Jump to content

Caleb Genheimer

Members
  • Content Count

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Haha
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from kye in IBC Show - Panasonic 8K Organic Sensor Prototype Camera with On-chip ND and 16 stop dynamic range   
    Yeah but when the Organics become sentient, our entire species will be at risk of eradication!
  2. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from A_Urquhart in Blackmagic to announce new camera related news at 12 noon PDT (8pm London)   
    I would argue that with a proper cage that has support for hard mounting a booster, the cine locking EF (or PL I suppose) booster actually makes the P4K MORE of a cinema camera than the P6K would ever be. I don’t care how well-machined a standard SLR bayonet is, a positive locking cine mount is infinitely superior for any real cinema camera work with follow focus units. 
    The Metabones optics are already fantastic, and now they have versions specifically for the thinner sensor stack of the P4K. There are a million things to worry about when doing cinema work other than 6K resolution. Sure, the oversample is a nice perk, but 4K is plenty.
    Again, I feel like an SLR mount on a mirrorless camera is low-key stupidity. Let me put on a dummy EF adapter! Maybe even one with ND or a booster... but I digress.
    I prefer the form factor of the ZCam stuff for sure, but their pricing I think is awful ambitious for a new company, no matter how good the cameras are. At the very least, the P6K will change the market’s price tiers for the better
  3. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from A_Urquhart in Blackmagic to announce new camera related news at 12 noon PDT (8pm London)   
    It’s a step down for your wallet, that’s indisputable.
    I would absolutely dispute any claim that it’s an objectively better camera. Both cameras are EXTREMELY similar. There are subjective reasons that someone might prefer either camera. The question potential buyers will be asking is, “are those subjective reasons important enough to me to justify the higher price tag?” 
    For me, it is definitely not. If I want a camera compatible with EF full-frame image circle lenses, I’ll just get a cine speedbooster for the P4K. It really is that simple from my perspective.
    I actually see the 6K as little more than a spec sheet bragging number. Seriously, for almost all practical work (that I do), 4K is more than enough. Anything more just means bigger files.
    If you do work that simply MUST have 6K Raw, by all means, nobody is stopping you. Get the P6K. The difference between APSC and Micro 4/3 is honestly pretty negligible.
    Any claims of it having less noise or better dynamic range due to its sensor are COMPLETE and utter conjecture. I’ll believe it when I see real tests, and according to all the press per BM, the DR is exactly the same.
    It is 2019. The concept that 6K APSC versus 4K M4/3 is a HUGE deal radical difference (all else being equal) is honestly not only laughable, but potentially bad consumer advice. They’re just different, and both are a steal compared to anything else in the market. 
    I guess I should apologize for voicing my honest opinion on the pros/cons of these two cameras. I didn’t realize this was supposed to be the blind circle-jerk thread.
  4. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Kisaha in Blackmagic to announce new camera related news at 12 noon PDT (8pm London)   
    It’s a step down for your wallet, that’s indisputable.
    I would absolutely dispute any claim that it’s an objectively better camera. Both cameras are EXTREMELY similar. There are subjective reasons that someone might prefer either camera. The question potential buyers will be asking is, “are those subjective reasons important enough to me to justify the higher price tag?” 
    For me, it is definitely not. If I want a camera compatible with EF full-frame image circle lenses, I’ll just get a cine speedbooster for the P4K. It really is that simple from my perspective.
    I actually see the 6K as little more than a spec sheet bragging number. Seriously, for almost all practical work (that I do), 4K is more than enough. Anything more just means bigger files.
    If you do work that simply MUST have 6K Raw, by all means, nobody is stopping you. Get the P6K. The difference between APSC and Micro 4/3 is honestly pretty negligible.
    Any claims of it having less noise or better dynamic range due to its sensor are COMPLETE and utter conjecture. I’ll believe it when I see real tests, and according to all the press per BM, the DR is exactly the same.
    It is 2019. The concept that 6K APSC versus 4K M4/3 is a HUGE deal radical difference (all else being equal) is honestly not only laughable, but potentially bad consumer advice. They’re just different, and both are a steal compared to anything else in the market. 
    I guess I should apologize for voicing my honest opinion on the pros/cons of these two cameras. I didn’t realize this was supposed to be the blind circle-jerk thread.
  5. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from drm in Blackmagic to announce new camera related news at 12 noon PDT (8pm London)   
    Explanation: Bolt this to a P4K cage: 
    https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BTB
    Fullframe EF Cine Mount camera. Better than a normal EF mount. End of story. It just is.
