vintage ones, and got a sense of the amount of halation that the vintage lenses gave.
These two videos are interesting and useful:
In the second one, the guy mentioned how he's a pro cinematographer and has the BPM 1/8 on his lens almost all the time.
I'll see how it goes.

Every single movie I can think of that can be called art pushed normative boundries in some way or another.
Most of them were missunderstood in their time. Contrary to what comes out today these creations had "weight": being subversive + having good exposition + good craftsmanship.
There's some Hollywood stuff, of course, as well as cinema from other countries.
Following that logic, 99.9% of the digitally enhanced stuff we're consuming today will most definetly not be remembered in 20-30 years. They are neither subversive nor have good exposition, but are techinicaly fantastic and produce a ton of money, but that's it. 

Of course, but the claim that art shouldn't be offensive...?  Not sure about that.  Certainly being offended is subjective. 
Personal anecdote from me, a kid raised Catholic:  Monte Pythons' "The Meaning of Life" has, what I consider, a hilarious bit of satire mocking Catholics.  I was shocked yet amused the first time I watched the "Every Sperm is Sacred" musical number followed by Gram Chapman's character ranting for 5 minutes about "bloody Catholics!" while 50 Catholic children exited a single household. 
My Mom, on the other hand wasn't amused at all.  She was very offended.

If you’re in Europe filming on 16mm or 35mm
here is an Athens lab we used for a series of commercials 
 
anmar.gr
 
they include everything and they’re great!
 

@kye You have the GH5, right?
Have you tried the 6K Anamorphic (open gate) with (Cheap) Anamorphic lenses?
See if that helps you on your quest of moving from the video look to the cinematic look. 

Or accurate diffusion of any source that is clipped, or diffusion of any source that is out of frame...  but he'd know that if he read the thread I linked to.
I guess when I said "more info than you ever wanted" I was being prescient - he really didn't want the info in the thread!

Other than polarisation filter, all filter effects can be precisely emulated digitally in post. This allows for much greater and finessed control and guarantees glare-free.

True. I own a Bolex Super 16 with the pistol grip. The weight and 3 point contact make for extremely nice handheld footage. A pistol grip / EVF / would probably work really well on this camera as well. The weight should be good as long as the lens is heavy enough. 

Well, the 16S, the Bolex, the Krasnogorsk, etc. all had their eyepieces at the rear of the camera, so they weren't shoulder mounted.  There were a few tricks that one could practice to keep them stable.  There were also other brackets (such as belt pole rigs) that could help.  Of course,  weight could always be added for more stability.
 
I am with you on shoulder rigs.  A balanced shoulder rig is always fairly stable regardless of weight.

The BMP4K weighs less than the mag on an SR3! A 105mm with no shoulder rig and multiple points of contact won’t end well. 
The balance, weight and ergonomics of the rig are huge factors to how smooth the shot looks.

I've already made the purchase.  Surely it makes no difference to my situation.  I'm not buying to fix an error, I'm buying because the Pocket 6K Pro has features I need.  I was planning to buy a Pocket 6K to compliment my Pocket 4K for my work.  I didn't do so to eliminate a serious problem.  I merely speculate that doing so will potentially resolve the occasional annoying issues I have with the adaptors.
I appreciate the lecture on the use of non IS Lenses.  I'm not buying expensive primes.  I'm buying standard EF-S lenses on Pockets for event filming, corporate Promos, the odd music video and some personal travel videos.  In such cases, the odd handheld use is needed and IS on 1 of my lenses is there to help such work when needed.  Mostly for my own personal travel videos as my actual work tends to rely on a Monopod and the odd use of a gimbal.
I'm not looking at a C70 purchase just yet.  Aside from the cost, the lack of any RAWlite bothers me after enjoying BRAW on my Pockets.  There is the extra cost of an adaptor for my EF lenses and frankly I prefer Blackmagic colour science to Canon.  Always have done.   I've spent several years wishing to own a Blackmagic when all my camera gear was Panasonic and only when the right camera at the right price came along, I seized it and have never looked back.  
For AF alone I may consider it in the future or something else Canon if the price is right and the specs suits my needs.  Or maybe Panasonic will fix their AF and release their own version of a C70; that is for the future; but right now, the Pocket 6K Pro meets my needs and I am excited to receive it and work with a S35 sensor again after so long.

