meudig

My best footage I filmed in North Carolina from 2015-2019.
I shot on a GH4 and the GH5 in 4k with the scenery setting. I filmed 1.75x in 16:9 and 4:3 and 1.5x in 16:9
Anamorphic Lens used :
1. Baby Hypergonar 1.75x
2. Bolex 8/19 1.5x anamorphot
3. Bolex 16/32 1.5x anamorphot
Taking lens:
Voigtlander 40mm f2, Schneider-Kreuznach 50mm f/1.9 Xenon, Olympus Zuiko Pen 38mm f/1.8, Schneider Xenoplan 28mm f2, and a MeVis 35mm f1.6
Variable diopters used:
1. Rectilux 3FF-S
2. Proto DNA
3. Focuser 8

I also used a Tokina +0.4 Achromatic, Fujinon +0.7 and a Narumi +3 diopter for close up shots.
If there is a shot you like let me know and I will tell you the combo. Cheers!
 

Minimalism!  I love it
That's the ultimate way to get around matching of shots...  I'm not familiar with that lens in particular, but I'm imagining it's not perfect when wide open, so do you specifically shoot a film at the same aperture settings to keep the look consistent?
As I've said before, my main lens (maybe 75% of screen-time in final edit) is my 17.5 and I love that focal length.  I'm also curious to know what you shoot and how you get around the challenge of only having one focal length.
It would be logical for Panasonic to release a longer companion lens to the 10-25, similar to how the Sigma 18-35 has the longer companion zoom.
I wouldn't hold your breath for a f0.95 zoom - even if they could figure out how to do it I suspect almost no-one could lift it!
Lots of good points here.  I subscribe to the 3 lenses will cover MOST of what you want strategy, and I just deal with the times when they won't - you rarely have to go wider than 16 and you can digitally zoom quite a bit before adding additional sharpening won't match the footage.  
Getting a fast lens set while keeping the price down is a real challenge - one thing I've noticed is that the fastest lenses are the ones coveted by collectors and the slower ones seem to be far less in demand, so knowing what you shoot can possibly save you huge amounts of money if you're able to compromise.  
I also pay attention to bokeh, at least to the extent that I'm very interested in a bokeh that's not distracting.  Therefore I'm absolutely not a fan of any bokeh that attracts attention, for example star-shaped bokeh / 'bubble bokeh' / swirly bokeh etc are not desirable.  However if you get a bokeh that is unremarkable then matching the things like aperture blades becomes a non-issue for me, as it's not something that will get much critical attention.  [Edit: shooting on a cropped sensor also helps with this as the bokeh, and also lens issues in general, tend to be worse at the edges of the image circle which gets cropped by the smaller sensor]

I use the Roxsen/Pixco FD-m4/3 Focal Reducer. I've heard people saying it has had some play/sloppiness on the body mount as well as not mounting the old FDs properly. I've only used it with FDn glass and it's been a treat!

In general I have found that audiences notice differences in color far more than differences of the background blur or object separation. 

I found the Schneider 16mm f/1.9 in stellar condition locally at an auction at the beginning of the year. I had already sold my pocket but that time though.
However, I've recently bought another pocket v1 and I am about to order an Arri-s adapter. I'll let you know how I like it!
That's a gorgeous short by the way, thanks for the link.
That makes a lot of sense. I don't know if I've ever thought about it that way.

I found the Schneider 16mm f/1.9 in stellar condition locally at an auction at the beginning of the year. I had already sold my pocket but that time though.
However, I've recently bought another pocket v1 and I am about to order an Arri-s adapter. I'll let you know how I like it!
That's a gorgeous short by the way, thanks for the link.
That makes a lot of sense. I don't know if I've ever thought about it that way.

I've built a Canon FD set with 20/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2 that I use for all my professional shoots which are mid-tier commercials mostly. If I can get away with the characteristics I keep them wide open and if I need sharpness I stop down to an F4 or so. Long-term plan is to have them re-housed to PL by P+S Technik. I like the look and they cover FF to follow the camera trend.
Edit: ...with focusgears from followfocusgears.com and fronts from Simmod to make them somewhat usable in a professional setting. Only downside is the fiddly process of swapping lenses ?