    The LucAdapter will be the closest thing for the P6K by making it fullframe, but it still doesn’t give you a locking cinema mount. You’re stuck with the bog-standard EF mount on that camera thanks to BlackMagic.
  6. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from drm in Blackmagic to announce new camera related news at 12 noon PDT (8pm London)   
    I would argue that with a proper cage that has support for hard mounting a booster, the cine locking EF (or PL I suppose) booster actually makes the P4K MORE of a cinema camera than the P6K would ever be. I don’t care how well-machined a standard SLR bayonet is, a positive locking cine mount is infinitely superior for any real cinema camera work with follow focus units. 
    The Metabones optics are already fantastic, and now they have versions specifically for the thinner sensor stack of the P4K. There are a million things to worry about when doing cinema work other than 6K resolution. Sure, the oversample is a nice perk, but 4K is plenty.
    Again, I feel like an SLR mount on a mirrorless camera is low-key stupidity. Let me put on a dummy EF adapter! Maybe even one with ND or a booster... but I digress.
    I prefer the form factor of the ZCam stuff for sure, but their pricing I think is awful ambitious for a new company, no matter how good the cameras are. At the very least, the P6K will change the market’s price tiers for the better
  7. Like
    Caleb Genheimer reacted to leslie in Combining Front and Fear Optical Groups From Different Scopes   
    careful you might start a whole new craze,  the double flares are interesting 
  8. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from heart0less in Combining Front and Fear Optical Groups From Different Scopes   
    Here’s the B&L front, Meopta rear. A bit of a quicker looser test, but it was easy to see that it resolves really well, even out into the corners. It ends up at 1.5X, and this is with a Tamron SP 24mm all at f2.8. Again, the 95mm +1 diopter vignettes when it is in front, so if I want to use this B&L seriously, I would need to get something like a 114mm diopter.
    Seems like the primary (source locked) flares in anamorphic lenses come from the rear element, as that’s the straw gold flare from the Meopta. The B&L flares blue, so that’s also still there from the front group. I think actually really like the contrasting flares:
    I’m at the point now where I’m waiting until next week when a couple more lenses arrive to disassemble. Got a 16mm B&L that looks to be of similar era (silver) to the ones I already have, and a big ‘ol Möller 63/2X.
    If anyone has lenses with only one good element, or other frustrating damage, I’d consider giving you a little cash for them depending on the condition... or just big unwieldy scopes that you don’t use. The only scopes I’ve ruled out are the Russian NAP stuff. They don’t play nice with others. 
    I’m going to do my best to analyze all my results and share them here for everyone, so any help or insights would be very welcome.
    I think the most exciting aspect of it to me is the potential to not only come up with attractively specced unique scopes, but to also breathe life and a second chance into otherwise bulky/impractical lenses. The B&L in original form is bigger than my head! 
  9. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from heart0less in Combining Front and Fear Optical Groups From Different Scopes   
    Here’s a Frankensteined scope that works out to 1.33X squeeze. I’m actually able to go as wide as 17mm on M4/3:
    Alright, so I have seen some other people doing this with success and wanted to start a topic on it. Basically what I’ve found is that you can combine a front from one scope with the rear of another, and some combinations will be sharp, others will not be compatible. Regardless, the compatible setups will only be sharp when set to infinity, and the distance between the two groups determines both focus and compression ratio. 
    Once again, it is important to note the infinity-only nature of doing this. You cannot close focus a mismatched pair of anamorphic groups. However, focusing via front diopters or variable diopters is still fair game.
    This means that, assuming the same front group, a rear group that hits infinity with the groups close to each other will have a mild compression, whereas a different rear group might hit infinity when further from the front group, which yields a stronger compression ratio. 
    With the front and rear the same distance apart as in the original front scope, the compression is the same as the original (usually 2X), but in that case, you may as well use the scope with its original rear group as that’s its intended specification. 
    The other changing factor is maximum useable angle of view. It really is exactly like looking through a tube or tunnel. A front with a certain diameter supports wider angle of view if it is closer to the rear group, and the useable angle of view decreases as the groupings get farther apart. This creates an inverse relationship between wide angle of view and compression ratio (assuming the “constant” is the front group and the “variable” is various rear groups.) 
    This means that long scopes which have limited angle of view in their stock configuration can be modified with new rear optical groups to increase their angle of view, at a cost of compression ratio. Basically, you can turn a 2X scope into a wider 1.5X or 1.33X scope. 
