An exceptional price/quality ratio PC screen!

4 important specifications cached my attention:

• IPS screen with wide viewing angle
• 100% sRGB color gamut spectrum coverage
• Flicker free
• Blue light filter

Out of the box the screen came well calibrated, with a small Delta-E variation of color. After a manual calibration, it approaches perfection (except for the typical brighter black of IPS screens).

The "Flicker Free" and "Blue Light Filter" functions are very important for the eyes, especially for long working periods of time in front of the computer. I did not encounter problems related to ghosting or clouding, the image uniformity of my sample being impeccable. It doesn’t make much sense to comment much about IPS technology, whoever is interested in image editing, knows why to choose an IPS screen in favor of other technologies on the market.

The screen is elegant, with thin edges on the side and top and the construction is made of good quality plastic. The foot is made of metal and offers an inclination from -5 to 20 degrees.

In conclusion, for my needs (image editing) it’s an excellent screen at a very decent price. I recommend it with confidence!

The other day I was involved in a discussion about "85mm" lenses, and the differences between the characteristics of a certain FOV lens on "full frame", compared to how it looks on a crop sensor. A "native" lens can be designed to perform just like it´s other sized sibling, but when one is into vintage lenses / lenses that can be used on multiple systems it gets far more complicated! Lately I´ve been thinking a lot about lenses that work across different camera systems and the different qualities that are exhibited, depending on the size of the sensor. I´m not thinking so much about the obvious depth of field related changes as to how the overall feel of the image and subtle optical imperfections alter the image with the same lens used on different systems. I´d like to think of aps-c or s35 as base sensor / imager size over "full frame", at least for us who have video as the main area of camera usage, however, many lenses where designed for "full frame" and although the differences on s35 and aps-c can be rather small, I find the differences increase exponentially the smaller imager you put it on.

Hence I have come to search for vintage full frame lenses which will exhibit appealing qualities on a gh2 or a blackmagic design cinema camera. Now, what is appealing to me might not be appealing to you, but I will try to define my own criteria and I hope you can supply yours and add to this thread.

I have been building two main sets of vintage still lenses after ditching my canon fd´s (they were not getting the use to justify having them). For one, I have been buying c/y zeiss optics and I have been adding m42 mount lenses as I have come across them or found some interesting aspect which could fit in with the rest. The c/y´s will no doubt be a mainstay in my arsenale for years, however the ultimate reason why I pulled the trigger on the full set was the advent of the metabones speedbooster – I much prefer how they look on a slightly bigger sensor over a smaller one and I have high hopes for the speedbooster. The reasons for the preferred vicinity to "native sensor size" are:

1. less pronounced CA. I have become a bit allergic to aberrations of late.
2. nicer transition to OOF areas, wide open or stopped down.
3. More obvious contrast/microcontrast "sweet spot". (I think this is down to a slightly larger FOV)
4. Usability wide open, much in line with the criteria above. A lens which looks sharp in the center on full frame or aps-c might just look soft on a smaller sensor because there´s less contrast between edge and center.

With the m42´s it´s different. I like very much how they look on the gh2 AND f.i. the fs700 or BMD, so I find them extremely useful for video, across systems. So what is it I´ve been looking for?

1. Low(ish) contrast
2. Pleasing (sort of neutral) OOF and bokeh, also when stopped down.
3. good price / performance ratio.
4. great CA control
5. reasonable color match
6. good distortion control / flat focal field

I have mainly been searching through lens databases (on possible candidates), comparing sample images.

Now, this set consists today of the following lenses:

20mm flektogon f2.8 29mm meyer optik, pentacon f2.8 37mm Mir-1b f2.8 50mm Pancolar f1.8 58mm Helios f2 135mm meyer optik orestor f2.8 200mm meyer optik orestegor f4

I´m still looking to add a few but for the ones I have / I´ve had I can say the following:

20mm flektogon - I prefer the f4, as it´s tack sharp wide open. (f2.8 needs to be stopped down to 4-5.6) 29mm Meyer optik is sharper / has less blooming (coma) than the pentacon wide open.. maybe half a stop brighter as well - otherwise they are remarkably similar - both useful wide open. Bokeh can be both expressive and sort of neutral depending on where you place the focal field / subject and f-stop. 37mm Mir is a great "normal" lens on the gh2. Too slow? No. Just right. I want to add a macro ring to help out close focusing. Great value for money and beautiful OOF transitions thanks to the 10 blade aperture. 50mm pancolar - a bit too low in contrast to fit the others well. Not a fan of it´s bokeh. 58mm helios f2 - rock´n roll short tele on the gh2. Wonderful out of focus rendition and also nice transitions thanks to the round aperture. 135mm meyer optik - beautiful and tack sharp tele. Notoriously nice OOF / Bokeh rendition. Low in contrast and needs a push in post to match most of the other lenses. 200mm meyer ... - used it very sparingly so far. Not super sharp wide open. Not a preferred lens on gh2 sensor.

In general, I´ve had some issues with mechanics in cold conditions (needed to clean out and lubricate some helicoids) but they have been put to very good use already. I traded away a 35mm flektogon which I felt was a tad harsh in contrast in comparison to the others anyway (great lens tho). Another thing which is down to physics - the wider the lens, the more restless / harsher the bokeh is. The performance of a certain FOV does not quite match what you´d get on a larger sensor but this will only be a problem in case you are looking for really wide lenses in which case you are better off with native lenses anyway. The difference is mainly where you place the camera. (between different sensor sizes).

