Aapo Lettinen

on lower price range the Ciecio adapters are pretty OK with good enough finish and are pretty sturdy

Though slow shutter on high base fps can't be fully changed in post because the frames and motion blur are extended to adjacent base fps frames. If you shoot normal fps at 360 degree shutter it would be possible to simulate slow shutter in post very well. Will take so work of course. And it would not help with exposure if you want to shoot in low light so there is practical differences

As Phil said, the shutter can't be more open than 360 degrees and after that you are lowering frame rate. The cameras have "sensor fps" and "base fps" which may or may not be the same depending on the settings. For example it is normal to shoot 120fps on sensor and recording it at 24base or 48base or 50 or 59.94base fps. The same with slow shutter mode, you have 8fps on sensor and recording 24 base fps or 25 base or 29.976base etc. The base fps is basically just how the metadata is set on the recorded file. It can be manipulated later on the files by simple metadata change if needed, all the frames will stay intact

Some cameras have slow shutter which can work in video modes. For example my GH4 can do 1/8s shutter in video mode. It is not normal for current video cameras to have this much flexibility so you have to find out which couple of models are available which can do it if this is the type of effect you want to archive

For small projects it is usually fine for me to view them on a uhd 75" tv connected to a computer which plays back the proreshq or 444 uhd or 4k master from raid array. The colour check is separately on smaller better quality monitor

RED has had tons of other never-released announcements as well like the large format stills/video camera with a postcard sized sensor. They test the hype and if the demand seems high enough they may actually make the product. Some other manufacturers do this as well: they create mockups of the cameras and list the possible specs which look very nice on paper. Then the approximate price point which will usually change A LOT if the product is actually released. With camera manufacturers it is also pretty normal to expect the product (if actually released at all) to arrive one or two years late...

They only made the S35 MX version of those four listed in the image. The specs were slightly different as I remember, maybe it did not do 5K at full framerate but only something like 15fps? I shot a short film with it years ago but can't remember anymore. Everyone was shooting 4K with it so I think the 5K was not usable framerate. The pricepoint was something a bit closer to 20K for a basic kit with memory cards and batteries, displays etc. The brain itself was maybe something like 12K or so?

I just started to do some experimenting with Agfa ST9 stock and Konvas camera. It is one of those very high contrast stocks as well but more balanced spectral sensitivity. Just shot some tests at 12 ISO and it works reasonably well. If it's not bright direct sunlight I need to shoot almost wide open outside in the middle of the day so it may not be the best idea to try to shoot the stuff inside with any type of artificial lighting... the dynamic range is also extremely small which complicates lighting even more

The tube solution can be as simple as a toilet paper roll's center tube with some gaffer tape to hold the cctv camera in place. That fit over the eyepiece and adjusted for framing

I dont have images available but basically you just fit a cctv camera over the eyepiece with some kind of tube which keeps it in place and does not let any light in. You need to test the cctv to find a lens which works the best with your eyepiece so that you can see the whole viewfinder image nicely. The viewfinder optics focus the image close to infinity so you can use normal cctv lens. No macro needed

If your aaton does not have video tap, you can use a small cctv camera on the viewfinder to get some kind of preview image to work with. Then use the brighest monitor you can find. No matter how old or bad quality it is

It is pretty easy to develop b/w negative at home so you could do camera tests very easily and quickly if needed. Just use the cheapest Lomo tank which accepts 16mm and shoot short lengths of 7222 for tests. Develop it in the bathroom with coffenol or rodinal and inspect with microscope to verify the results

M42 has shorter ffd than nikon f so it would not be possible to adapt it with infinity focusing unless using an adapter with corrective lens(that may lower the image quality).

Cheaper adapters can have varying tolerances in manufacturing quality. A good example is the NikonF to EOS adapters where the springs pressure and the locking lever and ffd etc can vary a little from adapter to adapter. It helps if you use one adapter per lens so that every lens can be semi permanently fitted with its own adapter. Then you will need to worry only about the nikon to aaton adapter and not multiple possible adapter combinations. Then it is also possible to fine tune adapters for correct ffd. If one of your adapters is not good quality it is best to just replace it. It might also help to have another aaton to nikon adapter. Then you could fit and adjust the hasselblad adapter to work with it permanently and only change the hasselblad lenses. It would be more stable when only one of the connections would be opened and closed when changing lenses, not the both

Rode microphones are extremely good on paper. The specs are great on the price point. The actual manufacturing quality may be anything though. And it may not sound as great as you could expect watching the specs. I consider them being indie and low budget mics. Usable for videos and short films and event videos and such. Small budget documentaries and such (that is why I have those as well). For higher budget they could maybe be sometimes used but NOT trusted. For scratch audio could be totally fine I think ? Rode as a manufacturer may be close to how the Behringer brand is regarded on music circles? Their products look good on paper and are very affordable for the specs but most musicians are like pfft and go with the better and potentially more expensive brands. It is not that they are not usable. They are just not great for most uses. Why take the cheapest OK quality product if you can use the better sounding and more durable alternative which costs a little more?