    I’m still a 2X fanboy, but the limitation is usually wide angle compatibility. A great 1.33X that truly goes wide could allow me to have a wide angle in my anamorphic arsenal. It may be deceiving, but for reference, the +2 diopter in my example video puts the focus at around 12 inches. That’s how close I was to the subject matter, and I was still wide enough to capture a full human face. That’s pretty crazy for any anamorphic!
    I’ve only disassembled four scopes so far, but I have more on the way to further my testing. I have some more theories, but feel that I need to test more before I can be certain that my theories are accurate. 
    Theory 1: Some rear groups just seem to play nice, and others just seem to not work. I’m not sure why at this point, and I’m no optics expert, but one rear group that I have seems to work with all the front groups, another is ok stopped down, and yet another is garbage out towards the edges.
    Theory 2: The distance between the front and rear groups may correlate (but not replicate) to the length of the scope that the rear group is sourced from. This may eventually aid in predicting the squeeze ratio and angle of view of a combination of scopes, where the front group has already been tested. For example, if a front/rear combo hits 1.33X, but I want to achieve 1.5X, I should source a new rear from a scope that is slightly longer than the scope that the 1.33X originally sourced its rear from. Again, more testing needed.
    Theory 3: You can’t use closeup diopter elements or variable diopters in between the front and rear groups to simply bring them closer and reduce vignetting/squeeze. It partially works in center frame, but introduces nasty distorted blur everywhere else. Naturally, I’m no expert, but it was something I was curious about, so I tried it.
    Has anyone else had good luck with combining scope elements? I’d like to discuss it a bit and see what others experiences are.
  10. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Kisaha in Hey Nikon - Where's the Z6 ProRes RAW Update?   
    I’ve been sold now on Blackmagic’s new RAW since updating firmware on my Pocket 4K. It’s Just. So. Good. Smoother to edit than h.264 if I’m honest.
    I’m not sure how ProRes RAW intends to survive. It has a huge legacy behind it, but banking on that would ignore an industry that is not precious with such notions. Atoms external recording has always been an odd duck in my mind. Either you’re on a shoot that can afford a true cinema camera, or you’re not. Why spend thousands on a monitor to “sort of” turn your hybrid camera into a slightly better version of itself just doesn’t make sense.
    I also simply refuse to be saddled to a monitor for recording purposes. It essentially gets added to the price of the camera, IMO, and makes upgrading down the road extra painful. With available drive tech, NONE of this faffing about should be at all necessary. Between Blackmagic and Sigma, it looks like there might finally be other companies willing to call these bluffs. 
    Sony and Panny are now so concerned with their 1V1 cat-and-mouse, that they’re CLEARLY pulling punches in case they need them later. If they keep it up, a third party is going to catch them out.
    Blackmagic has a 4K Raw-To-SSD dual native ISO camera for essentially $1K. The Sigma fp looks like it MIGHT be a similar thing, but fullframe (probably with a price bump to match)... Sony and Panny need to pull their heads out of the sand and let out all the stops, or risk being overtaken by fresh blood.
    The Nikon could absolutely kill if it recorded Raw internally in some form. 
    Fullframe 4K Raw is obviously well within the technical abilities of a sub-$4K camera body, and I think that’s the looming frustration over all of these cameras. Nobody wants to be first for fear of immediately being one-upped. 
    My money would be on Panasonic’s S1H as most likely contender, but the Sigma might firm up some hefty specs and take everyone by surprise. I was hoping on ZCam, but good gravy those price tags go WAY too high for what they are IMO.
    Blackmagic SHOULD slap a hefty heatsink into a fullframe “BlackMagic FannypackCinemaCamera4K,” sell it for $2300, and take home everyone’s money... or join L-mount alliance with an olive branch of the BMRAW codec in-camera for all involved. Panny X BMRAW would likely cripple Sony, Nikon, Atmos and ProRes Raw in one fell swoop... leaving only Canon limping along on its dual pixel autofocus. Come on everyone else! If Samsung could match Canon’s AF tech several years ago, y’all can surely do it by 2020.
  11. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from zerocool22 in Sony - the new Canon!   
    I’ve said it a few times already: BlackMagic should just do a $3K fullframe version of the Pocket4K and call it a day. Maybe add dual pixel AF. Electronic ND would be nice, but I’ve heard bad things about color shift on Sony’s internal one. (Apparently Panavision has an awesome one as a matte box filter.) I love that the Pocket is rigable/configurable. I actually prefer it over the Ursas which to me seem to have an awkward form factor.
  12. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Zeng in Hey Nikon - Where's the Z6 ProRes RAW Update?   
