Caleb Genheimer

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.

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”.