Tyler Purcell

It really breaks down to how glass is made. All measurements and testing of glass is done from the center outwards. So the center of the glass will always be the sharpest, no matter what glass you're using (unless physically damaged). This means if you're only using the center of the glass to create an image, you're using the "meat" of the element. Cheaper lenses will have more out of focus edges and sometimes even artifacts. When you crop the glass, so only the center portion is used, those focus and artifact issues are less relevant. So on a full-frame sensor camera, you can't use cheap Rokinon glass without seeing these issues. However, on a cropped sensor, it's not a problem. This means you can OWN glass vs rent glass for your shoots, which is a big deal.

The center of the glass is always the best. One of the biggest issues with large sensor cameras is that you need higher quality glass because the imperfections in lower quality glass are more seen, especially around the edges with the aperture all the way open.

I bought both of my Blackmagic Pocket cameras, lenses, mic's, tripods, shoulder mount kit, all the batteries and cards you could ever want for around $3500 - $4000. All I shoot is documentaries today, multi-cam interviews, run and gun, lots of setup's per day, etc and I wouldn't dream of having anything else then the pocket camera. So you get 10 bit Pro Res HQ or 12 bit CinemaDNG raw in 1920x1080 on standard run of the mill SD cards. The "cinema" look without the expense. You get 2.88 times the focal length on lenses which means, you can buy much cheaper glass and the imperfections won't show. Plus you can buy any glass you want from PL, Nikon, Canon, Zeiss, even C mount. The cameras are small, so you can go places most video camera's can't. Plus and this is a big one, they're easy to operate. No fancy menu's you've gotta flip through constantly to change settings, they're so easy. In terms of post production, I shoot everything in Raw color space 10 bit 4:2:2 Pro Res HQ, AMA link in avid (no transcoding) and edit my show. When I'm done, I use the free DaVinci software to color my sequence and export for delivery. The workflow actually works well and on multiple platforms as well, Mac and PC doesn't matter. With documentaries, it really doesn't matter what resolution you deliver. You'll be building a DCP out of DaVinci and it will automatically scale to 2k because that's the minimal size and it's only 120 or so pixels different anyway. The last two documentaries I produced, both sold to relatively big distributors without anyone even flinching when we told them our source was an HDCAM SR tape (1920x1080). So I wouldn't worry unless as David points out, you're doing nature cinematography or something of that nature. I'd save the money, get 2 cameras for the price of one and stick with 1920x1080. I have lots of samples of this camera on my website (link below).

Yep I'm around! :)

Cool! That would be a lot of fun! I have some camera negative that I use for testing cameras. I can spool some off if you want. However, the camera rental place will absolutely have some, so I'd just ask 'em when you pickup the camera. They need it for testing the cameras and training, it's very common. You'll have to grab a good meter. I suggest one with spot capability because that's how video camera's work and people who are use to shooting video, may understand that type of metering more. In terms of actually buying stock to shoot. http://www.filmemporium.comhas stock for pretty good deals. It's short ends and out of date stuff, but it will work fine for you guys. I highly suggest shooting positive because it would be awesome to project what you shoot. I'm sure some others will chime in on this topic as well. ;) Glad you're taking the initiative, I think everyone who goes to film school should learn on film. Digital is easy and if you learn film, you will find it very easy to make the transition to digital.

When you account for waste, it's roughly 50,000 feet 50,000 x .56 = 28,000 (stock cost) 50,000 X .22 = 11,000 (processing) 50,000 x .28 = 14,000 (prep/audio sync/2k telecine) So for $53k, all of you're "film" stuff is handled. At this point, you can do a quick color and show your film. If it's bought, you can have the distributor help finance the final finish, which really is around $75 - $100k for music, effects, sound mix, coloring and 4k scan/DCP, no matter what you shoot on. If you cut those numbers in half (5:1 ratio), the price comes in at a very reasonable $30k or so. Good actors, good script, lots of rehearsing, you can easily shoot something @ 5:1 and all you'd need is a 2 perf camera/lens rental. Switch to S16 @ 5:1 ratio, you'll drop another $6k off your stock cost and may never need a 4k scan.