    I’ve been sold now on Blackmagic’s new RAW since updating firmware on my Pocket 4K. It’s Just. So. Good. Smoother to edit than h.264 if I’m honest.
    I’m not sure how ProRes RAW intends to survive. It has a huge legacy behind it, but banking on that would ignore an industry that is not precious with such notions. Atoms external recording has always been an odd duck in my mind. Either you’re on a shoot that can afford a true cinema camera, or you’re not. Why spend thousands on a monitor to “sort of” turn your hybrid camera into a slightly better version of itself just doesn’t make sense.
    I also simply refuse to be saddled to a monitor for recording purposes. It essentially gets added to the price of the camera, IMO, and makes upgrading down the road extra painful. With available drive tech, NONE of this faffing about should be at all necessary. Between Blackmagic and Sigma, it looks like there might finally be other companies willing to call these bluffs. 
    Sony and Panny are now so concerned with their 1V1 cat-and-mouse, that they’re CLEARLY pulling punches in case they need them later. If they keep it up, a third party is going to catch them out.
    Blackmagic has a 4K Raw-To-SSD dual native ISO camera for essentially $1K. The Sigma fp looks like it MIGHT be a similar thing, but fullframe (probably with a price bump to match)... Sony and Panny need to pull their heads out of the sand and let out all the stops, or risk being overtaken by fresh blood.
    The Nikon could absolutely kill if it recorded Raw internally in some form. 
    Fullframe 4K Raw is obviously well within the technical abilities of a sub-$4K camera body, and I think that’s the looming frustration over all of these cameras. Nobody wants to be first for fear of immediately being one-upped. 
    My money would be on Panasonic’s S1H as most likely contender, but the Sigma might firm up some hefty specs and take everyone by surprise. I was hoping on ZCam, but good gravy those price tags go WAY too high for what they are IMO.
    Blackmagic SHOULD slap a hefty heatsink into a fullframe “BlackMagic FannypackCinemaCamera4K,” sell it for $2300, and take home everyone’s money... or join L-mount alliance with an olive branch of the BMRAW codec in-camera for all involved. Panny X BMRAW would likely cripple Sony, Nikon, Atmos and ProRes Raw in one fell swoop... leaving only Canon limping along on its dual pixel autofocus. Come on everyone else! If Samsung could match Canon’s AF tech several years ago, y’all can surely do it by 2020.
  13. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from currensheldon in Hey Nikon - Where's the Z6 ProRes RAW Update?   
    I’ve been sold now on Blackmagic’s new RAW since updating firmware on my Pocket 4K. It’s Just. So. Good. Smoother to edit than h.264 if I’m honest.
    I’m not sure how ProRes RAW intends to survive. It has a huge legacy behind it, but banking on that would ignore an industry that is not precious with such notions. Atoms external recording has always been an odd duck in my mind. Either you’re on a shoot that can afford a true cinema camera, or you’re not. Why spend thousands on a monitor to “sort of” turn your hybrid camera into a slightly better version of itself just doesn’t make sense.
    I also simply refuse to be saddled to a monitor for recording purposes. It essentially gets added to the price of the camera, IMO, and makes upgrading down the road extra painful. With available drive tech, NONE of this faffing about should be at all necessary. Between Blackmagic and Sigma, it looks like there might finally be other companies willing to call these bluffs. 
    Sony and Panny are now so concerned with their 1V1 cat-and-mouse, that they’re CLEARLY pulling punches in case they need them later. If they keep it up, a third party is going to catch them out.
    Blackmagic has a 4K Raw-To-SSD dual native ISO camera for essentially $1K. The Sigma fp looks like it MIGHT be a similar thing, but fullframe (probably with a price bump to match)... Sony and Panny need to pull their heads out of the sand and let out all the stops, or risk being overtaken by fresh blood.
    The Nikon could absolutely kill if it recorded Raw internally in some form. 
    Fullframe 4K Raw is obviously well within the technical abilities of a sub-$4K camera body, and I think that’s the looming frustration over all of these cameras. Nobody wants to be first for fear of immediately being one-upped. 
    My money would be on Panasonic’s S1H as most likely contender, but the Sigma might firm up some hefty specs and take everyone by surprise. I was hoping on ZCam, but good gravy those price tags go WAY too high for what they are IMO.
