Tiago Rosa-Rosso

Now a days you buy resolve and you get a camera for free. Shame on adobe. 

https://shop.redrockmicro.com/product/halo-explorer-real-time-rangefinder-and-focus-tracking/

https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-EFM-BT1

Metabones announced a new Speed Booster (EF to EF-M mount). Metabones EF-EOS M Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x is available right now for $479.

Press release:

Metabones® Introduces EF to EOS M (EF-EFM Mount) Speed Booster® ULTRA 0.71x

Vancouver, Canada, May 2, 2019 – Metabones introduces the latest member of its award-winning Speed Booster family of DSLR (digital single-lens reflex) to mirrorless lens mount adapters, EF-EOS M Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x. Full-frame Canon EF-mount lenses are now one stop faster, 0.71x wider and with increased MFT (note 1) on Canon EOS M cameras. The 4k/UHD video crop on EOS M50 can also be mitigated with third-party APS-C lenses using this Metabones Speed Booster. Some Canon EF-S lenses may be modified to fit on the Speed Booster but Metabones cannot be held liable for any issues arising from modifications. Using APS-C lenses with Speed Booster for still photography or full HD videography may result in vignetting.

Ever since the first Speed Booster was introduced, there have been DIY attempts to modify it to fit EOS M cameras. The turnkey solution Metabones now offers adds a number of refinements:

The optical housing is redesigned for a perfect fit on EOS M.

The EXIF metadata is changed to reflect the faster aperture (note 2) and shorter focal length.

 The autofocus speed of the lens is adjusted and optimized for the change in focal length and aperture to ensure the best performance. This is especially important for dual-pixel autofocus (DPAF) in video mode.

A ‘chip’ mode is added so that the user may store the metadata of a fully mechanical manual lens in the adapter.

A LED indicates the operational status of the Speed Booster.

Since both the lens and the camera speak the same protocol most features are supported with the exception of lens aberration correction, which is automatically turned off.

Speed Booster ULTRA

Speed Booster ULTRA uses an advanced 5-element/4-group optical design by Caldwell Photographic Inc., incorporating ultra-high index tantalum-based optical glass to achieve extraordinary optical performance with improved corner sharpness, distortion and reduced vignetting. Speed Booster ULTRA has a magnification of 0.71x, effectively reducing the crop factor of APS-C cameras from 1.5x to 1.07x. The Speed Booster ULTRA design makes very effective use of exotic materials at the furthest limit of glassmaking technology, and as a result, is well corrected for use with virtually all full-frame SLR lenses regardless of exit pupil distance. Thus, the Speed Booster ULTRA performs extremely well with professional-grade f/2.8 zoom lenses such as the 24-70mm f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 zooms by Canon to produce 17-50mm f/2.0 and 50-142mm f/2.0 high-speed zooms, respectively. Similarly, high-speed fixed focal length lenses such as a 50mm f/1.2 will be transformed into a 35.5mm f/0.9 lens with excellent contrast and resolution from the center all the way to the edges of the image.

Availability

Metabones EF-EOS M Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x is available right now for USD 479.00 plus applicable taxes, duties, and shipping, from Metabones’ web store and its worldwide network of resellers.

Note 1: compared to the same lens on the same camera with an ordinary lens mount adapter without optics.

Note 2: to ensure compatibility with hardware and software, which do not always handle sub-1.0 apertures properly, f/1.2 lenses will display their pre-boost aperture. Please rest assured that the display has no impact on the actual maximum aperture and a maximum output of f/0.9 is supported.

Specifications

Product name (Model Code):

Canon EF Lens to EOS M (EF-EFM Mount) T Speed Booster ULTRA 0.71x (MB_SPEF-EFM-BT1)

Product page: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-EFM-BT1

Dimension: 27.1 x 72.3 x 76.0mm

Weight: 192g

Retail Price: USD 479.00

Color: Black Satin exterior; Black Matte interior

11 hours ago, JurijTurnsek said:

Oh my lawd, why won't anybody think of the lens body balance, said Canon shooters of yesteryear. God, I hated that argument with a passion.

