mercer

The shot of the girl's hair is insane. Good stuff.

Hey I don't mean any ill will towards the BMPCC (I've wanted one forever) or the G7 (I have one and love it - probably the best camera I have ever owned) But for $150 for full HD raw... It's a no-brainer. Of course, for some reason I thought the 50D was a full frame camera. But I guess if you already own a BMPCC, then I see why you might hesitate.

Google videos and you'll see the point. Better yet here's one by somebody who goes by Planetarium on Vimeo. Freakin' amazing!!!

I was messing around with 720p raw on the eos-m a few months back, but it just wasn't stable enough for me. For very short work, it is usable but the audio issues are a pain. To use .mlv raw, you would basically get one take with audio and then the camera would freeze up. Very frustrating. I loved the image, but the workflow is tedious especially the pink dots. I believe the 50D has stable full 1080p raw, which is amazing. So, if you can get a work around with audio, then I would go for it. I don't know how well the image matches up with the BMPCC, but the 50d could be a perfect b cam.

At that price, I would say it makes perfect sense. The biggest drawback, IMO to the 50d Raw is the lack of audio to help synch up dual sound, but not impossible. Great camera for music videos though, I guess.

I am actually glad this came up because I just started experimenting with ETTR and since different cameras have different ways in which their exposure guides work, it can be a little confusing. Isn't it just Exposing To The Right (obviously) just below clipping, by using zebras or the histogram as your guide? If I am correct, then that's what Riccardo said he was doing.

Yeah Ricardo, those look beautiful. Really, really good stuff there. Did you use the Custom picture profile? And are you still underexposing?

On the G7, the UHD crop is 2x. So, why would I have to add another 1.2?

Looks great!!! They were with the FD lenses, yeah? Have you tested your Nikkors yet?

Thanks guys! I keep forgetting the FL/FOV differences. Makes perfect sense now.

So, I recently purchased the G7 and it is the first camera where I can utilize a speed booster. I don't have the budget for a metabones, so I am looking at a Roxsen or RJ Turbo. Obviously, I was curious what focal lengths could be achieved with a speed booster, so I hit Google, but with my research, I feel like I am even more confused. Basically, it seems there are a lot of misconceptions about what the formula is for determining focal length with a speedbooster. I was under the impression it was... • Lens Focal Length X Crop Factor X Speed Booster Focal Reduction = Speed Booster Focal Length? Let's say I am using a 28mm lens on a MFT with a Roxsen speed booster... • 28mm X 2 X 0.72 = 40mm But then over at DPreview and a few other sites, forum members are stating that it's just 28mm X 0.72 = 20mm? So, which is it... Do you still multiply the 2x crop factor for micro 4/3rds, or is that negated when you add a speed booster. Sorry, I am sure this has been discussed to death, but this is my first adventure with speed boosters and have never had a reason to investigate them.

Yes, Sekhar, exactly what I was thinking. I guess I understand having a master in h.265 ( I would rather have a prores master) but for web delivery QuickTime is king, so h.264 mov is your best bet. IMO.

Why would you want to export to h.265?

Is that the Rikenon M42? Or a Domiplain? Oh wait, it's the Schneider Edixa. Damn, now you have me intrigued. I love f/2, f/2.8 lenses.

It is my understanding that you do not lose information, it's just way the information is delegated, or flagged. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/9218-nx1-16-235-vs-0-255/

Does it happen with manual lenses too?

The 0-255 vs the 16-235 is one of the biggest debates floating around the web. In fact there are probably a half dozen posts about it on eoshd alone. I think if you have any hopes, or expectations of having your work broadcasted, you should just stick with 16-235.

Am I right in assuming that color charts work best with log or raw footage?

Color Finale is updating its plug in to include support for the X-rite color chart. I have never used one. Hell, I am just starting to understand LUTS. Does anyone know of a good basic LUT that will get skin tones pretty close. I have been testing my G7 and so far like the Tetracolor from Impulz the best. But maybe I need to get me one of them there color charts... As if I would know what to do with it.

I've said this a thousand times, I'd rather an interesting lens give me an in camera look than relying heavily on post... Especially since I am not that good at it yet. Anyway, the Nikons sound awesome. There's a bunch of articles online that specifically state... if you don't have Zeiss or Leica, old Nikkors will give you a nice cinematic look. Thanks for those vivid settings... Will give them a go the next time I go out.

It must have been someone else. Nah, nothing special. It is just a cheap 28mm m42 lens I had bought but it has really interesting swirly bokeh. Anyway, hope you post some of the other shorts.

You know, I feel the exact same way. I'm sure I'm going to get beat up around this thread for stating this, but although the native lenses are sharp and clean, I think they have a sterile aesthetic. But I feel the same way about the 4K. To me, straight up 4K looks brittle, that's why I downscale all my footage to 1080p at conversion. Idk, I just think it looks weightier, heavier. I messed around with the Nikons a little on my 500 and they look good.

Damn you went to town. You should love that 85mm... Everybody does. The 35mm f/1.4 gets mixed reviews, but everything I've seen from it was slick, but I love that focal length. I had a Minolta MC 35mm f/1.8 that was effin awesome, but I was short on cash so I sold it... And I wanted something similar in MD, so I eventually ended up getting the Minolta MD 28mm f/2, which is a great lens... It doesn't have the same character as the MC 35 but it's more practical. I am actually selling off a couple Nikkors, a 24mm and a 35mm so I can replace it with a 28mm f2. Am going to get a speedbooster for my G7. It's funny, when I bought the G7 last week, I was contemplating selling my NX500, but they're such different cameras, I realized I liked them for different reasons... More tools in the bag... Plus I got both of them for dirt cheap.

First off, it looked very nice. Natural. Second, the actress was great! I'd expect to see more of her in the future. He was very good too. Amazing work for having to do so many in such a short span of time. As far as your statement about you wishing you had done more continuous shots to make the editing easier... I'm not sure I agree. Since this is for actor's reels, I assume the goal is to see the actors shine... They need their close ups for that and you need the ability to edit out the bad and put in the good. Also, shot selection is vital to telling the story. In this story you have two people that aren't together any longer, but both, in some way, wish they were. If you had too many two shots, or movement, the disjointed disconnect would be gone. So, I think it worked. Good job. OT, a while back I had posted a video where I used a Miranda m42 lens, were you the one interested in it? If so, I noticed there is one or two up for sale in the UK on eBay. If that wasn't you... Then never mind, I liked your short.

Nice, what did you get?