octoplex

Thought I better flag this video up since there are some serious concerns here. I'm not sure what ALTCINE are up to:
The video emphasizes certain symbols which are known to be associated with the organized ritual-abuse of childen, as reported by a Guardian Award-winning, Times / Telegraph journalist in this article here: https://vo.lc/School-Of-Fools-Aldenham.html
I have taken screen-grabs of the symbols from the ALTCINE video posted above. I have highlighted the relevant symbols in green boxes:

Ostensibly as a demonstration of the camera, the video then zooms into the symbol above the door, which contains one of the main symbols used by these cults:

Additionally: The abacus on the capital of both columns either side of the door, precisely match the symbols used by the cult operating the Aldenham School Library (and at many other locations) where children were abused in rituals. The library can be seen in many photographs, here. I have included one below, for comparison:

The symbol above the door in the ALTCINE video matches other symbols found at the same location, and many other locations of abuse, described in detail here and here. In summary, there's no gentle way to put this: For some reason the ALTCINE video is full of occult pedophile-symbolism.
The Power Of Symbols
Naturally, there may be some explanation for this: The makers of the video are unaware of the occult (hidden) purpose of the building in their video. However, the problem we have is that pedophiles actively use these symbols to demark territory, and to signal to each other that their behavior is socially acceptable; sometimes by including the symbols in videos and movies.
These symbols are also designed to trigger an unconscious fear response in those who were abused in conjunction with these symbols, as children. Basic associative-conditioning.
This may be very hard for some of us to accept, but there are those who walk among us who take immense pride in their abuse of children, and flaunt their 'power' in the architecture of buildings, and the media they create that includes these symbols.
Let's hope ALTCINE made a serious mistake here. But to me, it looks intentional.

Thought I better flag this video up since there are some serious concerns here. I'm not sure what ALTCINE are up to:
The video emphasizes certain symbols which are known to be associated with the organized ritual-abuse of childen, as reported by a Guardian Award-winning, Times / Telegraph journalist in this article here: https://vo.lc/School-Of-Fools-Aldenham.html
I have taken screen-grabs of the symbols from the ALTCINE video posted above. I have highlighted the relevant symbols in green boxes:

Ostensibly as a demonstration of the camera, the video then zooms into the symbol above the door, which contains one of the main symbols used by these cults:

Additionally: The abacus on the capital of both columns either side of the door, precisely match the symbols used by the cult operating the Aldenham School Library (and at many other locations) where children were abused in rituals. The library can be seen in many photographs, here. I have included one below, for comparison:

The symbol above the door in the ALTCINE video matches other symbols found at the same location, and many other locations of abuse, described in detail here and here. In summary, there's no gentle way to put this: For some reason the ALTCINE video is full of occult pedophile-symbolism.
The Power Of Symbols
Naturally, there may be some explanation for this: The makers of the video are unaware of the occult (hidden) purpose of the building in their video. However, the problem we have is that pedophiles actively use these symbols to demark territory, and to signal to each other that their behavior is socially acceptable; sometimes by including the symbols in videos and movies.
These symbols are also designed to trigger an unconscious fear response in those who were abused in conjunction with these symbols, as children. Basic associative-conditioning.
This may be very hard for some of us to accept, but there are those who walk among us who take immense pride in their abuse of children, and flaunt their 'power' in the architecture of buildings, and the media they create that includes these symbols.
Let's hope ALTCINE made a serious mistake here. But to me, it looks intentional.

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

« Color Grading »

Official EOSHD chat thread for the arts and cinema.

So the forum is pretty good at the moment thanks to some spicy discussions, it would be boring if we all agreed all the time, but I also think we should encourage people to come back - big names from before like Mattias Burling , Dave Maze, they are missed. Maybe we could occasionally drop them a note to say so. I can't promote the forum myself, it just looks like I am spamming people with my blog.
Maybe that's where you all come in 🙂
Would some of you be willing to post a few links here and there in popular Reddit groups, on DPReview and on social media groups?
It would supercharge the place and get us noticed more... Then we'd have some great discussions with new people, and regain some control over the camera community in an independent way, rather than everything being hoovered up by the big US social media giants who are opening supporting a fascist regime at the moment.
Never been a better moment to get our independence back from social media.
Mark Zuckenberg and those like him are pure evil.
The forum way is a better way.
It offers everyone here a higher profile and higher involvement.
The better our content, the better the discussions, the more people will come...
I know a lot of forum posts have to reference other people's talking point or content, so a topic can devolve into lots and lots of URLs to social media, or YouTube video embeds.
But rather than have rules around this, which I don't want to do, it would be great if we could encourage people to join who will use the forum a bit like having their own blog - Posting original hands-on opinions and content about cameras and shooting... Our own insight is better than constantly referring to that of others - It would be good for the community.
Just some thoughts and open to more ideas too about how to grow this rather nice place that we've got.