That’s a cool strategy for the BMPCC. Did you buy a Schneider 16mm for it, or are you just following the same focal length strategy? If you did get the Schneider, how do you like it?
Some of those old lenses look so great on the Pocket/Micro. This BMMCC short was shot on a S16 Zeiss Superspeed...
Yeah, I agree with this. I think the audience may not realize what’s off, but some will feel that something is different, so unless the story, or intent of the shot, can utilize the jarring effect, it is a problem, in my opinion.
With that said, this is one of the reasons, other than being lazy, that I moved to shooting with single prime lenses. I think it was Polanski that believes you shouldn’t change your focal length during a scene because the change in angle affects perspective, which could take the audience out of the dramatic effect of the scene.
This is definitely an option, the 28mm f/2 isn’t too expensive if you can find a good copy. I haven’t priced the 100mm but I assume it’s a bit more. 
And with that said, there’s a good likelihood that most people won’t even notice or care, so it really depends on how much it bothers you.
On a different note, that FD 50mm is probably the best bargain vintage lens out there. I found a copy that was converted to the Nikon F mount, so I can adapt it to EF on my 5D3.
If I was a smarter person, I could probably sell every lens I own and just use that lens. As you know, that’s how good it is.

I was on a study visit at a tv station while in film school, where in the basement they still had two old Arriflex 16S sitting. They were the 3-lens turret kind. If my memory serves me correct they were equipped with 16, 25 and 50mm Schneider-Kreuznach Arri-s lenses, and that is what they used to shoot reportages and the like with. I've tried to adopt this simple 3-lens setup a couple of times. For my BMPCC I only have the 16mm so far, but I am aiming to complete the same set as on the arri at some point.
For super35/APS-C I aimed for 28, 50 and 85 or 100 mm. Obviously Both longer and wider lenses would prove to be useful, but the idea is that these 3 focal lengths would suffice MOST of the time.
One big problem, especially when shopping for old vintange stills lenses is the matching of aperture while still keeping the price down. I was shooting quite a bit with the canon FDn 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 and 100mm f/2.8, and with a cheap chinese speed booster I could match everything at f/2.8 (effectively f/2.0).
That brings me to my next problem, which I don't see many talking about - Aperture blades. The 28mm 2.8 has 5 blades, the 100mm 2.8 has 6 blades and the 50mm 1.4 has 8 blades. And it would show! When shooting everything at f/2.8 (2.0), thinking it would match pretty well, the background blur would have - in my eyes - wildly different characteristics.
Long story short; if the FDn 50mm 1.4 is the center piece of the set, the 28mm f/2 and 100mm f/2 would be better matches as they all have 8 aperture blades.
(don't get me started on weight and size)

(https://youtu.be/AVuwmQo3YRc)
 
--
 
 
 

I think cinematic 'language' is something that is always evolving and things people do will always fall into three camps: things we've established (eg 180 rule, J and L cuts, etc), things that don't work and will never become a standard part of cinematic language, and things that are unfamiliar but will eventually become part of the standard language.
The issue is that 'standard cinematic language' isn't as standard as we'd like, and it will be different between languages, cultures, and sub-groups.  For example the technique of deliberately over processing and downgrading the image and audio (making the audio so loud that it's clipped almost beyond recognition) is a completely standard thing that started in meme culture and has worked its way into almost all types of social media video.  I can't tell you what it means, but I'm familiar enough with its use that I get the joke when people use it.
This is the problem with art - they take what is normal, then create impressionism, cubism, surrealism, post-modernism, post-post-modernism, etc etc etc....

Generally I dislike changes in aspect ratio. It makes me think of youtubers who go from vlog-style to some "cinematic montage", even if the Kraig Addams example posted by @kye is pretty cool.
Talking about narrative function - I watched the latest season of 13 Reasons Why (season 3) last week, and they frequently swap between two aspect ratios along with color changes (some scenes are even black and white). It is seemingly used to distinguish between timelines. Present day is represented by cool color and 2.22:1 aspect ratio while flashbacks are 1.77:1 and warm tones. 
The aspect ratio change bothered me to no end in the first couple of episodes, but I barely noticed it at the end of the series.

