Volker Schmidt

... about the controversial topic - here is an interesting article in the NY Times about Robert Zimmer, head of the University of Chicago makes the educator´s case for free speech:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/opinion/robert-zimmer-chicago-speech.html
 
 

Yes, let´s talk about love...:)
I love to talk about looks, colors, grading etc. (far more than to talk about tech specs)
In comparison to the London impressions from above here a anamorphic test clip from cooke with a color palette that I really like:

 

Yes, but why care so much about bit rates and dynamic range, when you apply a look that makes your 4k Pro Res footage look like 8 bit 5D footage... 

Yes, let´s talk about love...:)
I love to talk about looks, colors, grading etc. (far more than to talk about tech specs)
In comparison to the London impressions from above here a anamorphic test clip from cooke with a color palette that I really like:

 

As soon as you get into heavily stylized grades, there's going to be a large degree of subjectivity. Still fun to discuss, though.
When stylized grading is done well, I like it. But 95% of the time with stuff I see online, it looks hokey and I think the footage would've looked better with a more natural (albeit safe) look. It's risky for sure.
 
edit: It's often done well with higher budget/hollywood stuff. I think it's because there's a specific plan and reason. The art direction, color palette are all designed to compliment the grade. Whereas with random online stuff, it's just some LUT thrown on to random footage with no real plan. 

I think overall you guys are right - the deluts can be a little wacky - especially with skintone and raised shadows, and even just crushing shadows a little too much.
 
But some can be nice.
I think filmconvert potra and impulz 200t are really nice starting points for luts.
I mean, at the end of the day, luts are kind of wonky - they through out information.
But for me, a DP who just uses them to see what I can do with imagery quickly, they are useful.
But yes, gotta be careful with them.

On James Millers Vimeo site are other LUT examples, which I like very much:
https://vimeo.com/millerandmiller
 

Just searched for a Minolta 35/1.8 (I only have the 35/2.8 yet :s) and fond that the minoltas MD lenses are going cheaper and cheaper :O

Minolta MD 50/1.4 : 60€, which is very very very reasonable IMO 
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Objectif-Minolta-50mm-f-1-4-MD-ROKKOR-1-1-4-/252344490621?hash=item3ac0e75a7d:g:z9YAAOSwdU1W9lHL
MInolta MD 28/2.8 (only have the 28/3.5 myself ....) : 42€, reasonable too 
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/28-mm-1-2-8-Minolta-MD-Rokkor-/172165384575?hash=item2815db497f:g:W3AAAOSwSzdXDPZj
Minolta MD 135/2.8 : 55€, which is a great compact telephoto/portrait lens
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/Minolta-MD-Rokkor-1-2-8-135-/131775607947?hash=item1eae70348b:g:4xEAAOSwr7ZW4Fwi
There are also quite a lot of 35-70/3.5 which are known to be very good lenses for video around 40€
As a bonus, there is a cute 45/2 pancake which usually goes for 50€ in auction
http://www.ebay.fr/itm/vintage-Minolta-MD-ROKKOR-45-mm-45mm-F-2-PANCAKE-LENS-/281999659321?hash=item41a87d5139:g:oLAAAOSwoudW8WdD
Anyway, This jut motivated me to do a full review of my Minolta lenses. As it is quite difficult to find complete reviews on the web for minolta lenses with video.
I'll set up a scene this weekend and compare all my lenses. Results to come :p

Here is a test with these both lenses.
My Opinion about the 35mm 1,8 is similar: a stunning lens! 
This is the Rokkor MC HH version. 
But the colors tend a bit more to blue/cold in comparison to the other Minoltas.
So, it will be interesting, if their are opinions about the MD version.
The 45mm f2 is a fantastic lens! very 3d-ish with nice colours.
The 24mm/2,8 is super sharp and a collaboration with Leica (more precisely a Minolta design used for the Leica 24mm f2.8 Elmarit-R).
 
 
 

4K is not needed just yet. The ursa mini 4.6k is great in lowlight. All the cameras listed have flaws.
So imo, get the one that suites your style of shooting the most. Do you need speed, audio, handheld? Those are the questions I would ask myself.