Sigma have delivered a masterpiece here. Two main reasons:
1. This is a camera manufactured by adults in Aizu, Fukushima, Japan. In today's camera market it is very hard to find products manufactured by adults in free countries. Personally, I only buy adult-manufactured cameras.
2. There's no on-board surveillance system. The Sigma BF does not have WiFi or Bluetooth soldered to its mainboard. Again, something that is increasingly hard to find.
It's almost as if points 1 and 2 might be connected in some way. Something to meditate on...
Aside from that. This camera looks gorgeous.
純粋に天才だ。
Could it be that ethics, and integrity of corporate-action, results in integrity, and beauty, of form? Something else to meditate on...
Sigma BF for professional filmmakers?
Fascinated to know what the rolling-shutter is like on the Sigma BF for video. Will it be possible to enable a global-shutter feature for lower-resolutions? Even if global-shutter on the Sigma BF is only possible for 1080p, I'd consider shooting a feature-film with it.
Potentially, the BF is a perfect camera for Ethics-First Film-makers.
I could see this new Sigma BF being the improved-reincarnation of the legendary (and sadly discontinued) 16mm Fairchild BMPCC OG, and the Bolex D16.
A tool for real-artists.
If Sigma is listening: Is there any chance of finessing your masterpiece by adding global-shutter for video? Even if only for a lower-resolution readout.
Regardless, あなたの勇気と勇敢さに感謝する。

Thanks for this great interview with Kazuto Yamaki and Takuma Wakamatsu.
Here in 2024, we're still waiting for a major update to the Sigma FP, so I wanted to offer my thoughts to Sigma:
Sigma is the only manufacturer making a cinema-camera in an ethical region (Japan). This makes their cameras VERY desirable to ethical filmmakers. Admittedly Arri (sort-of made in Germany...) and Sony (Indonesia) are getting closer.

As a cinematographer, my suggestions for an update to the Sigma FP/FP-L are:

- Add Global Shutter: Even if this requires a drop in resolution. Sigma could capture the entire market for ethical-filmmakers seeking a close-to-celluloid look. Rolling-shutter is over. Even if it's fast, it adds sub-perceptual oddness that does not replicate film.
- Focus on film-looks: The post-processing market is big (Dehancer / Filmbox  / LUTs etc) and there is an entire generation chasing the Kodak-Eastman stock that defined the 70s/80s golden-age of movies. Why not offer a camera that has been specifically designed to properly recreate this stock in hardware?
In summary: Other cinema-camera manufacturers appear to have lost all sensitivity to the 'romance' of the image they seek to capture.
I'm not sure what most video camera-companies are aiming for anymore. Some kind of super-sharp; hyper-resolute; bland-scrutinization of the 'real'; or so it seems.
The result is ugly without extensive post-processing.
Instead: Sigma could make a cinema camera that takes Eastman Color 5247/7247 film (or similar) as its benchmark. Sigma could refer back to the time when movies had SOUL, and use that as a starting point for a new ethos in the industry.
A new wave of filmmakers are tired of spec-sheet-junkie-YouTube-streamer-cams and ten-billion-pixel sensors made for instagram-yuppies.
Some of us are ARTISTS and want a cinema camera with "Made in Japan" ethics, and an image that prioritizes BEAUTY and GRACE; not pixel-counts and a bizarre-preoccupation with uncanny / creepy-levels of sharpness. We were happy with Super16.
I hope Kazuto Yamaki is somewhere out there, reading this.
Sending you, and everyone at Sigma, courage!

Having been part of this industry, with insider-knowledge on the tactics these people use, I can tell you that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that happens.
It's impossible to prove this level of malfeasance, and this is the reason why it is so effective. Remember that Google is a well-evidenced CIA-project. Google's objective online is 'intelligence'-harvesting  and psychological-manipulation for power and profit.
As you have noted, anything that competes with the CIA (Google)'s ability to gather information, censor voices, and manipulate public-opinion,  becomes a target for infiltration. Vimeo was a serious-threat to power because it offered an independent, community-run information stream.
It is the purpose of Google / the CIA to destroy human-community, where it discovers it, and to replace natural-conversation with top-down programming. Existing power-systems do not like the free-flow of information because it exposes their crimes.
Freedom of speech is the antithesis of evil; therefore evil despises it at every turn.
As Google's founders, the CIA, famously said:
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
 

Thanks for this great interview with Kazuto Yamaki and Takuma Wakamatsu.
Here in 2024, we're still waiting for a major update to the Sigma FP, so I wanted to offer my thoughts to Sigma:
Sigma is the only manufacturer making a cinema-camera in an ethical region (Japan). This makes their cameras VERY desirable to ethical filmmakers. Admittedly Arri (sort-of made in Germany...) and Sony (Indonesia) are getting closer.

