tupp

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.

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.
                            

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.
                            

The  trail is is being blazed.

I'm a huge fan of the bmpcc.  It's the ONLY camera that fulfilled the needs of my FORBES70 prototype camera in terms of DR, low light performance, resolution, compatibility with adapted specialist lenses, solid codecs, etc.   since the bmpcc's release there has yet to be anything that comes close to its overall performance when paired with fast modern c-mount lenses.
 
The sheer number of so-called high end cinematographers interested in FORBES70 but who disregard it based on that fact that the internal camera is a BMPCC is amazing.  Also those who complain about anything the camera does visually are asking far too much.  £800 for the best picture available from any camera in the price bracket where re-mortgaging isn't required to make a purchase.     
https://vimeo.com/136554487 password : fbs
 I hope the bmmcc does the same amazing job and better!

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.

The Zoom H1's size is awesome!!
I too started out with the H1 a few years ago. But even when I got the Tascam DR-60D (for its XLR inputs, and general awesomeness) I still found the Zoom H1 to be very handy for a number of uses: slipping it into the groom's pocket with a lav running into it (as a "wireless" one on the cheap! ha :-P ), or just generally carrying it around with me everywhere as a back up (as I'm mainly a cameraman, but you never know.... especially on these ultra low budget shoots. Soundie might be lacking. Or I might be filming an event and I will pop the H1 downstairs closer to the stage, than where I'm filming from). It has lots of uses!

The DR-22 is kinda tempting for its wireless feature, but it seems it is mostly a bit gimmicky for now?! I've pondered buying it sometimes. 
DR-40 is too bulky for my tastes, plus the more its prices creep up....  the more I'm tempted to say skip this and go straight to a Tascam DR-60D for only a little bit more. 
So in the end I reckon it is clear: get the Zoom H1! :-D

Since the issue of black levels in LOG mode on the Leica SL was raised on EOSHD, Leica have reached out to me. Here I can reveal Leica are working hard on video related refinements.
Last week in Berlin, product manager Steffen invited me to see the new firmware in action.
Read the full article

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.

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.

This is exciting.  I highly doubt this unit will have optics of quality good enough to make investment in decent medium format glass worthwhile.  ie, even my Hasselblad 40mm/4, 50mm/2.8, 80mm/2.8 110mm/2 and 150mm/2.8 and this adaptor will only result in a set of lenses equating to:- 28/2.8, 35/2, 56/2, 77/1.4, 105/2.  
 
This will be a formidable set no doubt, but at around £3000 for the hassy lenses (at current ebay prices) and probably £500 for the adaptor, as well as each of the hassy lenses being upwards of 1kg each! the excitement is damped since for £3500 you can get an incredible set of 35mm format lenses that will likely match the look, with moderately better image quality.
 
Now, if metabones are watching and create something like this but with optics at the level of the SB ultra, then the hassle will be worth it (for resolution).  Unfortunately there aint enough fast (f2.8 or faster) medium format lenses like the shutterless hasselblad lenses to make the act of developing a truly superb focal reducer worthwhile in marketing terms.
That said, I'll definitely be getting one of these.  my hassy's will deliver pretty good resolution and squeezing the lp/mm tighter with this (providing optical performance is good) will make the 110/2 a badboy!   

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.

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.

Yes.  That's right!  Professionals never use speedboosters/focal-reducers!
 
Likewise, professionals would not care to have a mount that takes tilt-swing/tilt-shift adapters nor adapters that allow behind-the-lens filtration.
 
Furthermore, a professional would never want a camera that can be adapted to Canon EF, Nikkor and PL (and almost anything else).  I mean, think of all the pros who own Canon and/or Nikkor glass -- why would such pros ever want to be able to go to a rental house to use high-end PL lenses?   .../s

With all do respect to Nikon they can buy all the patents they want. The NX tech will be useless without the designers and developers that made it. Does Nikon have anyone that REALLY understands UHD 4k? Or what about h.265? Buying the patent doesn't give you the knowledge and real insight just the right to use the patent. My point is that Nikon COULD have made a NX1 camera long before Samsung but chose not to or was technically unable to OR was afraid. How does a handful of patents and blueprints fix that? Do you REALLY think Nikon is going to make a touch interface as good as the NX1? Are they just going to tweak what's already there? Will you see a nikon mirrorless with Bluetooth/Wifi and NFC that is not intentionally crippled in some blatant way just to "protect the top of the line?" I mean the Nikon 1 line is the "Call me maybe" camera equivalent.
It's FAR FAR fetched but what I hope is that Samsung is not selling but partnering with Nikon. Nikon gets $$ for its brand and Samsung would get a know name on the NX line and they are taken serious and start to move. There would have to be more than that to it like a solution to lenses (or lake there of) issue in the NX line. Some of the Nikon AF patents would help the NX# out as well. Nikon would want some of the tech to filter into their other line.
 