I'm at odds with the digital revolution. On one hand, we're seeing phenomenal technological increases which in tern, have lowered the price of equipment to acceptable levels. On the other hand, technology is moving so fast, buying in can be a complete waste of money. In my eyes, the digital revolution mainly exists because unlike film, digital camera bodies themselves determine the quality. It's less about lenses and more about the technology crammed into that little camera. Henceforth, everyone who buy's in, will have to upgrade no matter what. Digital has a built-in "sell by date", which makes the equipment/accessory manufacturers very happy. On the flip side you have film. Camera bodies are getting cheaper and cheaper as rental houses and production companies dump them in favor of next week's hot digital camera. It's become increasingly more difficult to deal with film production as well, with less labs and less competition, pricing has been flatlined across the board. Plus, in more remote locations, it can take days to get dailies back, making digital shooting seem almost like a necessity. Few years ago, it felt like the war between film and digital was over, one's and zero's prevailing over a physical image. During the process of budgeting a feature I plan on making very soon, I've been learning more and more about the state of film and wish to discuss some exciting changes. The first big piece of news is stock pricing. Kodak has all-new motion picture film department management. They brought in people passionate about keeping the business alive. They have new extremely aggressive pricing (more about that below) and they seem focused on continuing the development of newer stock technology. Second and something many people have talked about, the Alpha Grip mobile lab. This is currently based in NYC, but is two semi trucks that go on location to your movie and give you immediate dailies. By their estimate, they can process 20,000 feet of film per shift and pricing is negotiable depending on your shoot location. Third is this curious move of many early digital adopters, back to film acquisition. Danny Boyle's "JOBS" being mostly shot on 16mm and 35mm. Micheal Mann's new film "Ferrari" is slated to be shot in 35mm as well. Mann quoted as saying, he just saw "Heat" on film and can't believe how good it looked. There are many other examples of people making the leap back to film just for the look. Finally, film acquisition is now cheaper then it's been in decades. Part of that is due to reduced cost of stock and processing (more about that below) but the other part is due to the availability of 3 perf and 2 perf cameras. It's fairly easy to get 2 perf cameras from Panavision, Clairmont and Able Cine Tech. Thus 35mm film production cost has reduced substantially. Price to purchase super 16mm cameras has dropped to below most digital cinema cameras, allowing you to own a body and maybe even glass for the price of a decent digital cinema camera that will be out of date in 6 months and require even more expensive glass to shoot with. Now, down to the nitty gritty, the numbers! Kodak wants to sell stock. So they've got a new policy which basically lets the filmmaker negotiate stock price. I know that sounds too good to be true, but that's their new policy. Base pricing on 16mm is .36/foot and on 35mm .56/foot. This is a lot lower then advertised pricing and could be considered the new "high" as it can only get lower. Kodak suggests submitting a budget to them and they can try to match it. I've worked with FotoKem for years, but their pricing on film processing and transfer is also pretty negotiable. They normally charge .22/ft for processing and another .28/ft for 2k telecine with raw color space and production audio synced together and delivered as Pro Res files. However, when discussing pricing, they said the same thing Kodak did, submit a budget and we'll figure out how to make this work with your budget. In terms of the 4k finishing scan, it's roughly $2.50/ft, which is about average. They can't negotiate much on that rate, but they can do a much better rate on a 2k scan, but we all know distributors want 4k. When you start doing the math, you come to some interesting conclusions. These numbers are based on a 10:1 shooting ratio, 100 minute final film and 4k from acquisition through distribution. - Renting a 35mm 2 perf camera and spherical lenses, is about half the price of a Alexa or modern Red package - Camera + stock cost on 2 perf film pretty much equals 4k digital shooting on RAW. - Processing and transfer are really the only two "film only" expenses. Yes, they can be upwards of $30k for both of those things, just so you can have dailies. However, so far that's the only true expense I can see that separates film and digital. - With film of course you have to scan the negative after finished, but the cost of that is about equal to the post processing required to deal with digital RAW files from an Alexa or RED. I know that sounds whack, but check this out. Shooting digital in RAW takes more time to color and process then film. There is a lot of computer rendering time and that add's up very quick. Sure, if you can do everything at home, there is a cost savings. However, most feature films are going to use a lab and pay their pricing. With all that said, 2 perf 35mm (10:1, 100 min film, 4k workflow) came out to be $30k more then shooting 4k digital. However, if your workflow switches to S16, still keeping the same 10:1 ratio and 4k finish, the pricing dramatically swings towards film. If you lower the shooting ratio from 10:1 to 5:1 and only finish on 2k, 35mm vs Digital acquisition becomes a wash. So it's really only that high ratio of 35mm AND 4k finish which equates to the $30k discrepancy. Finally, as technology increases, film stocks will get better and digital scanners will also get better. We all know that 4 perf full-frame 35mm negative can yield upward of 6k worth of information, yet we're not capturing that data at this time. So with film, we can always get more information in the future. With digital, what you capture is pretty much what you get on the back end. There is nothing we can do to magically make it look better. So today, digital isn't really a future proof acquisition format, it really isn't. Will the 6k raw files for "Revenant" exist in 20 years so we can distribute the film on our new 8k televisions? Most likely not and that movie will be stuck at whatever resolution it's finished at today. Smaller, lower budget projects will have even worse issues in the future, making a lot of our history of cinema disappear. In summary, film acquisition today is cheaper and higher quality then it's been since the format was conceived, well over 100 years ago. It has the longest shelf life of any other image capture medium. It has the best frame per frame dynamic range of any other medium. It has analog colors, like our eyes are use to seeing and if that's not enough, it's something physical, not just one's and zero's. So there really is no excuse for not shooting on film, it's just a matter of actually coming up with a budget and making it work. The net result is going to be a unique "classic" look that will hopefully remind viewers what visual content is suppose to look like. There we have it, my monthly rant on film! :) Thanks for reading and please ignore the spelling, grammatical errors. I'm not a english professor, I shoot films and my language is the moving picture camera.

