kye

Just ordered the Peak Design Capture as recommended by @pryde so we'll see how that goes. Likely put it on the front strap of my day-pack and have the Sony X3000 action camera mounted on it. During travel legs I'll have quick access to the X3000 and when I'm at location I can easily swap between X3000 and GH5 as required. My trip is approaching, so starting to get excited ???

Cool thread and nice write-up. We have to remember that some of us are artists, and imperfection and restrictions and limitations are often fuel for that creativity, and that 'better' is a word that should be taken in context of what we are trying to achieve. Best of luck to those who are making magic with old tech and aren't seduced by numbers.

Voted. I must say that the ones I voted for really were well done and the one I picked for best image quality was also on my shortlist for best cinematography. As cheesy as it sounds, well done to everyone - finishing a project and then sharing it publicly takes some effort and a bit of bravery, so well done to all who entered.

I recall seeing a series of videos on modifying the Helios lenses to fake anamorphics with the oval aperture and fishing line tricks. I think there was talk about colouring the fishing line too. Maybe searching for Helios (or the other Russian lens brands?) plus fake anamorphic will yield results?

Well, I wasn't thinking that, but since you're offering! ???

Price looks similar to Samyang 85/1.4 - any idea how they compare?

Have we seen test images and overall IQ?

Err, yes, you are right. Good points. Not sure what I was thinking.. Nothing to see here, move along!

What's the difference between a TV and a monitor? When you connect the monitor to a computer, both of them have a screen, a computer that runs an operating system off an internal storage device, run apps, have external connections for USB storage devices and internet, and can display video streams from a range of local and online sources. I suppose you could argue that one is modular and the other has the computer built-in, but so does the iMac. One has a keyboard and touchpad/mouse and the other has a remote control. I get it that one can run MS Word and the other probably can't, but in terms of how we consume our media, I see very little difference in reality. If I connected my computer to a TV, would that make it a monitor? I think once you stop watching free-to-air content, it's all just computers...

oh! I see.. I was looking for a post from me and there wasn't one so I couldn't work it out! I was amused by the combination of being really isolated but with wifi. I totally get that feeling, but it's definitely a contradiction

If you're going for the hand-holding look then yeah, hand holding the phone is probably a good idea. I'd suggest the camera person trying not to get too much camera shake in it though - if you cut together normal phone footage that the average person shot it would make most people vomit in a few minutes, so I'd suggest trying to tone it down a little. If it doesn't look amateur / genuine enough then you can crunch it up in Resolve to compensate, but doing stabilisation to take away some movement has limits and looks processed, and not in a good way!

Which post? I'm confused..

Trying to get it to be digital but subtle may be a factor of just processing it subtly many times over. Apply a LUT at 5%, then apply another one, then another one, and if you save each time then the files will be being compressed and re-compressed over and over again. It will probably fall apart relatively quickly, but you can probably just put it over the top of a clean grade and adjust the opacity of the crunched one then that might allow you to dial in how much crunch you want? It's probably a case of just trying stuff and seeing what happens. Making higher quality digital look worse isn't hard, it's processing digital and NOT making it look worse that is the hard thing!!

Interesting concept, the proof will be in the pudding though. I can understand why they went with an EF mount (and I think it's a smart business decision for them) but it rules out adapting a bunch of lenses due to the flange distance of EF being considerable. Although it means that a bunch of vintage lenses are safe from P6K related price inflation

I've always looked at 4K and thought it was too little... lol. Good to see 8K TVs in the wild, it makes sense since I just upgraded to a 4K TV for the first time! and now we have a 4K TV (that's bigger than our previous one) we now hire movies in HD instead of SD. I haven't done an export of one of my 4K films and played it on the new TV yet, so that will be interesting to see.

Someone call 911? Why? You can do it... with your camera!! Seriously though, get a good app like Filmic Pro or MoviePro which will give you manual controls, higher bitrates, focus peaking and all kinds of extra stuff. Get a rig of some kind, even just a tripod, or mount it on a shoulder-rig - the worst thing is camera shake (unless it's deliberate and artistically appropriate). If you're going with a 180 shutter then you will need to get an ND filter of some kind and the rig will need to hold that securely too. I'd suggest using USB power banks so that you've always got enough battery life. Get good sound the same way you would on any other camera. Basically it's a fixed camera/lens but the same as any other camera/lens combo you might shoot with, so you'll want to do everything else the same. ...and make sure to put the phone on airplane mode before hitting record so you don't get a text/call and ruin a shot

Yeah, that's why I tend to quote FF equivalents so that when someone says 28mm I know it's a standard wide and not a medium or super-wide. I'm guessing that with things missing like no 4K Braw it will be a bit patchy with the features it offers lining up with what some people want and not at all with others. It's not tempting to me at all as what it offers and what I want don't really overlap that much.

Ok, I need advice about MF 135mm lenses. I've done a bunch of tests and own quite a few (link to that thread below) but basically I'm after the nicest 135mm lens I can afford, that isn't too heavy, and that has the MF dial the right way (the Canon direction, not the Nikon/Pentax direction). The tests I did revealed that the Minolta 135mm f2.8 was the one I preferred out of the ones I had. So, here are my questions: Is the Minolta 135mm/2.8 up there in IQ? or are there much better specimens around? After playing with my Canon FD 70-210 f4 or the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 I'm particularly interested in how good an FD or Konica 135mm lens would be Is my Minolta 135mm lens representative of the quality, or is it likely been beaten up too much? It's seriously worn, has paint chips missing, the dials are really loose, so I think it's had a hard life and maybe optically it's not so good anymore? Now I've worked out what focal lengths I really use I'm trying to optimise which lenses I actually have, and the 135mm is probably the last one I haven't really explored. My current Minolta is 370g so I wouldn't want it to be too much heavier than that, and I'm not really a fan of 'bubble bokeh' either.

I used to think that was a great film, but now I realise that it's unwatchable because it wasn't shot in 6K... ??? It's absolute magic and filmed like a love letter from a madman.

I give up. Do the tests yourself and prove me wrong.

You're totally right, that is the issue. No-one can understand my argument without understanding mathematical equivalency. Or, you know, logic

If it's downscaled from 6K it should look lovely. Queue the people saying they'll upgrade to 6K, and 8K, and 12K just to deliver 2K ???

I know you were quoting numbers from elsewhere, but does this make sense to you? I would have thought that 6K 16:9 and 6K 2.4:1 would be the same number of pixels across and therefore the same overall amount of zoom, which I thought crop factor was equivalent to. Another question - do we talk about crop factor being less when an anamorphic lens is used? In that sense, after the de-squeeze the sensor is effectively wider than it is physically, giving a crop factor of 0.75 or less!

Did you watch the video I posted? Please tell us all how you can see that the reframed shot is visibly less quality. Quoting the 'rules' when they are contradicted by actual footage is a bit of a strange argument, wouldn't you think?

I shoot hand-held so weight is important to me, but if I shot using a tripod then I might still be using my 18-35, it's an absolutely gorgeous lens. I've never used the 16-35 but I would imagine it to be similar. In terms of F1.8 vs F4, I'd suggest taking whatever camera you have and whatever lenses you have and doing some aperture tests. Get an understanding about how shallow the DoF is for the typical things you shoot, remembering to take into account the distance from camera -> subject and subject -> background. Also, this is a handy tool to calculate equivalent DoF numbers for different camera/lens combinations: http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html