@TomTheDP Yes. I remember the OG Fairchild sensor being fairly bad. I believe I shot RAW at all times with my ISO set to 200.
800 or 1600? Fugget About It!! Unless you shot to ProRes, you'd get FPN in a black t-shirt, even with middle gray @ 40 IRE or whatever the fuck it was.
I can personally attest to the following Blackmagic cameras having FPN, amongst a range of other issues:
Cinema Camera Production Camera 4K (oh my god, what a steaming pile of ****) Pocket Cinema Camera Pocket Cinema 4K Micro Cinema Camera URSA Mini 4.6K URSA Mini Pro 4.6K But then so does the Canon C200, Sony FS700, FS5 and FS7, when shooting RAW.
The closer your get to the sensor, the uglier it gets.
Not a big deal usually, just need to test the fuck out of your camera before shooting anything serious. Find out the sensor flaws, find a work around or just avoid that scenario.

Aperture is controlled manually.  You can lose the aperture control in some cases and not get a readout of the aperture on the camera screen.
Why not use IS on the Cinema cameras?  Is it a rule?   Did I miss the no IS on Cinema cameras instruction in the manual.  I have one IS lens which I use when I wish to handheld the camera for more travel video use on my Pocket 4K.  Shooting 105mm on non IS lens isn't advised.  Having paid for the camera, I feel I can use it as I like. 🤣🤣🤣
As I don't yet own the P6K Pro or a Canon camera, I can't comment on your point there.  Only on my situation where I have had issues with 3 adaptors.  No doubt I shall see how they perform when I get the P6K Pro and then be able to clarify if the issue is with the adaptors or not.  Don't worry, I will consume humble pie if they are not found to be at fault.
Maybe an adaptor would work well with the C70.  I'm not ruling out adaptors in the future if required.  However having had no issues with my MFT lenses and several issues with my EF lenses via the adaptors, I am biased towards non adaptors.  Maybe once I've enjoyed using a S35 camera for the first time in 10 years with my S35 lenses, I will look to something like the C70 and try again with adaptors.  For now, they're pissing me off too much to give it thought.  Assuming they are the problem.  If I'm wrong, I'll quickly tell once my P6K Pro arrives, and I'll happily concede the adaptors aren't at fault.  
Yes I was aware MFT lenses can be used, though rarely seen as encouraged by others.  Again I'm keen to take a step away from adaptors for now.  And also to invest in fullframe lenses to compliment my S35 ones for future proof.  Unless the GH6 comes out soon, I don't see much future for MFT.  Though I prefer S35 now certainly, fullframe may well be my future if video pushes that way.  MFT won't be much use then.  I don't need to use MFT lenses as I have enough EF lenses to cover my needs. 
My preference is informed but as always subject to new information and experiences.  

I've been let down by auto focus enough on different systems to the point where I've given up on it. But that's just me I know for certain applications it can be great. 

In regards to the C70 there is a lot of speculation going on here from people who don't own the camera. I watched a lot of reviews and ISO 12,800 isn't pretty on it, in fact I've seen people who say they wouldn't shoot past 3200 iso with it. But its all opinion and comes down to your tolerance for noise etc.... 

I've been using a RED scarlet MX and find 2000 iso is perfectly usable so go figure. 

The dynamic range on the C70 looks great though CineD rated both the C500 and A7S3 as having more dynamic range. I personally don't care about CineD's testings though. The C70 definitely has way better shadow recovery than the A7S3, which is quite poor in the shadows despite being a 12mp sensor.   

Another issue with the C70 is the auto focus is lacking compared to the 1DXMK3 or the R5. It has an issue with losing focus on darker skin tones, even in normal lighting conditions. Kind of a turn off for me considering AF is a big sell on the camera. Still a great sensor none the less. 

