DamienMTL

I saw this yesterday & yes, the sound was way too loud - so loud it felt that my eardrums were about to burst. I think the problem is definitely with modern sound mixing - there is too much contrast between the quiet & loud sequences. But in modern cineplexes, they have to raise the volume to drown out the air con, which i could still hear, and the other films, which i could also hear at times - real shame.
The film itself was great Sci-Fi & my reasoning is that 24hrs later i'm still thinking about it - something i can't say about most Hollywood films ATM. There is so much detail in this film that most of the comments concerning this film have missed or ignored. I do believe that the original has been put on so high a pedestal that most people have overlooked the fact that it is a deeply flawed, imperfect film - it looks great & the story is ok. But.....it's very simplistic considering the original source material, which is rich with ideas & provokes so many interesting concepts - what great Sci-Fi should do since its a comment on our present society. But what really bugs me about the original is which version is everyone putting on a pedestal? There are how many versions? Personally, the Original version & the Final Cut are both great, but have slightly different ideas running through them & I have always regarded them in equal admiration - 2 for the price of 1.
SPOILERS, BIG ONES!
There's so much in this film, it's difficult to know how to unpack it all - the end seems as good a place as any to start. The fact that the daughter (the best freelance memory creator) has manipulated replicants in order to facilitate her search for her father is absolute genius. The falling snow on K's hand & then the cut to her creating the snow memory live, makes you realise that K really is her Pinocchio. He's her puppet that she's been manipulating, through her implanted memory of the horse story, along with the other rebel replicants who all think they are the miracle baby (or should that be Messiah - a common Sci-Fi concept) at some point in their journey towards manipulated enlightenment.
The similiarites between the 2 films is also interesting: in the first, the replicants are striving for immortality & the meaning of mortality, which is a common human trait & Sci-Fi concept (the first reconisable Sci-Fi story, The Modern Prometheus aka Frankenstein dealt with issues of immortality/mortality & replacing God with science etc.); in the second, they can live as long as the buyer likes, but have been altered to become selfless to the requirements of humans (Asimov's laws of robotics), thus eradicating selfishness - a very human flaw. The replicants aren't "More Human, Than Human", that is just pure advertising - they are flawed precisely because their makers are flawed.
I thought the best concept in the film was the interaction between the K & Joi - 2 AI's trying to communicate/interact with one another. Again the Pinocchio theme, when Joi supplants herself onto the body of the prostitute & it appears like she is a puppeteer, placing her hands on K. But what is most interesting about this relationship is that Joi is the one that feels & craves to be closer to K - she rents the prostitute, she feels the rain & most importantly, she says "I love you". K is not fully formed (his programming prohibits him because he is physically present), he's not a real boy & it is Joi that is trying to teach him because she hasn't had those emotional traits surpressed (she's a hologram designed to alleviate loneliness). Again, there is also the question of whether Joi is just a construct being used by someone else (the daughter or Wallace Corp) to manipulate K. Finally, this interaction reminds me of that recent discovery when programmers let 2 AI's talk to each other & found that they created a new language in order to communicate with each other more easily/effectively - begging the question of what would happen if they hadn't stopped the experiment.
I could write about this film for hours, it really is such a rich film with so many interesting concepts that have been presented from differing points of view.
Predictions for the future - if the film does well enough, they have left the door open for another film (probably a big action blockbuster), but as it is this film will only get more interesting with more viewings.
 
 

Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties.
The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important.
Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.

You read my mind! I thought about that a long time ago and I think this would be awesome.

Looking forward to the video. :-)
You are right, mechanical is an important part of the system. At this point, I don't have time to develop a one for all type of single focus solution, the focus will be on the image quality, sharpness & neutral color flares. 
After this, I will probably provide lens rehouse service, which rehouse the single focus solution & the anamorphic lens as one single lens. Then all the mechanical side of the design will be addressed. 
 

Hi that sounds really good!
if you are working on a new single focus device and it's still in R&D, I would highly suggest you work also on the mechanical part of it.
The perfect single focus device would have a front filter thread/ring that does not rotate, to be able to mount a clip-on mattebox in exemple. the competitors does not have it and it's really annoying.
also the distance travelled by the focusing ring is too long both on the "SLR magic range finder" and on the Core DNA. if you can develop a system that does not travel, that would be awesome and would allow to fix the mattebox bracket to the rods steadily and not letting it slide on them.
- fixed/non rotating front filter/ring for standard cinema clip on mattebox
- non travelling focus ring
- neutral color flares
- metric and imperial marks
-  for the price of the rangefinder
 
if you have the 5  features, your system will sell millions of them!
Good luck in your R&D
 

Hi that sounds really good!
if you are working on a new single focus device and it's still in R&D, I would highly suggest you work also on the mechanical part of it.
The perfect single focus device would have a front filter thread/ring that does not rotate, to be able to mount a clip-on mattebox in exemple. the competitors does not have it and it's really annoying.
also the distance travelled by the focusing ring is too long both on the "SLR magic range finder" and on the Core DNA. if you can develop a system that does not travel, that would be awesome and would allow to fix the mattebox bracket to the rods steadily and not letting it slide on them.
- fixed/non rotating front filter/ring for standard cinema clip on mattebox
- non travelling focus ring
- neutral color flares
- metric and imperial marks
-  for the price of the rangefinder
 
if you have the 5  features, your system will sell millions of them!
Good luck in your R&D
 