Generally I dislike changes in aspect ratio. It makes me think of youtubers who go from vlog-style to some "cinematic montage", even if the Kraig Addams example posted by @kye is pretty cool.
Talking about narrative function - I watched the latest season of 13 Reasons Why (season 3) last week, and they frequently swap between two aspect ratios along with color changes (some scenes are even black and white). It is seemingly used to distinguish between timelines. Present day is represented by cool color and 2.22:1 aspect ratio while flashbacks are 1.77:1 and warm tones. 
The aspect ratio change bothered me to no end in the first couple of episodes, but I barely noticed it at the end of the series.

Interesting stuff. Which patent holder is that? I don't think I'm yet on that page in the petition, reading very slowly as I am from my patented EO shed surrounded by lovely RAW vegetables.

When the RED EPIC was released and being touted as a combined cinema and stills camera, I took it to shoot alongside my regular stills gear to shoot the Tour De France to see if it was viable for stills extraction for live editorial use. 
On BMCUser, someone else was also planning to shoot the Tour de France that year but ourtesy of two EPICs apparently loaned via RED through the well known Minnesota based pro cyclist who was going to expose the evidence of doping by Armstrong and who's friend was the CEO....
According to this post, it fell through in unusual and quite disturbing circumstances.

If you watched the clip of Stephanie Mcilvain in that video, the person who did the recording of the phone call with her was three times (legitimate) Tour de France winner Greg LeMond who lost his business and endured 12 years of hell after questioning Armstrong's legitimacy.
Imagine being a friend of Greg LeMond,who was losing everything he had legitimately won purely because he was exposing the cheating of another man that you yourself knew was cheating and just letting that happen?
With a friend like that, Greg LeMond of Minnesota wouldn't need enemies.
 

This is huge news! RED can bully little guys but now one of the five largest companies in the world has their thumbs on little Red. Getcha popcorn ready

Hallo friends,
here is my contribution. I hope you like my final film. Looking forward to the great pleasure of exchanging experiences and technical odditities and tricks once Andrew gives the signal for releasing info next week. Thank you for your beautiful films, discussion and the awesome spirit. Thanks Andrew and everyone for inspiring us to film something personal. Here is my labour of love, shot last week and edited over night until just now cheers!
 
Thank you very much!

Anyway, here’s yet another shot from my film...

It’s not about embarrassment, it’s about legally being allowed to shoot at the places I’m shooting at. You need permits and insurance to shoot a film. In a lot of places, you can’t shoot a film in your own house without a permit. Now I would assume that 7 out of 10 times, nobody would care, but when I need to get a shot on a crowded boardwalk, without a bicycle cop giving me grief, I need to be as fast and as inconspicuous as possible.
Hell, when I have my Rode Micro and deadcat attached to my camera, I get more looks and atttention than you can imagine...

Getting this shot handheld, outside of a motel room, ended in a 5 minute conversation from someone who thought I may be a Peeping Tom...

Also, you mentioned earlier about never needing to shoot with an f/1.2 or 1.4 lens... well when you shoot in public, if you get a bystander on video, you would need a release form from them granting me permission to use their image in your film. With a fast lens, they’re so blurred, it doesn’t even matter.

Some more test shots with the 35mm 1.4. This time in B&W...

MY MOTHERFUCKERRRR
dude. thank you. i got the phrase wrong.  love u 4 this

I get that ML Raw would be too good, how about the Ptool hacks for the panasonic cameras? As they technically fails the "unmodified stock video mode" rule.
If the ptool stuff is allowed, surely using ML just for the bitrate mod as long as you're not shooting raw should be allowed aswell?
 
I didn't mean to complicate things ?

Another 35mm here
This one is the 3rd of the used lenses I got on my recent trip and is the Samyang AF 35mm f/2.8 FE for Sony.
Its cheap, compact, lightweight, the AF is decent and its sharp.
Against that is its not particularly fast (though that is offset somewhat by it being for FF cameras) and has about as much character as an Ikea cabinet.
Definitely a good all rounder though for general travel stuff on a FF.

 

Here’s a frame from one of the cheapest lenses around... Nikkor 50mm f/2. The lens is fairly sharp and contrasty wide open but since this is was a wide angle shot, I stopped it down to f/2.8...

Video grabs from a mystery noisy camera with a mystery unsharp lens