DPStewart

10 hours ago, Zach Goodwin said:

You have a wide variety of vintage lenses that can kick more ass than a digital lens believe me. Why has no one even tried Exakta lenses in their short films here?

Yeah...and we have them... But that really doesn't hep much for using the NX1 for stills. I grew up shooting manual film cameras...but you still miss 90% of the shots you can get with a stabilized auto-focus lens. Without this my NX1 is of MUCH LESS value to me.

Plus, the "S" series lenses can provide some of THE BEST video auto-focus of any video camera short of a Canon C300 mk II. And sometimes that DOES make a difference on a shoot.

 

11 hours ago, The Chris said:

That would assume there's a strong demand, which isn't the case. Also, they're still available new in Korea. Prices without new bodies are only going to decline as the NX fades away. 

The fact that there are so few of the S"S series lenses available at all on eBay USA and that the lowest price I saw last week at all was $800....that shows that there in fact IS a pretty strong demand for these lenses...and it's going to get WORSE once the NX1 owners all find out that production of them has stopped and they realize they can;t put off the purchase any longer.

1 minute ago, SR said:

To be honest, any camera should do the job. Worry about your lights more, if you really want to spend some cash. That's where your production value will go up a notch.

Well...sort of. Yeah.

I STRONGLY urge anyone who has never shot a BMCC in RAW and then seen how far you can push the grade around in post to rent, borrow, whatever...TRY it. Just once or twice.
It's a whole 'nuther world.
Like I said - my NX1 with the same lenses can NEVER match it. I can get them close usually...bot NOT if it requires a lot of creative work on the grade. The NX1 image - even being 4k - WILL break apart much faster.

1 hour ago, jax_rox said:

RGB 444 is essentially raw anyway. 

The F3 is better in low light, and behaves much more like a 'real' camera than the Blackmagics. Good form factor, and many of the cheap deals include partial or full handheld rigs to boot. 

Personally I like the image out of the F3 better than that out of a Blackmagic - and considering it's cheaper than a BMCC, I wouldn't hesitate to get one.

Plus you get SxS recording in addition to external SSD recording - you can have proxies and full res if you want, quite easily. 

The current average price for the F3 with the RGB 444 upgrade is $3,000 on eBay.
Add an external recorder that will record that RGB 444 signal and it's another $1,000. 
That's at least $4,000
The BMCC is $1,995.
At $4,000 it's time to look at an URSA mini which will blow ALL of it away...$5,000.
Or the Rock Solid Sony FS7 which is worth it's weight in gold. Could maybe be had used for $4,000...maybe.
The OP did say "sub $4,000".

Not that I don't dig the look out of the Sony F3...I most certainly do.. When recorded out to an external recorder. It's just sort of like getting an F23 or F35...you get yourself committed to a whole lot more MANDATORY rigging. That always equals costs that seem to creep...and creep...and creep. And the rig gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Now just try to get an F3 with the external recorder on a Gimbal or Steadycam - now you need to spend bigger bucks on a greater capacity system...it all just adds up and up and up.

I have found that if someone says "sub $4,000" and they don't already have every other conceivable piece of rigging and lighting...that it's really best to not come near that max price if at all possible.
 

5 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Damn that would be fckd up but I can see it happenning @DPStewart

Already happening.

Today on eBay-USA there are only about 8 of the 18-55mm "S" series lenses on offer. 3 of them are new from Korea and well over $1,000 USD. Of the used ones - the cheapest one is $800.

yeah...this is not going to be fun.

3 minutes ago, jax_rox said:

This. Best bang-for-buck on the market right now. 

Plenty of movies and television have been shot on F3. Plenty more feature films and television have used the F3 as an A-cam versus the BMCC. 

 

But that's not because of image quality.
It's because Sony is SONY. And the F3 has a bit more of a traditional form factor.
But I agree it is an outstanding image.