when bought a NTG3 the first one was totally useless, it started to create buzzing chainsaw noise on random occasions and had to be replaced. The replacement one has worked OK for years but it may start very loud chainsaw screeching in cold below about -15°C where my NTG2 works totally fine. When recording some reindeer sounds for a movie I had to use them in -30°C at times so used only the NTG2 then and reserved the NTG3 for warmer days. Go figure, it was exactly the other way around than the manufacturer advertised (ntg3 should be more moisture and cold tolerant one....) Maybe it was that one of the earlier batches of NTG3 was bad OR the whole model is mediocre, I dunno. Have been happy with the Sennheisers when been able to use one but never had enough money to buy them :) One of the very long lobar sennheisers I used for the same production was from the late 70's or early 80's I think. Originally owned by a famous Finnish filmmaker who himself passed away many years ago but his microphone is still used on regular basis. THAT is a long lasting investment for sure ?

one of the things with Nucleus Nano is that the motor is a bit slow turning compared to higher end remote focus systems. It may not be the right choice for very high paced handheld action scenes where you would run around with the camera doing lightning-fast focus moves. But for gimbal use would be totally fine I think if more expensive product is not an option. I have used it with PL-modified oct18 Lomo primes and it is just barely enough force to focus them. If the Xeens approximately compare mechanically to Compact Primes then it should be fine. A bit slow focusing but should work OK for most gimbal uses I think

I use the Tilta Nucleus Nano as well. The motor is not very strong but it works OK with most still lenses and I believe it would be totally fine with the Xeens. Another option is renting but that is only if you can get a better product that way... like significantly better. If just wanting a low range product then the Nano would be OK I think and it is much more affordable than the DJI Focus

mic technology is like comparing acoustic music instruments... a cheap one may sound OK in some situations and some of the mid priced can be very excellent for your taste but the super expensive may not be that much better than the mid priced one in your use. For example if you compare a very very cheap acoustic guitar to a slightly better one you will definitely hear the difference despite both have exactly the same functionality. but if you would need to choose between a good quality one and very very expensive one then it is more of a matter of taste and depends on the exact job and the results you want to archive with it. A 40€ guitar will always sound worse than a 500€ guitar but you may not need the 5000€ or 10 000€ guitar for all uses especially if not being a professional musician who performs daily. Most people would use something from 300 to 800€ price range and would be totally fine with it for 20 years. with mics the most cheapest one may work OK in some circumstances and if you use it only on those it could be totally OK choice. If you have more variance in the conditions you may want a slightly better one to have more headroom so that the setup will perform great in more varied circumstances (so that you will choose from the 100 - 300 € range instead of using the cheapest 15buck one) . There is usually lots of quality difference between the really low end and the lower mid range but most of the persons don't need the really high quality ones which in case of the shotgun mics cost 1000 bucks and upwards. For short films, most people can do with Rode NTG2 type of lower quality and affordable mics unless they need more directionality or lower noise levels (the most usable choice is then to add some kind of wireless lavalier instead of trying to manage with a more directional and more expensive shotgun style mic)

"conformed in camera without soundtrack, challenging to find the original speed" when using oddball fps with different more standard base fps. "just choosing a higher base fps without changing the clip speed in camera. soundtrack readily available in most cases. original speed by default) when using just higher base fps in camera and the base fps is the same than sensor fps

apart from possible flickering and sound sync issues I don't see much disadvantage to it. For sync sound scenes the direct multiplies are much better. If using oddball frame rates you need to set the base fps to a more standard fps like 24 or 25 whereas most cameras have the 2x multiplies readily available as base fps (48, 50, 59,94 fps) which makes sound work much easier

I believe they COULD work pretty OK with something like switar-style small lens with something like 12mm focal length or something like that. Haven't tested it because I don't have suitable wide angle for 16 format

most anamorphics are intended for 35mm cine format (very expensive nowadays) OR projector use (cheap option but generally crappy image quality on camera use and annoying mechanics and time consuming operating them). the ones with shorter focal lengths usable on 16mm cameras tend to be low quality (like a projector anamorphic attachment combined with a whatever-one-can-get-one's-hands-on-to lens which fits the camera. The good attachments are highly valued and priced accordingly. If you would like to try the attachment route, there is stuff like the Century 1.33x adapters originally made for DV cameras which could be usable with some of the short focal length 16mm lenses if they have small front elements etc. They generally don't focus properly with stills lenses or at least not very well or the image quality is bad because they are originally intended for short focal lengths

It may be a matter of personal preference and depend on whether you want to immediately shoot the rest of the roll or leave it as a short end. If wanting to immediately shoot the rest of it then I like to first shoot couple of feet of tail to the takeup side and then cut the film on the takeup side to leave just enough film to fit it to the core again so that I don't need to re thread the mag. If leaving a short end I will cut the film on the feed side. Then take the short end away. Then roll the film end to the takeup side and take the exposed roll out. That way I don't need to move the mag sprockets to two different directions like when cutting the film on the throat/camera/pressure plate side. A bit easier that way and you will get all the exposed frames out intact. This is with every camera and mag, not just Arris

sad that the re-release of the Ektachrome has raised the price of it to insane figures ? It is cheaper for me to shoot colour negative. Actually I think it is cheaper for me to shoot 35mm colour negative lab processed if it is clearance film or short ends..