Caleb Genheimer

I believe you're thinking of the Olympus EM-5  :)  (Too bad the codec in it isn't very good).

Yes, you are softening, but the human eye doesn't perceive it because the vertical resolution has not been softened . . . just the horizontal. 

I would hope also that in the future, there is something like this that is weatherproofed. Having all those wires hanging about is just asking for entanglement. run the wires inside the frame and seal the frame properly. 

Well put, sir. 

By stretching horizontally, you don't loose any of your 1920x1080p pixels, But the 1920 are doubled (2 of each next to each other in place of one).    Technically speaking, although the frame size becomes 3840 pixels wide, half of those are duplicates (or more precisely, interpolations) of the original 1920 across.    BUT (and here is the genius of it), you do not loose perceived sharpness because the 1080p vertical lines of resolution are all still there.   One last trick that can seal the deal is after the stretch out, you apply a grain overlay at the increased resolution. I've done a few things on GH2 with my Kowa 2X that I have stretched out, cropped (to get 2.35:1), and grained. I can confirm, it looks like real-deal 2560x1080p. If that ain't 2K, I don't know what is.   This mostly works because of the maintained 1080 lines of resolving power. That keeps things looking crisp and sharp even when you stretch out the other dimension. It also works because 1080p and 2K aren't really very different, they're pretty close in terms of resolution. Mostly the anamorphic aids in changing to the wider aspect ratio while maintaining 1080p vertical lines of resolution.

Overall, glad this is out there. Coming from the perspective of a younger filmmaker, this thing is a huge tool in the belt for us. A lot of us like to work faster, without too much bulky equipment. I can see it being extremely handy in that way. Regardless of the new fancy shots it can pull off, it makes the very basic stuff go quicker too. You don't need to mess around with sticks in a small room. By nature of the beast, there are separate operators for movement, framing and focus. What is more, all of those are electronically operated, not just the movement stabilization, but pan/tilt and focus pulls too. All of this speeds up the process of bagging your shots, while also improving the success rate of takes, because you've got three different people aided by electronic stabilization, attending to different aspects of capture.   All that being said, $15,000 is a big price tag. I'm not saying it is an inappropriate price. But to call anything at this price point a major game-changer is to speak too soon, I think. Sure, it is in a "rentable" price range for many people, and purchasable for some.    I hope the price on this tech goes down, I really do. But there's definitely something to be said for a "complete package" (ready to use). with something this complex, I'd rather pay a bit more for a stabilizer, controllers (pan/tilt/focus) and remote monitoring system all from the same company. It just doesn't seem like something you'd want to be frankensteining together. Plus, all of those pieces are necessary in order to use it anyway, so why wouldn't they offer a complete package to keep the total cost down?   Just my 2c ;)   Also, it's about time someone did some coding for a second focus motor for these electronic focus setups. Dual-focus anamorphic users are in eager anticipation!

Get a mattebox that can take them, cutting them down would be a shame, diopters especially. Some folks really struggle to get diopters big enough to get the job done without vignetting. 

Have you tried them at all, even just holding them in front of a lens by hand? Just curious. Also, they are single or double focus?

Yup, that's the stuff! Most importantly, the 35mm probably cannot use the front that the others do, correct? 

Hi, all! I have a question to pose to Lomo squarefront users. The fronts are not all the same, right? Which of the squarefronts can go on which of the spherical Lomo back lenses (the coupling ones)?   For example, can the 50mm squarefront go on the 75mm Lomo spherical? Can it go on the 35mm too, or does it vignette? Which combos work (if any) and which do not?   Thanks in advance!

More pictures?

I call foul. 4K will become standard as technology progresses and the device cost becomes the same price as 1080p. It isn't about wether people see much difference or not, the higher resolution will sell better. And I think 4K is far more obviously a step up in a  home theater situation where people are closer to the screen. I'm not advocating it, but to say we will always be watching TV and home entertainment at 1080p seems wildly ignorant. 4K will catch . . . it is only a question of when.

You might have to get something made custom, something funnel shaped that can clamp to the small rear, but that also has larger threads up nearer the focus ring?

