kye

Hahaha, yes, that's true lol. When I was looking at them some time ago the theory was that they were the same designs, but I couldn't find any real comparisons where someone had both of them and shot the same scene or compared them directly. Maybe there has been some new stuff since though?

Have YOU ever had corner shadows?? I don't think so!! IF you ever did then you'd understand the IMMEDIATE REQUIREMENT to get AS MUCH advice AS POSSIBLE!!! This is a COMPLETELY NATURAL RESPONSE!!! THE HUMANITY!!!!!1!!!1!!

I still see focus issues regularly on youtube channels that feature vlogging type content. Sure, we have DPAF and PDAF, but if the camera decides to do a beautifully-smooth speed-controlled phase-detect focus-pull to the wrong f*cking thing, then it's still a wasted shot. Watch some of the reviews of the new Sony vlogging camera to see people talking about how it has a new focus mode that is far better for things like product shots, and remember that when someone says that a new product is better then it means that the old one had issues that they wanted to be fixed. Luckily, if you're holding the camera while filming yourself, manual focus combined with an aperture setting that isn't too ridiculous can fix those focus issues! Besides, at this point if you're a vlogger who only cares about content and want the filming process to essentially leave you alone, then there are many smaller sensor cameras to just crank out content. The vloggers that want to have larger sensors and larger apertures are also somewhat likely to be interested in the MF aesthetic.

That is super cool!! I'm really looking forward to seeing you get this up and running It makes sense now why you said you'd be mounting the sensor onto the lens. In this sense, maybe your mounting method could be to mount the mount to an adjustable setup, so you can easily and accurately adjust the sensor to the right flange distance. Ie, if you put a couple of nuts on the opposite side of the board to the sensor, then had the thing mount onto some bolts, then by rotating either the nuts or the bolts (depending on how you built it) then you could screw the sensor closer or further away to lock it in. This could be a relatively easy way to have a secure mount that is easy to get exact infinity focus on. Do you know how good the RAW signal is? If it's a half-decent sensor and the RAW is RAW then it should be pretty close to the RAW from any other camera with a half-decent sensor.

I've looked at the filter range (although I haven't actually shot with one) and thought that they all seemed quite strong. Maybe it was that the sample images all have direct light-sources in them. Anyway, depending on the shot I would have thought that you'd want the freedom to add more or less to kind of balance out the look. Especially if you're using a lens wide-open as well as closing it down, which can provide a wide range of contrast and resolution. In this sense, getting a 1/8 might be a good investment as if you later added a 1/4 then you could use 0, 1/8, 1/4, or 3/8, making it a very flexible setup.

I think if we're talking about guerrilla film making then it could also be Han Dheld.

Yes, how to remain unscathed after it is released is the challenge, and Banksy did come to mind when I was reading your post. I guess there's a few options: Use your real name, go under the radar while filming then risk the fallout after it is released Use a production company / name and don't put your real name in the credits - they might still find out who you are but you can always deny it while people you know and film circles can "all know it's you" Use a production company / name and take measures to ensure that no-one can trace it to you, knowing that ultimately the fame and glory associated with that name will not get added to your own Obviously I don't know Banksy, but my completely uneducated guess would be that he/she/they would suggest that you create the alter-ego with as close to zero links to yourself as possible, and use that anonymity to pursue as honest and uninhibited an agenda as you can, and take payment from the work in terms of reward for authenticity and contribution to humanity. Of course, Banksy is also very likely a hugely successful individual independently of their Banksy persona, so they don't need the money or fame, whereas I'm sure you probably could do with a bit more of that (unless you're secretly a famous rich person hanging out here talking about consumer cameras for some reason!). Of course, there's always bitcoin....

Yes, the difference isn't too much, which should be doable, as long as you don't do it however @BTM_Pix is thinking about that leads to total destruction! I tried to make an adapter by buying a cheap low profile plastic C-Mount body cap and cutting a D-Mount into it then heating it up and bending it by pushing on the D-Mount to adjust for the smaller flange distance. IIRC I stuffed up the D-Mount so it didn't work as a mount, but I think the idea is sound.

I've looked into C-Mount to D-Mount adapters and the challenge is that they aren't normally made as D-mount has a shorter flange distance than C-Mount, but having said that I've seen a few solutions, so they are out there. One of the challenges is that often the control rings on the D-Mount lenses are quite close to the body of the camera, which if the lens is recessed into a C-Mount mount then it makes the lenses all the more difficult to adjust and work with, although still possible for slower shooting situations.

