Daniel Klockenkemper

Panasonic uses the same activation codes for the GH5 as for the GH4. The review you've quoted is true for the GH4, which could only record 8-bit internally, as well as for the 8-bit recording modes of the GH5. If you choose a 10-bit recording format on the GH5, V-Log-L will use the range from 128-768 out of a possible 1024. So while it's still not the full 10-bit range, there are 640 possible code values in 10-bit V-Log-L compared to the 160 code values in 8-bit V-Log-L (or compared to the 256 total possible values in any 8-bit recording format). This is a significant improvement for color grading, and will reduce the types of artifacts that the review you quoted describes.

I own a Super16-converted ACL II and am in the Los Angeles area. Not looking to part with anything, but send me a private message if you need to borrow some magazines.

Several of the major camera companies make "tough" or weather-resistant cameras. I think the Olympus TG-5 is one of the best-selling cameras in Japan right now, and looks reasonably pocketable. Nikon has similar cameras that would probably also be worth a look.

What is the drive type of the screws on the adapter? Flat, Phillips, hex? I like Wiha screwdrivers for small/precise sizes.

Of course there are a lot of ways to do it. Filtration is an option that is inexpensive, widely available, and can work in almost any setting. How would you use reflections if the script has the scene outdoors in an open field? Without any details about the story, our suggestions are necessarily broad. Variation in camera movement is yet another option - if the present is handheld, the flashback could be on dolly or steadicam. I worked on (but did not shoot myself) a film earlier this year that used slow, deliberate pans and zooms to transition from reality to fantasy; Cría Cuervos, directed by Carlos Saura, was a reference for the technique. The story should be the ultimate guide for the look. Perhaps ask the director what kind of feeling they want for the flashbacks, and use that as a starting point for making the look tangible.

Hello Raphaelle, There's no right or wrong way to film a flashback or a dream; the way that is most appropriate depends entirely on the story. From whose point of view is the flashback seen? How would that memory look to that person? How does that compare or contrast to the present? I think you are on a good track to explore filtration. Adding diffusion with a pro-mist or net filter could suggest a memory; I've used a very heavy black mist filter to that effect in the past. (Black filtration tends to retain more contrast than white or lighter versions of mist or net filters.) Or one could go in a very different direction, with something like the Bethke Effect filters or Spot Diopters from Vantage to really strongly alter the image. Using a different lighting style could be another approach - stronger backlight with less fill, for instance. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind used colored lighting, and at other times a narrow spotlight on the characters (allowing the sides of the frame to fall off into darkness) for flashbacks and memories. Regarding vaseline on a clear filter, I would highly suggest testing in advance with a stills camera to get an idea of how much is required (or how little - it is easy to overdo in my experience). You may also consider bringing several clear filters so that the effect can be re-done quickly for a different camera angle, rather than waiting for a filter to be cleaned. Having a plastic shop cut optical-grade acrylic sheets to fit your matte box would be an inexpensive way to do this. Congratulations and best of luck filming your feature! Daniel

Even hinting about a temporary tie-in to power a movie light borders on irresponsible - people have died, and homes burned down because of this. It may also be illegal to do where Berry lives (it is not legal in California). I'm with Mark on this one. "I used an 18K" doesn't really tell you why they used it - what was the ISO of the camera / film stock, what was the lens aperture? Were they using any filtration that affected exposure? Was slow-motion a factor (it requires significant amounts of light to get really high frame rates)? The only benefit of an 18K in typical filming scenarios would be that the light can be moved very far away from the window, which negates the worst effects of the inverse square law, and makes beams of light that come through the window as parallel as possible. Both of these factors together mean that viewers won't notice the proximity of the light to the scene (it won't feel "source-y"), and therefore can appear more natural. However, both of the examples seem more stylized than naturalistic, and aren't really doing much to hide that there's a big freaking light outside. Berry, what ISO and lens stop do you intend to use (assuming 24fps)? An M18 is the brightest light that can work on a 20A household circuit in the US, and could be an option. The next step up would be an M40, which can be powered by a Honda 6500IS or 7000IS generator modified with a 60A bates receptacle - that combo should be close to 10 times cheaper to rent than the 18K + generator. Where are you located?

Catching up on this thread, I think that it only illustrates how ill-defined the term "cinematic" has become. Surely whether the images are cinematic or not is the work of the person(s) making it, and not the camera? If you attribute any "cinematic" quality to your images being a result of your chosen camera purchase, I think you do the greatest disservice to yourself. Camera manufacturers are guilty of encouraging this; just one example, Blackmagic puts this line at the top of the Ursa Mini Pro page: Which just seems like word salad thrown at a wall to see what sticks; an attempt to please everyone. ... As someone who shot film exclusively for several years, I feel I have a decent handle on what qualities of an image are "filmic" in some respects. I've also tested and used digital cameras from many different companies in more recent years, and my personal hierarchy - based on my own experience - is quite different from others in this thread. Given that so many people's opinions vary so greatly, making a flat-out proclamation that "Camera X is garbage" is quite obviously stating opinion as fact, and borders on provocation. It doesn't make this forum helpful, useful, or friendly. "This video from camera X that was shot and graded in a particular way doesn't have the qualities that I define as cinematic" is a different statement, and it could even be a true one. :) But then you'd actually have to define what those qualities are, which might actually lead to an respectful and meaningful debate.

