BrooklynDan

Panavision C-series is THE look. That is what everyone thinks of when they imagine the ideal anamorphic image. Blade Runner, Die Hard. Alien, Pulp Fiction. Chinatown. Punch-Drunk Love. The list goes on and on. It's the perfect combination of crisp blue flares, fall-off, vignetting, creamy bokeh, vertical breathing and barrel distortion. Entire films have been shot on the 40mm lens alone.
That said, there's a set of Lomo Roundfronts at the rental house where I work, and they look pretty sweet as well. Lots of distortion, unpredictable flares and aberrations, all the weird funky shit you get with old Soviet glass. I love 'em.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

Oh hell yeah. Used Alexa packages are getting soooooo cheap. They're really taking the piss out of the Red market. You can have a used Alexa now for what used to be the price of a brand new Red One. 90% of people I know would rather shoot Arri over anything else. The only barrier to entry is the weight, power requirements (it has a serious hunger for juice), and necessity for PL mount glass. But new cheap PL mount sets are getting released every month, and once the Minis and Amiras hit the used market complete with EF mount option and in-camera QHD ProRes, it's gonna be over. Finished and done.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

The XL2 was my favorite camera in film school. So ergonomic and fun to use. I wish that Canon had stuck with this form factor. And the motion cadence was excellent. Despite the tiny chip, it looked much more filmic to me than the DSLRs we replaced it with.
One of my sophomore exercises:
 

I think what's beginning to be increasingly obvious is that Canon is seriously limited in its ability to install high-capacity processing power into its products, which is a big reason why so many of its cameras seem crippled compared to the competition. Now, there is market segmentation at play here in regards to the cheaper cameras. Canon is obviously trying to protect the Cinema EOS division by limiting the feature-set in the DSLR range. But the C700 is top of the line. There's nothing above it, and yet it still looks inferior on paper compared to the Varicam, Amira and F55.
One of the reasons why the NX1 seemed so advanced when it came out was because Samsung is the second largest manufacturer of semiconductors in the world. Sony is up there too. So is Panasonic. Canon (and Nikon as well) is a camera-maker first, electronics-maker second. So the hardware is always gonna be a step behind, even if the color science and image quality is there. At the same time, Canon serves a mass market and needs to use economies of scale, unlike Red and Arri, which are tiny companies in the scheme of things, but use pricey halo products in order to develop bespoke hardware that trickles down to lesser models. Scarlets were made from rejected Epic sensors. The Raven is a Weapon 8K sensor cut in half. The development put into the Alexa 65 made the Alexa Mini possible. People forget that an Alexa SXT costs over $100,000. If Canon made a camera at that price, would it be world-beating? And would that hypothetical technology trickle down to lessor models?

It looks....nice. But not really a winner. There aren't many distinguishing characteristics, and the body design looks very derivative. It looks like the Varicam 35 and the Sony F55 had a baby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I was hoping for something more akin to a Canon XL2 in terms of shape. And at the price, it's just way too easy to step up to an Amira. Hell, you can have a used Alexa with a 4:3 sensor for that price and be shooting on the best camera on the planet.
I'm sure it shoots a pretty image though. We'll see if that and the hallowed Canon name is enough to move units.

It looks....nice. But not really a winner. There aren't many distinguishing characteristics, and the body design looks very derivative. It looks like the Varicam 35 and the Sony F55 had a baby, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I was hoping for something more akin to a Canon XL2 in terms of shape. And at the price, it's just way too easy to step up to an Amira. Hell, you can have a used Alexa with a 4:3 sensor for that price and be shooting on the best camera on the planet.
I'm sure it shoots a pretty image though. We'll see if that and the hallowed Canon name is enough to move units.

