rokkimort

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

Matching  different cylinders glass from different anamorphic scope is equivalent of a cylindrical Galilean telescope running backwards, finding a match with different systems that meet the afocal condition. Here are few prototypes  I put together and some sample shots. I hope you like, thanks!
.
 
 

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

No offense, but this is pointless. I mean, maybe if you have too much time on quarantine it's an interesting hobby, but it looks like you simply ruined schneider cinelux lenses. Any cheap sankor lens can do much better than this, with nice waterfall background. Get yourself a good cinelux and it will be a proper lens with good image, that won oscar.  I don't know what's a point in these, they look hacked together, not suitable even for lowest budget indie productions. I don't think any DP would put that on their camera. Maybe you should look at Rapido Technologies, they make good products like cases for anamorphics with engravings. etc. They still don't look very good, just a dull black pipe, but anything would look better than this. I think this would scare away any model or client when they see it in front of the camera. Maybe that explains why you only photograph kids and have no serious work to show with these.

The Ursa 4k I'd put below almost anything, including the cheapest 4k dSLRs. Super clippy and slow with lots of fixed noise. Fairly soft image, too.
But the 4.6k I'd put above both Canons (except in low light).
The C300 and C500 do have the same sensor and the C300 has the sharpest 1080p I've seen and it has to do with the sampling not being traditional Bayer interpolation but instead instead it just groups the photo sites into a faux-Foveon type array so it's just insanely sharp looking. Sharper than the Epic or Alexa or F3 or F5 or F55 at 1080p and noticeably. From what I've seen, C500 has a razor thin OLPF and the Q7 has aggressive debayering so the 4k image from the C500 is sharper looking than a 5k or 6k Red image but it has significantly more aliasing, but not objectionable. Both cameras have similar DR. RAW doesn't seem to provide much improvement there over ProRes, but better shadows than the internal codec for complex scenes.
The C500 is basically a C300 with extra features if you use a raw recorder,  so if money is no issue and you WANT to use an external recorder (I hate them) get the C500 instead. If you plan to crop or stabilize, 4k could be useful for 1080p delivery, though personally I'd (almost) never shoot 4k and if you don't crop or stabilize the 1080p output will actually look sharper, shockingly. But maybe not in a good way. The Alexa is softer, but... "smooth." But you gotta experiment with the Q7 workflow when you shoot raw. When it's set up wrong to record ProRes FROM raw, it can induce chroma clipping and aliasing you wouldn't get in the C300 or C500 alone. And shooting actual raw IMO is not worth the trouble (then again I don't think 4k is either). 
I dunno. Rent for sure, but  think the 4.6k is Ursa Mini Pro sounds like the camera for you. It can alias, even worse than the C500, but in practice I haven't seen much of it. Maybe there's less sharpening to make the aliasing pop. Maybe I just haven't worked with it much. Dunno.

I own the C500 Odyssey 7Q+ and love all I get done with this set up! I also own a set of Zeiss ZF primes with cine mod, the image and color these deliver with the C500 are very pleasing to my eye. I've been putting off running some test's with the C500 and Odyssey, and have only been recording 4K ProRes 422 10bit, 24p, The RAW C Log files are super easy to grade, and I use a few good LUTS I have installed on the Odyssey for shooting in field. I have included a test by Shane Hurlbut, that show the C500 shooting 4K RAW and 2K RGB 444 10bit. I'm going to go out this week and shoot some 4K and 2K - 1080, at both 24p, 60p, and 120fps Half RAW.  I hopefully can give you some more info when I'm done. Also a note I believe the C300 (original) only shoots 8 bit 422 files? and only has 8 bit out of the HDSDI, it is a lovely 8bit's!
 