I think we can't tell much about lens and body balance until we use one. 

No one appreciates the art of recycling.  Everyone just wants the brand new. This planet has finite resources. Not only that but most of the rare ore (coltan and other rare metals) are dug by little African children. Even Andrew can recycle is own 6d articles and save some hard disk.

https://www.eoshd.com/2017/06/canon-6d-mark-ii-codec-worse-old-6d-lower-bitrate-no/

PS: There is some irony here. Because Canon doesn't give a shit about who dugs their coltan, but none the less aren't we a bit spoiled?

RS makes you a steadier filmmaker.  

is 8k SHARP enough?

Canon will respond to this with their new Canon MJPEG RAW!  

6 hours ago, Chrad said:

I haven't seen most of those yet, but Diamantino is essentially Zoolander, but with Ronaldo substituted in for a model, and 'topical' references to Brexit. It's hardly pushing new boundaries in cinema. Dogman is pretty conventional. I don't think it's fair to say these are more inventive than, say, Children of Men.
Heard good things about Lazzarro, seeing it tomorrow.

Hmmm. I think there is a big a big difference in form from diamantino to children of men, and I don't compare them on their purpose, I just think it's a relief to see other structures, forms and approaches.  Zoolander ?? Really?! I didn't saw Zoolander so I can't say you are wrong.

On 9/11/2018 at 10:05 AM, anonim said:

Thanks for recommendation, I immediately noted it... I'll be so great if you can periodically make  your list of recommendation and post here from time to time... At least I'd be very grateful to see it, as I have to be more occupied with some other matters in near future (luckily, also creative one :)

 

Just saw this short now. 

1 hour ago, anonim said:

I understand underlining point of view, but I think there's also generalization and forced manifesto (ideological-aesthetic wise) reading in such generalization.

Finally, "poetry" as quality, at the end of our limelight days, may be considered as the utmost "courage"... For mastering any art to the utmost level of its subtlety and messaging-capacity language , means much more subtle courage against external entropy of banality, than pure provoking  gestures... Cuaron and Inarritu have so many such deeply inspiring poetical touches and high-art solutions in their movies. (Del Toro, I'd say, not at all up to their level, being mostly dimension/levels-restricted in his themes and formal realization.)

But I'm sure you know it all better than I'm... I just wanted to add additional note.

4

I agree. I think that in the realm of Hollywood they are exquisite, we could also add PTA and others to the list. Note that I said Hollywood produces great films and directors. But take for example Tarkovsky, Bergmann, Pasolini, Bela Tar and others. It's another gesture towards cinema, that in my opinion is, to some extent, more courageous and poetic in the sense of exploring the possibilities of cinema not just as a medium to convey a narrative.    

1 hour ago, Anaconda_ said:

@Tiago Rosa-Rosso Thanks for the intelligent, conversation inducing response. 

Yes perhaps they are Hollywood directors - but when someone says Hollywood to me, I wouldn't think of 'Birdman' or 'Shape of Water'. Maybe I meant they're not Hollywood because they're making original movies while everyone else is on a remake trip. If you watch the trailer for 'Roma', it certainly doesn't scream Hollywood. 

Then again, I'm probably wrong there too looking at other recent winners.

Another thing with Cannes is a lot of movies go there to find a distributer. If you make a film that's on Netflix, you already have a distributer, so the festival only serves as publicity. The shame is though, there wasn't all that many exciting movies in Cannes this year, which may or may not be a result. If memory serves, there wasn't a single English language film in the competition. Not to say foreign language movies aren't exciting, but it does seem worth mentioning. Also, I think there's some issue with Sony at Cannes too, and no Sony Pictures are shown at the festival at all - I don't know why though.