.
Äh, Sony nex 5n or so...

Still my favourite is the 5D Mark II especially as it is now so affordable used (£650)
Even without the Mosaic AA filter it's a beauty of an image and every bit as good as the 5D Mark III, if not actually even a bit more 'characterful' and less 'clean'!
There's no need to even consider anything newer, they're all far worse... although the 70D with dual pixel AF is quite a lot of fun with raw.
Problem is, the image isn't nearly as good as the 5D Mark II from all those years ago.
80D won't be getting raw any time soon I don't think.
ML probably have moved on a bit to be honest.
Canon had their chance to nurture something great... didn't...

The only canon camera before the 80d that was able to do 1080p 60fps was the 7d mark ii. i think they had trouble cracking it and it was to much trouble to be worth it.
Very true but im not gonna lie, the 5d mark iii raw is stil my favorite digital image out there under 15k.

All of the current conversation regarding Sony colour science seems almost right to me. 
Having been a Sony user for years, I find the colours from their cameras (in a pleasing, accurate way) to be inferior to Canon, Nikon and Blackmagic. 
Autumn Leaves is a good baked in look, however it's vastly limited by any grading, dynamic range and highlight roll off is steep. Might work for some, not for me. 
I've had some pleasing results from Slog2 custom profiles, however the result is always sort of pastel looking. For some stuff, this works great! (attached still from recent shoot, shot on A7S II + Sigma 18-35.) I guess it depends what you're shooting.
I find the Sony's are great for dark, edgy, gritty, surreal stuff like rock music videos. But for glamour, beauty, fashion, interviews, bright colourful work... there are better options. 

I just sold my A7rii today. After having it for a few months I had nothing but huge headaches. I did many test with a 4k video devices recorder. Besides the worst rolling shutter I've ever seen no one seems to be talking about the horrible judder when panning. At first I thought it was just I'm shooting in 24p and viewing on a computer monitor at 60hrz. But further test in every setting, shutter speed and frame rate seem to have far more than every other camera I've shot with. Another problem is in 60p and 24p 1080 the noise level is bad. I also kept getting bad moire and aliasing in full frame 4k and 1080p especially in the highlights.
Granted as a small compact photo camera it's frickin pretty awesome. But for video the image only looks good in crop mode 4k and as soon as it moves or things in it moves it falls apart. I barely took it on a shoot because of how much testing I had to figure out before I felt comfortable with all its down sides. And is not worth it.
I went back to my Nikon D750 with a external recorder for now until I decided what to get next, but even though the 1080p image is softer everything else is far better. Rolling shutter very little. Noise level very clean upto 6400. Slow motion just as good as the 24p and very smooth. Color science far better. Dynamic range little less. Post with it is super easy. It's a shame this camera has gotten no attention, but it such a reliable camera its what we wanted out of the 5D Mk iii but quickly forgot about with all the 4k cameras that just keep adding more new problems, headaches, time and money all for the sake to say its 4k.

You're telling everyone color science is "subjective" but this just looks like an instagram VSCO photo. I have trouble believing that anyone who shoots interviews a lot, thinks Sony color is fine and can be fixed with curves. Sony seems to do pretty nice in natural light, but so do a lot of cameras. The canon cameras handle mixed lighting really well.
Here is Philip Bloom's - Shot S-LOG 4K, Graded in film convert. It looks terrible. 
The price of the 1DXii is high, but the footage is going to look nice.

I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible.
For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow.
On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.