At the rental house where I work, the MK II definitely sat on the shelves for a long time while the FS7 worked all day, every day. Lately though, the MK II has been picking up steam, and we've invested in a few more as we start to replace our aging pile of C300 MK Is. But it still has a long way to go to catch up. That said, I can imagine that Canon has been feeling the squeeze, which is why they lowered the price drastically. And while it's still pricer than the FS7 despite the slightly inferior specs, it's not unreasonable considering that the build quality is far superior. The FS7 feels like cheap plastic crap and breaks often. The MK II (as well as the other C-series cameras) is a beast, and holds up to production rigors much better. And the color science is on another level entirely. The Canon RAW output approaches the Reds and Arris as far as color reproduction and dynamic range is concerned. I'm amazed every time I plug an Odyssey 7Q in.
The original C300 is a legend, though, and I expect it to continue working for a long time. It's in the same league as the Arri 2C and Eclair NPR as far as its importance as a documentary and low budget filmmaking camera.

At the rental house where I work, the MK II definitely sat on the shelves for a long time while the FS7 worked all day, every day. Lately though, the MK II has been picking up steam, and we've invested in a few more as we start to replace our aging pile of C300 MK Is. But it still has a long way to go to catch up. That said, I can imagine that Canon has been feeling the squeeze, which is why they lowered the price drastically. And while it's still pricer than the FS7 despite the slightly inferior specs, it's not unreasonable considering that the build quality is far superior. The FS7 feels like cheap plastic crap and breaks often. The MK II (as well as the other C-series cameras) is a beast, and holds up to production rigors much better. And the color science is on another level entirely. The Canon RAW output approaches the Reds and Arris as far as color reproduction and dynamic range is concerned. I'm amazed every time I plug an Odyssey 7Q in.
The original C300 is a legend, though, and I expect it to continue working for a long time. It's in the same league as the Arri 2C and Eclair NPR as far as its importance as a documentary and low budget filmmaking camera.

Any of these cameras, if handled properly with a modicum of lighting and color correction expertise, will produce a feature film-quality image, 4K or HD, 8-bit or RAW, full frame or micro 4/3. Stop complaining and shoot something. Back in the day, I used to drop what my C100 cost on film and processing for a single project. Now I can shoot many projects. With an 8-bit 4:2:0 image that'll hold up on any screen. And I can play back my dailies instantly.
Seriously, as time has gone on, people have been getting more and more disgruntled, despite the fact that the wealth of technology at our fingertips is simply staggering. I don't get it.

Annnnndddd......Samyang just killed the game. Great choice for a fast, wide focal length.

I'm afraid that the Varicam LT will be a dud with rental houses, if only because of the bad taste left over from the original Varicam 35. Despite all the good features, excellent codecs and good image quality, it was a total failure. We have one at the rental house where I work and it only went out a couple of times, which means that it never came close to recouping what it cost to buy.
Anyway, the Dragon still works, and works a lot. It's very versatile, has great options for frame rates and format sizes, and can be stripped down for gimbal use, or built up with an Optimo and all the trimmings. That said, it's beloved mostly by those who grew up shooting DSLRs and are comfortable with the idea that a camera should be modular and customizable. Older cameraman take comfort in the Alexa and the fact that there's one choice of baseplate, one choice of handle, one choice of shoulder pad, etc.
Also, what really keeps RED in second place is the reliability and durability. They freak out a lot. Crash for no reason. Have glitches. Require a very knowledgeable touch. It can be a burden for the cameraman who wants to focus on the craft and the artistry, but must instead spend many hours soaking up technical minutia just to keep his camera running smoothly. I received several hours of instruction on the RED system at my job, and feel that I need several DAYS more in order to really wrap my head around it. Meanwhile, I figured out an Amira in 20 minutes basically on my own.