Jacques Audiard, who won the Palm D'or in Cannes a few years ago, has also said he has no interest in playing his films in Cannes anymore, at least in the competition. If one of France's biggest directors, and a pervious award winner isn't interested in the festival, I think that says something about the future of it. He's also uninterested in any type of film competition, so it's not just Cannes that he's opposing.

I think it would be amazing for a Netflix movie to be nominated let alone win the golden man if for no other reason than to shake things up a little. I don't think they're any different from say Universal, they just don't distribute the finished cut in the same way. Are the Academy judging the movie or the screen they watch it on? 

"I didn't saw Roma" and I can't tell much by the trailer but it certainly doesn't look like one more marvel movie.

I understand your division between bad Hollywood and good Hollywood, but it's still Hollywood and it's still mainstream and profoundly ideological. Três amigos operate in Hollywood, money comes from Hollywood and the films they produce follow Hollywood classic models of storytelling. Yes, they are more inventive, than most of the other crap Hollywood produces, but I wouldn't call it disruptive, they don't add much to the medium itself. It's all a bit primary and basic, it lacks courage and poetry. The ideas are repetitive, and always placing the spectator in a passive point of view,  pleasing the spectator, because they have to sell. And it's alright as long as there is a place for the other side. For the one who is not looking to please you, the ones that don't want your emotional investment, who are willing to make you think instead of just convincing you. Having said that Hollywood it's a big industry and produces great movies and directors. 

I agree with you that Cannes is an amusement park full of directors and producers looking for distributors and vice versa, most festivals are. And competition in cinema is something I can't really understand and find it profoundly perverse. But I think that Cannes was far more interesting this year than last year when it comes to new directors and showing very different movies from what is usually shown. and again it wasn't a Cannes decision but a matter of law. Actually, Cannes was trying everything to have Netflix movies at the festival.     

There were at least Lars Von Trier movie and Spike Lee English spoken movies. But there were great movies far more inventive than any movie I've ever seen from Cuaron, Inarritu or Del Toro. Did you saw Diamantino that won la semaine de la critique or Chuva é cantoria na aldeia dos mortos or Lazzarro felice or Dogman or  Ayka or Une affair de famille? All great, and with a  different idea from what cinema can be or should be. I think it's at least refreshing to see these movies in a big festival. Hollywood tends to see cinema just as a medium to tell a story, but cinema can be much more than just this.

18 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’d rather watch a film on Netflix than at the theatre any day.

The top 20 spectacles account for around 40% of box office worldwide, making it increasingly difficult to see good cinema at a local movie house, even if you’re willing to shell out over $25/couple - more than double my monthly Netfix bill.

Garbage Hollywood blockbusters crowd out the marquees at cinemas everywhere you look.

If you want to see cinema, you’ve got to seek out an art-house theatre. There were a few in Detroit, one in Daejeon, South Korea and maybe one in Saigon - but neither of the latter two show international cinema.

In many countries - outside of the major cities - it’s virtually impossible to find a movie theatre at all, let alone an art-house theatre - and good luck finding any international titles at the big franchises. If you do, they’ve got a limited run in the cruddiest little theatre imaginable.

I lived in Korea for five years and theaters absolutely refused to show English-subtitled films and TV dramas. The situation is much better in Saigon.

I was only able to watch Y Tu Mama Tambien and Amores Perros thanks to the Detroit Film Theatre, one of the longest running art-house theatres in the USA.

This is all about money. Organizations fighting Netflix argue that festivals are in large part pubicly funded and that Netflix doesn’t contribute enough to promote their events. And because they’re publicly funded, they say the public shouldn’t have to pay for a subscription service to see the nominees. But the fact of the matter is, most of the films regalled at Cannes, Berlin, Venice and elsewhere aren’t even accessible to moviegoers around the world. 

That's right! It's all about the money.

But if you had the possibility wouldn't you prefer to go to a movie theater? 

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Yeah it’s an f u to cannes and a snub to hollywood alright! Great insights. Thanks for sharing.

