Caleb Genheimer

What about a 16:9 signal?

This phone will live or die on the holographic tech. Let's be honest here. A decked out current iPhone plus model is near the $1K price point, so $500 extra isn't that much more, especially considering this thing looks like it's built like a tank in typical RED fashion. If the new display tech can do high quality, accurate displaying of pro content, PLUS it is holographic in a usable, non-gimmicky way? Sure it's worth an extra $500. On the flip side, if the display suffers poorer quality or clunky usability due to the tech not being practical? This thing is DOA.

Obligatory NX1 owner post, I'll admit, but that doesn't make it less true: I shoot weddings, corporate, music videos, and other random things as a Ronin operator. The AF capabilities of the NX1 in this application simply cannot be overstated. The only thing I could possibly say it is lacking is 4K 60p, but then, that's an unfair gripe considering that wasn't a spec even on the radar for mirrorless cameras at the time of the NX1's development. Sure, the Sony claim to fame is shooting in the black of midnight, but on most other fronts you have to work hard to get what I would consider a pleasing image. Until these next-gen cameras can match or exceed the NX1's AF capabilities, I have zero reason to upgrade. There are specs that matter, and specs that don't. Sure, it can vary depending on the application, but there's no replacement for skill behind the lens. Some features just make the job easier, and unnervingly good AF for gimbal work is one of those features. I'll have to try Canon's DPAF, see how it stacks up. But I have other misgivings about diving into Canon's ecosystem, nevermind if Samsung's is now DOA.

2real4me.

8Z/16H are the best 2X double focus anamorphics out there. As wide as 35mm horizontal FOV, and sharp. Great flares.

NSA agent here, can confirm: @Orangenz's body is a flawless Greco-Roman specimen that would make any Renaissance artist worth their salt spontaneously break out chisel and hammer to immortalize it in marble glory. Also, he carries his keys in his front right pocket.

It's still one of the best 4K cameras out there today, period. A dial each for shutter, aperture and ISO? Well ain't love grand! An entire wedding day at 60p on on 64GB card? Cut off my legs and call me shorty! 4K for corporate? Startin to see pictures, ain't ya? Yeah, but you think your Sony/Panny/Canon has better color? No sir, sorry bushwhackas! Maybe the now-jailed fella was responsible for the NX1's untimely demise. Or we go by my theory, which is the ugliest guy did it.

I got mine almost exactly 5 years ago (16-H), and prices haven't changed as much as you might think, not for that lens. It's up USD $100-$150, but even mine was $450 if I remember correctly. On a side note, yeah. 16-H has proven to be on the true shortlist of top-quality anamorphic lenses. It really is down to personal preference at a certain point. The Moller, the Iscos, and Lomo are the rest of that list, and the Lomos are really not adapters, but full-on cinema lenses. A Kowa 16-H is still an incredibly smart buy. All the camera specs in the world are no substitute for good glass.

16-H and SLR Magic Rangefinder.

What's the resolution of 6K anamorphic mode?

Mine was meant to be humorous too, so if my snarky attitude came across wrong, apologies ? Concerning "resolution" IMO there are two ways to cut it: numerical/objective resolution, and perceived/subjective resolution. One can be defined by calculating how many practical points of information are in your image (in our case, pixels). The other is based on how much detail the human eye perceives, and with anamorphic especially, the two are at odds. Objectively, you may say that by stretching a digital file by a factor of two, you have halved your numerical resolution. It is half as sharp. The catch is, though, top to bottom you have lost no sharpness. The image still has the same number of "lines" (in the case of 4K, 2160 lines). At this point, the temptation is to say, "ok, I may have lost half my resolution, but not half my sharpness. I've probably lost 1/4 of my sharpness." But subjectively, as the eye sees, the loss is even less. Because your vertical lines of resolution are all still there, you still have very near the original sharpness in many parts of the image. The eye picks this up, and the brain is frighteningly good at filling in the rest. Add to this that the images are changing constantly, and (all else being equal), you won't loose much perceived resolution at all over shooting spherical, even at 2X. The by-far most important thing has already been stated though: If you're delivering to web it doesn't matter. Most web watchers are in their phone or tablet, most of which are not 4K, or even 1080p. The minimal loss in sharpness/resolution won't even make it past the compression to be honest, but the stylistic differences in the image will. That's why I prefer 2X, as it can be more pronounced. But 1.5X also looks great, it's just a preference.

Best lens so far for me has been a Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 pancake. It's cheap but no joke, works wonders at f4.