Too bad you aren't in LA, that's the kind of work I specialize in. :)

I remember when DV came out, people HAD to shoot on DV, if you didn't own a DV camcorder you were screwed. I remember when HDV came out, those DV camcorder guys all had to upgrade because everything had to be shot on HDV. I remember when RED hit the market, OMG if you tried to shoot anything else but RED, you were an idiot I remember when 2k hit the market, if you weren't shooting and finishing in 2k you were worthless. I remember the first 4k finish, it was a huge deal in 2004 and today (10 years later) most films aren't finishing or distributing in 4k. So in my eyes, isn't the first step to send 2k progressive scan material to the home? Currently there isn't a single service that does this and there is a good reason why. The standards we've set in the US are fixed, they aren't dynamic like the Japanese system. We stuck to a rudimentary and archaic MPEG 2 system that was conceived almost 10 years prior to it's official rollout. At the time, it was the easiest/best method to upgrade broadcasters and of course, consumers to a system that was proven. Broadcasters spent billions upgrading, that's billions with a big B. This was great for equipment manufacturers who were on the verge of going out of business at the time. Force everyone who watches content to buy a new television and force all broadcasters to build new studio's, the switch from Analog SD to Digital HD would put many broadcasters out of business. So here we are, next year will mark two decades of digital HD broadcast in the US, yet NOTHING has changed. We still broadcast a substandard 1080i/60 or 720p/59.94 signals, mixed with 525i for people with square televisions and converters. To make the leap from 1920X1080i to 2048X1080 progressive, would require a complete re-working of the current system. It's absolutely insane to think the jump to 4k will ever happen on full-time terrestrial broadcast television full-time for one key reason; cost to upgrade. For big sporting events, I can see this happening and special decoder boxes sold to those individuals who want that extra quality for a premium, but for normal every day broadcast, no way. The current workflow is pretty much set in the 1080i world and won't change because there is no reason to change, there is no mandate for updating. Now, internet is another way to get 2k or higher signals into the home for high resolution monitors. However, one thing that people don't realize about the internet is that, the more people join, the slower it gets. We need trillions of dollars to be spent on infrastructure before we can stream even 2k to the home with any fluidity. Sure, we're seeing fiber come to the home, but switches are getting overloaded, the OC lines that run across the country are too packed and unfortunately consumer data doesn't get the bandwidth allocation commercial data gets. So until that infrastructure is improved, until there are more servers capable of streaming high bandwidth content, we won't see any changes. The only solution is to download the entire movie first and then watch it, but even that is very time consuming on high-speed internet and doesn't deliver anything but 8 bit 4:2:0 ultra compressed signals. We will probably all agree that content providers want high-resolution content in the home, simply because they can charge more. However, they're currently struggling to deliver high-resolution content to theaters, with high-end/expensive servers. Heck even IMAX the name in "quality" has resorted to 4k distribution as their mainstay because there is no 6k or 8k distribution protocol developed. Their double projection system is fully capable of doing 8k, but they don't because there is no way of getting it from the content makers to the theaters. There are also only 4 theaters in the world using that double projection system and it will be a few more decades before everyone has made the switch. With all that said… the point of an 4k costumer grade monitor seems pretty pointless. The monitor has to take the 1080i signal and turn it into a progressive scan one, which immediately softens the image. Then it needs to scale it up and that process also softens the image. So a 4k monitor with 1080i signal, actually looks worse then a 1080i native monitor from 10 years ago. Sure, monitor technology has gotten better with LED backlight and now OLED, however we're not actually seeing higher quality at home, we're just allowing the MPEG noise to be more visible. We're expecting Sony to announce a 4k BluRay disk (.h265) at CES in 2016. That could be the first big push towards 4k at home, but it will be at least a decade or so before acceptable content will be available, just like the move from DVD to BluRay, most original HD disks looked like crap because they used old transfers. Studio's aren't going to go back through their collection and make 4k disks, it's not going to happen anytime soon. In that case, what's the point of even contemplating upgrading when we're still so far away from a working solution. By the way… .h265 is the first MPEG4 based format which can deliver 10 bit 444 signals to the home. So if 4k BluRay does happen and it is actually 10 bit 444, that in my opinion will be the biggest upgrade, rather then just resolution.