Lack of RAW is a becoming a big deal to me. I've been surprised how much RAW makes difference in terms of color rendition when comparing my old ass RED Scarlet MX to my Panasonic S1. 

Still the RF mount, ND filters, great high frame rates, canon color, and image are big draws on the C70. 

The Sony does smoke it with AF performance, you also get better dynamic range past 60fps as the C70 loses its dual gain after that. The Sony is also better in low light. Of course the NR and sharpening ruin the image for me. But at the C70's price point you could get a Sony FX6, which is probably where I'd go especially considering the rolling shutter difference. 

Also 12 bit RAW from an Atomos is available on Sony cameras. I wonder how the latency is on using an Atomos with the FX6. I've been hearing really bad things about latency which makes external recording useless for a lot of applications. 



Regardless the P6K pro is an amazing option at $2500 imo. I do wish they would have went with an MFT mount, but I guess that is too niche for most of the market. People still don't get that MFT mount doesn't equal MFT sensor. 

Okay, but why would the quality of the BM protocols for EF lenses differ if they merely used an extra set of wiping contacts in the circuit?  Furthermore, if BM bypassed the wiping contacts on the shallow mount by using a ribbon cable connector directly to the EF-mount (as I suggested), how would it adversely affect BM's existing EF protocols?
 
 
The shallow mount doesn't really matter in regards to maintaining the quality of BM's EF protocols, as the contacts on the shallow mount can be bypassed, if necessary.  The camera would be an EF-centric camera with a default, bolted-on EF adapter.  The shallow mount merely enables one to mechanically adapt a huge variety of lenses that would not be possible with a permanent EF mount.
 
 
About that, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about "licensing" lens mounts, especially the Sony E-mount.  Many insisted that Sony "would never allow" any camera manufacturer to use their mount.  Lo and behold, other camera manufacturers are using the E-mount along with its electronic protocols.
 
Here is the likely scenario that allows one manufacturer to use another manufacturer's lens mount -- you can't patent a bayonet mount.  Such mounts have existed for over 100 years, and, unless you can modify it with something novel, you will probably not be able to get a utility patent.
 
It is doubtful that one could even get a design patent on a bayonet mount, as changing the width of a tab or the throat diameter doesn't really amount to any design novelty.  Furthermore, the claims would have to give very specific and precise dimensions, which would make it easy for another manufacturer to merely copy and change by a millimeter to get around such a patent.
 
If there is anything that can be protected or licensed with a lens mount, it would be the electronic protocols, which might qualify as software or a "method."  Software can be both copyrighted and patented, but I can't imagine that software IP would apply to a lens mount.
 
If you do a search, I doubt that you will find a separate patent for the EF, RF, E, Z, M4/3 and L mounts.  There might be some claims included a larger camera or lens patent that involve protocols/methods communicated through the contacts of a lens mount, but they would need to be novel in some way, which is unlikely.
 
 
How does a camera manufacturer making a default adapter for EF differ from a camera manufacturer making interchangeable lens mounts for a camera?
 
 
 
The camera would be an EF camera by default, with a hidden shallower mount.  Or, the camera would merely have interchangeable lens mounts that defaulted to the EF mount/protocols.  It's already been done by Red, Kinefinity, Sony and machine vision manufacturers, and enough units are being sold.
 
I think that if they sold it with an L mount with a calibrated, solid EF adapter that is undetectable, they would have sold the same amount.
 
Again, they could have also sold it with a shallow interchangeable lens mount system (just like Red and others) that defaulted to EF, and they would have sold the same number of cameras.  BM has already release cameras with interchangeable mounts -- the system just needs to allow for shallower mounts.
 
It's all
very simple.
 
 
Again, the shallow mount would not matter to the EF users, as the camera would be an EF default camera with a hidden shallow mount (or with a shallow interchangeable mount system).
 
Sony likely can't prevent anyone from using the E bayonet mount, even if they wanted to do so.