I’ll admit it, I use camera forums a lot.  Too much, probably. I use them to check out the latest cameras and lenses and lights and accessories. I waste about two hours a day on them.  Time I could spend watching “the View.”
When I started out shooting part-time in 2005, I got a DVX100 because a juggler who was a featured extra on a tv show called “Sons of Saddam” told me to.  “Cause it does 24p.”  I didn’t know what that meant, but I plunked down $3,000 - all the money I had in savings on this camera.  
The camera could have been a bust.  But I did it because a juggler who played one of Saddam’s sons goons said so.  That’s how easily influenced I am.
Then I bought a HVX200, not even testing it first.  “Cause it can do HD.”   I bought the Redrock micro adapter because I watched the work of MacGreggor and some other DPs back then do stuff on a Gorilla 35 lens adapter that hadn’t even come out.  I hadn’t even tried it first.  Just sent in my credit card info.  
Rinse and repeat.
All these periods of time I bought things just based on videos I saw shot on them. No tests - I didn’t understand tests.  Just videos shot with them and the opinions of people I respected.  I could look at screen grabs but just scroll down to their opinions.
Well finally 11 years later, I am seeing what I was doing - buying based on people’s emotions.  Based on the emotions of people whose work I liked.
This is fine to do, but it’s not always the smartest thing to do.  
There are several, maybe twenty influential figures online in the cinematography world.  David Mullen, Shane Hurlbut, John Brawley, Art Adams, Geoff Boyle, and of course Andrew Reid, come to mind as leaders who people follow and listen to.
Even the opinions of the above people and the other influencers are, in the end, just their opinions.
When someone says, “this to me screams filmic” or “this looks digital” - again, that’s all an opinion.  If they say, “that grade is terrible” or “man you nailed the skin tones” - again, that’s all opinion.  Even looking at test charts and camera tests, the results are subjective.  Aesthetic is subjective.  There are scientific tests, but they lead to opinions.  This isn’t pure math - this is an art form.
There is no such thing as filmic.
Everything is digital.  Film emulsions see the world differently, but they go through a digital intermediate.  They become digital .  And I think that’s probably about 99.9% of all films shot on celluloid.  Maybe a few hipsters shoot film and use a steinbeck, but they still upload their results to vimeo, which converts this to a h.264 file.
I have very strong opinions, and a lot of people have very strong opinions.  That’s why we work in film.  It’s an art form that is full of passionate people.  But I also have low self-esteem.  My whole nature of existence is based on others approval.  I’m getting better at trusting my own self, but this is my basis.  
I think maybe most artists have low self-esteem or why would they want to share their art?  Is it ego?  Or the attempt for others to connect?  Yes that’s part of it.  But whether you want to admit it or not, we love when people love our work.  We live off the feedback, or why would we check vimeo 5 times a day to see if someone commented?  Why else would we have awards?  Especially in an art field where awards are just based on opinions of a community who may or may not get your work?
Something is beautiful if you think it is.  You don’t need an oscar in cinematography to be happy with your lighting or camera movement or angle, or have your opinion mean anything less if you aren’t in the ASC.  Everyone brings something unique to the art form.  Everyone brings a new perspective that is needed, especially now, when everything feels pretty much the same.  

Regardless of the moire rating, it´s impressive how the overall IQ of the Red One MX stands out!
It´s like in a totally different league and I´m really interested what it is... what it makes so cinematic...
All of your images with the Red1mx impressed me this way. 
Seems to be a secret weapon:).
Congratulations that you have it!

A nice comparison 5dmarkII vs 5dmarkIII magic lantern raw. 
Both look very good, but you can see some aliasing issues on the 5dmk2:
 
 

True story: new A7S user says: "I don't need to get any lighting gear now I have the A7S"...
The world's best cinematographers will make a much better film with a smartphone than the average joe would with a Red Dragon and Cooke primes. Now with the accessible price of the URSA Mini, there will be volumes of negative comments blaming the camera for poorer than expected quality. 

Interesting article on nofilmschool:
Cameras Used by Sundance 2016 Filmmakers & Why They Chose Them
http://nofilmschool.com/2016/02/cameras-used-sundance-2016-filmmakers-why

Gorgeous pic!
Film still rules the galaxy.

Evil mattias :p The blur on the window made me think of medium format, it's this ver nice blur. The highlight color gave away it's film even before I zoomed in for the grain
 
Here's a dirty scan from Portra 400 with the Pentax 67, 75mm 2.8 AL (I might have posted this before). You can see this beautiful relation between blur and infocus (excuse the newton rings, shitty scanner without inserts)

New Noam Kroll 4.6k vid: