Baltasar Thomas

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. 🙂

I'm looking at this one for my LTR as well. I can't really think of any downsides, I use M42 full frame stills lenses on my LTR as well and those produce excellent results.

Good point AJ! That would have been an added bonus with any of those EVF's I mentioned. It seems strange that Portkeys didn't implement it with the new and very well priced LEYE. I have had times with my Aaton (it's an older model without video assist) where a monitor would have made things a lot easier. However, most of the times the viewfinder was sufficient. Right now, I figured I would just pack my 5" monitor as well, just in case. So Blackmagic camera's have minimal delay as well? I wonder if the older model BM Micro Cinema Camera has a lot of delay through the HDMI. That sensor with DNG recording might make a good companion to the Aaton. 🤔

Thanks for sharing AJ. Well, latency is the main thing. Brightness, resolution, size, 3D Lut support, input signals, these count as well. But the affordable EVF's that I'm looking at seem to have those covered quite well (yet to try them out though). I'm looking at the Portkeys OEYE, the Portkeys LEYE and the ZCAM EVF.

Hi, I'd like to try and get as close to replicating the experience of operating through an optical viewinder on a budget. Monitors aren't doing it for me. There's a view affordable EVF's on the market now that might do the trick, but mirrorless or other budget cine-oriented camera's often have too much latency. It bugs me, definitely for documentary-type work. From what I've gathered, any delay lower than 100ms is not perceivable. I was wondering if anyone knows of a resource that lists camera's with sub 100ms latency. Testing will prove what works, but there's just so much to try, I'd like to see if I can trim down the possibilities before I start any testing. Cheers! Baltasar

If you use the Shape shoulder pad, aren't you able to attach 15mm rods to the back? That would allow for some mounting options to the bottom of the rods. Other options that come to mind are adapting your LTR to take v-mount batteries, or wearing a battery on your belt. The base of your LTR looks modified and huge, what is that? Looks peculiar! It protrudes into the section where your shoulder normally goes.