TwoScoops

2 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

 

I watched that documentary 'Cinematographer Style' last week. It's quite good. 

8 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

One good thing about this new camera is that it would appear that people are starting to sell off their S16 lenses - just stumbled across one seller that has started to sell off stuff & has started bids at .99p! So if you still have an original pocket or the box, this new camera could be very good news & surely the prices of S16 will go down & down & down.

Until BM adds the 2.7K s16 crop in firmware 1.3. 

I saw a Zeiss s16 set (well 4 of them) go for 2700ish a couple of weeks ago.

8 hours ago, Nathan Gabriel said:

Do you remember if this photo was wide open or stopped down? Why did you end up selling the voigtlanders?

Somewhere between 0.95 and 1.4 - definitely no more stopped down than that. The EXIF says ISO 200 and 1/6400th so probably closer to 0.95.

I had some video tests I shot with a model a couple of a years ago with the Voigt 17.5 vs the Pana 12-35 at 17ish, both at 2.8. The difference in 3D pop was quite remarkable but I can't find the files now. 

10 hours ago, Nathan Gabriel said:

Has anyone compared the voigtlander to the much cheaper SLR Magic 17mm t1.6? I've found one lab test, but I'd love to hear from someone who has real world experience. I use the SLR Magic all the time and it's really difficult for me to imagine needing shallower depth of field. However I've never really spent time shooting full frame wide open. I will say that I've used 4x5 box cameras where it is easy to get razor thin depth of field and it looks terrible because almost nothing is in focus. I always thought high iso performance rather than shallow depth of field was the bigger issue for MFT. I do have the voigtlander 25mm f0.95 and I rarely feel the need to shoot wide open with it. Here's the comparison for the 17mm's that I mentioned: 

 

The Voigt is much better than it looks in that comparison, it's an incredible lens. One of the few I really regret selling.

I posted a still from my portfolio taken with the GH4/Voigt 17.5 here: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/6396-lenses/?page=162&tab=comments#comment-233871 I felt like the Voigts coupled with the GH4 had the most mojo of any non medium format camera I've used for raw stills, and they made the video look a lot nicer too.

2 hours ago, Xavier Plágaro Mussard said:

Every time I read "Movie critics..." I remember that 2001 Space Odissey had bad critics when it premiered. 

The Shining, Scarface and Terminator got mild reviews when released too. haha

2 minutes ago, Axel said:

 

You got me wrong. I know all the tools like the back of my hand. Started with Apples Color, read the whole manual, bought a (Ripple? Lynda?) training, graded. Went on with Color Finesse (as part of AAE, in the short period of a year or so when I was pissed after FCP X launch), then learned Resolve 9, again with van Hurkmans Ripple and (also his) manual. I also entertain myself musing about the best workflows for grading.

It's just that the further I tweak the image the less confident I become as to whether what I'm doing makes things better or worse. I'd better just primary color correct, add a tiny bit of "mood" - and leave it alone. This is almost camera-independent.

Gotcha.

Have you found any comparison videos? The hire price of the C200 over here is just over half the C300II which is appealing. 

3 hours ago, Axel said:

 That describes me. I can't grade. 

 

 

How long did you spend trying to learn? Maybe you didn't find the right teaching materials. 

^ Pretty sure 37 people have already said that.

20 minutes ago, Alpicat said:

@TwoScoops That's the write speed and resolution the 5D4 could achieve if it had magic lantern enabled, but it doesn't yet. Could be years before we see magic lantern on that camera.

Figured as much. Thanks.

6 minutes ago, Alpicat said:

 

None of the digic 5 cameras can shoot 1920x1080 in non crop mode, I think only the 5D mk III can do that. Here's the magic lantern raw calculator which gives you info on the different camera resolutions: http://rawcalculator.bitballoon.com/calculator_desktop

 

 

How come 5D4 is on that calculator? 

Regardless of discussion of whether it's the same sensor or not, how does the GH5s compare in that regard, in the 2500+ mode? Does it drop to 10 also?

