greenscreen

If there are some other collections and barrels not exactly glass related, what about ours? ; )
Inspired by this post from one of the most dearest ones among us and a most part of us after all...
Show us your Nerd  ;- )
 

A bit of a thread resurrection, but I don't mind. I'm actually doing these lessons these days as well. I learned Premiere by trying and failing and really wish Adobe provided something similar back then. It's easy to miss some key feature when learning a tool by oneself.

Useful training program certification. I can only recommend.

Has anyone here tried the official DaVinci Resolve training that Blackmagic offer? From looking briefly, it seems pretty comprehensive, and completely free. Then you can take the tests and get certifications at the end of each 'chapter'. I've downloaded the files and I'm looking forward to starting, but figured I'd ask if anyone else has tried it, and can offer pros and cons over some other options out there.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/nl/products/davinciresolve/training

I guess our mate up there had focused on the impact the smartphone evolution may produce on this craft. The fact is new competition brings both a fresh way of producing motion pictures either on new players looking for the same audiences but not an equivalent content nor production values or the consequences coming from there and the whole impact in the labour force participation and employment ratios of current industry workers.
 
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CWqMmvYgTL1/
In Portuguese, the woman says she is a lovely woman because of her eyes, she is still able to attract any man in her country...
:- )
 

Dynamic range seems fine in raw, just protect the highlights and pull the shadows in post if needed

Expect no more vignetting* than this here:
source

24mm f/1.8
source
 
* which bothers me zero when under (crop &) control
 

I meant the aforementioned Sigma 18-35/1.8. And that link with the FF coverage for a part of its range. So, no idea if wide open too?

I love my ancient 300mm 2.8 Tamron adaptall. 
Not the best 300 2.8 made but probably the lightest (and there were NO bad 300 2.8s ever).   Still over 2 kilos though!
Even so, as I get older I have to seriously think about if I am going to take this lens anywhere (usually walking and usually will have it in a backpack).
It is getting close to the time when I will have to give it away (to a relative) but maybe not for a year or three yet.     I just might have to limit it to trips to the zoo and festivals now and for video, just outdoor music festivals on a tripod.
My old Fuji superzoom will have to do when i want a long lens otherwise if not now, soon enough.
I have had a few others over the years but this old Tamron 2.8 has been with me across systems for must be going on twenty years.   I still have an old Tamron zoom to 350mm but none have been to my liking more than this old Tamron 2.8
IF I had the time and the room, this would be my first choice as a portrait lens most of the time too (though being MF, a lot of misses for every hit).
I can not afford a newer better lens but this will do me fine for now (would love a 200 f2).
I nearly got a Nikon 300 f2 many years ago, glad I didn't as that would be too heavy for me now (though might have made a tidy profit selling it).
I have had several greyhound racing pics in a national (Australian) Greyhound racing paper and Australian football pics in a regional daily from it and even though i dropped it a few feet onto a hard ground that made it very hard to remove or replace the adaptall, still works fine for me.
A couple of zoo shots from today (glad i took it instead of the Fuji superzoom).
The Kangaroo shot was also with a bit of clearzoom for more "reach".
What longer lenses are you using?

https://www.zeiss.com/content/dam/consumer-products/downloads/historical-products/photography/contax-yashica/en/datasheet-zeiss-planar-1750-en.pdf

Looking at Ebay for sold prices, it seems to range wildly for what people have actually paid (not what is asked for).
$116 (Australian) for one for "spares and repair with haze" from the UK, $137.93 for one in good condition with a Fuji X adapter also from the UK (this one seems an absolute bargain), $141.61 working but some dust and not so smooth focus (UK), a $143.45 for one with fungus (UK again).
User ones in ok condition generally seem to be around $200-$250 with the better ones seemingly in the $300-$400 dollar range.
I would rate this charity store copy as a very good one.
Since it has now sat unloved in the front window for several weeks, I think I will suggest they either send it to Sydney to go on Ebay, or reduce the price to $100 (and sell it to me...Not that i need another lens like this so probably not).