After spending several months servicing both Canon and Sony cameras at a rental house, Canon's decisions are starting to make sense to me. While they clearly follow a strict marketing playbook and parse out features according to what they perceive as end user needs (like giving LOG to their cinema cameras only), they do spend they time and effort to provide a quality product that lasts. Sony just tends to cram in as much processing power as possible without considering how it might best be used. The FS5 for example cannot output via SDI during 4K recording. The signal just cuts out, so you're pretty screwed if you're using an on-board monitor. The FS7 must be manually switched between SDI and HDMI. It won't do both at the same time. The menus on the Canons are quick and responsive. The ones on the FS7 lag and make you wait for every setting. Takes 25 minutes to upload new firmware. The FS5 is constantly repairing it's image database. And all Sonys are incredibly touchy when it comes to folder structure on the memory cards. God forbid you put in a memory card you used on a different camera, and the Sony won't even be able to access the card in order to format it.
I've also gone on and on about how poorly they're built. The C100 and C300 come with a crisp magnesium chassis that is impervious to dents, dirt and scrapes. So while you might not be getting the 4K resolution and high frame rates that you might feel are necessary, you are getting a solid tool that will last long beyond product cycles. Arri brings the same philosophy which is why Oscar-winning movies keep being shot on Alexas, shot in 2.8K. Solid quality over flashy specs.

The difference between the Bolex H16 and the D-Bolex is that the original one utilized a form-follows-function philosophy, while the Digital Bolex was the opposite. The Bolex looked that way for a reason, and I believe that it is one of the most elegant cameras ever made. Everything on it has a purpose, and they were a joy to use. I spent many hours with one in my hand back in school, and I never stopped getting a kick out of loading Ektachrome in broad daylight, and winding up that crank.
The Digital Bolex was just weird. I loved the image that came out of it. It certainly looked the shit. But how do you handle it? That tear-drop shape has no logic to it, you had to get an external viewfinder just to put it to your eye the way Bolexes were meant to be used, and didn't anybody learn from the FS100 that having a built-in monitor on top of the camera is pointless? And a built-in hard drive? What happen if it fails? You don't want to know how many memory cards I have to toss away at work. Outside of professional media like Codex drives or Sony SxS cards, it's a very touch-and-go situation. The off-the-shelf SSDs are not reliable enough in my opinion, which is why Convergent Design builds their own, and why I want to smash these Atomos recorders on the floor along with they're Samsung SSDs which were built for laptops, not cameras.
I think that there is room in the market for a retro-style 16mm digital camera. But it will need a much more functional design, and a lower price tag. Something like a Super 8 camera crossed with a Handycam.
That said, I wished that they would have gotten to release a super 35mm camera. Maybe one inspired by the Eclair Cameflex, another timeless camera design. A Digital Cameflex if you will. Complete with Kinoptik-styled prime lenses and a Franscope anamorphic adapter. Now that's a camera I would pay the going rate for.
C'est la vie.
 

I developed the color science and did all my tests with the camera on Windows. There's the free HFS explorer tool, or you can buy HFS drivers for Windows for 20 USD.
If we were to make other cameras, I think a D35 and a D16 mk II based on EMCCDs would be my preference.
The D16 mk II would hopefully be based on the KAE-02150. So 30fps, 14+ EV of DR without any of the highlight reconstruction. That's without any noise reduction in the circuitry of the sensor or in the software, so it'd keep the same mojo of the D16.
The D35 is more of a dream camera for me. Nothing like it currently exists. I actually made a list a while ago and posted on our user group that Joe was actually on board with had the funding been there to pursue it. It'd basically be an EMCCD version of our sensor, but double the dimensions and resolution horizontally and increase the dimension vertically enough to achieve 16:9.

It's definitely effective in the right hands. I did extensive testing with a 50mm L-series at f1.2, and it followed focus quite organically, maybe not as fast as a human focus puller, but it manages to work without that harsh stepping effect that autofocus motors are known for. As far as alternatives, there are a few systems that seem to provide auto focus from manufacturers like Red Rock Micro, CMotion and Andra, but as far as I know, they're mostly prototypes, probably very expensive, and requires lots of rigging and bolting motors and sonar transmitters to your camera.

