Julien416

Talk about texture. Anamorphic + 16mm. God I miss film.

Same story here. Didn't get the mail. I'll try mailing you soon. 

3 hours ago, eleison said:

 

I would like to preface everything I say in this thread by saying, "M43 is awesome.  It's the best thing ever.  Great movies have been created using this sensor size, and many more movies will be created using this sensor size.  If you have own/rented or even touched a M43, you obviously have touched greatness."  I.e., don't get butt hurt when other people have different opinions.  Don't bite my ear off 🙂 and make me regret posting in this thread instead of leaving sleeping dogs lie.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/11/cameras-lens-2020-oscar-contenders-best-cinematography-1202187839/

Looks like the great "new hotness" is either the arri alexa 65 or the LF for big production.  

https://ymcinema.com/2018/07/17/arri-tech-talk-alexa-lf-large-format-explained/

Oh well, as we all know those hollywood people just like to waste money.  They could have just used a smaller m43 mount camera.  I laugh at them for their stupidity and their waste of money.

Cinema cameras manufacturers are no different from your usual car dealer. They are here to sell you new shit you don't need. In our case, new cameras, new lenses and gear to support all this.

The truth is that the 22ish mm width sensor has been the golden standard of motion picture for a hundred years... 

Large format is great, and it's probably going to stay but the reason why Arri pushed the LF is because they were not ready to go 4K with a S35 sensor. So they went 4K with a bigger sensor, stitching more pixels to their legacy sensor. Everyone calls the LF, the Netflix alexa for a reason.

Maybe S35 will be sexy again when Arri eventually release their long awaited S35 4K camera. There are still a bunch of S35 legacy lenses that a lot of directors and dops want to use (Cookes, Baltars, Primos, Kinoptiks, etc.).

Also, larger sensors with fast lenses mean one thing : thinner depth of field. And in many (most) cases, a thin depth of field isn't really what a cinematographer or a director is looking for. I like to watch the settings around the talents when I watch a movie. Closing the aperture of your large format 35mm fast lens defeats the purpose of going large in a way... 

Nevertheless I'll gladly use a LF when I have the chance (probably soon) but I am going to use it thinking it's not much more than a nice gimmick.

I do that for a living, in french nonetheless. Consequently I have no knowledge of WGA stuff. That being said, I am currently being paid to write a few of them so I can talk first hand. With the Netflix craze, everyone and their mothers are looking for content, so today is a pretty good period to be a writer. If I can give you a tip, it's to study the bibles you can find online, there a few of them available from various famous shows. They are a perfect first step to organize your ideas, even among seasonned writers, we trade them like pokemons to get inspiration from time to time. 

You'll notice that their structure is very broad and there is no secret sauce. The idea prevails on form. 

My other advice is not to write extremely long bibles. Networks or producers tend to favor short and evocative stuff. A 10 to 15 pages document is perfectly fine as a sale tool right now. It used to be longer a few years ago. But arcs and characters still need to be perfectly drawn. 

Those are extremely vague advices I am effraid but they are a good start. Good luck.

46 minutes ago, eleison said:

Bottom line, M43 systems are not widely used in million dollar plus productions where people are professionals and imho, "know what they are doing".  Obviously, there must be a reason.  It can't just be these professionals who get paid $$$$$$$$$$$ "just don't know that m43 is just as good as larger sensors". 

Whatever the case, I leave that as an exercise for the user to figure out because obviously, I am wrong, and m43 is totally awesome, and I just don't understand 😜

I used a GH5s on a 2.5 millions euros budget production. As a C camera though, but no one ever complained when we edited the footage.

8 minutes ago, kye said:

Plato, who was (and still is) one of the greatest philosophers of all time, was the first book on biology printed on the printing press and distributed widely.  One of the things he wrote was that women had less teeth than men.  

*Aristotle, not Plato 🙂

As i told you. If my math are correct, a 4/3 crop into a 16/9 frame, you're gonna end up with a 1440/1080 image in 4/3. But a 4/3 frame once desqueezed will you give you a 2.66 ratio. So if you really want a 2.39 aspect ratio, you're going to crop a little bit more. That should give you around 1270 pixels horizontally and 1080 vertically as this one remains untouched. 

Long story short, you're going to lose quite a bit in horizontal resolution if you do that. 

I am pretty sure your infinity issues are related to your taking lens rather than your cinelux. Sometimes the infinity mark on the taking lens isn't very precise and you have to fiddle with your focus ring to find the exact spot. From my experience with the cinelux, there is no problem reaching infinity as long as the two lenses are perfectly synced.

As for its sharpness, from my own experience, the cinelux is tack sharp from 1.4 aperture (never tried below) as long as the two lenses are once again perfectly aligned and synced.

17 minutes ago, Marty said:

So how can I shoot slow motion 2x anamorphic ? Won't the de-squeeze function work ?

Can I somehow get at least 4:3 format + slow motion ? Why so much bragging about features if you can't even use them together ? Do I have to crop to 16:9 ? What kind of 180fps anamorphic result will it give then ? 720p ? 640p? , something like that..?

You can use slomo up to 60fps in anamorphic mode, that's all.

Otherwise you'll be stuck with cropping the sides of the 1080p 16/9 frame. You will end up with something like a 1440/1080 video with the sides chopped up. There will also be a 30% crop factor to take into account.

3 minutes ago, keessie65 said:

No anamorphic mode?

Doesn't seem to be the case according to the linked document.

Here it is.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1iX8rilmgVJwsmYQKF145o3Cu8HJ8A0sR/view

Well, so much for the anamorphic mode...

