Juxx989 reacted to bdiamond in Should I buy a Samsung NX1 now May 2017???
I did the same thing, over the course of about 13 months sold my set up and went to an A6300, then to the A6500 for IBIS and no over heating, then went to the A7Sii but couldn't deal with the awful AF so went back to A6500, just to end up going back to the NX1.
Juxx989 reacted to Julian in Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera c-mount lens compatibility list
Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!
To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.
List terms explained:
Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
No = doesn't cover the sensor
Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)
Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list
Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
$ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]
Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]
Juxx989 reacted to PeterGregg in Canon - the REAL technical and political reasons behind the lack of decent video
I agree with many of your statements. One of the statements that you made that I don't agree with is not from this article. First, I am not talking in an adversarial way, so don't raise your shields You made a statement that Canon listens to their customers or photographers or something to that effect. I find from the D30/D60 on forward that isn't true at all. i chuckle when I read Denis Reggie or Jeff Ascough say to me that Canon is listening to them. In my opinion Canon listens to their internal minds, their own game plan, and in a very small very unique window of opportunity, I saw Canon very VERY eager to see what Nikon had up their sleeve at the announcement of the original Nikon D3 camera. At that time, the Canon people were scared sh#tless on what Nikon was launching - I saw it with my own eyes. Never saw that happen again. Leads me to the conclusion that we can add that Canon listens to ONE competitor's actions and products, and that is Nikon. Not Sony or Panasonic, and NOT their customers.
The pattern for Nikon these past few years has been that Nikon has become a sleeping cow. And Canon advancement has tracked Nikon's performance to a the letter. They have been sleepy and lazy because the competition they watch has slumbered off. It is history repeating itself. Pure video people are not going to understand this point of view (with exceptions). But i feel things are going to change. I think Nikon is going to spring out with DPF cameras in a sudden surprise move and start the Nikon Canon machine marching forward again. This isn't pie in the sky there is evidence. Canon will react to money (sales) and Nikon. That is it - end of story. Nikon is asleep - and therefore so is Canon.
Canon will advance with 4K in their cameras when it doesn't matter anymore. probably in about 3 year you will see 4K trickle down to the little cameras and the little people. The only thing to change this track would be Nikon jerking Canon's chain with a Dual Pixel Focus type camera somewhere in their product chain. My guess will be the D810 series with 4K and other goodies this year. Or another camera higher or similar in price next year. Then you will see Canon react. Canon doesn't give a crap about anything else, they have the sales and they have "their" competitor in a choke hold. Sony, Panasonic and Olympus are not competitors - to Canon. When I see comments like Sony is sweeping the market with their products, how many see Canon even blinking lol? Nikon, on the other hand is what moves Canon, can't say it any plainer than that. If Canon sales were going down the toilet, they would react to that too. Neither has budged, and Canon continues to report good sales to their board.
The only buy I can see for active use is the 1DX II. It too leaves a lot to be desired, but there is no other camera I see that can be a workhorse to deliver is a well rounded way. It lacks IS, movie controls, lightness and small size. But it delivers an amazing army of people behind it to keep you up and running (another thing movie people don't put enough sock in - try and get a Panasonic or Sony fixed, yes I know about the new NY and LA centers lol. Chocolate bars for the kids basically. Go to a world event and Canon and Nikon have 18 wheelers full of bodies and lenses and techs to keep everyone up and running, this is more major than most people admit or recognize. Panasonic, Sony and company are "just" starting to make any noise in this area.
I read in this article something that caught my eye. Are you saying that the 1080 feed thru the HDMI is better than most would expect? i would like to know that, it is is true or not. Recording to a $400 Atomos to ProRes on an SSD at a great 1080 and getting pro level results would be a really appealing thing to read!
Also, got the new 2017 iMac i7 580 8GB GPU 40GB Ram yesterday. A 1 minute 5D4 MJPEG 4GB file transcoded to ProRes LT is 35 seconds. Straight from that file, color corrected and to H264 in 36 seconds (no pre-rendering). Color corrected and add a few plug-ins out in 55 seconds. MJPG jail has been cracked. Can work straight from the files, or transcode out to ProRes.
Please say more about the 1DX2 1080 HDMI output and quality.
