seanzzxx

That's a really common problem with the Viltroxes, and it seems to be a quality control thing. I have the same on my 18-35, from 1.8 it's really sharp but at 1.2 it's a ridiculous washed out glow, totally unusable. I didn't bother returning it because I'm 1) lazy and 2) never shoot below f1.8, but it's still annoying. Can't complain for the price, though.

Yep! It's an awesome feature that came at the cost of DR and noise so they dropped it like a brick for the 4.6K, which has a superior image. People don't give a hoot about rolling shutter as long as it's minimal enough. P4K, GH5S, Ursa 4.6k have all reached that point imo.

No problem! Just to clarfiy, the 1.44x crop of super 35 is against FULL-FRAME (again, in 4k your 1dx mark II is not the same width as full frame). Full frame sensor width is 36mm. Super 35 film width is 24,89mm. 1dx mark II in 4k sensor width is 27,5mm (give or take). 36/24,89= 1,45. So the crop of super 35 compared against full-frame is 1,45x. 27,5/24,89= 0,91x. So the crop of your 1dx mark II in 4k compared against super 35 is 0.91x. You can do this in all directions. 24,89/27,5=1.10x. So the crop of super 35 when compared to the 1dx mark II in 4k is 1.10x. Again, this is all theoretical, because a 1.10x crop is meaningless.

So Super35/the Arri Alexa (90% of movies you will have seen will be shot on those formats) have a crop factor of around 1.45 (I got this number wrong at first, updated my earlier post), unless they were shot anamorphic in which case we get into the story of horizontal crop factors and we get really freaky, which we will not do now. Your 1dX II has a crop of around 1.3, so the angle of view is WIDER. If you don't want to exceed 18mm angle of view when compared to s35, you'll have to put a tighter lens on your 1dx mark II. In your case the crop factor of a 1dX II when compared to super 35 would be around 0,9, so you wouldn't want to go wider than a 20mm roughly. However, to make your life easier: in real life a crop factor of 0,9x is is so incredibly, insignificantly small that it really doesn't matter, just go for the same lenses you would use on Super35 and you'll be fine.

Okay, so a few things. Super35 is technically a 1.44x crop (I GOT THIS NUMBER WRONG AT FIRST, EDITED IT NOW) when compared to full-frame. However on Sony it's a 1.5x crop, on Canon a 1.6x crop for their aps-c sensors. If you want to match the angle of view of Canon aps-c (1.6x crop) to that of the Canon 1dx II, it's important to remember that the crop factor is compared against a specific sensor format, namely that of full-frame 35mm (so NOT Super35). So the aps-c crop is heavier than that of the 1dx II (1.6x as opposed to 1.3x when compared to full-frame). This means that if you want to to match the angle of view of a aps-c sensor to a 1dx II (4k) angle of view, you will have to apply a NEGATIVE crop (because you're actually getting a wider angle of view, not narrower). That crop is about 0,8x. So it will look like this: Super35 (canon aps-c) to 4K (Canon 1DX)(0.8x) 18mm = 14,4 21mm = 16,8 etc...

Just a minor point, the P4CCK can shoot stills, it's just super clumsily implemented and you can't see your results afterwards.

http://yedlin.net/ResDemo/ I'll just leave this here. Going 6k before 10-bit is the worst single thing they could do.

I use NISI IRND. They're awesome, more affordable than the Lee's and have, so far as I can tell, almost no color cast. Their holder also has a 82mm (I think) screw-in thread so you can add circular filters.

Using steadicams/glidecams as opposed to gimbals really does the trick I think, it adds a certain flow to the movement that is very filmlike in my opinion. Here's one example, all shot on a glidecam:

Jesus, what a petty and defensive responsive to someone being understandably wary of a brand after getting two duds in a row.

IronFilm's comment was made before the announcement, but Cinemartin is talking about two-to-four months, depending on the model: https://www.dpreview.com/news/2936447826/cinemartin-launches-fran-cameras-with-8k-global-shutter-and-raw-support No offense, but you have to be almost wilfully obtuse to think this footage looks good or even displays good dynamic range. You don't notice the: 1) Incredibly wonky colors in log and even more so in the 'graded' footage at 2.56 or 2.19? I mean you could argue that this was the grade but this footage should never, ever be allowed to look like that in a product launch video, 2) The heavy IR cast in much of the footage, including 2.56 and 2.10, 3) The focus being off in a lot of the footage, most noticeably in 2.04: I mean these are the fundamentals, this simply cannot happen in a video like this, 4) the dynamic range looks terrible and I would really love for you to convince me otherwise, you've got clipped highlight details and milky, crushed blacks at 1.48, 1.50 (better shadow detail), 1.58, 2,04, 2.18 and this is JUST from THEIR OWN highlight reel. You could argue this is because they didn't do anything to control the lighting on an extremely sunny day at high noon but my question to you would be then that WHY, for God's sake, would you EVER shoot your video like this when the aim of it is to make your footage look good?! 5) the overall production quality is laughable, with audio sounding like they recorded it straight from a rode videomic pro in an empty concrete room, visuals popping in-and-out of frame out of sync, the guy explaining how to import the footage to your NLE, I mean it doesn't make ANY sense. This video is a masterwork in unintentional comedy. EDIT: Prices by the way: Fran LT: €10,995 regular, €7,920 introductory Fran (STD): €17,790 regular, €15,995 introductory Fran Plus: €25,670 regular, €19,995 introductory I mean these are URSA, EVA-1, even RED prices ... that's a big ask for this footage.

So this camera is going on sale soon, and the first footage from what I suppose is a (near)-finished model has been released and ... ho, boy:

Vignetting is apparently very well-controlled, so nothing to worry about too much: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/slr-magic-25mm-t-0-95-hyperprime-cine-lens-review-22999

Hm. Should your resolution not be something like 2048x858 for 2.39:1 rendering? Maybe you can try that.

Okay, I just figured this out: it's the HOOD. With the sunhood on I get significant vignetting (on the left especially). Without it it's, like you said, not worth mentioning.