Note: I believe it´s difficult to switch lenses with acute focal fields between different sized imagers and not get very differing results.. For my m42 set I´d normally not use all for one production but choose a few depending on priority, like f.i. one or two wides, one or two tele´s to contain the slight differences in coatings, color e.t.c. However, they match remarkably well despite transgressing manufacturers and brands. I´d guess it´s because they are in the vicinity of one lineage of optics manufacturing.

Samples to follow.

The video work "INVERSION", consisting of two full HD video projections side by side, shows indoor and outdoor spaces of an abandoned place in a forest. The camera slowly scans the landscape showing traces of a silent inversion of nature taking over culture and culture taking over nature.

I've been researching this camera for a while now before I decide to buy it, and a personal problem for me is wider angles, given how the widest I can go is 2.24x with C4k. I'd read a wishlist of ideas for a GH4 hack allowing full sensor width capture at 4608x1920 (2.4:1), which would be awesome. Although, this raised the question for me as to whether or note a full sensor readout of 4608x2592 (16:9) is possible?

As far as I know, 4k writing speed had been clocked at 12.5mb/sec. Assuming the 4k (8.3mp) is written at 12.5mb/s, and C4k (8.85mp) at a slightly higher rate, how taxing would it really be for the camera to record at a full sensor 4608x2592 (12mp)? If we were to simply crunch the number in mp, full sensor 16:9 capture would be 1.44 times the file size, meaning it'd require an 18mb/s writing speed. Also, if that full width recording, 4608x1920 (8.85mp), was hacked for, it doesn't seem to me that it should be any more taxing on the camera and the cards.

I mostly bring this up because of the crop factor, though the increase in resolution for 16:9 would be sweet, frankly. Personally, I'm interested in the GH4 for shorts, so a 4608x1920 recording would still be a wet dream come true, but C4k suffices for the time being. My interest in 16:9 is for potential client work. These are just a few thoughts on possible hacks, custom/2.35 grid lines would be sweet.

Hope this doesn't arouse the ire of pressured hackers, just some thoughts. Thanks for reading :)

After shooting mostly with Panasonic cameras, and so use to a super sharp image, I'm not sure what people think about the 5d2 these days for web delivery? A few years back, it seems like everyone was requesting the 5d2, but things have changed, is it still an acceptable image today? Should I shoot a test for the client, or am I overly critical of the softer image compared to the gh2? I can drive myself crazy with this shit. Just looking for opinions and advice from my peers thanks

Personally, I didn't care about the MFT information, it wouldn't surprize me at all if Sony would try to get piece of Panasonic's cake on the market. It was anyway just a rumor, unapproved information as my friend didn't see it.

But I would say the news about the new FF sensor in the mirrorless NEX body is quite sensational. It sounds to me also as Sony's very logical next step: just recently Sony unveiled its FF camera with fixed lens (RX1) and also FF interchangeable lens body camcorder. Sony learns and produces already now FF and also APS-C sensors which belong to the best on the world (in Nikon D800 / NEX-7, respectively). As release date I heard "as soon as possible as Sony desperatly wants to be the first one (?)"

Such a release would have many consequences. Sony's E-bayonet mount provides the possibility to use almost all lenses ever made, just like "our" beloved MFT cameras. The new FF NEX would ceirtanly not be cheap, but probably it would still cost considerably less than Leica M. So it will have enough customers. I belive that the prices for the venerable old good lenses would be pushed quite a bit upwards. By the way: my own experience about using old lenses on the newest high-end digital bodies is quite good: the most of my best old AiS Nikkors which were great on the 24×36mm film are also great on the D800. Nikon's recommendation to use only the newest expensive lenses is just a bull.... except the true that bad Nikkors still look just the same bad on the D800 like ever before :-)

If this whole FF NEX comes true, my speculation is probably 24MP sensor for start model followed by 36MP in the next step etc. It wouldn't surprize me at all if Sony after having its fingers already deeply into the pockets of consumer and professional domains now attacks also into the semi-pro world. Orwell's "1984" is getting true in the world of eletronics......

I am currently using an old 15" LCD monitor as my preview device, which is not very accurate. I do not have the need for a real studio monitor. what bothers me about this solution is the black level.

Today, still all TVs start with black at 16 of 255 shades as opposed to 0 of 255 shades in a PC monitor. (This is my understanding, correct me if I am wrong) At least, What looks grey on a PC monitor is often times still black on a TV.

I was thinking about getting a small 1080p TV as a monitor, but maybe you have better suggestions.

I am looking for a small Monitor for my working space (maybe around 20") that has TV black levels. Or would you suggest changing that in the graphics card config...?

Long story:

Bought a Samsung SD 16gb Plus Class 10 (this kind: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-16GB-Class-Extreme-Speed/dp/B00569J5JC/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1327802435&sr=8-5)

First thing I did was format it at 32K and 64K clusters for optimal speed and benchmark it. Speed gains from 64K were marginal, and IIRC the camera didn't like them and defaulted to 32K if I formatted in camera.

Benchmarked the card at almost ~15MB with 16MB files and ~13MB with 8MB files. "Nice!" - I thought, 15MBs is better than Class 10 and since it's 120Mbps it will hold some pretty aggressive patches for a card that costs 20€.

But one day as I was moving FW from my laptop to the card I noticed the transfer speed was way below 10MBs! :( This started a heavy series of benchmarks that were all flawed (basically the problem was that the internal SD reader on the laptop is speed limited) but that had an unexpected development in my struggle to get the benchmark back to the speed I knew it was capable of. In that series of events I used some SSD reasoning "It's flash memory, I should try a Full Format not a Quick Format."

When I returned home and benchmarked the card on the external reader where I originally got almost 15MBs, this is what I got:

I don't know if this will transport to other brands, but I know I'll be doing this every now and then....