    Blackmagic SHOULD slap a hefty heatsink into a fullframe “BlackMagic FannypackCinemaCamera4K,” sell it for $2300, and take home everyone’s money... or join L-mount alliance with an olive branch of the BMRAW codec in-camera for all involved. Panny X BMRAW would likely cripple Sony, Nikon, Atmos and ProRes Raw in one fell swoop... leaving only Canon limping along on its dual pixel autofocus. Come on everyone else! If Samsung could match Canon’s AF tech several years ago, y’all can surely do it by 2020.
  14. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from webrunner5 in Let’s Talk About Larger 35mm Projection Scopes   
    Ah Tito, professional as always. I’ll be unfriendly. I’ve had a good (and open) back and forth with Anamorphic store about exactly what their stuff entails, because at one point I was at least curious. It’s certifiably cheap junk (excepting the scopes I guess). Half of it is 3D printed or plastic, and I feel like their single focus is such bad optical quality that I can see it in the pictures of the lens. But slapping that on is no excuse to upcharge the scope. Every single one I have obtained so far has been under $200 US on eBay and in good condition.
    I’m probably biased because I’ve been at this a long time, but IMO Redstan is still unrivaled when it comes to clamps. Rapido does some very good stuff as well, and obviously Rectilux is king of diopters.
    As for mounting, I’ve kinda been looking for an excuse to mess about with a 19mm rod setup anyway. And as big as these are, they’re still a far cry smaller than the prism anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70 lenses 😂
    I feel like big heavy cameras actually move differently, and that it is something noticeable. If I need to run around with a gimbal like the millennial that I am, I’ll always have my 16-H.
    I am thinking just snagging one Isco might complete a sufficient collection for now. I’d really like a Möller 63/2X, but the only one out there right now IMO is way overpriced, even for what it is. Naturally, getting into anything non -2X (various inflights etc) even if they are bigger gets monetarily impractical. 
    I too purchased the NAP to rip apart and experiment with. Has anyone tried a negative diopter between front and rear anamorphic elements to bring them closer together? I understand that the closer they are, the lesser the squeeze ratio, but I would think it might also reduce vignetting and increase angle of view.
  15. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from thephoenix in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    That’s good to hear, for 2-3K you will end up with a very useable setup as good as anyone’s. 
    Another thing that doesn’t work well with anamorphics is zoom lenses. There are some exceptions, but I would not start there. You probably already have good lenses for anamorphic just sitting around. 1950s-1980s primes anywhere from 35mm to 85mm are perfect candidates. They’re the one great budget aspect of anamorphics, as most people give them away. You become that person that everyone gives their old SLR kits to that have been sitting in grandpa’s closet for 30 years.
    Different primes will give you different flares, different contrasts, different color rendering. It’s fantastic to be able to shoot anamorphic in a wide variety of styles. A box full of old primes provide a wide palette of stylistic options.
    The one thing they hadn’t figured out back then was how to make good fast and wide lenses. Guess what? Anamorphic makes normal lenses wide. Problem solved.
    It is easiest to have smaller diameter front elements on the lenses that you use, but not critical. I’ve seen a Sankor on a Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Looks ridiculous, but apparently works fine. You won’t vignette, but you may loose some T-stop (light transmission). f-stop should be unaffected.
    My personal recommendations are:
    Kowa 16-H, or Kowa 8Z, or Kowa for Bell and Howell
    Redstan brand rear clamp with support bracket
    Redstan brand front clamp or an HTN brand lock ring (this second option replaces the Kowa front housing with one that has standard front threads, as well as male outer threads for attaching the common variable diopters. It also locks the lens at infinity which you do when using variable diopters.)
    Rectilux Hardcore DNA or SLRMagic Rangefinder.
    SmallHD Focus monitor
    Beyond that, a 15mm rod/rail setup will help keep everything rock solid and properly supported. That’s the best out there, and the core of what I would advise to have a hassle-free setup. Kit it out further per your preference with cage, handles, shoulder pad, follow focus, mattebox, filters, etc.
    I’ll double down on suggesting @Andrew Reid‘s Shooters Guide. It will save you more money through its advice and content than you will spend on the guide itself. He has boiled it down to the noteworthy scopes and breaks each one down spec-wise, as well as including a lot of general guidance for using anamorphic lenses. 
  16. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from thephoenix in New Redstan Kit!   
    The one and only Redstan has a host of new products out on their website which I haven’t seen mentioned anywhere yet. 
    For those that don’t know, Redstan have always been the OG maker of snug slip fit projection Ana clamps. Especially exciting to me are the clamps with support feet, as they allow you to tighten things down to a set of rods and eliminate mount/adapter slop.
