BrooklynDan

I don't think that Super 35/APS-C will be going anytime soon. For photography, maybe, but for motion pictures it is by far the most developed format. It's the perfect equilibrium between sensor size, lens size and depth-of-field. And while full-frame does have a tremendous range of optics available, it doesn't have the specific range that's desired by professional filmmakers. Look at the Leica Summilux primes. From 16mm to 100mm, all super-fast at 1.4, all the same exact size and with an identical front diameter. The Master Primes go from 14mm to 135mm, all virtually the same size and weight, at 1.3. This is something that would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in full frame format. I've never seen a full frame lens wider than 20mm that's faster than T2. Ditto for a full frame lens longer than 85mm. And for people harping about depth-of-field, 1.4 on Super 35 is about equal to 2 on full frame. Hell, if you really got a hard-on for shallow depth-of-field, pick up the new Vantage Ones  at T1 for large-format style razor-thin DOF craziness. Either way, the options are there in Super 35.
And I haven't even gotten to all the other types of glass. An entire universe of zooms, macros, tilt-shift, periscope, vintage, anamorphic, and all other manner of specialty and custom glass. Spend ten minutes browsing the shelves of Panavision and see how much is available to you in Super 35.

It definitely can't hurt to have a 4K camera. Despite the fact that we're still largely in a 2K world, in 5-10 when 4K becomes universal, it will prove beneficial to have a 4K master backed up. However, a little knowledge can be dangerous. I know for a fact that those same producers who demand that you use a 4K camera, even a cheap one like the GH4 or Black Magic 4K would gladly take an Alexa, even though it shoots 2K ProRes (I know it can do Arriraw but practically nobody under a seven-figure budget does). Because all they need to know is that it's the camera Avengers was shot on. Status is everything.

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor.
This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates?
That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

​I went to Arri CSC recently. They had an Arri D21 for sale for 6 grand, 10 grand with an S.Two recorder. It's got a 4:3 sensor based on Arri's laser film scanner technology, so it's designed to emulate film's exposure curve as closely as possible. Ready to go for anamorphic. Spinning mirror viewfinder from a 435. Not saying I wasn't tempted, but especially with the S.Two hung off the back (an EOL piece of gear), it's a heavy beast, but hey, you won't find Arriraw available for less.

I'm just looking forward to the day when Alexas hit the four-figure price point as well. We're just now seeing first-gen Alexa EVs touch 30K. It's got all the mojo you could ever want, but it's a bit more practical than the first generation of digital cinema cameras (F35, D21, Origin, Genesis, Viper). One thing Arri learned from the D21 program is that users wanted internal recording. Thus the SxS module on Alexa (and now the Codex inside the Alexa XT). And of course the F35 also requires a solution, somethings besides that giant SRW-1 that usually comes with it.

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor.
This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates?
That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor.
This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates?
That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

I recently had to give my laptop in for repair. It's going to take about two to three weeks. I had been working on a feature film screenplay at the time, and had started on a second draft, but the work was proceeding very slowly. Browsing the web and watching stuff was what was taking up the majority of my free time. I don't have cable in my house, do not have a smartphone, and my computer was also my DVD player. Without it, I have essentially been sent back to the 1950s. So I order to stay productive, I decided to continue working on my script....longhand. And writing it out on paper without the benefit of instant rewrites or having the first draft in front of me has really boosted my productivity. I write more pages per day, and think about things very carefully before putting them down on paper. Because if I want to rewrite something, I have to remove the page, and rewrite all of the stuff on it. I have a growing stack of rejected pages in the folder of my binder.
Then, after I finish writing, I go to the gym (something else I was loath to do with a Netflix Instant account constantly in front of me), then I retire with one of the many books I have on my shelf that I was meaning to read but never bothered to before I lost my computer. It's a true creative's life.
That said, I will hug and kiss my laptop when I get it back from repair. This little vacation from the world of electronic devices was fun, but eight hours of web-surfing is one of the few things that makes me forget about my stresses. It's like a bottle of liquor or a joint. It helps you escape reality. I just hope that I maintain at least part of the discipline I have developed.

I recently had to give my laptop in for repair. It's going to take about two to three weeks. I had been working on a feature film screenplay at the time, and had started on a second draft, but the work was proceeding very slowly. Browsing the web and watching stuff was what was taking up the majority of my free time. I don't have cable in my house, do not have a smartphone, and my computer was also my DVD player. Without it, I have essentially been sent back to the 1950s. So I order to stay productive, I decided to continue working on my script....longhand. And writing it out on paper without the benefit of instant rewrites or having the first draft in front of me has really boosted my productivity. I write more pages per day, and think about things very carefully before putting them down on paper. Because if I want to rewrite something, I have to remove the page, and rewrite all of the stuff on it. I have a growing stack of rejected pages in the folder of my binder.
Then, after I finish writing, I go to the gym (something else I was loath to do with a Netflix Instant account constantly in front of me), then I retire with one of the many books I have on my shelf that I was meaning to read but never bothered to before I lost my computer. It's a true creative's life.
That said, I will hug and kiss my laptop when I get it back from repair. This little vacation from the world of electronic devices was fun, but eight hours of web-surfing is one of the few things that makes me forget about my stresses. It's like a bottle of liquor or a joint. It helps you escape reality. I just hope that I maintain at least part of the discipline I have developed.

I agree, and not just because of the customs issue. When it comes to brick batteries, it's absolutely worth it to stretch a bit and get the name-brand stuff. Li batteries can be very volatile. You're packing a lot of energy into a small rectangle. Well-established brands like Anton Bauer, IDX, Switronix and Bebob have the proper cut-off switches and over-charge detectors both in the battery and in the chargers. You can leave them on blast overnight and not worry about them exploding. Many a house/hotel room/camera truck has been destroyed by unattended overseas Chinese knock-off batteries left on recharge.
You can go ahead and cut corners on rigs, rods, matteboxes, follow focuses, stabilizers and other things that won't explode. But for V-mount or AB mount battery, buy from the top shelf. Safety first!
(I'm aware I'm being a total jewish mom right now)

The quality is superb. Maybe even better than when using the FM + Cinelux with regular primes. Employing the actual backing projector lenses just makes everything gel together beautifully. The look is more than a match for any vintage anamorphic prime lens. You'd be hard-pressed to get better sharpness with a Lomo or Cineovision, especially at T2.
I wish that FM would actually go and make an anamorphic element specifically for the module, as well as a line of backing lenses. Make a complete system.

The quality is superb. Maybe even better than when using the FM + Cinelux with regular primes. Employing the actual backing projector lenses just makes everything gel together beautifully. The look is more than a match for any vintage anamorphic prime lens. You'd be hard-pressed to get better sharpness with a Lomo or Cineovision, especially at T2.
I wish that FM would actually go and make an anamorphic element specifically for the module, as well as a line of backing lenses. Make a complete system.