Juxx989 reacted to Oliver Daniel in Things I've Learned of Recent for the Camera
1. Think about the light before anything else.
2. Change that lens, it may look way better on different glass.
3. When the talent is in thought, or simply just waiting for a direction, roll the camera without their knowledge. You can get some really useful, very natural moments.
4. Don't do the shot once. You may pull off the technique better on repeat.
5. Bring 634 lens cloths to a shoot, because you will lose 633 of them.
6. Never settle on a grade straight away. Look at it again tomorrow. Those skin tones might be green and you had no idea.
7. If you're not sure if it's right, it's definitely not. Trust yourself. It's got to feel right, always.
8. Adjust the light again. It will look better.
9. Eye lights. Make the effort.
10. Buy a RED cam. Send it back. Read EOSHD and get confused. Get a GH5.
Juxx989 reacted to Ed_David in Things I've Learned of Recent for the Camera
1. Trust your own opinions. Don't follow what someone likes, even if they are a big shot DP. Do tests. Use your eyes.
2. Don't be lazy. Being lazy is the worst. Get low on the floor. Move that light higher or try something different.
3. Be prepared. Be organized and think before the shoot as much as you can. Make diagrams and lists.
4. Do not overlight. Trust yourself in the moment. Step away from the monitor then come back.
5. Bounce the light. Try that first, then direct.
6. Use a capture device like the odyssey 7q and then take screengrabs and you can compare your lighting and blocking.
7. Communicate as much as you can with your crew ahead of time of how you work.
Juxx989 reacted to anonim in Actually you can make the GH5 look very cinematic!
GH5 and Voigtlander Nokton.
Juxx989 reacted to deezid in Actually you can make the GH5 look very cinematic!
Shot on the GH5 in 3 days. A concept trailer done having a zero budget for our upcoming first feature film.
I really like what I can squeeze out of the internal 10 bit V-Log footage. DR, lowlight and colors are really good.
Everything was shot with sharpening and nr set to -5 and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter applied in front of the lens (12-35mm 2.8 V1, 20mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7) to make it smoother. Colorgrading done in Davinci Resolve. Drone shots by the DJI Mavic (the internal sharpening is hideous tbh...).
Juxx989 reacted to rdouthit in How do you afford your gear?
I own a video production company that specializes in automotive. We have a string of long-term clients in retail as well as editorial.
Here's one of the shows we shoot for Motor Trend:
Our (my) gear purchases usually revolve around solving problems: better slow-motion, more mobile, faster lenses to address low-light, better mounts for a specific rig shot, drones because... well, drones are awesome (I went out and got my FAA part 107 certification). Though I like new tech, I don't buy something unless it addresses a specific need.
Juxx989 reacted to Andrew Reid in Pro camcorders? They're pointless creatively.
Work tools are boring. I've always found mirrorless cameras way more fun to actually shoot with.
In his day job John Brawley has an Alexa. Why on earth would he shoot 'for fun' creatively, with an Olympus E-M1 II? But he does.
There are a lot of talented DPs who shoot with DSLRs and mirrorless cameras once they down their RED and Arri cameras at the end of the day.
Yet I find in the mid-range market for video pros (wedding videographers for example) there's an aspirational value attached to the higher-end pro cameras, that is stupid and pointless. Aspirations should be creative.
Owning a Sony FS5 or Canon C500 doesn't make you more creative, it makes you more efficient at work by a slight bit, and you appear more professional because of the big nobs and bells & whistles. Sadly, it doesn't necessarily make for "better" work because I have yet to see a clear distinction between work shot on mirrorless cameras and on stuff like the C300.
In fact often the small camera stuff looks better and more inspired. The legendary Anthony Dod Mantle is known for his rough and ready work with digital, but when he went Canon C-series on Oliver Stone's recent series of Putin interviews, the look they achieved was slap dash and lazy to my eye... Could have been so much better. He used DSLRs as well on this shoot (between 2015-2017) and those shots actually came out more interesting!
Too many pro videographers seem to dream of cameras like an Alexa and RED, why shows to me how important the professional label and look is to people, but creatively, they are no better and actually worse than the small cameras.
I hated shooting with my Sony FS5. A fiddly pain in the ass, for my music video work in Berlin, it needed an OIS lens and rig for handheld - limiting the choice of looks from the lens. With a GH5 you can put any lens on there and it is instantly stable for handheld work, with a tiny form factor that gets out of the way.