Welcome Helen, I've owned pretty much all the GoPro's and honestly, they aren't great cameras. They can do good stuff in the right hands with the right experience level, but they are specifically made for the sports/crash-cam market, not for going out and shooting stuff with friends. They have extremely limited dynamic range, no focus, no zoom, only 3 focal lengths and they're all "wide" compared to most cameras. They also don't have controls for exposure without messing with the GoPro app on one's mobile device, which is fun, but now you're carrying around an iPhone and GoPro at the same time. In my eyes, for stills the iPhone blows the GoPro out of the water, no contest. For video, the GoPro does have a few nice features, it has less rolling shutter then the iPhone. It has higher bit rate recording then the iPhone as well. However, all of that is adjustable on the iPhone with app's and the new iPhone 6 Plus, has an amazing camera for both video and stills. The nice thing about the iPhone is that it has HDR capture (high dynamic range), it has manual focus, manual zoom, adaptors to make a fish-eye look and best of all, it has a beautiful built-in screen. In my world, my iPhone lives with me 24/7 and it's been a life-changer because I can shoot anything at any time and it looks great every time! So it really depends on what you wanna do. If you wanna shoot sports/action stuff, get a GoPro. If you wanna shoot high quality video, get a cinema camera like the Blackmagic Pocket Camera. If you wanna shoot stills, buy a still camera. I mean check out these shots from my iPhone… from my vacation this summer. Just snap shots and they blow the doors off anything shot with a GoPro.

I think Criterion is going to push for VOD first, so that would mean no extras. The director doesn't want to revisit it very much, we're already working on our next film. However, I may be able to convince her, ya never know! We are hoping to put this along with the BluRay:

There is a certain challenge to producing the "unproduceable". Take a bunch of top talent, basically put them in a closet and see them sweat it out? I'd say it was a passion project more then anything else. If someone didn't do it, then nobody would and it's a very unconventional film… scripted documentary. Not having a crew wasn't a problem, but not having equipment… that stung. This is one of only two films I shot with DSLR's and that's why I hate them so much. Only reason we did is because bigger cameras physically wouldn't fit in our set! I literally built a lighting rig in the drop-down ceiling to light, what a pain in the ass! But hey, we just got the film sold to Criterion for VOD and BluRay, so we hope to finally make some money back.

Technically a feature film is anything over 80 minutes in length. Indy = Independently Produced, which in today's world, accounts for MOST content. As a cinematographer by education, who has directed a ton of projects as well, it's very easy for me to wear multiple hats on a film set. With low-budget digital shows, you don't need the same level of crew. Plus, the less crew you have, the easier it is to shoot, the quicker you move along to the next shot. So in my eyes, I'd rather have a few guys capable of wearing multiple hats, then one guy for each position. On my last feature, we had no money and one location, that's it. It was a single room with a 30x30 footprint and only around 10x10 worth of walkable space. We also needed three cameras per shot for coverage. So basically, we didn't have room for a full crew. Every morning I'd pre-light before everyone showed up, then I'd operate during the day and strike afterwards. There was so little room, our audio recordist sat outside and the boom operator was tucked into a corner. We shot with bare-bones equipment, which I think looked horrible, but our little feature film has been shown in theaters all over the world. Not just festivals, but actual small theatrical runs. When you sit and watch it, you have no idea the guy who lit, shot, produced and edited it was the same person. Sure, we could have made it a lot better, but the crew wouldn't have made a difference. Yes, if the Director had prepped better it would have been a lot better, but hey it's a learning experience for all of us, including her. People put too much emphasis on equipment and not enough emphasis on story and acting. Go onto Netflix and try to watch some of those horrible features they have. Most of it's just utter crap, but they had full crews and fancy cameras. Most of those of movies were also made by experienced filmmakers, yet the stuff is still crap. It's like trying to get a DP job today, if you don't have a 4k camera, you're never going to get work. People just assume the resolution of the camera somehow makes your movie better… but it really doesn't considering most people will just be watching on Netflix in 1920x1080. So where I personally wouldn't WANT to shoot a feature on my blackmagic pocket camera, if that's the only thing I had to shoot with, it would be acceptable. I feel the same way you do though. There is a certain stature that goes along with working on a bigger film. I also care about quality, iPhone and GoPro movies, don't interest me at all. It's not about resolution, it's about my time and if you're going to waste it by showing me a horrible looking image, I'm simply not going to watch. It brings me back to films like "28 Days Later" where they shot most of the film on DV. Yet, it was an 8 million dollar film with a huge crew. So really… crew doesn't matter to me. Quality of the finished product is all that really matters in the long run.

