racer5

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. 
We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. 
We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. 
We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. 
We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.

Geoff's not saying  that gear doesn't matter, he's saying gear has gone backwards - and "the numbers" being pushed don't correlate to nice images.
Bayer sensors interpolate chroma and will never yield colors as accurate and gorgeous as the examples he cites. And if the sensor behind that filter is 4k and up it only looks increasingly crunchy and ugly, nothing like natural optical clarity.
He's not advocating against the best tools (in the right hands of course), he's saying the specs being pushed are actually a strike against aesthetics. And he's right.
 

Geoff's not saying  that gear doesn't matter, he's saying gear has gone backwards - and "the numbers" being pushed don't correlate to nice images.
Bayer sensors interpolate chroma and will never yield colors as accurate and gorgeous as the examples he cites. And if the sensor behind that filter is 4k and up it only looks increasingly crunchy and ugly, nothing like natural optical clarity.
He's not advocating against the best tools (in the right hands of course), he's saying the specs being pushed are actually a strike against aesthetics. And he's right.
 

I agree with almost all of your points about the trailer, Andrew. I'd go one step further past the reservations on Gosling and say the whole cast feels sterile and hip. Robin Wright, Jared Leto as the bad guy, the hot wife from War Dogs. Will these people be in something of lasting value? I'm not sure, maybe. The script is at least supposed to be great.
My one disagreement is the wish for Deakin's to have shot on anamorphic. Since the original film came out, this format has become highly fetishized to the point that it now calls attention to itself. No one was counting cool flares in '84, but they are now. I appreciate that Deakins decided to put the emphasis on what's in frame, as opposed to getting precious with how it's rendered.  That said, Chnristina Ava makes a great point about naturalism and the grade here being way too much. 
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWPyRSURYFQ
Ok, check some scenes on the cinematography of the 1982 film
What do you see? Well people have actual skin tones. When I saw the first scenes of the new one I was shocked, mainly because I love Deakins.
How can he make something look so bad? It reminds me the starwars second trilogy fail. And how can you praise this 'film" not even shot on film.
Too much CGI! Too much orange/ blue grading. This is not Deakins work, this is the graders film. Not a natural skin tone in sight, not a natural light or color in sight. Every scene looks like a commercial, fake, very proppy, very artificial and lacking in that futuristic reality, everything too clean and new and staged. Poorly designed surroundings no grit no dirt no reality.
The first film was so fantastic because it looked so real!
Coming to the acting, dear me, I can forgive the Gosling who is like a replicant in real life anyway. But JARED LETO? that babyfaced ass*&le? Too young too Jokery Too typecasted..
my humble opinion..

+1 on the Kowa. I've got this as well and it's a shockingly good piece of glass. No idea why these don't fetch a premium. The Rapido clamps turn it into an easy to mount, elegantly align-able solution. 

Thanks for passing that valuable info along, racer5! My initial impression is that he's made the best trade-off, as I'd find more run & gun subjects within the 15m range, and wouldn't find it a problem stopping down for infinity shots at wider focal lengths anyway. In terms of my own conversion plans, I guess I'll simply have to test the limitations of what I have without screwing with the optics (aside from removing the 1" rear barrel housing the two rear elements--see above grab if interested) and see what it yields. Given what's currently online to reference, the only "mod" I can fathom done to the one for sale is altering the rear element position (within main lens body), which I'm not presently set up to replicate. In any event, much gratitude again for the post--a very informative starting point for understanding the potential of this little gem.
* 1060 pic grabbed from Kostas' old sale--retro thanks.