Hold your horses there! I'm calling full and utter BS on that last statement ? I use my 2X all the time with my NX1. It's 16:9. I get paid actual monies (several monies sometimes) specifically BECAUSE I shoot 2X! There are monitors that can desqueeze it and crop to 2.35:1. I have one. There are adaptors to make it single focus. I have one. Shooting with it? Easy as shooting with any standard prime lens. In terms of "easier to deal with"? As in the post-production? Don't fool yourself, unless you're a fool (which I'm sure you're not). It's just math. Desqueeze ratios and aspect ratios. Vertical and horizontal resolution. All can be sorted with simple division, multiplication, subtraction or addition. If you feel the need to defend the 1.5X, that's fine, there are great 1.5X lenses and crappy 1.5X lenses, just like there are great and crappy 2X lenses. As as far as calling 2X users "purists"? I take offense. I'll put my "cheap" 2X up against what I can only assume is an Iscorama that you spent too much money on. But I'll tell you right now mine is sharper, the bokeh is more distorted, and the flares aren't yellow, they're blue. Oh, and it has a wider FOV (even when cropped to 2.35:1). Im all for everyone finding their own solution in anamorphic, but do the math, don't just make blanket statements.

I've been saying for the past year and a half that the only thing preventing me from going Sony is their color science. It just looks bland. Canon looks very nice, though it is a certain look, and I've reached a place with my Samsung where I can get good stuff out of it. I'm also really liking the color science coming from Fuji, I may be tempted to go that route in the future especially if 4K medium format becomes a thing. 4K 60fps is the next thing I need out of a camera. Electronically variable ND would be very welcome too.

Honestly when I slow motion on NX1, I just use the 16-50 kit lens. Sometimes I'll shoot 1080 60p, that holds up a bit better than the 120fps. Resolution isn't EVERYTHING.

While the iscoramas are good, their long-standing status as the "top dog" adapter style anamorphic is due in no small part to the fact that for a very long time they were the only single focus option. Examined on sharpness, chromatic aberrations, build quality etc, Personally I think the Kowas win out, and now they're single focus as well. Both are good, but Iscoramas cost $4,000. A decent Kowa with clamps and a Rangefinder can cost less than half of that.

Kowas are among the best glass out there. A Rectilux would probably be the ideal single-focus solution to maximize quality, but the FM and Rangefinder also do an admirable job.

I use NX1 with a Kowa 16-H/8Z. My personal opinion is that 2X looks by far the best. Otherwise, just shoot spherical, crop, and add some barrel distortion in post. with the UHD capabilities of the NX1, cropping off the sides to get 2.35 or 2.66 is really no great loss. The Kowa is among THE best anamorphic glass, period. Full stop. Add a Rangefinder or Rectilux, and it also becomes a versatile and useable professional tool.

Consider the Samsung NX1. Ignoring all the crap about it being discontinued, it's a great camera and always will be. The color is pleasing, and the 4K provides lots of information to work with when craving an image. Add to that the recent support via FilmConvert, and I think it might have a lot of what you're looking for.

I've never checked the minimum, but it's near a foot possibly less. Max is around 9 feet as you said.

Yep.

Kowa 16-H 2X anamorphic, outfitted with Redstan front/rear clamps and an SLR Magic Rangefinder. The "taking" lens is a Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8. A bit of a heavy load for the Ronin M, but that gives it a Hollywood style handheld look to the movement.

That's where it fits. The Tokina ATX is very, very good. But it's a 72mm filter, so it goes on the 72mm Redstan. Then the step up to 77mm, with the rangefinder finally on front. I think the Rangefinder front is something like 82mm, so there would be serious vignetting with the Tokina on front.

It is the 77mm version with focus marks. I've not noticed any extra vignette, though I've not been looking for it either. The 40mm is pretty much as wide as you can go on s35 with the Kowa, and it still works with the rangefinder on front. Sometimes I put my Tokina ATX diopter behind the Rangefinder. Then it creates a tiny vignette in the corners at 2.40:1 ratio. All of this certainly vignettes at 3.55:1.

It's funny how lenses for anamorphic are. The Konica really isn't very inspiring on its own, but with the Kowa on front it's awesome. Conversely, my 50mm Zeiss C/Y is bonkers good on its own, but quite bland with the Kowa. It's a bit hair-splitting once web compression rears its ugly head, but full 4K files hide nothing. I did a version with the skew fixed (actually quite easy to correct for in post if it's this minor), but I liked it better with the skew to it. Adds some low-fi and a sort of "toyish" aesthetic akin to tilt-shift. Makes it bleeding obvious that it hasn't been done with yet another Canon 5D and 24-70.