The last feature I made, I was a co-producer/co-cinematographer/gaffer/editor on. I mean it was one location and 12 days of shooting, so once you get the ideas of each setup, the rest is gravy. First time director and she was literally scared to work with the talent. We had guys like Tim Roth, Bill Duke, Jennifer Beals and James Franco. I'm use to working around stars, none of it phases me at all, they're just people. She couldn't take it and she'd literally freeze up on set. We had an hour or two with each person and the director, one of my best friends, didn't know what to do. Now I've directed for years and it was very difficult to bite my tung. When she wasn't looking, I'd walk over to the actors and give them a little hand with lines or explain the shot so they knew where to look. I even pulled the director aside a few times and tried to get her to actually direct. Unfortunately, sometimes that didn't work. We did get through the shoot, but some of the performances were weak and I know it hurt the reviews. Moral of the story… I think it's important to speak up and work together as a unit on low-budget films when you've got an inexperienced crew member doing a certain job. They need support from those around them so they can learn, that's what low budget filmmaking is all about. So yea, I've been there, done that and honestly I think it's pretty normal. People want the film to come out good, so they speak up even if it's not their turn. It may hurt feelings, but those can be mended as long as the final product is amazing.

In the documentary "Side By Side", Danny Boyle explained the decision was purely his interest in doing something different with smaller, more portable cameras. He said they looked at those bigger apocalyptic shots of London where they could only close down streets for a matter of minutes and realized video was going to be a lot easier. Plus, he felt the digital cameras ability to shoot dark scenes was better then the film stocks at the time. So he did have his reasons and they were logical. However if it were my film I would have shot all those scenes in 16mm and single camera stuff in 35 because there are no gains to shooting video when you're running one camera and have an 8 million dollar budget. The cost of stock, processing, transfer, camera rental, etc… it's not even 2% of the budget.

The XL-1S was never a great camera. It used low resolution (270,000 pixel) imagers which were locked into interlaced scanning, so the camera was notorious for horrible interlacing and being very grainy even in the 30P mode. Canon did make an XL-2 which did 24p and had better quality imagers, but that was after 28 days later was made. But yea, you'd be hard pressed to pay any money for a used LX-1S in todays market. Even the VERY exceptional Panasonic DVX100A, sells for a few hundred bux used and it blows the doors off anything Canon made during the DV days.

9. Subscribe to American Cinematographer. (online) 10. Take a courses on the basics of cinematography. (hands-on) 11. Read countless books on the art of lighting and lensing. 12. Watch movies and read back issues of American Cinematographer so you can learn what they did. 13. Buy a cheap digital cinema camera and lenses and go play. 14. Ohh and moving to Hollywood, doesn't really make life easier. You'd be another small fish in a big pond.

They sure did! Too bad the film looks like absolute garbage. They only used digital because they couldn't afford to rent 10 film cameras to do the coverage necessary for the big scenes. I personally think that excuse is crap, but meh what do I know.

I have similar problems with my Rokinon lenses and my Blackmagic Pocket camera. There is image refraction happening on the back element of glass. It's hard to see if you aren't looking for it. I've never noticed it on any other camera I've shot with.

