Caleb Genheimer

I call it Arrival Syndrome. Good lord, to intentionally choose to limit your whole film to about 50% of the available tonal range?! It’s moody on an Instagram photo sure, but oppressively fatiguing on a 2 hour cinematic. I’m of two minds on the audio. People absolutely have TV systems capable of producing cinema dynamics in a clear manner. It would be better rather if manufacturers of audio equipment would integrate dynamic volume of some sort.... If you have your volume down, compress everything more so you can hear quiet stuff, and bump the center channel a touch for dialogue retention. When you crank it, use the dynamics of the source. It is a bit hypocritical to bash for wasting dynamic range on one hand, and complain about extreme use of range on the other. Device-aware playback is the answer. Or, Devices which analyze the content and adjust to reproduce it satisfactorily. If you’re on an iPad, the pad should be smart enough to detect high dynamic audio.

If you’re delivering to cinema, it hardly matters. Most festivals still ask for 2K DCPs or even Blu-Ray. On a good cinema projector, a 2K DCP looks exceptional if you master it properly. I’ve been shooting 2X for almost a decade, before there were affordable monitors, 4K/high DR DSLRs, or single focus solutions. Composition rules apply even if the image is squashed. Wether you crop the sides or not, stretch 2X or 1.5X, the vertical lines of resolution remain the same. Perceived resolution is a funny thing. It’s infinitely more important to get a sharp scope and a taking lens that works well with it... and then to nail your focus. I prefer a 2X scope for the look, and the potential inconveniences are easily solved. The single most helpful tool with any anamorphic is a good monitor that can desqueeze and crop your image. Do yourself a favor and grab a SmallHD that runs the latest firmware. It’ll desqueeze and crop to any configuration. Anamorphic is just something you have to jump into and learn for yourself. It’s comparatively easy to do these days. Pick a scope and start experimenting, learn your rig and adjust your setup as you encounter things you want to improve.

@Andrew Reid can you just block this crap?

Yeah, voight 40 or Konica Hexanon 40... and ditto on the Kowa 16-H/8Z. It’s the best of the 2X projection scopes.

Andrew, I think that your asessment of H.265’s adoption roadmap versus the arrival of new RAW codecs is very astute. I was having a conversation with one of my company’s Videographers about exactly that: the timing is too late. H.265 gave me a huge leg up in the NX1 for several years (especially after the hack), but now it’s too little too late. I predict it will be the “Pro” codec in everyone’s flagship models for maybe two more product cycles, then everyone will one by one start to one-up each other with RAW integration. What that RAW format ultimately proves to be remains to be seen. ProRes compression, while tried and tested, is a bit old hat, and while I don’t doubt that applying it to a Bayer pattern signal produces fantastic image quality (ProRes RAW), there probably are more efficient possibilities out there at this juncture. In the limited time I’ve had to play with BlackMagic RAW on the Pocket 4K, I’d say it is more closely representative of what may be possible. Perhaps we will see H.265 compression applied to a bayer pattern signal. That would probably be a very flexible codec for the size indeed! The emphasis shift that I hope to see in the long run is away from codec flexibility and dynamic range, towards quality of color science. In two years if the dynamic range of most cameras is high enough to be a non-issue, and RAW in various forms also exists across the board, other issues like color shift over the range of exposure, and dual pixel autofocus will hopefully be pushed to the forefront. The Alexa remains unthroned for a reason, and it’s not just that it shoots RAW. Canon protects its Cinema cameras with that great AF. RED has had a monopoly on good compressed RAW with REDCODE, but not for much longer. The FS5 has that brilliant internal electronic variable ND! There is a lot of tech out there right now that single manufacturers provide. Hopefully it all spreads around soon just like RAW.

It’s a spam account. It always posts detailed questions, followed by “thank you my issue has been solved”

I’ve reported these every time and nothing is done.

You should be able to make it work. Same rules apply when selecting taking lenses that don’t vignette though. Get your anamorphic and then figure out the taking lens fov that is compatible. Find out which focal length matches that fov on your sensor size.

They really need to add a GH5s equivalent 4:3 mode to the Pocket

Because the factor (0.64 or 0.71) is not a whole number, you divide on your calculator... pretty darn sure that’s the correct way to do the math, but if I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat my words.

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.