But once you've shot RAW...... man, it's night and day... All my other cameras are just little toys of convenience compared to the BMCC and BMPCC RAW image.
 

For narrative - no image from any camera under $5,000 will beat the BMCC 2.5K in RAW. The only ones that can match it are the BMPCC Pocket and a 5D mkIII running Magic Lantern in RAW again.
And NO - the BMCC does NOT have "limited dynamic range" like Zack said above. It has 13-stops. Which is incredible at the price point and beats all real competitors. Certainly beat the NX1 by far. (No, the Sony A7s is not a competitor because their extended dynamic range is only available in certain modes, and the end result image quality - especially for narrative - has proven out to be a massive disappointment.)

It's really not even close. The next contender up is the Sony FS7 for 3 times the price.

I have:
Panny GH2 (x2)
Canon 6D, T2i
Sony RX100 mkii
Samsung NX1 (which I got for the slow-mo. it can never equal the BMCC image quality)
BMCC 2.5k
BMPCC Pocket (x2)

3 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Prepare to grab these lenses for dirt cheap on ebay

With fewer lenses out there than NX1 bodies - I'm worried it's going to be the opposite.
If you happen to NEED the auto-focus or IS and want the "S" series lens...I could see them selling for twice retail because there are so few of them out there. Maybe 1 for every 10 bodies sold.

The "S" series lenses are already unavailable from B&H Photo and Adorama, and Adorama lists ALL their remaining Samsung lenses as "Closeout".

So much for the "lenses being available for a long time"....
How many of the good ones ever even made it out into the public I wonder...
Bummer.

4k, 6k, 8k, 47k... 8-bit is 8-bit.

1 hour ago, kidzrevil said:

thank you ! Im really impresed with the camera with these new settings. Next ill try to shoot without the diffusion filtration and see what happens 

I'm curious about your in-camera settings as well, mate!
And what diffusion are you using?

That film is gonna make ALL the money!

I can't wait to see it.

Is it "high art"? No, probably not. But it looks MASSIVELY entertaining!

The newest camera-phones are incredibly useful for a very large number of shooting scenarios. In just 2 more years they will be able to competently do even more types of shoots.

This is why I hate the idea of spending even $1,500 for a camera anymore. At $1,995 the BMCC is the most expensive camera I have ever bought. 

Even the BMPCC really is no bigger than a phone. If you hold just the body in your hand and look at it - aside from the battery compartment and the lens mount, the guts really could fit easily into the body of an iPhone or Samsung phone.

 

14 minutes ago, jcs said:

That was not the point. The point was the method of showing an effect as something real vs. made up. 3D is more lighting and perspective than DOF. Without repeatable, same-conditions, side-by-side comparisons and (mostly) non-subjective evaluation, there's no way to know if an effect is real or not.

Well...yeah... 
That point is true of course.
But that in and of itself doesn't mean the OP is not still correct.
Some things are pretty clear right there when you look at them.
The example photos provided and the exact points in each that the author is asking the reader to look at are pretty clear. And it's also reasonably clear from the chosen examples that significant variations in lighting are not occurring - you'd see that right there on the faces.
The "3D" effects of lighting almost never operate at the miniscule distances of someone's nose to their ears in a shot composed as all the examples are - especially when you can see clearly that the light AND THE FOCAL PLANE are reasonably even over the areas in question.

As I originally stated in my first comment on this topic - I've been looking at this phenomenon for a couple of years and this is in no way the first I've heard of this subject.
To be clear - the article DOES NOT say; "Lenses with many elements are bad", "Lenses with fewer elements are superior", or "this is a guaranteed effect inescapable by any lens no matter what." So anyone's reaction to this article should not lead them to conclusions such as those.

I strongly urge anyone reading to just take note of it. 
Take note and stay aware of it - and see if you don't begin noticing the phenomenon more frequently once you know what you're looking for.  