    Some things are listed as limited runs, so I’d snag em quick if you’re interested. 
    http://www.redstan.com/index.php?route=common/home
  17. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from thephoenix in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    Anyone telling you that you have to match your sensor aspect with the appropriate stretch factor is a lazy slob. Plain and simple. 1.33X is not a classic anamorphic ratio. It is from the awkward days of 4:3 CCD camcorders and people wanting them to be 16:9. They’re just tools for achieving that without losing resolution because resolution was so low back then. Now we have 4K. Now we have desqueezing monitors.
    You may be able to use a 1.33X with a slightly wider lens than a 2X, but remember you are not increasing angle width by a factor of 2. You are increasing it by only 1.33X. The 2X lenses in most cases will gain back the difference once you do the math. A Panny LA-7200 1.33X (the widest anamorphic I am aware of) can handle a Tokina 11-16 on M4/3. But the optical quality is just exactly good enough for those CCD chip cameras... so not very good. On full frame it possibly gets as wide (after factoring 1.33X) as 16mm. But you’re better off using a spherical and cropping, because the 1.33X doesn’t look very distinctly anamorphic, and it will give you image quality headaches.
    4:3 mode in-camera DOES. NOT. MATTER.
    You know why? Guess what that is doing? It’s cropping the left and right off of your image to make it a different aspect. 
    It’s the same wether you do it in camera, as if you do it in your editor, as if you do it by cutting the sides off of your printed image with a scissors. It is all the same. Doesn’t change a thing. If you want a 2.39:1 image from a 2X lens, you will be using a 1.2:1 ratio portion of your sensor, always. Doesn’t matter how you arrive there.
    Yes, being able to record directly in a 4:3 mode in camera does have mild conveniences. Yes, if your 4:3 mode uses more of the sensor’s vertical area, you are gaining some sensor size. But it REALLY doesn’t matter. 
    Are you wondering why people use vintage scopes? Or why they use vintage lenses behind their anamorphics?
    New scopes are expensive, and still haven’t surpassed (or even caught up to) the quality of vintage projection scopes. The day they do is the day I switch, but it hasn’t happened yet.
    Anamorphics work best through simple optics. High element count multicoated aspherical modern designs often don’t react well to having an old scope in front. I get by far the sharpest and richest results using good vintage prime lenses, especially pancake lenses. They just work best.
  18. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Volumetrik in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    An important thing to understand with anamorphic is that you ALWAYS have to stretch the footage by the multiplication factor of the anamorphic for it to look right, regardless of sensor size or sensor aspect. 
    After stretching, to achieve specific aspect ratios, you crop the image. That is, unless by stretching the footage, you hit your target aspect (which is rare). For example, on the P4K, I am always recording in 16:9 (aka 1.78:1). When I stretch the footage in post by 2X (because I have a 2X lens), it yields a 3.56:1 aspect ratio image. If I want my final video to be 2.39:1 (standard CinemaScope), I have to crop the sides off to achieve this.
    It is important to note that this cropping is not a negative thing! In fact, you need to understand it if you are going to get the most out of your scope. You see, I don’t care if the lens I’m using vignettes into the sides specifically because I know that I am cropping them off anyway. That’s how I can use a 28mm lens behind my Kowa. If I look at my direct sensor feed, there are large black sections on the left and right sides of the image. But on my SmallHD monitor, I have it set to de-squeeze and then crop to 2.39:1.
    In theory, this sounds scary, like you are throwing away precious pixels and information. In practice, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Your vertical line count of resolution is still exactly the same, because all the scaling happens only horizontally, so the perceived sharpness is the same. I would also argue that on compressed codec cameras, the black areas take a load off of the image processing, allowing more of the algorithm to be dedicated to a quality image in the center of your sensor.
    The vignetting is caused by the scope’s limitation, and correlates to a specific angle of view, regardless of sensor size. Mine would be approximately 28mm M4/3, 38mm S35, 56mm Full Frame. Those are the widest without vignette that the scope allows on each sensor size, without vignetting, when the final target is 2.39:1 aspect. And if shot side by side, they would appear as essentially identical/equivalent  focal lengths. You can’t make any scope wider by changing sensor size.
    And remember: it is a 28mm lens in the vertical axis, but horizontally it is closer to a 14mm. 
    It’s kinda one of my pet peeves when people say that 2X is “too stretched,” to be honest (though I understand you’re just learning how it all works.) 
