Caleb Genheimer

Finally, zombie filmmakers can rejoice! Undead skin tones in stunning 8K H.265!!!!!!!!

In my experience, one can throw math at a forum until the cows come home, but until you actually set up a particular focuser/scope/prime/speedbooster/sensor combination, there’s no real way to know. If the sensor size is that important to you, start there. Get the camera that you want. then get the scope you want, and a focus solution. finally, start auditioning prime lenses until you find something you like. the factors/equivalencies/etc. are ultimately crude ways of approximating the complex physics of the optics. They’re great for making a strong educated guess, but won’t really give you a definitive answer as to the “ultimate” setup. If you want a real scope for s35, just save up and snag a LOMO. Or sell your car and get a Hawk. There really is no quick path to assembling something that will perform exactly like a real cine anamorphic. same goes for s35 cameras. Get a Red, Pretty sure they save stills. The math... 1. look up the sensor dimensions 2. multiply by the focal reducer’s factor 3. Profit

Yes we agree... but the suggested focal lengths are incorrect. I can BARELY use a 37mm natively on my GH5s with my Kowa 16-H (the most forgiving 2X projection lens out there). That means at least a 75mm lens is needed on fullframe, and this is all assuming you are shooting video and cropping off the sides of the 16:9 for a final stretched output ratio of 2.39:1. I’ve shot the Kowa on a full frame canon in stills mode, and to cover the whole sensor I had to use an 85mm. It still had little tiny vignettes in the corners. You probably get around 16 degrees of vertical angle of view, and 38mm degrees of horizontal angle of view. In fullframe non-Anamorphic terms, that’s equivalent to an 85mm in the vertical and a 35mm in the horizontal. You might squeeze a tad more depending on the lens. But single focus adapters, filters and diopters on the front of the scope will all further constrict the vignette. I’ve never heard of anyone using a 40mm on fullframe with projection anamorphics, but if I’m wrong someone should speak up.

Don't confuse focal length with field of view. There is NO advantage/disadvantage on ANY sensor size when it comes to field of view/angle of view (how “wide” of a view you get) through a scope. It will vignette at the EXACT SAME field of view no matter what size sensor you use. The change in useable focal length (in mm) on various sensor sizes in indeed due to “equivalency”, also referrers to as “crop factor.” There is something to be said for larger sensors with regards to depth of field. If you want it shallower, larger sensors will be the ticket.

Extra resolution is helpful when doing any transformation of the image in post. A great example is Anamorphic. I’ve been developing a method for reducing some of the mumps in the middle and extreme compression at the edges of my anamorphic footage, and pushing those pixels around can definitely start to muddy the image. Downscaling 8k to 4K or 2K will also reduce noise by summing the data from multiple photosites. I’ve recently finished a short film, got a DCP authored at 2K, and it looked fantastic in the theater. There’s even 1080p footage in there. You can’t tell. There’s definitely an edge seeing the 4K master file on a good monitor though, and I DID do mild reframing on about a third of the film. Having thrown something up on the “big screen”, I can absolutely see the benefit that “overshooting” (with respect to delivery resolution) would have. That being said, I don’t give a rat’s rear end about Sony cameras. Their look is the most unpleasant thing to look at IMO. Hopefully Panasonic sticks one of these in their mkII FF body, or in a fullframe EVA-2.

I guess I don’t understand this discussion at all. You’re concerned about all this for stills mode on a camera? Just shoot full-frame and crop to 4:3 APS-H in post (if that’s what you want. I don’t get why you want APS-H specifically but whatever.) You have to post-process to de-squeeze anyway. Is it a monitoring issue? If you want to see what you’re shooting de-squeezed, there are plenty of cameras with outputs and external monitors that can hook up. Maths on the GH5 4:3 sensor and Speedboosters: 17.3 X 13mm X0.64= 27X20mm X0.71= 24.3X18.3mm

i feel like there’s an unspoken gentlemans agreement between all the manufacturers to not put dual pixel autofocus in non cinema cameras. Seriously, my NX1 bit the dust this summer, and I’m on to a GH5s, because nobody has DPAF yet, YEARS later. It’s a conspiracy.

I have a GH5S as of this evening. I’ll shoot some simple clips to show the MAR sensor in 16:9 modes versu in anamorphic mode to see if there is in fact an increase in vertical FOV. I can’t compare it to a GH5, because I don’t have one.

I would pre-order the sh*t outa this, even if the only leaked spec was that the nameplate will say “NX2”.

