Baltasar Thomas

Bump! This full set (2 lenses, 2 adapters one camera mount) is still for sale for 1100,- EUR total.

I sadly have no use for these Angenieux lenses, adapters and parts. These lenses are a great pair to cover a wide range, interior and exterior. They cover S16 for quite a large part of their ranges but were designed for STD 16. Anyone in this community interested? Would prefer to sell in one go. Angenieux 12-120 (Aaton mount) Angenieux 9.5-57 (Arri S mount with Arri S-Aaton adapter) Aaton - M42 adapter (use M42 lenses on Aaton body) MFT - Aaton adapter (use Aaton lenses on MFT body) Aaton mount for Aaton LTR body If interested send me a message.

Thanks for the tip Eric. And that sounds like a steal you got there! Pocket 4K could do the trick as well, but I'd prefer shooting CDNG over braw. Have you compared the two? P4K crop mode vs BMMCC?

Thanks for the tip David, I'm actually planning to use PL glass as well so I've added the adapter to the list :).

Hi, For personal no-budget projects where I'm sadly not always able to use the ol' Aaton I'm looking for an affordable solution to shoot a digital S16 look and I've come to the conclusion that the BMMCC would be a good choice. Anyone selling? Preferably a package, preferably in Europe. This would be an ideal package, though I could source some things elsewhere of course. - Camera - Cage - A baseplate (doesn't need to be pro like Arri dovetail or VCT but should allow 15mm rods at the correct height) - A few batteries - A battery to d-tap solution - Something to make controls a bit more user friendly like the One Little Remote or a different remote solution - An OLPF like Rawlite - MFT to PL mount adapter Hit me up if you've got something :). Baltasar

Filmmakers working today have been exposed to 'the film look' their entire lives. It makes sense that they try to emulate the things they love even though they don't have the immediate access to the tools that were used to create them or the skill to operate those tools. I love my Aaton to death, I love it even though it's nowhere near a perfect machine - it failed me during critical moments more than once. I really enjoy the process and concentration it forces me into. I also love the images it has captured for me, they are probably the images I am most proud and fond of. But as I deepen my understanding of creating a look on set and in post-production, I'm starting to appreciate the endless possibilities of a high fidelity digital image. And as I've come to understand that the majority of the films I've admired my entire life were tweaked in a lot of ways to look a certain way, It makes less and less sense to me to hold on to a purist approach with regards to these aesthetics. Yes, the image I get from the lab often looks great with very minimal correction. Does that mean I shouldn't do anything else to it to create a certain look? No I don't think so, why would I be obligated to do that? For who's sake? I can even go ahead and try to make it look like a GoPro if it serves the project. Yes, an Alexa image looks quite good, just with with a color space transform or a 709 LUT applied. Does that mean I shouldn't play with it further? No, I don't think so, I have no obligation to the camera, the manufacturer or anyone else to do so. It's a tool intended for me to create something with it. And when I I start playing with that digital image and it starts to resemble a film image, intended or unintended, should I stop right there and take a few steps back because it's not film? Should I steer clear from my desire to have a pleasant roll-off in the highlights? After all, the raw file doesn't have anything against hard clipping. I'm following my intuition, keeping in mind the project. But that intuition is fed by 120 years of cinematography, roughly 90% of which was shot on film. And just to diffuse the topic even further: I sometimes add noise to a project that doesn't resemble any particular filmstock. What is that about? Am I emulating film? Digital sensors produce some sort of noise as well right? And sometimes that noise looks quite pleasant. This. Shooting on film, trying to emulate it through other means, it's all a big compliment. Proof of our love of the medium, its history and how it has made us feel in the past. If a film looks good and this look serves the story, characters or a particular scene, I appreciate it. Because if it looks good, it required skill, dedication and time to take it to that level, regardless of whether it was shot on film or digital. Having said all this, I do personally have a preference for working with film, I like getting my hands dirty with processing film diy and holding the actual frame that captured a specific moment I viewed through the viewfinder. But more so: I like it because I'm more restricted in a lot of ways (especially during shooting) and I believe restriction nurtures creativity and concentration. But I do believe you could apply this idea of restriction to a digital workflow as well. Watching a film projection though, man that gives me some good vibes 😍.