Hi, 

Just got a couple Kinoptik 35mm cinema lenses on an impulse purchase. Wasn't really looking for them but couldn't let them pass at such a price.

Does anyone have any experience with the 50mm f2 and the 75mm f2? If so, what's your take? 

Thanks in advance. 

2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Why PITA? In 2020?

3:2 will do the trick ; )

I hope not only one but several desqueeze modes, that's the only problem I see with the manufacturers, they tend to forget diversity...

Because it's a PITA and it's probably going to be a 4:2:0 mode as well. HEVC is slow as hell unless you have a top of the line computer. It's as simple as that. It's a nice codec, no question, but most people will need to transcode to edit it easily.

As for 3:2 open gate, nice, but the S1H has basically more than half a dozen 4/3 anamorphic modes going from 24p, 30p and 60p in S35 or FF mode and even 1:1 pixel to pixel. So thanks but no thanks, at least for my very niche needs. For the vast majority of users, it looks absolutely amazing though.

55 minutes ago, androidlad said:

3:2 open gate covers that, you can crop.

Thanks for the answer, it's quite cumbersome though. HEVC is a PITA, and 3/2 isn't really a dedicated anamorphic mode. Sounds more like a workaround to me. Is an incam desqueeze planned at least ?

I  would have loved a S35 anamorphic powerhouse from Fuji, but S1H it is not. At least for the anamorphic fans.

No 4/3 modes? Asking in the name of anamorphic nerds. 

I can tell you first hand that anamorphics have a dedicated ibis function so no worries here. 

Can't tell for zooms though. 

21 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

The Alexa is nice but it’s nothing more than name brand recognition imo. No one would be able to tell the difference between them on a commercial project. 

Have you ever used an Alexa? 

Your statement couldn't be more wrong. There is about two to three stops of additional highlights retention with the Arri. It's noticeable I am effraid.

Sure, on a very controlled lighting situation you may match them without hassle. But in real life, when you have to get the shot no matter what, the quality of the sensor makes all the difference. 

Hi, 

Check the rapido 35a. Huge but great. 

That theory, if a bit on the conspiracy side, makes perfect sense though.

Seeing how Panasonic went all-in with s1h, at a premium price that is, I don't get why they wouldn't have gone the PDAF route if they had the choice. ("nah mate, PDAF is over rated, we don't want this sensor"). 

They may be stubborn but they aren't stupid either. There is not one person on this planet who thinks contrast autofocus is better than PDAF. I am pretty sure Panasonic thinks the same. If they had released any of their last camera with PDAF  - Gh5(s), S1(h), G9 - imagine what their market share would be. 

7 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Link your portfolio and link all of your magazine published editorial work.

Wait a minute.

I don't have any opinion on Sony's colors and this thread leaves me bsolutely unmoved. Yet, your comment rubbed me the wrong way.
Should I ask for your credential next time you're talking about a movie ? Or a book ? Or a TV series ? 

Obviously people should react with self-control, but everyone is allowed to have an opinion, how shitty it is.

3 hours ago, leslie said:

start your own rental shop

Using them on personal projects. Plus renting them occasionally 

To me, they are basically remade panavision lenses. They use the old Gottschalk design whose patent has long expired. 

They look exquisite honestly. I am considering getting a series myself with a DoP, trying to figure out if that makes sense financially. 

3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

And I see plenty of comparison videos of my own, shooting with multiple cameras.  Every edit, I am working with both Pocket 4K and GH5s footage.  And yes, I can tell the difference between the 2.  

Of course they are different and you can the difference. You own both and you're a gearhead (like myself so don't take it the wrong way).

That wasn't my point. No one besides us would ever see the difference if someone were to mix the footage of both cameras in a simple scene. You can argue all you want. Do the test, to a real audience, not pixel peepers arguing endlessly about the motion cadence unicorn, or color science mojo of one brand or another. For all those normal people, the image will look exactly the same. 

3 hours ago, SteveV4D said:

Certainly in controlled shooting scenarios such as the comparison video Andrew posted, and with time spent in grading, you can get the GH5s pretty close to the Pocket 4K, but why spend more time and effort grading GH5s footsge to look like the Pocket, when you can just use the Pocket 4K.  Especially as in some shooting scenarios, it's not so easy to grade Panasonic footage to match the Blackmagic look.  

Everyone and their mothers use luts nowadays, honestly the starting color science is less and less important, especially now that resolve is almost free. Furthermore, to the rest of the world color science could be reduced to three groups. Arri - the best by a mile, Sony DSLR color science - the worst, and everyone else in between.

In 10 years from now, people will look at the GH5S, Z Cam E2, and Pocket 4K and the footage of all those cameras will look exactly the same to them. Those differences we are arguing about are just a hobby. 

35 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Again I am not really seeing where the Pocket cameras are so much better as people claim. It's mostly hype.

Most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between those two cameras if there was not an A/B comparison.  

People are arguing about invisible sharpening - that can be desharpened, maybe 1/3 of a stop of DR and easily matchable color science. 

Most people are just rooting for brand loyalty reasons. And to comfort for own decisions to buy to buy this camera or the other one. For the rest of the world, the image coming out from those 2 is exactly the same. 

18 hours ago, GregV said:

Yes there are still reasons to shoot Canon on sight for quite a few reasons, yes it is still imperfect ... but 95% of French TV and Productions will be delighted to use this 1DXMIII

Come on. I am French as well. 95% really seems far fetched. Maybe 95% of people around you. And still...

All the people I know shooting docs use a lot of different gear and many have moved on from the dslr form factor... Fs5 / fs7 / canon c*00 come to mind.