    That’s just not even a real thing if you understand how scope lenses work. 3.55:1 is obviously too wide a ratio to be using, but you just crop it. It’s as simple as that. You don’t loose anything by cropping, and in fact (as hopefully I’ve explained decently), you actually gain angle of view. You gain out of focus compression. You gain robust flares. You gain character. Because you crop more off the sides with 2X, you can shoot with more vignette and then completely get rid of it.
    Of course, if you are shooting with a 4:3 camera, that ends up as a 2.66:1 image when stretched, and to arrive at 2.39:1, you don’t crop off very much at all. But as I already ran through with focal lengths, you will arrive at the same maximum angle of view regardless of what size or aspect of sensor you shoot on, and you will always stretch it by a factor of 2. Cropping doesn’t impact that. 
    There are some 1.5X lenses that get equivalent angle of view to the top dog 2X lenses, but guess what? Those are going to be the top dog 1.5X lenses like the Iscorama 36, and other even rarer lenses. The really good 1.5X lenses are much more expensive than the 2X ones, so if you’re on a budget, best of luck. 
    The variable diopter allows you to take incredible blocks of vintage anamorphic glass and use it for filmmaking. It doesn’t matter that the glass is originally for projection, in fact, the image quality expectations for projection are, if anything, a higher bar. Some people see the dual-focus thing as an instant non-starter, but they are missing out on a look that otherwise only exists inside rental houses for very high day-rates. The new anamorphics are good, but not the same. A Kowa, Elmoscope, Moller, Sankor, etc. built in the 1980s just does that “thing” that made anamorphic famous in the first place. Those lenses are cut from the same cloth as all those lenses that shot (and still shoot) our favorite films.
    You should see if there is someone local to you that would meet up and let you test drive their 2X lens rig, so you can take the footage home, and play around with it. It’s much easier to wrap your head around all this by just using it, versus trying to explain it. It’s a wide angle adapter, but only horizontally. Vertically it has no angle change. 
    To give you numbers that relate somewhat to your system, my Kowa with a 38mm lens on your S35 sensor camera, would horizontally be about a 19mm lens. Not quite the 17mm you are referencing, but not far off either. If you have a 19mm spherical lens and add black bars top and bottom in post so that it is 2.39:1, you’d see very close to what I see with my setup. 
    Someone else can enlighten me if I am wrong, but I specifically have my lens because it gets as wide if not wider than pretty much every other projection scope out there. 
    Genuinely not trying to be a downer, but scopes don’t go quite as wide as you’re hoping... at least not for prices that mortals can afford. 
    They still go satisfyingly wide though, and at super wide angles with deep depth of field, the differences between anamorphic and spherical footage are hard to spot. Just shoot spherical and crop it to 2.39:1 if you need a specific shot that wide. There are flare filters, oval bokeh filters, and distortion in post if you really need your spherical shot to look the part. 
    It is far more important to compose a good shot that serves the story you are attempting to tell, than it is to fret over exactly what pieces of glass you are shooting it through.
  19. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Volumetrik in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    The top dog 2X projection scopes will give you the widest angle. You have to remember that you double your field of view horizontally. 1.33X/1.5X scopes may be compatible with similarly wide lenses, but they don’t increase your field of view by as high of a factor. On M4/3 with my Kowa I can go as wide as 28mm. That’s 28mm vertically. Horizontally it is 2X factor, so almost a 14mm. 
    If there was something wider I would have bought it by now. The SLR Magics definitely aren’t. 
    If it is the stylistic aspects of wide angle that you enjoy, rejoice! Anamorphic does similar things at all focal lengths. Slight barrel distortion, curved focal plane and bokeh field distortion. 
    As others have said, don’t sweat the “single focus” crap. All anamorphics become single focus with a variable diopter. I run and gun mine all the time with an SLR Magic Rangefinder in front. The focus throw is long like a cinema lens, but that makes for smooth focus pulls. 
    You are of course free to try a 1.33X lens, but in my experience they disappoint. They will not give you pronounced oval bokeh and always have thin flares. AKA what even is the point?
    It remains that if I need an ultra-wide lens for a specific shot, I just shoot spherical and crop the top/bottom to 2.39:1. I rarely need to go wider than my anamorphic allows though.
    Part of the beauty of anamorphic is that vertically it can be a portrait lens (50mm), while horizontally being a wide (25mm). They’re essentially a big hot mess of both at once. If you’re really in love with a spherical wide look, anamorphic might not be for you. It almost always looks “portrait-y,” even if the field of view is quite wide. The exception maybe being if you’re focused to infinity with nothing out of focus in the foreground, but in that use-case you would be hard-pressed to spot the difference between anamorphic and a spherical with some barrel distortion.