Wikipedia has a decent summary of the history behind the slight changes to the anamorphic projection aspect ratio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format#2.35,_2.39_or_2.40?

From the Camera and Image Capture section of Netflix's Production and Post-Production Requirements: As Stuart says, it's a compromise between Netflix not wanting overly-large black bars that annoy viewers, and the widespread belief that wide aspect ratios are a shortcut to giving television shows a cinematic look.

Whether a full rehousing is necessary depends on what you want from the lens. If only you will be using it, and you only intend to use it for grabbing wide shots, just switching the mount would be fine assuming it's otherwise in good shape mechanically. Rehousing could offer a lot of benefits - an expanded and smoother focus throw, and better compatibility/longevity when used with wireless follow-focus motors, would be two big improvements that a modern rehousing could offer over the 1980s housing your lens is in now. If you intend to rent the lens to anyone else, I think a full rehousing makes a great deal of sense.

Hi Will, I've seen this style of rehousing come up online a few times in the past, usually with a Canon, Zeiss (Contax), or Olympus lens inside. I've seen them described as rehousings by Cineovision, a Japanese company, but I don't know if that's accurate information. The lens you have was probably a good rehousing for its time, but it doesn't go as far as rehousings of today - it still has the compressed focus scale of the original stills lens, and you can even see the original barrel at the front of the lens. I wouldn't say for sure that it's impossible to convert this to PL, though it will likely require custom work and complete removal of the current mount. The BNCR flange depth is longer than PL. (I've even seen (only online) a handful of BNCR lenses that are dual BNCR/PL, which would imply that the PL flange can fit inside the BNCR mount.) You'll need to put the lens in front of a professional to get a definite answer. In addition to Duclos, I can recommend Jorge of cinematechnic.com who has done excellent work for me a few times.

Well, the whole idea is that it's less wide on a RED than it is on 4-perf film. ;) If you want the numbers, out of PocketAC: For 35mm scope, projected, the "normal" value of 45.5mm gives a 49.5 degree field of view. You'd usually round up to a 50mm, for a 45.5 degree field of view - slightly tighter. A 40mm would give you an FoV of 55.3 degrees. For RED Helium 8K 6:5 2x, a 40mm lens gives you a 50.6 degree FoV - about 1 degree wider than the theoretical "normal" of 35 scope. To match a 50mm lens on 35 scope, you'd need a 45mm lens on the RED (which doesn't exist in many lens sets). That 50mm lens on the RED gives a 41.5 degree FoV - tighter. To match the 40mm on 35 scope, the RED would need a 36.1mm lens. Rounding down to a 35mm lens, you'd get a 56.8 degree FoV. This is in a perfect world of theory, where anamorphic lenses wider than 50mm don't start to get noticeable distortion in some cases. In any case, shooting with a typical set of 2x anamorphic lenses on a RED means getting an FoV that's either slightly tighter or more wide than what you'd get with 4-perf 35mm film. And I did say not to get hung up on the numbers. :)

RED has a fairly useful tool on their website that will provide the dimensions of any of their sensors, at any resolution window: http://www.red.com/tools/crop-factor For what it's worth, the 8K Helium and 6K Dragon sensors have almost the same dimensions, so if you've shot 2x anamorphic 6:5 with a Dragon then 2x anamorphic 6:5 on Helium should give you almost exactly the same perspective. That said, crop factor confuses so many people, and it gets misused in all kinds of ways. I find it much more straightforward to determine the normal focal length for the format you're shooting. Based on the dimensions David's provided, by doubling the horizontal dimensions we get virtual capture areas of 42mm x 17.5mm for 35mm 4-perf scope, which has a diagonal measurement of 45.5mm; and 37.84mm x 15.77mm for RED Helium 8K 6:5, with a diagonal of 41mm. The crop factor between the two works out exactly the same as David's calculation, 1.11x, but I wouldn't get hung up on the numbers - I'd think of a 40mm as a typical normal perspective, and from there decide if my normal lens for that movie would be wider or longer than that based on my approach to the story.

Well, it comes across less like a detective game and more like a wine tasting where no one can tell the difference between the $15 bottle and the $150 bottle. So far there have been guesses for Zeiss Superspeeds, Zeiss Ultra 16, Optar Illuminas, and Hawk V-Lite 16 1.3x. I suppose there's no possibility it could be Cooke SK4s? Or that a Canon or Angenieux HR super 16mm zoom were used? Since I've added those possibilities, now someone in this discussion must be right, since every possible option has been mentioned. I have no interest in contacting Mr. Annis personally, as the answer is unimportant to me. But in the face of an easy way to determine the answer to a straightforward question, does this community prefer to know the answer, or to sniff aromas and muse over the je ne sais quoi?