mercer

Return it. And whatever you do... Don't tell him you disassembled it!!! That is all.

Zach, I don't mean to burst your bubble, but the mount has nothing to do with the lens not working, it doesn't work because the lens was designed for a 2/3rds inch camera. That lens will only project an image of that size. Your only options are to return the lens and get your money back, crop the image in post, or change cameras that have a crop mode... The t3i, the eos-m with ML, the G7 in crop, etc... For that money you spent, you really should just return it and get a BMPCC. That camera has everything you want out of the box. You then will have plenty of money to pick up some vintage c-mount lenses, or the SLR Magic, to give you the look you're after.

I'm a horrible colorist, but I would like to see if you could utilize that bluish tint and go day for night with it. I'm sure it's not your intent, but I just love day for night. Funny thing is, I just loaded ML onto my eos-m so I can mess with the 3x Crop and my vintage c-mount lenses... Loads of fun and fairly decent results.

I wouldn't abandon the idea of the fz1000 so quickly. Think about pairing it with the G7. You can practically get the G7 and the FZ1000 for the price of the NX1.

What lenses would you use with the NX1? Regardless, I would pair an NX500 with the NX1. If you really like the FZ1000, which I can't blame you because it's a great camera, then I would choose either the GH4 or G7 to go along with it.

I have been googling the crop factor for use with c-mount lenses but I haven't been able to find much. Have you tested any c-mounts in the G7... I am interested in how wide you can go before it vignettes. I bought a c to nx adapter for my nx500 for some macro shots and they look great in 4K.

What's the 4K crop on the G7?

That sucks. Sorry to hear that. I put ML onto my eos-m today and it has the 3X crop like the t3i. I am able to use 6mm c-mount lenses with it. Maybe that could be an option for you.

Are the Zeiss Tevidon C-Mount lenses any good?

I have the MD 24-35 and the 35-70. And both are excellent lenses. They're like having a set of primes in a zoom. I js In fact because those zooms are so good, I ended up buying the MD 28mm f2 and the 50mm f2... Which is an underrated lens in my opinion.

Very Nice!!!

I think it could be the Eye of Horus... Or the Eye of the Tiger.

Sounds solid. I found the link to the site I was referring to and yes the J prefix does indicate the lens is for a 2/3 sensor. http://www.c-mountlens.com/lenses/c-mount-lens-brands-a-e/canon/

I don't know a lot about these old lenses, but I have a feeling it was originally a c-mount TV lens. I have a couple old Canon TV lenses and they aren't marked TV lenses, but that's exactly what they are. I believe it to be a 2/3rds or 1 inch. The key is in the "J5x" marking on the lens. There is a site that lists what these numbers refer to on old, Canon TV lenses... I just can't find it right now. The other concern is the seller has been attempting to sell this lens for years and the drop in price has been pretty steady. I would assume if it was a viable option, someone over at Red User would have bought it by now. The funny thing is, my interest in the usability of this, for his sake, is irrelevant right now. He's a big boy and he was given information by a lot of people. My interest lies in the mystery of the lens, unfortunately we may never know. I doubt he will come on here and post everybody was right and supply a bunch of pics so we can get a better look at it. With all that being said, I really do hope it works for him, I just have my doubts.

That was actually an old assumption. I assumed he knew it was an original BNCR mount lens, but I think it's pretty safe to say the lens was remounted. So, I highly doubt it will cover the sensor and not a hundred percent sure he'll get infinity focus with the lens.

I think this is the most salient point of any creative endeavor, be it writing, filmmaking, music, painting, sculpting, or whatever. It's the balance between theory, creativity and craft. I understand all of the theory of screenwriting and a lot of filmmaking. I feel I have the creativity for both, but the honing of skills involved with the craft is a lifelong process. In my opinion, craft is the most important part of the equation and with every new script I write or shot I shoot, there is a rethinking or recreating of the craft that is solely unique to that project, or scene, or shot, or character. When the guy you interviewed, I have already forgotten his name, compared his program to Hemingway, I kind of threw up in my mouth a little. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate confidence and pride, without it, nobody would ever succeed in this business, but everything I read about this program seems to guarantee success with a craft that could take two lifetimes to master... That's what I find a bit off putting. And this brings me back around to what I liked about your article, the exploration between marketing and content. But as I said, if one can get one nugget of good information, then it is worth it. Good luck with it and I would love to read an update as you progress with the program.

Firstly, I want to commend you on a well written article/ interview. But, like most information I have read about the Muse program, I found your article to be lacking information that explains exactly what the program consists of. I assume there is some no disclosure element to the pilot program? As a writer first, and a filmmaker third... Or something, I have read almost every book about screenwriting, so I get the gist of what they're selling. The question becomes... Is the program a paint by numbers, formulaic program, or a jelly of the month club that shows real life examples as to how their process works? In the end... If you find it useful, then it is. I don't like plans or programs that promise the world at a hefty price tag when most of the information can be checked out from your local library, or on the World Wide Web. But every book I have ever read about story or screenwriting has had some little nugget that has made my writing a little better, or the process a little easier... For that alone, I have never felt I wasted a penny on a writing book.

Yeah, duh, sorry I read that you used the tamron in your original post. Good to know about the flaat profiles. I saw a video on YouTube and I thought flaat10 looked better than 11.

It has a very organic look. Is this the model that has the flat picture profile? Btw, what lens(es) are you using?

Good stuff... Creatively and technically. The song is funny because it such a mix of... Hardcore... And silliness, that the silly tone in the visuals were spot on.

Looks good, every time I see a Nikon video, I am more and more impressed. Nice shots too. Simple, but effective.

Thanks for taking the time to watch it and commenting on it. I went a little soft on purpose because that video was supposed to be shot in 2004, on SD... But maybe I went a little too soft. Thanks again.

Bump.

You'd think with all the employment we supply for their children, they would be a little more courteous with our websites.

just a heads up to the mods or Andrew that there is a bunch of spam in the creative section and in the screening room.