The FS5's image was worse than an A7S II but double the price. Aside from high frame rates it didn't offer anything creatively over a DSLR or mirrorless camera and now I have 120fps full frame on two of my small cameras along with 240fps 1080p on the pocket RX100 IV - So why bother getting a more expensive camera if it doesn't power you along creatively as much as the cheaper stuff!?
These pro cameras aren't cheap... Sometimes I got lucky and I bought a Canon C500 for a very good price used, but do you know how many times I have felt compelled to take it out and use it for artistic work? Zero times.
Kendy Ty is another example of a pro who downs his workhorse RED and shoots with a DSLR... The camera gets out of the way to such an extent he can shoot short films in public and direct the actors at the same time as being the main cinematographer. His work sticks in the mind as some of the most creative and spontaneous I've seen and there's not a C200 in sight... zero need for one!
I think pros have by-and-large completely forgotten and lost the spirit of the DSLR movement back from 2010-2012 as they sought efficiency. XLRs, built in NDs, yadda yadda. Blackmagic as well, when they ditched the small cameras and went all-out URSA on us. Canon too... Oh wait, they never got it in the first place, and they invented it!
Cameras should not just be about making money. That's how an art-form gets boring. That's how it dies.
They are not just about doing a job.
They're about creatively enabling artists and they're about democratising the art form so that price doesn't act as a road block to new talent.
Of course Canon only care about profit, they are not interested in that.
The Olympus E-M1 II's stabilisation isn't seen on any of the pro cinema cameras. It's unique. It offers something creatively to the result that a bigger, more complex shooting rig simply does not.
On the audio side, so important creatively, small mirrorless cameras used to have limitations and some still do - but with XLR boxes with phantom power that fit in a hot-shoe, you can't really complain. Audio is not a big limiting factor on the Panasonic GH5.
I still know that pros have their professional reasons for going Cinema EOS or Sony FS or RED or even Arri... Workflows, codecs, ergonomics, power, performance, looking-the-part... I'm not denying their reasons for one second, it would be so naive to suggest they drop the workhorse cameras and use a mirrorless camera for paid work.
But the creative side of the small cameras is what matters to me and I think it is being overlooked as specs in the $6000-$10,000 pro market hot up.
Sure, you can shoot all day on a big battery to a small broadcast ready codec with the C200, very practical... But can you put a 1970's Super 16 lens on there? Can you increase the character of your images by a factor of 10? Does it have an anamorphic mode? Nope.
If I ever buy a C200... Shoot me. It's over.
Juxx989 reacted to Oliver Daniel in Pro camcorders? They're pointless creatively.
Nice vids from the archive!
I'm the same, I don't like rigging up my cameras. I want them as bare bones a possible. Some of the FS5/7Q rigs I've seen are like houses, not my kettle of fish.
Yes, I have an Inferno but I can't find an ergonomic way of mounting it on the camera. So I just run it off the SDI and let the other guy hold it for monitoring.
Recently, I shot a music video on the A6500 with this criteria, to see what would happen:
Completely handheld. Only A6500, 18-105mm gear used. No lights, No grip. Nothing. Autofocus only. Mostly 4k, and some 100fps. At the time, I had an FS5 in the bag too with a bunch of Sigma lenses. Didn't use them.
A6500's dim screen and rolling shutter was annoying, but I got round it.
Juxx989 reacted to HelsinkiZim in Blade Runner 2049 trailer and a first look at Roger Deakins' cinematography
Lets look at theme - Blade Runner got us feeling because the droids were relatable and not totally alien.
Ex Machina tackled this theme beautifully. Prometheus did too. So did 2001, which probably inspired them all.
Scott has to transcend the drone as relatable (but ultimately ruthless) genre before he gets my attenion. The AI as thriller genre lost its bubble since the abstract 'ghost in the machine' film Her. Which I see as peak.
Someone needs to reinvent it.
Speaking of douches (damn auto type!) in machines, I loved Johansson in, yea, Ghost in a Shell. Remineded me of The Departed (remake). Dunno why....
Juxx989 reacted to fuzzynormal in The other issue with the C200
It is an issue for me. Im part of a documentarian team that shoots, with my wife, an A and a B.
As such, I'm frequently looking to rent or buy camera pairs and lenses.