I service cameras all day long at a rental house, and it seems to me that as product development cycles have sped up, build quality has gone down. I get FS5s and FS7s coming back from shoots and they are simply in an appalling state. Not built for field work at all. Back in the day, the F3 was a tank. Simply a tank. That camera and other cameras built under their CineAlta banner got much better quality materials. The consumer/prosumer cameras....not so much. I was helping a fellow tech attach a battery grip to an A7S II yesterday. Couldn't get it to work. They sometimes go out six at a time, like GoPros, and come back with two or three in need of repair. These are toys, not professional cameras.
That said, Canon isn't immune. I've had to take multiple C300 MK IIs out of commission in the last few weeks due to failing ND wheels. The motors seem to burn out quickly. Meanwhile, original C300s keep on chugging after years of punishment and abuse in the field.
Canon DSLRs (as well as Nikon ones) are rock solid, though. You can give them shit for taking forever to upgrade and add features, but they take their time and build heavy-duty, reliable gear.

Apologies in advance if this is widely known.  Personally, I've never found a really good explanation of why front anamorphs produce oval bokeh and rear anamorphs don't, despite reading my fair share of patents, technical papers, internet gossip and the like.  Feeling that my own understanding needed some firming up I finally set up some paraxial models and went through the math in gory detail.  It all boils down to how front and rear converters alter (or don't alter) the f/#, and basic DOF type circle of confusion calculations.  It has nothing to do with higher order aberrations, or the shape of the front lens, or various mechanical aspects of the lens.
Briefly:
1) A front anamorph is just a special case of a front afocal attachment, and as a result it preserves the f/# of the lens its attached to.  With an anamorphic front lens the focal length is shorter in the powered axis than in the non-powered axis.  For example, consider a 2:1 anamorph attached to a 100mm f/2 spherical lens.  In this case the net focal length is 50mm in the powered axis and 100mm in the non-powered axis, but in both cases the aperture remains f/2.  If you venture into the weeds to do circle of confusion calculations for a given object-space defocus you discover that a de-focused point source evaluated at the image plane is an ellipse with an aspect ratio of 4:1.  However, you only need to de-squeeze the image by 2x to correct the in-focus geometry, so you are left with de-focused ellipses with an aspect ratio of 2:1.
2) A rear anamorph is just a special case of a rear-mounted teleconverter, and as a result it *does not* preserve the f/# of the lens its attached to.  In particular, in the powered axis the aperture becomes slower.  For example, consider an 50mm f/2 spherical lens with a 2x rear anamorph.  Here the net focal length is 100mm in the powered axis, but the aperture has dropped to f/4, and is still 50mm f/2 in the non-powered axis.  When you do the circle of confusion calculations with object-space defocus you find the on-sensor defocused image to be an ellipse with a 2:1 aspect ratio.  When you desqueeze by 2x this defocus ellipse becomes a perfect circle.
Bottom Line:  Rear anamorphs have circular bokeh because they *don't* preserve the f/# of the spherical lens in both axes, while front anamorphs have elliptical bokeh because they *do* preserve the f/# of the spherical lens in both axes.

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field.
Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence!
My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

I own a C100 MK I. It just works. No frills. Pro XLR connections and audio controls at your finger-tips. Just simple reliability in an easy-to-throw-around form factor. Perfect for roving around an arena and getting up close and personal with the players.

You got double the sensor real estate to cover compared to full frame. It's got to be an incredibly fast readout, or the image is gonna be mush. Especially with the shallow depth-of-field.
Until recently, medium format cameras used CCDs. CMOS sensors are actually a recent development in this arena. Maybe going back to those would be a smart idea. Imagine the motion cadence!
My dream would be a 645 sensor purpose-built for video with a lower pixel count. Maybe 6K or 8K spread out over a 60mm-wide sensor area. Bigger pixels = low-light monster. And then use the space between the pixels for the circuitry required for a global shutter.

I've been handling and playing around with medium format Hasselblad and Phase One cameras at my job, and let me just say, the look is something special. It's not just the depth of field. You can get similar results with fast lenses on full frame. Medium format glass tends to be slower. 2.8 or 4 max. But the visual prespective of 645 is unique. The 50mm is a wide angle. You get amazing separation between foreground and background. It's a rich, layered look that you just can't get on a smaller format.
I can't wait until medium format video becomes a thing, but it's gonna be a tough road to get there. The cameras are staggeringly expensive ($40K and up), and getting clean, jello-free 4K from the entire 50mp+ sensors will be a technical nightmare.