Pepper, below is part of a thread I had with Mario in Germany about his mod. In short: the mod favors close focus at the expense of infinity. A good tradeoff I'd say (I'll gladly crop spherical for infinity shots). Hope it helps answer your questions:
 
you have to know that ALL focusthrough lenses are limited, some more than others. This Mini Isco's are the best focusthrough so far but they are also limited. The alignment is perfect and easy, the sharpness in ideal areas is very high, like Isco 2000 and Iscomorphot 8/x2 but much better usable "before and behind" this ideal area. But, infinity sharpness isnt as sharp as other lenses, you have to stop down for better infinity sharpness with longer focallegth. I had to make some decisions before modification, how these Iscos should work. More sharpness fron minimum to approx 10-15m or more sharpness from approx 6-8m to inifinity. Also i had to choose the ideal focallength (original it was desgined for 100mm F2.8 and 5m fixed focus). I chosen the first option, more sharpness from minimum to near infinity, cause this would cover the most shooting/studio situations, for better infinity sharpness you have to stop down to F4-5.6, real inifinity you need outdoors, so F5.6 shouldnt the problem i thought, for night shots you have to choose a shorter focallentgh like 35mm to shoot with bigger apertures sharp infinity. I also choose 35mm as the new ideal focallength, because ths means that the focalareas around 35mm will be also fine, this means 28mm for M4/3, 35mm S35 and 50mm ff. With the ideal focallength you have a sharp close focus from approx 1.5-2m @F2.8-4m, some good glasses also F2 under 2m, approx 2,5-3,5m @F1.4-2. With longer focals more, 85mm approx 2,5m, 135mm approx 3-3.5m.
With shorter focallengths you have really good inifinty results but 85mm is a bit too long. The power of the positive and negative values of the optics are very powerfull, so these Isco lenses are also very sharp with longer telelenses (because it were originally designed for 100mm), whats impossible with other focusthrough lenses (Optex x1.33 for example is bad from 85mm and totally blurred from 100mm) BUT the inifnity sharpness from 85mm isnt the best under F5.6.

Shot with vasile's 140 mbps. Still from 4k on 1080 timeline. Andrew's gamma DR settings but no LOG LUT. Just used visioncolor impulz rec.709 tetrachrome FC + Curves, saturation boost and vignette. Used 16-50S lens.

Sick footage everyone! I'm surely having fun with the NX1!!

Thanks for sharing jcs, that was fun.

I wonder what HDMI_SIZE is?

His last album is brilliant. Check out the other video too, nicely shot -
Very sad he's gone. Every artist on earth today has lost a part of themselves somehow.

You've got some goddamn nerve being that disrespectful to a peer. You would never address someone like that in person. 

You've got some goddamn nerve being that disrespectful to a peer. You would never address someone like that in person. 

Really nice. How are you focusing during the zoom?

http://youtu.be/ttl-kF8Rbuo

I ask the question sincerely. 273 million young viewers accept this ratio without question. 

Gorgeous. Only thing that jumps out is the moire at 1:10, wonder if that was baked into the ProRes. I'm also curious why it was shot HD and not 4k.

The skin tones and colors in the first video, really nice. Warm, pleasing and right in the sweet spot. The rolling shutter gives it away otherwise I'd believe it was a high end camera. 

Boy I sure wish the NX1 sent 10bit over HDMI, would have made a hell of a combo with this puppy.

Thank you for pointing this out as it often gets ignored: if you switch the NX1 to HD res it's almost a global shutter cam.
When Cinema5d compared shutter speeds in the following chart they had the nerve to show the NX in UHD mode only on the far right - indicating it's the clear loser, while the A7R2 is given its HD crop speed, and the Amira winning even though it's only 2k. In HD the NX would be to the left of the chart. There is a lot of bias against this camera out there.
 

Thank you for pointing this out as it often gets ignored: if you switch the NX1 to HD res it's almost a global shutter cam.
When Cinema5d compared shutter speeds in the following chart they had the nerve to show the NX in UHD mode only on the far right - indicating it's the clear loser, while the A7R2 is given its HD crop speed, and the Amira winning even though it's only 2k. In HD the NX would be to the left of the chart. There is a lot of bias against this camera out there.