Bryan (where you can also find a few bargains from his used inventory too when he has something in 2nd hand from his glass reviews and tests : ) has a fair informative resource for the subject matter:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Comparisons/Sigma-18-35mm-f-1.8-DC-HSM-Lens.aspx
So, for some reason (especially stills) Sigma has introduced their Art series 24-35mm f2 too and not for extra significant weight, less than 20% more, even though for a higher cost usually to double such gap... Go figure how much we're able to safe with that proper wide aspect ratio, not really for stills but to motion picture use ;- )
As far as Tokinas offer concerns, the eldest 11-16mm f2.8 @ 16:9 you practically only reach it on 16mm end which is much more handy going along the younger sister 11-20mm f2.8 today from there to 20mm. Wide open included.
Let alone a wider aspect ratio then (through a 2.39:1 crop as inferred above ; ) That is, filters and hood aside :- )
 
 
 
 

Caleb reviewed one recently. https://youtu.be/EaYebQm3CpY

Thanks for the bump.
BTW, since we're back in this thread now, I saw this at the Borrego Springs Film Festival back in 2020.  Pretty sweet:
 
 

Indeed : ) I guess to infer Internet has to be a nasty location from people placing their invectives and frustrations is simply to add a reducer on something always welcome as an open and healthy discussion is.
 
They haven't ever watched Citizen Kane, very likely ; )
 
BTW in behalf of this lovely thread, came to my mind now that vintage Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.5 AI...

Paseo nocturno (Pamplona by) © Ángel Sagardoy
 
Here's more on Flickr (and here's a second part for more samples).
 
Ah and @kye allow me to stand corrected "to this new thread of yours" for better English understanding as well a vivid "as much as possible" I forgot to include in the same paragraph up there :- )

You mean 35mm equivalent : )
Those Tokinas we know don't cover other than wide end but are much affordable these days and you still can use them in their cine-like version as you wish and on full frame for a good fraction of the range.
Without mention the Sigma either on FF coverage or its S35 18-35mm F1.8 counterpart you can assure a low light use as well, even though at a heavier cost of course :- )

Post makes them cinematic.

This is a videoclip that I shot mixing the Bmpcc4k (C/Y Zeiss Primes + Speedbooster) and the Microcinema with russian 16mm Lens (Meopta Largor and Openar), both in CDNG.
 


I also use the Microcinema as an A cam with a more modern look, like in this other videoclip, shot with speedbooster and Sigma 18-35mm (car interiors) and Tokina 11-16mm (day exteriors)
 


I´m still learning and trying to get a more organic look from the Bmpcc4k. I have test the new Gen 5 (not in this videoclip) in Resolve 17 and I found it more pleasant than the Gen4 as most of users says but for now I´m still prefer the more organic texture of the old fairchild sensor.

And sorry for my english!

Stuff doesn't need to be lower res to look like cinematic. And yes, higher resolution, more details, etc. help post-production.
 
As much as something doesn't necessarily have to be "cinematic" to be appreciated, I (can only and obviously) second it : )
 
That said, composition can result in something much more cinematic than resolution, DOF or some other visual aspect per se.

8K60P, 4K120P RAW


 

Yes, Marvel is nothing about video-like, but "something" pretending to be cine-like. That is, if we're willing to ignore many different approaches on what "cinematic" may mean ;- )
- EAG

I was shooting in the sun for 3 hours, getting about 30 minutes of 5K RAW  video clips.

I feel the same way about the S5 and VLOG. The latitude that I have with the footage I thought was only possible with RAW or some form of compressed RAW. After you discover 10bit combined with a LOG profile and Davinci Resolve there is no going back. 

I absolutely agree. 10bit 422 VLog is close enough to raw for me.
If you can set up your color correction that exposure, contrast and colour adjustments work consistently across the tonal range of the log curve (for example, Premiere's Lumetri doesn't, but an ACES workflow does) then it's effectively giving you the power of raw exposure, contrast and white balance adjustments without breaking the footage and maintaining a good degree of accuracy. But 8 bit would fall apart.