One of the things that I have read time and again is that creative people need to form a "personal brand" and then stick to that brand. I've read this in the context of photography, film-making, music, art, and others. I get why that's the advice that's given (people go to mcdonalds to get something familiar and reliable, not the best food or the most experimental new ideas) as that's how people want to get sold to, but from a creative perspective it's ridiculous. The reason I mention this is that, naturally, many successful creative people get around this by having lots of pseudonyms which all have different brands. To certain extent what you're talking about is having a duplicate brand, which comes with all the overheads of maintaining that brand. Also, you're talking about being distanced from that as a person (in terms of blacklisting etc) which I guess can range from obfuscation to deliberately hiding your identity. I have no idea how you would film a doco and hide your real name to the point that a government couldn't find out who you are, but I guess if you want something badly enough then sure. To me I guess the question is if the costs are worth it, and only you can really weigh up that equation.

Of course it exists. Maybe it doesn't do exactly what you want it to do at the levels of performance that you deem to be a minimum standard, but they do exist. You can pick up a GoPro or DJI Osmo Action and just go shoot, and with their stabilisation you don't even need any rigging or even a handle. Many people do exactly that. If you want a more serious image then many of the cameras mentioned are suitable. There are many times I have just picked up my GH5 and apart from adding a lens and putting on a wrist-strap I haven't added anything. Oh, a memory card. ...and a battery. Oops! So many additional things required!! Of course, if you deem that you absolutely need directional audio then no camera will ever be without needing additional stuff because the idea that a manufacturer is going to make a camera with a shotgun microphone built in is just silly. Wanting a camera that can shoot a Hollywood movie that comes complete out of the box is like wanting a car that can 4wd on the weekends, beat a Lamborghini at the lights, bring home a boot full of building supplies from the hardware store, fit in all your mates to go to the game but park in a small space when you get there, and get 50 miles per gallon. The only way anything could do all those things is to be modular, and thus, would require "additional stuff to use".

Thanks for sharing. I'm guessing that this thread will be a slow burn as people gradually build the software required to actually use it. ML was the same, but now the tools for converting the raw files are a joy to use and have heaps of great features. C-Mount lenses aren't cheap, but there were some absolutely excellent ones made, so if you can get a raw workflow working then just open your wallet and pour the contents into an ebay auction for some old cine glass and then you should be able to get a great image from it.

Not a d*ck, but it's a tough ask doing a blind test online because: people getting things wrong is embarrassing and this wasn't anonymous and the internet never forgets lenses are a lot more similar to each other than any of us would like to admit so its actually a ridiculously difficult thing to do (don't tell anyone.....shhhhh)

Lenses have resolution and contrast, which can always be degraded by filters on set or by processing in post. Things like barrel distortion (which some love and says it gives a very cinematic look) can also be added in post. There is always an argument to be made for having the lenses with the most resolution and contrast and then using filters to degrade them, because you can always take those filters off and get a cleaner more modern look, whereas with vintage lenses you can't put a 'modern' filter on to increase resolution and contrast. Building the look with filters instead of with the lenses themselves also allows a more consistent overall look if you want to shoot at different apertures, as lenses are often softer wide-open and then have radically increased resolution when stopped down, and can also have significant differences between the centre of the frame and the edges. If this is the case then putting on a filter acts like a unifying force to make the whole frame more uniform. Of course, if you're shooting the whole film at a given f-stop then this doesn't matter as much, but then you have to contend with radically different DoF from shot to shot as the subject distance varies giving different amounts of background defocus. Apart from the look of a Black Pro Mist filter to reduce contrast and a Black Soft FX to reduce resolution, what are the parts of the cinematic look that you're chasing? You mentioned vintage Nikkor AI lenses would fit the bill, but then said that Samyang wouldn't as they're not expensive enough. If you're concerned about being judged on set wouldn't the Nikkor lenses also be perceived as cheap? After all, they are.

This video that @heart0less shared in another thread is also interesting as it compares a modern lens + BPM with a vintage FD lens. So just get some vintage lenses and forget your BPM filters! One of the things that people talk a lot about with the Contax Zeiss lenses is the T* coating, saying that the coating is where the lovely look comes from, which is essentially performing the same function, so this isn't a new concept by any means.