As a cinematographer, my suggestions for an update to the Sigma FP/FP-L are:

- Add Global Shutter: Even if this requires a drop in resolution. Sigma could capture the entire market for ethical-filmmakers seeking a close-to-celluloid look. Rolling-shutter is over. Even if it's fast, it adds sub-perceptual oddness that does not replicate film.
- Focus on film-looks: The post-processing market is big (Dehancer / Filmbox  / LUTs etc) and there is an entire generation chasing the Kodak-Eastman stock that defined the 70s/80s golden-age of movies. Why not offer a camera that has been specifically designed to properly recreate this stock in hardware?
In summary: Other cinema-camera manufacturers appear to have lost all sensitivity to the 'romance' of the image they seek to capture.
I'm not sure what most video camera-companies are aiming for anymore. Some kind of super-sharp; hyper-resolute; bland-scrutinization of the 'real'; or so it seems.
The result is ugly without extensive post-processing.
Instead: Sigma could make a cinema camera that takes Eastman Color 5247/7247 film (or similar) as its benchmark. Sigma could refer back to the time when movies had SOUL, and use that as a starting point for a new ethos in the industry.
A new wave of filmmakers are tired of spec-sheet-junkie-YouTube-streamer-cams and ten-billion-pixel sensors made for instagram-yuppies.
Some of us are ARTISTS and want a cinema camera with "Made in Japan" ethics, and an image that prioritizes BEAUTY and GRACE; not pixel-counts and a bizarre-preoccupation with uncanny / creepy-levels of sharpness. We were happy with Super16.
I hope Kazuto Yamaki is somewhere out there, reading this.
Sending you, and everyone at Sigma, courage!

Having been part of this industry, with insider-knowledge on the tactics these people use, I can tell you that this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that happens.
It's impossible to prove this level of malfeasance, and this is the reason why it is so effective. Remember that Google is a well-evidenced CIA-project. Google's objective online is 'intelligence'-harvesting  and psychological-manipulation for power and profit.
As you have noted, anything that competes with the CIA (Google)'s ability to gather information, censor voices, and manipulate public-opinion,  becomes a target for infiltration. Vimeo was a serious-threat to power because it offered an independent, community-run information stream.
It is the purpose of Google / the CIA to destroy human-community, where it discovers it, and to replace natural-conversation with top-down programming. Existing power-systems do not like the free-flow of information because it exposes their crimes.
Freedom of speech is the antithesis of evil; therefore evil despises it at every turn.
As Google's founders, the CIA, famously said:
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William J. Casey, CIA Director (1981)
 

And people wonder why there's not more competition to YouTube, it's because of mismanagement like that seen at Vimeo.
They had the chance to become the thinking man's YouTube but blew it, to become a failing business service for videography clients and pros. The price increase reflects that too, that they preferred to focus on a tiny niche rather than the huge community they used to have.
At this point the mismanagement is so bad, you could even assume Google planted a covert CEO there just to absolutely make sure it would never become a valid competitor.
And today I don't think it matters that much as YouTube provides a much better platform, and the Vimeo community has been dead for well over 6 years now.

I set myself a challenge: To turn a lowly Sony FX3 video camera into a run-and-gun rig for shooting with vintage 35mm-movie anamorphic lenses from ISCO and Schneider etc. These movie-theater lenses are massive, but are great for video work. The problem is in mounting them. They need a taking lens at the rear, and a variable-diopter at the front.
I'm in the process of designing and machining a new type of cage for the FX3 (and other similar cameras). As you can see in these basic renderings, the FX3 body will be 'caged' in a purple-anodized exoskeleton. This is bolted to the camera body using all available mounting-points (there are several). This allows the addition of four, strong aluminum rods. These extend in both directions perpendicular to the camera body.

On the front-end, these rods allow various lens-support struts to be added. On the back-end, they allow a shoulder-rest to extend out. With suitable counter-weighting, these massive ISCO and Schneider lenses can be used in a run-and-gun style set-up:

It is especially important to me that this rig can be knocked about during shooting. Like you, I am tired of flimsy camera set-ups that look like they're made of Frankenstein-parts. I'd like a camera rig that has some coherence, style, and durability to it. For this reason, I've slightly over-engineered everything for high-durability. The Sony FX3 sits inside a tank-like, milled-aluminum exoskeleton. The on-board fold-out display is protected by a stainless-steel 'hood' section. Personally, I'm not a fan of adding external-monitors to these cameras. The on-board display is more than classic 35mm movie cameras ever had.