It's a bit more complex than that. Cannes didn't ban Netflix. There is a law in France that forbids any festival that takes place in France to exhibit a film in a festival that after doesn't have an agreement of release in movie theaters in France. It's simply obligatory. I partially agree that movies are to be seen in a cinema theater, but that's another conversation. Now, in fact, there was something rather good and refreshing about Cannes banning Netflix films because it gave room to other young directors. Who otherwise wouldn't have the possibility to be in. Don't get me wrong I think these platforms are great, but I don't see why isn't possible to have bought. A release in a cinema theater and then after a while in Netflix. I think most directors would agree that they would like there work to be seen in a cinema theater. I think Netflix is being a bit greedy, wanting all the profits just for them. And if you think about it might lead to a monopoly, that might have bad consequences for the art itself.  And correct me if i'm wrong but aren't Cuaron, Inarritu and Del Toro Hollywood directors? I think Cuaron only did y tu mamma tambien outside of hollywood, didn't he?

3 minutes ago, jonpais said:

I’m looking, but just see this:

 On the plus side, the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit).

Not seeing any mention of HDMI 4K out...

OK. let's wait and find out.

16 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

 

Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out?  I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

 

https://www.engadget.com/2018/09/05/canon-eos-r-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/?guccounter=1

I read it here

It shoots 4K at 30 fps, but as with the 5D Mark IV, there's a considerable 1.7 times crop factor.  the EOS R does have 4:2:2 10-bit video output externally via the HDMI port (internally, it's 8-bit). That will give serious video shooters more latitude for color correction. It also has 3.5mm microphone and headphone jacks.

10 bit 422 out and c-log, not bad!

15 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but it will be a Portrait Lens if the crop is as bad at the 5D mk IV in video. God I hope that is not true, but I bet it is or close to it crop wise. I just don't see how it can work out. Now for Photos, sure it will be a nice lens.

You would have to buy the Canon 11-24mm f/4L to get a wide native lens for video,  And it really won't be a native one being EF. And it is kind of slow at that, not counting it is 3000 dollars to boot. Depressing LoL.

I understand what you mean, but in my case no. I rarely use 4k, most of the time I shoot fullhd and then scale it up to 2k flatscope. I tend to dislike the oversharp look of 4k, and it takes a lot of space. Also most of the time I use a focal lengths between 30mm to 70mm. So for me this camera and lens it's actually great. Good color science, good ergonomics, nice menus and easy to use. Of course, it would be nice to have 10bit and clog but 8 bit 4.2.0 and cinestyle also does the job for me, and it's more changeling since you really have to nail it when you are shooting. No miracles in post with 8-bit. 

I think the most interesting thing about this first ff mirrorless from Canon is that lens 28-70mm 2.0. I love that old Tokina 28 - 70mm 2.6  with almost zero focus breathing. If this new canon lens accomplishes the same zero breathing and is optically at the standard of Canon L lenses I will probably buy an Eos R just because of that lens.           

On 5/17/2018 at 9:33 PM, Wild Ranger said:

I don't bite on this classic argument. Perspective doesn't change (at least it shouldn't) because the camera is set at the same distance, that's why you use crop factor for measurement.

This is what I mean by depth: if you would film this with a smaller sensor and place the camera in the exact same place and try to have the same frame you would have to use a different lens, maybe a 1000mm, then the plane wouldn't look so close to the actors. 

There are some differences that you might not spot on this shots but you might in other situations. One it's how apart objects are from one another in depth. A 17.5mm makes the space wider, this is almost not noticeable in many cases but for example when you are filming a dialog between two actors the distance in depth between then will be different and this will convey another mood to the scene. Also, a 17mm will in most cases have more distortion especially when you are close to the lens, and also focus will be easier on the 35mm 2.0 than on a 17.5 at 0.95 .  

Now I'm just waiting for viltrox to make a speed booster to adapt ef lenses to M mount and I'm good to go.  V

If true I hope it comes to the 1dx mark 2 also.