Hi, all! I recently had a GH5 in hand (since swapped for a GH5s pre-order), but for the week that I had it, I simply could not believe what Panasonic has done with the IBIS/DIS in that camera. It’s incredible! The camera knows that you’re shooting 2X anamorphic, and as long as you tell it which focal length you’re using, the stabilization works flawlessly with anamorphic. This is absolutely no small feat to re-calculate the stabilization algorithms to work with something as atypical as a squeezing lens. I may have to save for a standard GH5 body just to get this feature for my personal use (I need the low light of the GH5s for weddings), it is that good. Tripod mode is even more obscene. It just locks the image. Providing you don’t have any flares dancing in frame, it may as well be a locked off shot on sticks. Is anyone else using the GH5 stabilization with anamorphic? Early on I had actually seen it mentioned that IBIS and anamorphic don’t play well together, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that they actually do. Perhaps the new firmware fixed the incompatibility?

Thank goodness for B&H 30 day returns! I just grabbed a GH5 a couple weeks ago for tax write off, but it looks like I’ll be swapping it out haha.

If Sony whips up a full frame 4K 60p DPAF camera and throws in that electronic ND filter for good measure, I’ll buy it . . . price tag and color science be damned. Barring that, I’m looking for the next MF Fuji to do 4K, or to just bite my tongue and run around with a Canon Cinema camera. (I’m no fan of Canon’s approach to their pricing/lineup/feature set, but a tool is a tool and DPAF is hard to ignore when nobody else has it.) I don’t know why, but I prefer cameras that are a little off to the side of what most people consider the norm. I was a GH2 shooter way back when Canon DSLRs were the flavor of the year, and stuck with that until switching to the NX1, and the other camera I was considering at that juncture was the Fuji. Truth be told, all else being equal, I would argue that Fuji’s color blows everything else out of the water, south of RAW cameras (Arri/Red/Blackmagic). Canon’s colors are okay, but seen so often that the look is worn out. The NX1’s color is decent too, great even once you know how to reign it in, but it tends a bit too punchy and overstated for my tastes. It can have a way of (for lack of a better description), simplifying colors. Red is just red. Green is green. Colors tend to look primary, and complex shades sometimes feel lost or overpowered. For many shoots, this works great and is no issue. Also, it correctly handles skin tones right out of the box. I’m talking video of course, the photo side shooting RAW is very pleasing and malleable in post.

As far as I know, the NX1 is the only camera south of the Canon Cinema line to have dual pixel autofocus. For anyone on a gimbal, this is a gargantuan feature that can’t be overlooked. I pick up other cameras and forget that I have to control focus, simply because I run around with my NX1 on a Ronin every day and never even touch focus. I’ll second that the battery life is very good, and add that powering/charging over USB is extremely handy. Not only can I charge three batteries at a time (internal/grip/external charger), but I can power the camera off of my Ronin M with a simple little jumper cable. The one thing it is not is a low light camera, but then compared to a Sony, most other cameras aren’t. I plan to pick up Luca’s NX-L soon to help with this, and to get that full frame look when called for. Truth be told, I am considering retiring my NX1, and getting another NX1 just because I’ve used this one so much. For the price, it’s an extremely powerful tool that can pull its weight in almost any situation, and having two for multi cam shoots will be useable far into the future, even if I do switch to something else for an A-cam. I’ve been waiting for dual pixel AF to show it’s face on another DSLR in order to switch, but I suspect I may wait a fair while longer still. I know I’ve not been compelled to switch just yet.

Same setup as you. I’d agree that the Rangefinder isn’t currently the best solution, but it was when it came out. I also have a Zeiss C/Y 50mm f1.4 that works decent for a tighter look.

WA adapters rarely work on anamorphic. There might.... MIGHT be a handful of the very big, very expensive ones that would work, but even then they’d only give you 25% wider at best, possibly worse. I’ve asked people much more knowledgeable about the intricacies of optics than I am, that is the feedback I got after lots of questions on different adapters. Another er approach is to ask, what you need that wide of a fov for anyway? Seriously, a 50mm can be wider by pulling back from the subject (and don’t forget the horizontal is 37mm). If you need wider than 37mm for a shot, it’s probably some sort of environmental establishing shot, in which case, you can shoot spherical and either use deep focus or an oval aperture mod on your lens. The Kowas are killer glass, and all they really need is a single focus adapter on front to be truly useable, just like an iscorama. Don’t pick one or the other because it is better/worse. Pick which one you like the look of better. I love my Kowa, but I’d also like to get a Moller, and (maybe some day) a 35mm LOMO square front. As you said, real Cinema lenses are expensive, but you get what you pay for.