 

5 hours ago, DayRaven said:

I've heard some really respected people say much the same thing about lenses, Hurlbut in particular keeps talking about how some lenses have a great pop, and seperation from the background and something about how the focus drops away - I've never really seen it myself, but so many people go on about it, there must be some truth in it? On that website, I thought I saw it in the examples he posted, but since he made a new blog post on the subject, I really can't see any difference in his controlled scenario.

Hello DayRaven,
I wanted to point out that the Article in the Original Post is not at all talking about subject separation from the background. 
What the article is talking about really has nothing to do with that at all.
Not trying to flame you or anything I promise. Just trying to help keep the meaning of the O.P.'s article from being confused with an entirely separate topic.

16 minutes ago, jcs said:

Well, for one everything looks made up, with no math or science-based tests showing the statements are true. First, you cannot compare two completely different shots for "3D pop" etc. For example, I debunked the 'full frame look" using exactly the same scene and the math of equivalence: http://brightland.com/w/the-full-frame-look-is-a-myth-heres-how-to-prove-it-for-yourself/ , along with the necessary instructions for anyone else to verify the results. So while Brian's comment is perhaps a bit harsh, it's valid.

It kinda sorta sounds a little like maybe you didn't read the article's words very closely because your choice of words here about the "myth of the full frame look" and the article you linked discuss the term "3D" a a function of subject relative to background.  i.e. the whole "full frame" shallow depth of field discussion.

But the article here is not talking about that at all.
Am I choosing words that are clear here? The term "3D" in the Original Post here is not referring to the subject standing out from the background. The term "pop" is very frequently used BUT NOT ALWAYS USED to describe the subject having a lot of separation from the background.

The Article in the O.P. is talking about an optical flattening of aspects of the image that should not appear flattened - like someone's nose vs. their ears of the rest of their face and hair EVEN WHEN ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE WITHIN THE FOCAL PLANE.

Some people simply don't see the difference. Many do. I surely do
It's like the motion cadence of video cameras issue.  Most experienced people can see a difference between the motion cadence rendering of footage from different camera makers (with Panasonic's GH series consistently ranking among the worst and Canon and BMD often ranking among the best) yet many people just are not able to see the difference and will say "it's B.S. 24p is 24p. You're imagining it". No, we're not. They just aren't able to recognize it.

Again - 3D in the O.P. article is NOT referring to the subject having separation from the background.

Then again - it is ENTIRELY OKAY for some individuals to PREFER an optical flattening of the in-focus elements of an image.
But that's very different from saying it's not happening.

5 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

Sorry, but somebody's got to say it.  This has to be the worst piece of trash writing ever done about lenses.  The author has absolutely no clue what he is talking about, and should be ignored.

Really?

And what specific and exact information are you basing such a strong statement on? You'll need to provide some if you're going to make a heavy attack statement like that. Otherwise it appears that you are just yelling "Poo-Poo-head!" and then running away.

Foley (always capitalize 'Foley" because it's from his name. Otherwise the audio engineers send old gross fruitcakes to your house.)

Foley is a NIGHTMARE to try to do with pre-recorded sound effects.
Sure - it's completely possible - but it takes a horribly long time to do as compared to just grabbing a mic and doing the Foley yourself. And it's tedious. VERY tedious. And no matter how big your collection is - 95% of it won't work for whatever that project in front of you today is.

Get a book on the art of Foley, and then invest in enough junk to do it yourself. WAY easier and actually FUN.
 

5 hours ago, Hanriverprod said:

This guy is a wedding videographer in the countryside in South Korea. He has some interesting tests like this one:

It's off topic but I'm in Korea and was watching his videos, so I was pleasantly surprised to suddenly see his video here.

I like him.
His tests are very methodical.
And that super mellow way of talking that he has.. is hypnotic. 

2 hours ago, SR said:

Living in a place where you can't easily buy gimbal stabilizers can be a pain. I have an opportunity to buy a DS1 this month, but it won't be enough time for the H2, which looks like it's worth the wait. Especially its ability to switch to two holders. 