No, you will not get a wider angle of view by using the Speed Booster. With the Speed Booster, your NEX acts like it has a full frame sensor. You must use full frame lenses with the speed booster in order to not vignette.   As it is essentially full frame, you have to treat it as such when selecting a lens to use.      For example: with a KOWA on the NEX camera without Speed Booster, the widest lens useable without any vignetting is probably around 45mm.   On the same NEX with Speed Booster, you must treat it like a full frame camera. The widest lens useable without any vignetting is around 75mm.     Because of the effective "sensor size" difference, these two lenses have pretty much the same field of view (even though they are different focal lengths). So the 58mm Helios, while great an NEX without the Speed Booster, would certainly vignette with the Kowa, just as it would on your 5DII. As itimjim says, treat it like a full frame EOS-mount camera when the Speed Booster is on . . . use 75/85mm and beyond lenses.   The difference is one of light intake and depth of field. As essentially a full frame converter unit, the Speed Booster brings full frame-equivalent shallow depth of field to the NEX cameras. Because it shrinks a full frame image circle to the size of an APSC sensor, the light is also brighter, giving you an extra stop (can't remember exactly how much extra, but it is a fair bit).

Wow. 400fps is awesome! The low resolution is a bummer, though. Even twice that resolution would make it more widely useful, but I don't think I would mix this low of resolution footage with anything HD.

Hmm, I thought the Ikonoskop looked rather video-ish. It mostly seemed like the colors were just plain difficult. The BMCC color looks gorgeous, and the dynamic range seemed to be greater on it too. I prefer the sharpness also of the BMCC. You can always get rid of that with a soft lens or a filter, but it has to be sharp in the first place. 2.5K on the BMCc seems to be a sweet-spot resolution for 1080p delivery. Here's to hoping they can really get off the ground and get the BMCC out to people. I'd love to see a BMCC with a S35mm sensor, because whatever they'er doing, they're mostly doing right, at least in terms of the image.

Which is your favorite so far?

Very nice. SLR Magic is going to beat Voigtlander to having a set of superfast manual primes . . . and they're putting gears on 'em too!

If it becomes available soon and is what they claim it is, I'd consider it for the global shutter alone. My GH2 is incredible for most all other stuff, but shots inside a moving vehicle are jello city.

Andrew, thanks for covering this. I've been following it for a while, and Markus is really on to something here. Please keep in contact with him. I for one really don't want to see his project die out. He has a very strong potential solution to an anamorphic shooting problem. The fact of the matter is, for those of us who love 2X anamorphics, there is no good dual-focus solution. Even LOMOs are now very expensive, especially if you want multiple focal lengths.   I think there really is something advantageous about the projection anamorphics where you only have to buy the anamorphic once, and it can go in front of a set of less expensive non-anamorphic "taking" lenses in order to make up a set with various focal lengths. The Kowa for example that Markus is using (as you know) is incredible glass. The focus challenges that Markus is remedying with his project are the Kowa's only big hurdle in comparison to even the best anamorphics.   The fact is, even if his focus-ganging system ends up being expensive, it is likely still cheaper than a set of LOMOs, and Kowas are easier to find. It also doesn't require the strange custom support system like the LOMOs do, and it beats out the Iscorama in many people's books because it is a 2X anamorphic system. Add to that the potential for it to also be a wireless follow focus system, and it even begins to be uniquely attractive.   Please, as one of the more visible and influential anamorphic users, keep in contact with Markus, and let us know if he needs help to move his project along.

Zach, the main issue with a purely mechanical design is that the focus scales for various lenses are often variedly  nonlinear.

Thanks, Andrew. the sound track was my first suspicion as to the difference from film 4:3 to digital 4:3. The director/producer wahts to crop to standard 2.39 (or 2.40), but I will mention the 2.66 and see what he thinks. On all my own stuff, I find myself just using the full 3.55:1. It sure is wide, but it is beautiful. 

I will second the advice to go see Django Unchained even if you didn't like Inglorious Bastards. To be honest, I HATED Inglorious. Thought it was terrible. I wasn't able to buy into the story, and it wasn't particularly funny. It did feel like several different stories unsuccessfully rolled into one film. (Although, that is what he did so successfully in Pulp Fiction, so I'm not sure what went wrong). From the first moment I heard that he was doing another period piece to the moment a gun went off in the first scene, I was preparing to be dissapointed again . . .   But I wasn't. And it was awesome. Tarantino was at the top of his storytelling game. The whole film is very tight, and most reminds me of Kill Bill.    I'm super stoked for his next film which is starring Christoph Waltz and is yet another period piece: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-tarantino-movie/n32896/ _____________________   Also, A question for you, Andrew . . . I am shooting 2X anamorphic on the FS100 soon, and I'm cropping to 2.39. But the 4:3 screen guides don't seem to match up with the crop from 3.55:1(16:9) down to 2.39:1(should be 4:3 . . . isn't?)

Go see it. It is amazing. The beauty of the anamorphic made me cry a little. just knowing that there's still a filmmaker out there who loves shooting film and anamorphic makes me so happy.

What can i say? I'm a 2X kinda guy, through and through.