Evan Burns

7 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

They'll be free to develop their own flavor of raw.

It's not a cult but. ?

Apple has no interest in supporting other camera brands. More than likely, this is about ProRes RAW and that will cost money.

2 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

Apple can smell blood in the the water. A win for Apple allows Nikon, Sony, Panasonic and the rest to license ProRes raw for internal recording. That's a lot of licensing revenue and a lot of FCPX sales. And a lot of happy filmmakers. ?

If Nikon, Sony, and Panasonic have to pay more for licensing, it will ultimately come out of the filmmakers pocket.

All of this might sound cool and sure, revenge is sweet, but Apple going after RED is definitely not a good thing. Ed mentioned earlier that it’s the little guys that make a difference and I believe that’s true, but when we support an even bigger monster like Apple, it’s no longer worth it. Capitalism ultimately has a cruel sense of humor…

12 hours ago, tweak said:

Honestly I don't really use it, just occasionally but usually it's fine. What other camera would you get? Not really many options. I'd get a monitor with de-squeeze.

We'd probably aim for renting an URSA Mini 4.6k or RED. Cost is obviously an issue, but I'm going to tinker with ML a bit more to see if I can get the flickering to stop.

On July 4, 2016 at 4:14 AM, tweak said:

Hi Brian,

I've been shooting in 4:3 and something close to 5:4. You can basically select any aspect you want which is cool. In 4:3 and 5:4 it uses the full height of the sensor just cropped a bit on the sides. In 16:9 Raw it uses the full width of the sensor which is a 1.62x crop.

Use this table to find any answers you need - http://rbrune.github.io/mlraw/

p.s.
Even though the actual resolution on 7Draw is so much less than GH4 4K 4:3 I much prefer the look of the image. I know it's cliche' but GH4 looks very digital even with whatever post work you can do, 7D looks great with minimal work. 

Does the ML anamorphic desqueeze options cause your screen to flicker/tear at all? We just started shooting anamorphic with our 5D3 and I don't think the on screen preview is usable because of the screen tearing we encounter. Trying to decide whether we should get a monitor to desqueeze or use a different camera.

I just picked up one of these, so I don't need another one, but it looks like a different seller has one up for sale.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/262507029360

I got it off eBay. It wasn't listed for very long though. Just a lucky find. I've seen quite a few of the f4.5 versions as well.

On June 6, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Timotheus said:

The 0.33 Minolta is nice, achromat also (at least, if it's the one for the 100-500mm zoom). Tito uses it regularly in his videos. I have the 67mm diopter from Asahi Pentax and measured it...indeed 0.33 also. If you want to know precisely how strong your Pentax diopter is, focus on infinity with the diopter attached. Measure the distance from sensor to the focus plane. Diopter strength = 1/(max focus distance in meters). Oh, if you do, let us know, I'll update the list :-) Cheers.

 I just picked up the other 67mm Pentax "1:3.5/85~210mm". I'll do some more precise tests after it arrives. I've accumulated quite a few diopters now and I want to test them all at the same time.

On May 31, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Timotheus said:

No, they aren't, unfortunately (...as mentioned above ;-)) Could still be useful though.

Here's a list I made a while ago https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cEzX4hb0NKbhPetTkVsnORNHeGnji7lhB4OmuCdQC-g/edit?usp=docslist_api

I just picked up a "For Super-Multi-Coated (S-M-C) Takumar-Zoom 85-210mm F4.5" diopter off this list. Doesn't seem to be an achromat and I don't think it's a +0.25. Looks to be more in the +0.3 or +0.4 range, but it was pretty soft compared to the +0.33 Minolta.