Typically, for our own self-financed films, I'll purchase the gear on deferred credit --and then re-sell the stuff 4 or 5 months down the road when everything is shot and in the can.
The depreciation between the purchase and resell is what I consider my "rent" fees. Gear comes and goes this way and the cost of having the stuff while the work is happening is very reasonable.
Cheaper and more flexible than actually renting.
For instance, we bought another GH5 recently simply to pair with the initial one (purchased for another gig) and now we'll be using those GH5 cameras for the summer.
Id love a bigger budget, eventually, to possibly employ this strategy for higher end cams such as the Canon C's, but the low overhead of the hybrid gear is effective for doing this sort of stuff on the cheap.
Also, I like shooting doc video on a photo camera. I think it offers a certain comfort among subjects/people. It does often seem that they aren't indimidated by that as much as they are with "big" or "real" gear.
Juxx989 reacted to Ryan Moser in GODDAMMIT (Passion Project) - Best Described as Carl Sagan Meets Timothy Leary
Thanks for the kind words. It's also nice to know that you grasped the depth of the project.
I agree that the project deserves more views so feel free to share it with other like-minded friends and family.
As for Amazon, my past feature film is better suited for that platform. I don't think many people are currently going to Amazon for short film viewing. I wish there was a larger demand because I prefer it as a platform, since it likely gets people to view films on TVs rather than computer screens. To get onto Prime you have to submit to Amazon with the required media necessary for distribution. I get a fraction of a penny for every number of minutes viewed. So like I mentioned, my past feature film makes me a stipend every month.
Juxx989 reacted to Ryan Moser in GODDAMMIT (Passion Project) - Best Described as Carl Sagan Meets Timothy Leary
Passion project titled GODDAMMIT. Typical of many passion projects, I wore many hats.
Keaton S. Ziem
Keaton S. Ziem
Film Editing by
Ryan Moser ... colorist
Jason Downer ... sound designer / sound editor / sound recordist
Twilight In Versailles
Grading System: DaVinci Resolve 12.5
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Camera: Samsung NX1
Format: UHD H265
Type: Short Film
Duration: 7 minutes
Workflow: Much of this project was achieved with an arduous amount of time and energy spent in pre-production. Before production, I personally inquired and received helpful information from this very site. Camera and lighting choices were tested and nitpicked down to the finest minutiae. The compositing work was achieved in After Effects and had a final assembly within DaVinci Resolve. A lot of the latest features and FX within Resolve such as glows, etc. really elevated the overall look of the project.
Juxx989 got a reaction from keessie65 in Still Swimming with the big boys... Rated #9th 2017
Years later and still in top ten? (#9) and rated better than a $7k+ Leica? (this is a money is no object rating any price criteria)
Im sure it would be higher in sub $1500 rankings and this is mid 2017 after all the big boys have blown their load of new cams. Fake News??
Juxx989 reacted to freeman in Two Things I've Learned - Shooting 16mm Glass on the Blackmagic MIcro
Nice Ed and Ed! Liked both of those stories. I use a 12-120 and also the 15-150 by angenieux. I am pretty sure they are the exact same lens, the 15-150 just sits a bit farther away from the mount increasing it's coverage (it's also a 2.8 instead of a 2.2 like the 120 which makes sense) I love shooting with them! Never have to change a lens.. just focus on getting shots. My favorite doc lens. I shot this for RIT with the 15-150. Do you guys use the diopters as well? I had to use them for a couple close ups as the minimum focus was something I had to get used to. I really took modern focusing distances for granted.
Juxx989 reacted to Ed_David in Two Things I've Learned - Shooting 16mm Glass on the Blackmagic MIcro
Shot with the Blackmagic MIcro Cinema Camera with the Angeniuex 12-120mm 16mm lens, a cameflex mount modified to micro 4/3rds. For color, I brought into Da Vinci resolve and used Filmconvert with a Fuji Eterna film stock and softened it even more to Super16mm softness. Added a tiny bit of grain and that gave me a great starting point to harken back to a more organic look.
I zoomed in digitally mostly around 20% - and it still was too sharp of an image.
Why not shoot it anamorphic instead? Well, I am in love with documentaries of the 60s and 70s like Grey Gardens, etc. And they used this lens I think, and it has a certain feel to it that’s pretty beautiful.
Let me know what you guys think of this.