I'm a bit confused about your use of the phrase 'cine'.... The things that separate cine lenses from other lenses are that cine lenses have things like: same weight across whole set (so that you don't need to re-balance rigs when changing lenses) same size front filter size across whole set (so that you don't need to adjust filter setups when changing lenses) aperture / focus gears so these can be connected to a follow-focus same location of manual control rings across whole set (so that you don't need to adjust follow-focus controls when changing lenses) de-clicked apertures parfocal same coatings across whole set (so that shots and flares aren't visually very different when changing lenses) same resolution across whole set (so that shots aren't visually very different when changing lenses) etc Which of these are you interested in? You don't seem to be interested in all of them.

I know it would work. My question is if the motion tracking uses the extra frames for motion estimation or if they get thrown away before the tracker is applied. The reason I care about this is I recall the demo from Lok where he did star jumps, and at 25p there was a frame where his arm was sloped down, next frame they were about level, next frame was more than 45 degrees up, next one was vertical. In that example, would the motion estimation pick up that his arm is moving very quickly? or would it just think that there are several unrelated objects appearing and disappearing? If it was filmed in 120fps then there would be 5 times as many frames and the fact it's one object that's moving would be obvious to the motion tracking. They all look quite similar to me, but the difference between 24 and 120p isn't that much as both of them appear to have approx a 45-90degree shutter. If you compare the size of the blur with how far the object moves in the next frame then you'll see that the blur isn't that long in any of these modes. I know I'm not that sensitive to SS in general, but my impressions of these kinds of tests are that if you have a bit of blur then it mostly looks fine. It's when you're filming in direct sunlight and the SS is like 1/2000 that the motion effect breaks down and it looks more like a burst of unrelated images, or something moving but somehow moving through a medium that gives it strange sharp textures as it travels. I guess the whole point of this is to do away with NDs, which would mean that shots would range from being indoor and 360 shutter to being in direct sun and being 1/4000.

I've taken stills and used them as photographs, but it's not really the same. Pretty difficult to use video to sync to a shutter, or do astrophotography, etc, plus IIRC the Pocket cameras don't do short shutter speeds? ie, 1/500 or 1/4000 etc. I've also used a GoPro for taking photographs, but I also understand why it doesn't fit with this concept.

Is there any objective measurement for measuring ISO? I always thought that a standard measurement would be a good idea, but reviewers just seem to use their own judgement, which of course isn't comparable between different reviewers. IIRC the broadcast standards quote specs but very few cameras ever get tested.

I think the point that @Deadcode was making was that the extra frames can help the motion estimation better, which makes sense, although I'm not sure that it would actually work that way in how they would have likely implemented the video processing pipeline.

These would require the blur to essentially simulate a 360 shutter, or in the case of 160fps -> 25fps it would involve simulating a 1152 degree shutter! I guess there's no reason why you couldn't do that, it would simply blur the motion significantly more than the object moves in each source frame. Of course, this depends on the order of operations - if the motion blur is applied after the speed change then the input to the effect might only be the frames that survived the speed change, so extra frame rate wouldn't help the accuracy of the effect.

I'd be interested to see some stress-testing of it, like Lok did on digital rev when he did star-jumps and it really emphasised the effect. Ultimately it will come down to the motion detection and estimation so it knows what to blur. In Resolve it would be pretty easy to bake the effect in while converting - just drag all clips to the timeline and then do an export and set it so that all the clips are individually exported. This workflow would also work if converting from RAW, and would handily be a place to apply LUTs any other things that always get added to your grades.

Since I found out about the Motion Blur feature in Resolve I think I'll probably ditch NDs as well. I had it on my list to do some A/B tests and see how well it worked, so I'm looking forward to seeing what Andrew finds and reading the blog post.

Can't remember who but I do recall someone on here saying that they liked to shoot with SS longer than 180 because it kind of compensated for the limitations of DSLR / MILC cameras in other ways, sort of balancing them out to get something cinematic. Conversely, films like Saving Private Ryan have used shorter SS than 180 to give the opposite effect: https://cinemashock.org/2012/07/30/45-degree-shutter-in-saving-private-ryan/ 180 is a 'rule' in the sense that the rule of thirds is a rule - they're great to learn when you're new because they help you to avoid doing stupid things, but once you've passed a certain maturity in craft you can use them or break them depending on the situation....

The other thing I thought was strange in the video is when he says that people put stockings over the end of the lens, but I thought they put the mesh filters between the lens and the sensor, so at the inner end of the lens. I wonder if that has an impact on the effect. He also put a stocking and then complained that the effect was too strong, but there are many meshes available that wouldn't have so much coverage and therefore wouldn't be as strong. Lots of stuff online about different meshes and their effects.