Check out the test video of the Rapido Single Focus Solution, my setup is as follows:
Camera: GH4 Taking Lens: Rokion 85mm T1.5 Cine Lens for CANON Anamorphic Lens:  KOWA for Bell & Howell Anamorphic Clamp: Rapido V2 Clamp ISO setting: 1600 Shutter speed: 400 Aperture: T1.5 Video format: MOV, FHD Aspect ratio: 3.556:1 (1920:1080 with 2X anamorphic squeeze) The minimum focus is 1 meter. Different anamorphic lenses are used as focus targets,  set between 1 meter and 2.5 meters from the camera.  The video shows racking focusing from close focus to infinity.
The aperture is kept wide open at T1.5. There is no sharpness drop comparing to the original Kowa & Rokinon combination, and there is no change of the original flare/bokeh character from the anamorphic lens.  This is the main difference comparing to other Single Focus Solutions, like SLR Magics, FM Module, and Rectilux.
More test videos will be uploaded soon.
Youtube video is here: https://youtu.be/h96fqNsKpEI
Vimeo video is here: https://vimeo.com/206798264  (better resolution)
Music: Cloud by Ehrling, link: https://soundcloud.com/ehrling/ehrling-clouds

16-H and SLR Magic Rangefinder.

It's actually an adapter made by Vocas for mounting a PL to E-mount adapter. The inner clamp diameter is a fraction bigger than the outer diameter of a Redstan clamp...with a thin layer of felt tape applied on the inside, It resolves the issue perfectly. It gives a very secure grip, as well as avoiding metal on metal damage when cranking down on the clamp support to lock everything tight. Here is my other setup with the B&H attached.

I can reccomend the lens turbo II (by mitakon) if you can (it's almost as good as the speedbooster). But i'm pretty sure you'll vignette with the mir-1B + speedbooster

I used to shoot with FD50mm+ Speedbooster and get no vignette.
But same configuration plus Rangefinder and I get a light vignette in corners.
My helios 44-2 (58mm) dont vignette, but cant get perfect infinity focus with kowa 16H wich is esential for the rangefinder to work.

I don't know the weight of mine. I just bought a 52 to 50mm step down ring to attach it cheap. I also ordered a custom support bracket for 15mm rails. you can get an Heliopan 49 to 50mm for taking lens such as Helios 44-2. I also use it with a mir-1B 37mm 2.8 and it's beautiful. I'll get in touch with your guy on ebay. I would love to just have to focus one lens. To be honest double focusing makes shooting nearly impossible on a pro environment.

Charts are great for stills, but in video the image is continuously changing, with usually varying lighting. E.g., if a camera pans, are you going to put your chart in beginning of the pan or the end? Unless your lighting is relatively uniform, charts are kind of useless IMO. Obviously you'd typically want to color balance while recording, but it'll almost always be necessary to eye-ball the shot as you correct in post, which is really simple anyway unless the recording format makes it hard. Which brings us to the necessity to record in a way that allows for flexibility in grading (RAW, log, 10/12 bit, etc.).

​No. It's thorough and reasonable.
​A misunderstandig. Profiles with cine in their name usually refer to very neutral values. They are also called flat. That means they have a very flat gamma curve applied. For 8-bit this results in (hypothetically) 256 luminance values almost evenly spread. By grading this flat video, you can apply your own curve in post ...
*BUT*
There is a reason that profiles like landscape or portrait exist. I elaborate on these two examples. With a landscape, you have the sky in the image. It is (really!) a few thousand times as bright as the rocks in the shadow. To depict this sky in it's glory, you need quite a big portion of the 256 on the bright side of the spectrum. But you also like to see the rocks. So many values get spared for the lower mids. The least values remain for the mids. Someone walks by. His/her face may be of natural 'porange' (pink-orange, term coined by Magic-Bullet guru Stu Maschwitz), given you had roughly the right WB and exposure, but it looks like a colorized pancake nonetheless. Because for natural and rich skin tones, you also need well quantized mids, and those weren't baked in the 8-bit video. In portait mode, you may have a sky that looks like watercolored, but the person will look good.
Think of it like audio frequencies. You have a camcorder stereo mic and a person in the street ten feet away, saying something important. Bad choice. You'd try and use the microphone that prefers voice frequencies, a lav perhaps. 
Only with raw (where nothing but the bare signals are stored) you can hope to change colors completely. You have better chances with 10-bit (Shogun?), but generally it's a good idea to record neutral and many colors. Avoid clipping, avoid underexposure, choose a profile that fits, expose skin tones @ 50% in the histogram, if they are important.
 

I am thinking about buying the lumix GH4 and this is clearly a top contender.
I use a x2 anamorphic kowa 8-Z and I don't feel like using 16:9 then crop sides and lose something to get à true 2:35 ratio.
If the Samsung has a true 1.33 ratio mode with HiQuality codec I won't hesitate twice.