The Academy nominated/winning films: 'The Wrestler', 'Hurt Locker', 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' and Emmy nominated/winning shows: 'Malcolm in the Middle' and 'The Walking Dead', were all originated on 16mm. So no, there are zero problems with making the format presentable. Theaters don't project 35mm anymore, those days are long gone unfortunately. So there is no point to even discuss 35mm photochemical blow-up's as nobody is going to project them. Even as a master for the distribution company, they'd much rather have a digital file, takes up less space! So now the problem lies in the quality of the digital file. This is really why anyone would reject something shot on film. A lot of smaller budget projects shot on film, can't afford to scan @ 4k and deliver a 4k master. In today's world that's what the distributors want. So when you talk to a distributor, it's really easy to say; "We're shooting on Super 16mm and will be delivering a 4k DCP and 4k MOV files for television." To the distributor that's music in their ears. For you however, it means some added expense. I'm on the same boat you're on. I'm planning on shooting my feature narrative directorial debut on S16mm using 1.3x squeeze anamorphic lenses which create a perfect 2.40:1 aspect ratio. We're going to telecine all the negative at 1920x1080, edit the film on Avid in Pro Res and then go back to scan selects at 4k. We're also shooting MOST of the film with 50D, including many of the interiors (which have daylight in windows). This takes a bit more time due to setup and costs a bit more due to needing proper lighting. This actually raises the production budget substantially, but gives you a better result in the long run with a far cleaner negative. I got my budget right in front of me and shooting in 16mm (vs 4k digital) costs an extra $40 - $50k, depending on how much stock you'll shoot (shooting ratio) and how long your final cut will be. When your entire budget is $100k or less, it's probably wise to shoot digitally unless everyone on set is donating their time and equipment for some food and credit. The other nice thing about digital is that you have instant results, so as a first time director, you can really make sure what you're shooting is acceptable before moving on. Now, our budget is $265k and my guess is, it will go up another $20k or so before we shoot. I did all the math and on MY film, 16mm is costing us $50k. For 50k, I can buy a Blackmagic URSA Mini, cinema primes and all the ancillary equipment necessary to shoot not just this movie, but many more. So when you really look at the cost of shooting in 16mm, it doesn't make any logical sense. It's a completely irrational way to make a modern film, but the one thing it does that digital doesn't (besides have a phenomenal non-digital look) is give you some street credit. You tell people you shot digital and it's ho-hum, everyone does that. You tell someone you shot S16mm with anamorphic lenses and did a 4k finish, you get a lot more credit. It's disheartening that striking a 35mm print is so expensive, not just the photochemical blow-up process, but the licensing for digital sound track as well. In the end, a films ability to be distributed comes down to star's draw, acting, script and directors ability to tell a story. The technical side of things is actually a very small portion of the over-all picture. People tend to focus too much on the technical aspects and not enough on what makes the film marketable. You have to run the festival circuit, you have to self distribute theatrically and once the film has good buzz, use VOD to capitalize on it. We're also hiring a full-time crew to shoot daily updates on production, to draw buzz that way. If the film is good, it will have legs without needing a distribution partner.

I've shot 1.33 16mm for many projects and blew it up to fit the proper aspect ratio in post. It's hard to figure out framing in the transfer suit, far easier when your editing. The last film I did this way was a 1920x1080 telecine and I wouldn't recommend that at all. I'd really push for a minimal of a RAW 2k scan, so you have more information to work with in color. It's also wise to frame for the proper aspect ratio during shooting. I always shot with too much head room in order to insure there wouldn't be any cropping.

Of course the review is shot with an A7S, yuck… but maybe has some more info: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/hands-review/hands-review-rokinon-xeen-true-cinema-lenses-full-frame-production I agree with Adrian, I wouldn't buy them because what's the point? You can buy used Arri primes for very close to that price and have something really good and valuable. Glass is an investment and if you buy something nobody else wants, then what's the point?

http://kenrockwell.com/tech/mtf.htm

David hit all the key points. I do think the whole point was to use those older lenses and get that more shallow depth of field look. That's one of the biggest problems with smaller imagers, the smaller they are, the harder it is to get shallow depth of field. You've gotta resort to opening the lens all the way up and using longer focal lengths. Remember, Arri has no intentions on selling the 65, it's for rental only. It's really a specialized product so they can ditch the 765 film cameras and have an alternative, at least that's what I've been told. It's unfortunate our distribution methods are stuck with a max resolution of 4k. I'm not even aware that finishing software like DaVinci can accept anything over 4k. So… yea, 6k shooting and finishing? Still a long way away.

Maybe that's why I never figured it out, didn't have the gizmo. Huh… very cool! Learn something new every day! :)