Onto this entire rig-framework, outer panels are attached, giving the system a waterproof, protective covering, and cleaning-up the look:



I am now working on a parametric CAD model, and will be machining prototype parts this month. I'm interested in any feedback from the community here. Colors in the models are for clarity, the finished rig will be a neutral palette 🙂
My interest is not in whether you like the rig or not, I'm more curious about whether I have overlooked anything vital in the design. Thank you!

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.
I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.
Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.
Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.
Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Yeah, just a little frustrated about the whole world seemingly taking digital cameras and giving them a bunch of crap that is increasingly fringe and specialist at the expense of simply having nice looking images.
Everyone loves how the Alexa looks, even the original, but then when it comes to what features we demand in a camera, somehow image quality comes last, with all the BS somehow being more important.  Non-cinema cameras have worse image quality now than they did in 2013.
No-one stopped to ask...   if the first 2 million pixels looks like crap, why would I want to have 62 million more?

Good points. The marketing-push regarding it being shot on the FX3 seems somewhat inorganic to me, and I say that as a massive fan of the FX3.
The other issue is that (based on the trailer) it does not seem like a movie that showcases the potential of the FX3 for low-budget indie filmmakers. This is on account of the dense, and expensive, SFX and post-production which does not represent features of the camera itself.
I'm sure a breakthrough genuinely-indie movie shot on the FX3 will come soon. It is a very interesting camera.

There's a breakdown of production costs for the hit indie-movie Pi, here.
Cost of shooting this movie was $60,927
Post-production costs matched this because it was shot on film. Today, that could be reduced.
Pi made $3.2 million in US cinemas; despite limited release (68 theaters). That's excluding later DVD sales and foreign distribution etc.
More interesting still: Pi is not a horror movie, it's a psychological-thriller. It demonstrated how good-story transcends everything; and that a $60k budget, good script, and strong team can propel you straight to the upper echelons of the industry. As Darren Aronofsky discovered.
 

I suspect it could have been because it was small and they didn't want to get too much attention.
"so his crew consisted of just his actors (Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able), a sound tech, a line producer, a translator and a driver. Edwards operated the camera, grabbing footage guerrilla style whenever they came upon a compelling location while traveling through Central America."
I'd imagine that security might have been a concern in that region (maybe I'm wrong on that) but combine that with not wanting to draw attention from local officials who might hassle you for permits etc.  Also, if you're bringing equipment into a country and are going to leave with it again you will need to declare it at the border (so you don't have to pay import taxes - I can't remember what this is called) and this process is a huge PITA for documentary crews etc, so getting around that would be a huge time advantage (I've seen docos where it takes the better part of a day for each border crossing because of this).

Maybe @Tito Ferradans might be able to elaborate?

Absolutely this.
A very insightful observation.
I re-watched Shallow Grave (Danny Boyle, 1994) the other day. If anyone here is curious about what can be done with three good actors and an apartment, I'd definitely recommend revisiting this masterpiece.
Shallow Grave is one of the most powerful demonstrations of how script, characters, and quality-of-acting can allow a low-budget filmmaker to out-shine anything Hollywood can muster.
Shallow Grave was director Danny Boyle's (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) first feature-film and stars a (then unknown) Ewan McGregor; who is stunningly adept as a young actor.
Modern-filmmakers could benefit a lot by focusing less on technology and spectacle, and more on craft. The most valuable profits made by a movie are intangible: The extent to which the movie challenges, inspires, and changes society for the better.

 

Absolutely. Thanks for your kind response. You're right: those who harm others are typically adept at maintaining a public-persona that disguises the monster within. This is very freaky to witness at close-quarters.
On a positive note: I am returning to the movie-industry, determined to challenge it through my film-making. This time I know the behavior-patterns of the 'vampires', and have even become a 'vampire hunter' of sorts. I have studied them carefully.
To return to Nolan's work, I was pleased to read that he refuses to carry a 'smart'-phone, and writes his scripts on a computer that is not connected to the internet. Nolan also does not use social media (more specifically, we could say that social media does not use him.)
I'm not sure how long Nolan has been doing this, but if it's a new policy, perhaps the Nolan of Memento and The Prestige will be slowly returning. It could take several years of concentrated work though. Definitely on the right track.
The future looks bright.