I've struggled with this as well, as I often upload images that were either shot on film or where I've added a more 'organic' noise/grain to counter-balance the smoothening effect of denoising as a finishing touch. A few things I've noticed help mitigate this problem to an extent: - For the final node, add a very slight (gaussian) blur (nearly imperceptible) - Upload in UHD resolutions. Platforms such as YT and Vimeo seem to use superior codecs when handling UHD footage as opposed to HD footage. - Upload in a good intermittent codec like ProRes, DNX or Cineform. - If you can't upload in one of these codecs due to file size restrictions, try uploading in H.265. It might be a better choice than H.264. I recently tried this on Vimeo because I'm limited to 5GB uploads. It gave me a better result than the H.264 version of the same video. I think we might see some huge improvements if these platforms start using H.265 for their own compression.

@Tyler Purcell Tyler, I'm pretty sure you'll be able to identify it?

Hi Emils, thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I agree that for stills lenses a clamp on wouldn't be the most obvious choice with 4x4 and larger/heavier filters. However, if the lenses are mounted solid a light weight MB like this could mean I wouldn't have to even mount rods on my rig a lot of the time and keep the setup very light and nimble. It's not how you intended the product but I think it might be a great solution. One more question popped up now that I'm taking another look at the 4x4 MB: is it possible to order that one with a top flag as well?

Hi Emils, this looks good! A few questions come to mind. I can send you an email but it might be good to post it here as others might have the same questions. - I use a lot of different sized filters (3x3, 4x4, 4x5.65), would it be an idea to offer adapters to fit 3x3 and 4x4 filters inside the MB designed for 4x5.65? - Similar question: can the 4x4 MB hold similar sized 100x100x2 filters? - Are you thinking of offering side flags? - Are you thinking of offering adapters for different sized lens barrels? Maybe even for non standard sizes so the MB could be used with stills lenses as well?

Take a look at the JVC GY-LS300CHE, might be exactly what you're looking for.

Thanks Attila, sent you an e-mail.

Hi, I'm looking to buy a S16 Zoom, preferably in Aaton mount. Other mounts might work out as well, as I have the option to convert my Aaton to PL and Arri-S adapters are available. However, I'm not sure I'm able to cough up the current market value, therefore I'm interested in wide-angle primes that cover S16 as well. I'm located in Europe. Please let me know if you have anything that might fit this need and are looking to sell. Thanks!

For anyone interested in this topic in the future, I did a little test to find out the latency of the Blackmagic Micro Cinema Camera through HDMI and compared it to a GH5. All tests were run at 25 fp/s. I ran a timecode window in Premiere Pro for 30 seconds for each test and filmed the iMac monitor and my Portkeys BM5 monitor placed next to each other, so I could read the difference in frames between the actual timecode and the signal sent from the camera to the Portkeys monitor through HDMI. Afterwards, I repeated this process with a Small HD 502 Bright monitor, to see if an industry standard monitor might obtain better results than the Portkeys monitor. These were my results: Portkeys BM5: 1: BMMCC RAW: 3-4 frames / 120-160 miliseconds 2: BMMCC RAW 3:1: 34 frames / 120-160 miliseconds 3. BMMCC 422: 2-4 frames / 80-160 miliseconds 4. GH5 4K 10 bit ALL-I: 6-7 frames / 240-280 miliseconds 5. GH5 1920x1080 10 bit ALL-I: 6-7 frames / 240-280 miliseconds Small HD 502 Bright 1: BMMCC RAW: 2-5 frames / 80-200 miliseconds 2: BMMCC RAW 3:1: 3-4 frames / 120-160 miliseconds 3. BMMCC 422: 2-4 frames / 80-160 miliseconds 4. GH5 4K 10 bit ALL-I: 6-8 frames / 240-320 miliseconds 5. GH5 1920x1080 10 bit ALL-I: 6-7 frames / 240-280 miliseconds I might do another test with a shorter cable, these were 2 meters, I think 😅. Good quality though. Results were very similar between the two monitors overall and favored the BMMCC over the GH5. It seems the GH5 takes about twice as long to process the signal. Further testing will reveal if 120-160 miliseconds is good enough for my purposes :).

Thanks for the heads up! Yes, I was mostly thinking about post. 🙂