Here's your 2-handle holders:
 

Oh yeah - the Hacked GH2 with MOON T-7!
Still blows me AWAY at how detailed an image it gives. POW! Shoot it like everyone else does - with the SMOOTH profile and everything set to -2.
Then boost your saturation and balance out your contrast in post and it's pretty amazing.
The only reason I don't use them more often is because I can get the higher dynamic range with my Blackmagic cameras. (That cost a lot more!)

Yeah - Add a cheap Mitakon Nikon-to-MFT Version 2 speedbooster and it's ready to really rock! Beats my 2 canon T2i by an enormous amount. Not just a little.

P.S. Make sure you get that speedbooster - it makes THAT MUCH difference. Simply monster.

Oh - my camera list:
GH2 (x2), Canon T2i, Canon 6D, Sony RX100 mkii, Blackmagic Cinema Camera, Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera (x3), Samsung NX1.

8 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

It's my favorite lens ever made. Will post sample for you later today. 

Yeah - I'd dig seeing some of this lens too.

I have the 20mm and it's a very good lens - but it's not an "outstanding" lens. Almost no 20mm lenses are really...optical thing I guess.

1 hour ago, squig said:

I was just watching a clip on vimeo and mid way through it switched back to the lowest resolution. vimeo is FUBAR.

<Checks youtube rules for violence, nudity, and profanity>

Yup.

FUBAR sums it up pretty well.

24 minutes ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

And does it hold the weight of the 24mm easy ?

You do have to make all the physical adjustments to get it to balance, but it is within the weight limit and the 24mm is just within the size range of being too long to get a workable center of balance. A little wight added to the hot shoe on top of the camera can help too.

8 hours ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

Im also looking to get a Gimbal, and also use the Samyang 14/24mm combo with NX1. Does it work good with that combo ? Got any example footge ?

While I have tested the DS1 extensively with the NX1, I haven't compiled much footage yet as I haven't had the need.
The bulk of my use has been with the Blackmagic Pocket Camera so I can shoot RAW.

I can shoot some with the Samyang 10mm, which is bigger than the 16mm. Works fine.
I've put the 24mm on it, but I don't own one.
 

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

I dont understand at all how a pistolgrip would cause any significant shake compared to just holding a camera like normal.
But if you don't like it thats cool. 

If it's not leaned against your eye (or even if it is in many cases) - watch your hand when in that position. You hand is extremely free to make unrestrained movement in ALL directions. And when one has the gripping axis that close to the camera then any TINY movements of your hand can easily be 1-3 degrees - and that is enough to translate to huge amounts of shake in your playback.

Think of a lever and your radius. This is the stabilizing principle behind a "Fig Rig". The further your hands are from the base of the camera the more amplified a 1-3 degree movement is - to the point where it's like a whole inch of movement by your hands if they are wide apart. And that is obviously much easier to avoid. What's easier to do - prevent your hand from moving 2cm? Or prevent your hand from moving 2mm?

I looked into it when the Digital Bolex was released and immediately saw that a huge amount of the videos posted had massive ugly "1960's looking home movie camera" shake. It's a type of shake that is unique to pistol grips. 
This was a big part of why everyone quickly labeled the D.B. a "retro" camera. It was the yellowish and magenta colors a lot of people were getting, and that very specific type of shake. A type of shake really not seen since the 1960's and 1970's. It's all over the Zapruder film of President John F. Kennedy getting shot. It makes the film almost unusable as a historical record. Shake ruins shots. 

When you hold a camcorder or a DSLR style body - the weight is obviously pulling against your hand/wrist/arm on a flat circular plane to the left. That's just gravity becausae you're holding it from one edge. This sets up resistance for your muscles to start working with and against and thus starts to minimize some of the possible directions of free movement that will characterize the look of a pistol grip.

So if you ever WANT to simulate 1960's or 1970's home movie footage - use a pistol grip!  It will add an element that is very difficult to simulate otherwise.