I think If I were Arri I wouldn't even bother with NAB just to make a point.
Damn, If I was in the position to be taking out finance on an executive car, I;d sooner get finance for an alexa mini as a business asset, however buying cameras is a mugs game the way things are going. The guys buying red dragons to shoot corporate dross in a cinematic way without even thinking about price can now spend their money on an Arri - and I imagine a lot will.
those achromats really help things drastically. flare is beautiful to my eyes - I love the coating choice slr magic used.
edges have a bit too much fringing to my eyes - especially since this was shot on gh4-4k. what will it be like with s35> probably even worse. Overall though, this seems like some of the best results from modern cost effective anamorphics I have seen in recent years. Those edges still feel a bit too much like a century 1.33x in terms of quality though.
From what I've seen this doesn't quite match what I've seen from the mighty schneider + FM unit. but certainly has a pleasing aesthetic to my eyes.
I think SLR Magic may have dropped the ball for the second time.. It's as if they look at results from beautiful anamorphics like the iscorama and then design something that delivers the exact opposite. Their 1.33x lens didn;t have any anamorphic aesthetic, and it looks like it may have not been because of the minimal squeeze ratio, but their process of designing the lens. This, like the 1.33x lens seems to miss the point of anamorphic completely. No character, yet all of the hassle and rather poor edge capability too - for the 4k crop mode (which is more than a 2x crop of full frame) I see rather unpleasant aberrations at the edges and a significant degradation on the performance of the panasonic lens. Going from 720p up to 4k there is no additional resolution from what I see. This will get worse on s35, and probably real nasty on full frame.
Your FM video has the anamorphic look:-
Why does the SLR magic not have the same 'magic' I see from the video above? Both were shot on 4k crop mode, both by the same person. Both are 2x
As anyone who knows lenses knows, there ain't much better than a 50mm contax/planar for sharpness wide open. assuming this was a medium/close shot requiring a human face to separate from the background, I know which I'd choose for the money shot! It's not all about wafer thin dof, a longer lens at a distance is better at obtaining separation between in and out of focus areas of the frame. FACT. If you don't value this attribte it's fine, but please don;t make the assumption that full frame doesnt have a creative and drastic technical advantage when dof control and sharpness are of utmost importance.
I suppose the reason for the difference is that generally from what I see an 85mm at f2.8 is almost always sharper than a 50mm at f2. Since the 85mm will be used on full frame, the full frame setup has the advantage in sharpness of the in focus subject. as a result the actual ratio between in focus and out of focus is greater. Also, from my experiences using usually full frame lenses on both full frame and aps-c/s35 on a full frame sensor the whole image circle is being utilised to deliver the sensor resolution. Assuming a full frame lens wide open will resolve 30lp/mm on a full frame sensor the horizontal resolution 36mm x 30x30 = 2160px. crop into that for s35 and you only have 1440px of horizontal resolution. So assuming the actual lenses are full frame lenses - an 85mm on the full frame sensor, and a 50mm on a s35 sensor, the 50mm will project the same fov as the 85mm but the actual overall line pairs is divided by 1.5 on s35.
The difference is less obvious when true s35mm lenses are used on the frame they're designed for. The sigma 18-35 f1.8 for example will outresolve most full frame lenses.
Then we have speed boosters - which compress the resolution down onto a smaller area, so if there was a 'optically perfect' speed booster available you could take the 30lp/mm full frame lens and compress it by the 0.7x and have around 45lp/mm of resolving power onto your s35 sensor. Unfortunately no commercially available speed boosters allow optical perfection so some of the lens resolution is lost. Still the delivered resolving power onto the s35 sensor is normally more from a 50mm + speed booster than the resolution from a 35mm lens without a focal reducer.
The only real way to properly illustrate the difference would be to take a m4/3 camera and a 25mm lens and put it against a 645 camera and an 80mm lens. The 80mmbeing set at f2.8 and the 25mm lens having to be set at something like f0.7 to get the same amount of defocus. Quite obviously the 80mm will blow the 25mm lens out of the water in terms of sharpness.
I prefer a full frame sensor because I can use a longer fl for the same fov. I prefer the way a longer lens separates the in and out of focus areas of a frame. Added to this is the affordability of wide lenses. A 25mm f2.8 is as wide as you ever need on full frame and usually looks better to my eye than an 18mm f2 on s35 due to being sharper and with less distortion.
I'm hoping to invest in some lighting and think now might be a good time to look at LEDs. I'm particularly interested in a 350w fresnel from Ianiro http://www.ianirouk.com/product.php?ProductID=763
as well as a pair of matching 100w fresnels http://www.ianirouk.com/product.php?ProductID=772
Has anyone here used such lighting or have any feedback on how they would compare to Arri tungstens or hmis
I don;t want to have to deal with the issue of generators or taking special feeds from a ring main. I just want to run lights off either an dc-ac inverter and some leisure batteries or from normal 13a sockets as found in the home. I'm seeing a 95% CRI rating, and quoted tungsten/hmi equivalents, but in real life are they a worthwhile investment over say a set of 3 redheads which work out at about 1/4 the price for good condition used 800w jobs.
Before doing so - and potentially killing a priceless relic, be aware that it's likely the glass they used in the design is no longer produced and thus the radii of the glass will need to be changed anyway. If manufacturing a new anamorphic all together you'd be better off designing around current glass types with similar indexes for the specific goal of a larger sensor rather than a 8mm frame. Get a list of the in stock glass your plant have otherwise I might find your moller is killed for no reason. The FF38 and TRUMP38 optics needed some of the most expensive and hard to source glass and since so much time was put into an uncompromising design I had to go with it in the end, resulting in crippling material costs. Since it's now done, I'm ok, but I recon the process aged me 10years in 6 months. Design around available glass rather than the other way round. It'll save you so much.
As it happens the majority of the 25mm distagons are non hft I have found! Of all the lenses in the system, the 25mm is the crown IMO. http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Distagon-25mm-F2-8-f-Rolleiflex-QBM-/161491656495?pt=DE_Foto_Camcorder_Objektive&hash=item2599a71f2f When I get dso lens users asking about wide alternatives I tend to point them towards this lens. It's the best vintage and non multi coated wide angle lens (for sharpness).
This is full frame on the A7R. It's the only vintage lens I own that really delivers resolution suitable for the A7R