Okay, but why would the quality of the BM protocols for EF lenses differ if they merely used an extra set of wiping contacts in the circuit?  Furthermore, if BM bypassed the wiping contacts on the shallow mount by using a ribbon cable connector directly to the EF-mount (as I suggested), how would it adversely affect BM's existing EF protocols?
 
 
The shallow mount doesn't really matter in regards to maintaining the quality of BM's EF protocols, as the contacts on the shallow mount can be bypassed, if necessary.  The camera would be an EF-centric camera with a default, bolted-on EF adapter.  The shallow mount merely enables one to mechanically adapt a huge variety of lenses that would not be possible with a permanent EF mount.
 
 
About that, there has been a lot of discussion in this forum about "licensing" lens mounts, especially the Sony E-mount.  Many insisted that Sony "would never allow" any camera manufacturer to use their mount.  Lo and behold, other camera manufacturers are using the E-mount along with its electronic protocols.
 
Here is the likely scenario that allows one manufacturer to use another manufacturer's lens mount -- you can't patent a bayonet mount.  Such mounts have existed for over 100 years, and, unless you can modify it with something novel, you will probably not be able to get a utility patent.
 
It is doubtful that one could even get a design patent on a bayonet mount, as changing the width of a tab or the throat diameter doesn't really amount to any design novelty.  Furthermore, the claims would have to give very specific and precise dimensions, which would make it easy for another manufacturer to merely copy and change by a millimeter to get around such a patent.
 
If there is anything that can be protected or licensed with a lens mount, it would be the electronic protocols, which might qualify as software or a "method."  Software can be both copyrighted and patented, but I can't imagine that software IP would apply to a lens mount.
 
If you do a search, I doubt that you will find a separate patent for the EF, RF, E, Z, M4/3 and L mounts.  There might be some claims included a larger camera or lens patent that involve protocols/methods communicated through the contacts of a lens mount, but they would need to be novel in some way, which is unlikely.
 
 
How does a camera manufacturer making a default adapter for EF differ from a camera manufacturer making interchangeable lens mounts for a camera?
 
 
 
The camera would be an EF camera by default, with a hidden shallower mount.  Or, the camera would merely have interchangeable lens mounts that defaulted to the EF mount/protocols.  It's already been done by Red, Kinefinity, Sony and machine vision manufacturers, and enough units are being sold.
 
I think that if they sold it with an L mount with a calibrated, solid EF adapter that is undetectable, they would have sold the same amount.
 
Again, they could have also sold it with a shallow interchangeable lens mount system (just like Red and others) that defaulted to EF, and they would have sold the same number of cameras.  BM has already release cameras with interchangeable mounts -- the system just needs to allow for shallower mounts.
 
It's all
very simple.
 
 
Again, the shallow mount would not matter to the EF users, as the camera would be an EF default camera with a hidden shallow mount (or with a shallow interchangeable mount system).
 
Sony likely can't prevent anyone from using the E bayonet mount, even if they wanted to do so.

There is absolutely no hassle in what I am proposing.  The clueless EF users would never realize that they are using an adapter.
 
 
Well, firstly, shallow interchangeable mounts have a proven track record on several cameras.  For instance, Red cameras have interchangeable lens mounts, and most who get one with an EF mount probably never remove the mount (and likely aren't even aware of that possibility).  Likewise with the FZ mount, the Kinefinity mount, the AJA Cion mount and with countless machine vision cameras that have bolt-on mounts.  Heck, Wooden Camera made modified BMPC's with an interchangeable, bolt-on mount.
 
Have you heard any complaints about mechanical failure of any such configurations?
 
Secondly, if a camera is designed with an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.), the EF adapter can incorporate a flange so that it additionally bolts onto the body at four points, with the design following the lines of the camera body --  looking just like the front of the original Ursa, for instance.  Such an arrangement will never budge unless one uses a wrench.  If the camera comes configured that way out of the factory, EF users will never know that the camera actually has a shallow mount hidden inside.
 
