aapo lettinen

there is affordable PL to C-mount adapters available on ebay and other places, would those work instead of having a hard PL conversion? you would probably like to have separate support system anyway unless doing very heavy modifications to the camera (especially if it's a turret model) so a separate adapter would probably work nearly as well as a hard conversion and would be much cheaper and easier to arrange

it may work on special situations but if you use white background you will very easily generate spill/contamination problems from other lights you use. so the green itself will be fine but as soon as you try to light your subject the other normal lights will spill to the white background and contaminate your green with white light causing extreme saturation problems and making a clean key difficult. That is the reason why it's rarely done, even if it sounds tempting at first to just use ANY white background instead of having a proper green screen and just "color it with green light because it's easier" . the thing is, IT'S NOT even remotely as easy as using a truly green background from the start and will become exponentially more difficult when your subject light levels rise. I would maybe use the technique on special occasions depending on the subject lighting but for any normal greenscreen stuff it is much easier to just have a truly green background to begin with. You can of course enhance the background green with super green light if needed :)

one of my friends does lots of nature documentary shooting with Varicam35 and the Canon 50-1000 lens. it is very useful combination and sensitive if you need S35 sensor

Blackmagic products would be very nice purchases if one just likes to walk by a shop window and sees a nice camera there which they even happen to have in stock and then just goes and buys it right away, "here's my Visa, wrap it up with couple of Vlocks and a tripod and those lenses" :rolleyes: When you have to order them and they are promised to deliver and then there is none for half a year it just does not work at all :blink:

you mean this or another new model? https://www.provideocoalition.com/blackmagic-design-announces-ursa-mini-pro-4-6k-g2/ the high speed would be pretty neat for the price. though I am a little sceptic about actual delivery dates as usual B)

Yep. I just canceled my order of the Pocket4k and will look for other options now for a camera. that's what happens if a company does not deliver their product on time: they will lose money. **** Blackmagic <_<

Yes you can use normal generator for tungsten as long as the basic voltage regulation works in the genny so that it does not go excessively over normal. Hmi lights are very picky about voltage variations and they really need an inverter generator to work reliably. You may not be able to even strike one if you are 15v under the rated voltage for example. If you only need small amount of cheap lights then tungsten is fine. If you need hmi type of light for the output I would recommend a 1.2k with small suitcase type inverter generator. Vlock powered led panels are an option as well though they are nowhere near the output of an hmi and you cant get hard really narrow light from them

It also may have serious colour shifts because of the layers ageing on different rates. I shot a similar type expired exr50 roll some years ago which came out super green and it was not possible to grade it to fully normal looking image. also had pumping grain in the shadows, maybe due to different temperatures between the sides of the roll when in storage. Could surely be used for art projects though and your roll may be in usable condition if stored correctly

waiting will work perfectly as long as one does not need the camera for paid work. for personal projects thus totally OK most of the time. But if you have lots of paid projects waiting you can't just delay them because you don't have the camera right now, you need to rent or purchase another camera then even if it costs thousands of dollars more. Waiting is simply not possible and would be the most expensive option for sure. I already started looking backup options in case the Pocket 4k is not delivered in time which is likely. the problem is, I really need 50fps in 4k and preferably raw or at least very high bitrate low compression footage (lots of gradients, greenscreen plates, etc) and the camera needs to be very sensitive so there is no cheap or easy options especially if not wanting to purchase two separate camera bodies AND an external recorder with a bunch of SSDs

I ordered one too in December and last time I checked the store estimated they could deliver "maybe in this Summer" in best case. Not surprised though when remembering all the previous delivery issues Blackmagic has had. well, at least it's a CHEAP camera IF they some day deliver more of them to the end customers... if the technology in it has not become obsolete by then. That has been kind of a tradeoff with their products, they would be wonderful desings IF THEY COULD JUST DELIVER THEM IN THE PROMISED SCHEDULE AND NOT A YEAR OR TWO LATE when there is already better alternative camera technology available from the more reliable manufacturers.

I personally don't like Premiere much but it is useful for some stuff I work with. I also use Photoshop, After Effects and Audition a lot so it does not hurt to have the Premiere come with the same package. Honestly speaking, I think Premiere is pretty much piece of crap program for most professional uses, it is not very reliable and it is pretty awkward and slow to use for large scale editing I think, especially on mac. The main purpose for the whole program as I see it is for fast turnaround one-man-band video guys who do low budget commercials and indie films etc. where it is useful to have lots of basic features in the same program so that you can edit and finish completely within Premiere even if it's very slow to do (for example grading with Lumetri) and unpractical at times (but still useful for beginner indie guys who don't want to learn to use any other programs and don't know any better nor have high standards for end result...) FCPX lacks most of the essential features I need so I rarely use it for actual editing. It also does not have very good integration with any other essential pro programs. It is pretty much "editors love it, all the post persons hate it" program :P . Resolve is now more reliable than the previous versions so I would consider it "pretty ok" for basic editing. At least it is fast to grade the end result then even when the editing is not super fast with it. BTW, I really love Audition for basic sound work like making of docs and similar stuff. It also seems to be pretty reliable in my use. The funny thing is, it is NOT originally an Adobe program... it is based on CoolEdit from the early 2000 something which Adobe bought and just added new features when keeping the interface and other stuff the same. Maybe their 'anti-Midas touch' thus did not reach the core of the program and it is a bit better working than other Adobe stuff :lol:

I think at the beginning of the digital era it was common to measure film mtf with approx 30% or 20% response and digital with 0%. that is because the largest film grains mask the fine details sooner (finest details drawn by the smallest thus least sensitive grains) so there is no point to try to see the 0% details on film whereas with digital it is somewhat possible

after unsuccessful and short 3D race come large formats and anamorphic. Nothing new really, history just repeats itself all over again :wub:

with DCP on normal screens it is still the choice of whether to letterbox the oddball aspect ratio inside the 1.85 "flat" format OR to pillar box it to 2.39 "scope" format. projectionists may be lazy and/or uninformed so even if the dcp spec would allow other aspect ratios it is best to stick with the standard ones... cinema screens tend to be natively 2.39:1 shaped and pillar boxing 2.35 into it would just annoy the audience without bringing anything extra to the viewing experience (very slight difference between aspect ratios so they are virtually the "same" but the unused screen area would disturb some people) . projectionists might also just zoom the image a little bit so that it fills the sides of the screen completely and thus the top and bottom would be cropped a little which would annoy the director and DP even though the audience would be happy :P

maybe they think that the general audience has no idea what a cinematographer or editor does in a movie production (true) so they won't mind if just leaving out those "non-important" categories and show more commercials instead :blink: well, the general audience has no idea what happens in a movie production in the first place and so they could leave the other categories out as well ;)