I don't think in this test they were protecting the background of the yellow and red bulbs for clipping, and that it was more a test for the skin tones on a lit subject and the color rendition, it is clear the 6K dragon has more dynamic range with this clipping red bulb in these camera comparisons, but I can tell you if you do protect your highlights from clipping with the C500 you will be very happy with your results.  Another thing is it so important when shooting Canon C Log to protect those highlights and know how to expose your image. Even a Arri Alexa will look crap if you don't know how to use it, and with a little understanding you can make most of the digital cinema cameras of today look amazing.   

The only down side of using the Canon C500 is the cooling fan that kicks in when you are shooting 2K or 4K, the fan does turn off when you press the record button but after seven to ten minuets depending on your shooting location temp the fan turns back on? There is a fix for this and I got one, it's an external fan cooling set up that cools the input vent of the C500 when recording! there are two small computer cooling fans mounted on an aluminum mount that screws into the side cover cap that covers the input and output SDI connectors, this can run off a D tap or 9 volt battery, I have not had the C500's fans kick on once since using this set up, I only put the unit on when I'm doing sit down interviews. Bellow is the unit I got for the fan problem, it was found from an old blog by Matt Porwoll.
http://mattporwoll.com/problems-solved/

I agree that the highlights are intentionally blown in order to gauge dynamic range and rolloff, but I don't agree with you at all that chroma clipping isn't a serious issue. Especially on a camera like the C500 that has less dynamic range than an Alexa or Dragon (but still good and better than its reputation), you can't always expose for the highlights. There are going to be traffic lights, headlights, practicals, blown out skies, etc. in some scenes and avoiding them at all costs or underexposing horribly isn't a viable option. IMO, you cannot make all camera systems look good, otherwise they would look good more often. Most digitally acquired content–even on the high end–doesn't look as consistently good as film, even with the same crew. Only the Alexa seems to get close imo, though I have seen some good looking content shot with other cameras, of course, and some "intentionally digital" looks that work. A friend of mine had a piece graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld, and I remember he mentioned that chroma clipping was Stefan's biggest bugaboo re: camera systems. I won't get into the details because I don't want to put words in someone's mouth, but if the greatest colorist in history struggles to wrangle with chroma clipping, it's a problem, and you'd better hope you're the greatest DP in history to never blow out a single source. Or just use a camera that handles chroma clipping properly. (Fwiw, I don't find hard luma clipping problematic if one grades the knee nicely, and even film appears to hard clip rather fast when processed photochemically–so this is a discussion about color space and rolloff, not dynamic range.)
And there is a massive difference between how the Alexa handles chroma clipping and how the C500/Q7 (as set up there) and F5 or pre-IPP2 Red etc. do. Sure, you can make an Alexa look bad if you're wildly incompetent. But I'd argue you can't light a scene with someone lit by a practical flare on an F5 or C500/Q7 (at least with the settings above, and the ones in the C500 footage I've worked with) without it looking too terrible to really fix in post, because the camera will blow out the highlights to red or to red and yellow, not to white, as with the Alexa (which clamps saturation at maximum at 30 IRE then slowly reduces it over its extremely wide dynamic range). With the Alexa, lighting that same scene well is as trivial as exposing roughly correctly. 
Of course you can to SOME extent avoid that kind of situation, or white balance to your practicals so they blow out more nicely assuming nothing else is blown out (dicey workflow, though). And if you record raw and process correctly this likely isn't an issue even with the C500. I'm just surprised that Canon Log has this problem far less severely than the C500/Q7S combo does, though I imagine there are settings that handle chroma clipping better. Some of the newer film emulation LUTs and even the SLOG3 colorspaces for F5/55/FS7 are fine in this regard, too, to be fair. As is IPP2 a huge improvement over Red's original pipeline. Canon Log, weirdly, has always been kind of good... there's the appearance of chroma clipping, but detail is almost never lost and the knee can be graded smoothly. Not so with any of the footage in the test above.
And all that said, I think most operators overexpose the CX00 series pretty substantially. And in practice this isn't a huge issue under normal circumstances.