Thirdly, in regards to "software" failure (I assume that you mean "lens signal failure"), the above established cameras with interchangeable electronic mounts have successfully eliminated any such problem, and there absolutely is no reason why it cannot be the same when utilizing an established shallow lens mount.  If contact reliability is a huge concern, a manufacturer could always use a separate ribbon connector for the default EF mount, bypassing the contacts of the shallow lens mount.
 
However, these are dumb simple design/mechanical solutions to a problem that is essentially imaginary.  Is it correct to sacrifice whole worlds of lens choices for a cinematography camera, merely to avoid the possibility of a few momentarily confused EF users?
 
Additionally, more and more popular cameras are appearing with FF shallow mounts.  Are the clueless (yet successful) EF users going to ignore the C70 and other Canon R-mount offerings because it's too confusing to use their L glass with an official Canon EF-to-R adapter?:

The ginormous photosites of the 12MP FF sensor might also contribute a smidge to the low noise of the A7S III.
 
 
Will have to take your word for it that the C70 has greater dynamic range, but can the C70 shoot at 12,800 iso clean like the A7S III?  Also, isn't the C70 a Super35 camera?
 
By the way, there are HDR/dual-iso cameras that have a greater capture dynamic range than any Alexa.  Of course, that doesn't mean that such cameras produce a better image than an Alexa.
 
 
Oh, I am never sarcastic!
 
Seriously, it's perplexing as to why BM continues to choose the EF mount on their Super35 cameras over an existing shallow mount (EF-M, Z, M4/3, L, E, RF, etc.) or over simply incorporating a shallow flange for interchangeable mounts.
 
 
Having a shallow mount (or a shallow interchangeable mount system) does not preclude easy use by EF users nor does it prohibit "built-in" NDs for such users.  BM can merely make a "default" EF adapter (or interchangeable mount) with NDs that follows the design lines of the camera, and the clueless EF users will never know that they are actually shooting through an adapter (or through an interchangeable lens mount).
 
 
"Intro" students should probably use a lower-end camera.  Once those students graduate to using actual cinema cameras, then they definitely should learn about using front filters, batteries, follow focus, monitors, mics, etc.

Wow so many assumptions and false conclusions in 1 post.  
Most of my lenses are EF-S
I have had issues with adaptors.  Loss of aperture at key moments.  Loss of IS at key moments.  This is from 3 adaptors I own for MFT mount.   Not a promising start.
Noting the C70 has an EF adaptor isn't endorsement of adaptors.  Merely an observation.  I'm not buying the C70 or its adaptor.
Using MFT lenses on a S35 sensor is not something I would ever consider.  Selling them maybe.  
Personally I still prefer S35 to fullframe.  I prefer not to use adaptors if I can.  My own personal preference.   Sorry if this offends you.

I think it is a combination of a biased interpretation of one's own link, plus poor comprehension of another somewhat misleading source.
 
 
 
I already addressed the Gerald Undone video that you linked.  I disagree with the conclusions to which he jumps in regards to dynamic range.  He sets up arbitrary conditions (the size of the C70's sensor and the lack of NR options on the A7S III) for which the C70's dynamic range is "better" in his mind than the A7S III.
 
However, at 09:52 in the video, he additionally states that the low light performance of the A7S III is far superior to that of the C70:
While he makes this statement, we see a side-by-side comparison of the performance of the C70 and the A7S III starting at iso 12800 and 25600, which reveals that the A7S III is exceptionally cleaner than the noisy C70.
 
So much for the CVP and "GU" links.  The C70 is not "clean" at 12,800 iso, unlike the A7S III.
 
 
 
I see.  Well, once again, I would have to take your word on that, but after seeing the discrepancy between your statements and your links, I don't think that I will.

What is it, laziness or incompetence? 
Watch the GU videos of the c70 and Fx6, which he compares with the a7s3. The cineD article can also be googled: "c300 iii dynamic range." Anything beyond that, you'll have to compensate me for my efforts. PM me, I'm affordable