100 pages. Maybe by 500 we'll have some new footage. 

This is it. I remember when it came out there was talk about the unusual composition used, like all the headroom, etc. 

Both shot with the BMOGCC. The first was re-made a few years later by the same director as a feature with a $5m budget. I prefer the 2nd tbh.

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

 

People doing action activities are at its top ever, and world wide, a lot more than the 80's, 90's and the 00's were the hip thing to do was to do drugs and be wasted! 

The new drug is the attention they get from posting the 'activities' online.  

On 03/05/2018 at 6:34 PM, HockeyFan12 said:

. I remember on Wolf of Wall Street (which I didn't work on, I wish I could have!) they used iPhone 5 footage for a shot. I never noticed in the theater. Some of the drone footage was also 1080p 8 bit (C500 but without an internal recorder).

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/boom-times-the-wolf-of-wall-street/

This article says they used a C500 with the Gemini recorder (12-bit)  and shot in 4K. Actually worth a read besides that too. 

46 minutes ago, DBounce said:

I'll agree it looks good. But I think this is more to do with the person behind the camera than the camera. I would have little doubt they could have achieved similar results with any number of cameras. 
 

That goes without saying. 

30 minutes ago, mercer said:

I wanted to post this but since you originally found it, I didn’t want to step on your toes. 

As I said before, if someone had told me this was shot on an Alexa, I don’t know if I would have questioned it.

I wondered if it'd been mixed with something else, but only BM is listed here.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7018572/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

He's using the s16 mk2 Zeiss super speeds. I can't even find a place to rent those here. 

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 

I for one am glad Jon takes video of teens/20-somethings and not girls his own age. 

The Nocticron is the best lens above for me. 3D and most high end looking bokeh. The Nikon looks a bit busy to me. But it's comparing a top of the line lens to a cheapo, so that's how it should be. 

1 minute ago, Kisaha said:

I have watched everything TWD related, and right now the Fear is 5 times better ,story/script wise, than the TWD. Maybe it is better to stay in Season 1 and do not go any further in TWD, while you can skip FearTWD season 2 and start watching from the seasob 2 double finale episode and on!

Shallow DoF is, almost, a gimmick that happened just after the 5DmkII revolution. It wasn't really a thing before. This is heavily discussed for years on unlimited threads in every video forum. I am aesthitically and practically against razor thin DoF, and I am really happy with the one I can achieve on APS-C or S35 cameras.

I've seen all of TWD. Was just re-visiting S1 to see how far it'd fallen. I'm halfway through Fear... season 2 right now and kinda meh towards it. I'll take your word it gets better. 

Yeah I know all this. Of course. There was still more of a digital look in the end product of FTWD regardless. 

On 28/04/2018 at 12:29 PM, jindrich said:

The video looks really great, and to be shot and finished by a single person in such a short time is quite an achievement. But the image still looks "digital" to me, which is mostly the main problem with ANYTHING but ARRI, under artificial lighting. 

I just watched Walking Dead season 1, followed by Fear the Walking Dead season 1. One is an all time classic, one... isn't.  Anyway, it's interesting how digital FTWD (shot on Alexa with vintage anamorphics) looks at times after watching TWD, which is obviously shot Super 16. It also made me realize how over-rated shallow DOF is for narrative. You need some separation yeah but as a viewer I actually preferred the lesser background blur of S16 on medium shots. 

Sorry for the off topic, the video is fantastic. 

9 hours ago, jhnkng said:

 

 

Duly noted

I've never seen any of Hurlbut's DVDs, but I think he talks a bigger game than his credits can back up.  Check out his blurb on IMDB!

Yeah. He has knowledge but you have to make a conscious effort to try and shut his ego out whilst watching. 

Part of the DVD was reacting scenes from his movies (crazy/beautiful, The Rat Pack) which was definitely quite interesting. The other was more basic stuff, like Rembrandt style book light with frontal fill etc, which could be useful depending on the viewers level.