I do own an NX1 and both PRO S lenses. It is an amazing camera. Everytime I use anything else it feels like putting down a chainsaw and going for an axe. Then when I pickup the NX1 again it's like sitting in a proper Italian sports car. It feels right. It's not just fast it corners well. It's fun to drive. There are details here and there that just make it right. The 4k video is AMAZING. I also have a Panasonic DVX200 and the NX1 has SO MUCH better quality and color in the video. Samsung you stole my heart... you really did.

If this rumor is true, I find it troubling for two reasons.
 
Firstly, Samsung is a member of the open source Tizen consortium and Tizen is the open source OS used on the NX cameras, and Nikon is not a member.  Samsung has binary blobs that deal with most of the cameras' functionality, but given that the OS is open source, there is hope that code/functionality could eventually be modified and enhanced by end users.  I doubt that Nikon sees the potential of open source, and it is possible that they might even take measures to thwart attempts by end users to modify/enhance functionality.
 
Secondly, consolidation is generally a bad thing for end users, in that it removes competition and innovation and breeds manufacturer complacency and hubris.  There has been entirely too much consolidation/mergers in this and many other industries.  The more players in manufacturing, the better.

mercer, so you disagree with the facts?

Nikon can include the adapter in the basic package, not asking for extra money. Basically treat it as part of the camera and have it preinstalled and exchangeable for NX lens owners.

 

Ok so for you it's better a thicker, possibly heavier camera, able to take ONLY F lenses? Where are most of the advantages of being mirrorless then? ;-) 

I wrote this several times but many ppl seem to ignore that... Nx to F is possible, vice versa isn't. So no problem with compatibility with F lenses if using nx mount. Plus...with F you use only F lenses. With NX you use a lot of legacy lenses. Including F.
Just pros no cons. Smaller bodies, small lenses already available at launch, lots of bigger Nikkor lenses via intelligent adapters, loads of legacy lebses via manual adapters.
 

Again, it would NOT abandon anything, by going with nx mount. Nx to F dumb adapters already exist, and if they join forces they could easily build intelligent ones.
 
I see several reasons for going nx mount. First, as already said, more versatility due to shorter flange (a lot of legacy lenses could be adapted, something impossible with F). Second, arriving on the market with a nice lineup of lenses designed for a mirrorless system. Third, the nice i-Function. Fourth, the size of cameras. Fifth, the possibility of having pancake designs.
 
They could just rebrand the existing lenses, perhaps releasing a faster focusing 30mm pancake.

Second Quick Test ECyclops 20x20 inches "sensor" size digital motion camera.
Sony A7S + Shogun Capture Camera1942 Epidiascope Zenith Optical Co. Tessar 616mm f6 (wide open) -4 elements in 3 groups, bakelite lens body-2x 6 tube Kino + 1x 1K FresnelSlightly grading."One-person film crew", with makeup and costumes that assisted the model.  

Thanks for expediting the release of the Micro Cinema Camera with your BMPCC order!
 
Just curious:  How much was the shipping from Paris to L.A.?

okay, so i'm upping my game here and taking one for the team. before the weekend I switched from renting a Pocket to owning a Pocket. it's shipping from Paris (I got a great deal ($565) from Lovinpix.com on a new one) so I expect to hear my Micro Cinema Cam will ship anytime between now and the day my new Pocket arrives at my doorstep... because again, that's how these things usually work. You're all welcome.

 

I understood that the focus changes when you stop recording.  I was giving you some work-arounds in lieu of a proper NX1 solution from someone familiar with the camera/lenses.
 
If there isn't a better solution, you could just focus after each time you press record or try covering the contacts with electrical tape,  as I mentioned.  Of course, you could also just use a manual lens from some other manufacturer.
 
Be careful using peaking with tight apertures -- critical focus might not be where you would like.
 

I'm not sure what camera you are using, but even with a camera whose HDMI output is constrained to 8-bit, an external recorder may allow for 4:2:2 as opposed to an internal 4:2:0.  Additionally, an external recorder will typically allow for a more professional, higher-bitrate, less compressed codec (e.g.: Prores, DNxHD, DNxHR) that also might significantly accelerate your postproduction workflow.
Edit:  Lastly, if you are shooting sync sound, an external recorder will also possibly provide more professional connectivity options for microphones, higher quality mic preamps -- and maybe a more intuitive interface for controlling gain levels.