Caleb Genheimer

Yeah I think this has been discussed on the FB Anamorphic Shooters group.
IIRC there is a small but clear advantage of the HardcoreDNA.
I heard from @IshootbeforeItalk that the original CoreDNA goes a tiny bit wider still.

Hey all! I’ve been doing some soul searching lately... they say the camera lens is the window to the soul, right?
Anyway, seeing as my current cameras both have multi-aspect micro four thirds sensors (GH5S and Pocket 4K), I’ve been planning to update my taking lenses for anamorphic. I use a Kowa 16-H which is fantastic, and the SLR Magic Rangefinder, which works well in most cases.
I messed around some with old primes that I have kicking about, and determined that the right 28mm lens just MIGHT squeak by in anamorphic mode on the GH5S, and would probably work perfect on the Pocket. 
I was also after a native mount pancake, because let’s be honest. On gimbals, the typically long and front-heavy anamorphic setups just don’t work well. I have a Ronin M (not a small gimbal by 2019 standards), and I have to add a lot of ballast to BARELY make the Kowa work. The gimbal strains hard and can’t tilt to vertical. 
Well, a short google later, and I ordered a Meke 28mm pancake on Amazon. What the heck, it’s really cheap, doesn’t hurt to try it right? Well, it just showed up, and it works PERFECT. If you have a Kowa 16-H/8Z, I highly recommend snagging one of these. 
As with anything on the wide end, it vignettes pretty hard with the Rangefinder mounted, but with just the Kowa, it’s clean as a whistle (cropped to 2.39 of course.)
This will be my new go-to for gimbal work and for wide establishing shots. I have yet to test it on faces, but it’s probably perfect for that near fisheye mumpy up close look. If I get in a tight corner, I’ll be relieved to have this (literally) in my back pocket.
My only gripe is that they don’t also have a 35mm/40mm/50mm pancake set, because a range of pancakes this small would be gamechanging for anamorphic adapter users.
I never thought I’d have a Kowa setup as small as this. It’s crazy. Until a new anamorphic beats the Kowa for width and quality, I’m sticking with it. 

Hey all! I’ve been doing some soul searching lately... they say the camera lens is the window to the soul, right?
Anyway, seeing as my current cameras both have multi-aspect micro four thirds sensors (GH5S and Pocket 4K), I’ve been planning to update my taking lenses for anamorphic. I use a Kowa 16-H which is fantastic, and the SLR Magic Rangefinder, which works well in most cases.
I messed around some with old primes that I have kicking about, and determined that the right 28mm lens just MIGHT squeak by in anamorphic mode on the GH5S, and would probably work perfect on the Pocket. 
I was also after a native mount pancake, because let’s be honest. On gimbals, the typically long and front-heavy anamorphic setups just don’t work well. I have a Ronin M (not a small gimbal by 2019 standards), and I have to add a lot of ballast to BARELY make the Kowa work. The gimbal strains hard and can’t tilt to vertical. 
Well, a short google later, and I ordered a Meke 28mm pancake on Amazon. What the heck, it’s really cheap, doesn’t hurt to try it right? Well, it just showed up, and it works PERFECT. If you have a Kowa 16-H/8Z, I highly recommend snagging one of these. 
As with anything on the wide end, it vignettes pretty hard with the Rangefinder mounted, but with just the Kowa, it’s clean as a whistle (cropped to 2.39 of course.)
This will be my new go-to for gimbal work and for wide establishing shots. I have yet to test it on faces, but it’s probably perfect for that near fisheye mumpy up close look. If I get in a tight corner, I’ll be relieved to have this (literally) in my back pocket.
My only gripe is that they don’t also have a 35mm/40mm/50mm pancake set, because a range of pancakes this small would be gamechanging for anamorphic adapter users.
I never thought I’d have a Kowa setup as small as this. It’s crazy. Until a new anamorphic beats the Kowa for width and quality, I’m sticking with it. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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 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”.

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.

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.

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.

This should be the tool to use:
https://www.sdcard.org/downloads/formatter_4/index.html
I have used v.4.0 long time. It was recommended here by someone. This new  program seems to be v.5.0. Just downloaded myself.

I suspect that the card is formatted in FAT32, this limits file sizes. The consensus appears to be that formatting the card via your computer to exFAT is best for the NX1, it certainly is the case with my Lexar cards.

On a slightly different note, I've found that exposing correctly on the NX1 is all down to looking at the colors on the onboard OLED. Even one stop over exposed, and the colors will look washed out. One step under, and they look muddy. It's surprising how quick colors shift around on that OLED, it really shows what's going on once you acclimate to it. Don't worry about the low end, the screen seems to certainly crush the blacks and not show the shadows, but when the files hit the computer, the information is there. I'd say there's a stop of light on the low end that you don't see, maybe even a stop and a half depending on your picture profile and pedestal setting.

@lucabutera
Are you still working on an electronic version? You might consider crowd-funding that one too as I'm sure there would be a lot of interest! 
 
The Aputure DEC modded one was pretty cool to see (although it looks like it rules out using the NX1 Battery Grip). A full-on electronic one connected to the camera body with AF functionality would be awesome, and would instantly make the NX1 a top-class full-frame camera. 

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.

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.