    I guess one question I have is, what is this “wide” you are in love with? What focal length on what size sensor? Wide is a general category of lens focal length, and can vary as much as anything.
  20. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from Volumetrik in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    Everyone will have a slightly different opinion on this, but I would pretty much say if you’re after anamorphic in 2019, it is for the stylistic optical idiosyncrasies historically associated with Hollywood’s long-standing use of 2X squeeze factor lenses. 
    1.33X squeeze factor lenses will get you a very mild/watered down version of that look, and in most cases will end up being almost as expensive as 2X options, or will be poor quality optically. 
    1.5X lenses can be great, but there were never many made, so they fetch a high price.
    Good 2X adapters are well-regraded at this point, and you’ll be hard pressed to get one for a truly “budget” price. But there are still a decent quantity of quality examples floating around. All this being said, they are priced as they are because the resulting look is absolutely worth it, and they are still priced low enough that they are accessible.
    Your best compromise is probably a smaller 2X, for example, a Sankor or Kowa 16-s. You won’t be able to use as wide of back lenses without vignetting, but the image quality is still top notch. 
    If you decide to jump right in, the top dogs would be the Kowa Bell and Howell, Kowa 16-H, and the Isco Ultra-Star. If you are seriously shopping, get the @Andrew Reid anamorphic guide, and watch @Tito Ferradans YouTube channel. 
    To use these projection scopes reliably, you need good clamps. Redstan are top of the line for Kowas, and HTN has a great locking front replacement lens body that gives you standard threads while also locking the focus.
    The budget variable diopter is the SLR Magic Rangefinder. It resolves excellently and increases vignetting minimally, but the coatings produce flaring that some find difficult to work with. The king of variable diopters is the Rectilux Hardcore DNA, but it is priced accordingly and is only made in small batches with a waiting list.
    You are going to want one of these two. Double focusing is a pain and almost impossible to get perfect. It can be the last item you buy, and you can get used to anamorphic without it, but you will need one.
    Expect to spend at least $1500 by the time you have a scope, clamps, variable diopter, and a prime taking lens that plays nice with your scope. That’s scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting lucky, but as lens prices go, that’s really not crazy money. $2500 or maybe a couple hundred more should be enough to get you into a good Kowa with a desqueezing monitor and all the extra goodies. 
    There is a new line of 1.8X primes coming out that’s running just over $3000 per lens. I’m planning on transitioning to a set of those, but they’re for m4/3 sizes sensors.
    There’s a certain economy about the projection adapters, considering the same anamorphic block can be attached to your prime lens of choice for the various focal lengths, but at a certain point, dealing with countless clamps and adapters can get tiresome, and the lens rigs can get long and heavy. Ultimately, projection scopes are not well-suited to a truly professional style production. They’re perfect for passion projects and style-centric work like music videos, short films, etc.
    A crafty person who has good problem-solving skills can absolutely DIY some of these things and potentially save a little bit of money, but as I’ve pointed out, there are tried-and-true solutions already on the market for reasonable prices. I for one would say you’re lucky, even if the prices are now higher on the actual scopes.
    when I got into it, Redstan was the only good clamp option even though they didn’t have support brackets back then, and variable diopters weren’t even a thing. There were no affordable monitors with anamorphic desqueeze.
    now you can pick up a SmallHD Focus (which I would highly suggest you do), and it will serve you well in all your production, not just for anamorphic desqueezing.
    If I have one serious piece of advice, it is that cheap clamps will make your experience miserable. Get a lens clamp that can clamp down to 15mm rods. Sloppy loose lens rigs make for unusable footage with jolts in it, and clamping to rails ensures that, once aligned, your anamorphic will remain aligned. No “parallelogrammed” footage.
  21. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from heart0less in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    An important thing to understand with anamorphic is that you ALWAYS have to stretch the footage by the multiplication factor of the anamorphic for it to look right, regardless of sensor size or sensor aspect. 
    After stretching, to achieve specific aspect ratios, you crop the image. That is, unless by stretching the footage, you hit your target aspect (which is rare). For example, on the P4K, I am always recording in 16:9 (aka 1.78:1). When I stretch the footage in post by 2X (because I have a 2X lens), it yields a 3.56:1 aspect ratio image. If I want my final video to be 2.39:1 (standard CinemaScope), I have to crop the sides off to achieve this.
    It is important to note that this cropping is not a negative thing! In fact, you need to understand it if you are going to get the most out of your scope. You see, I don’t care if the lens I’m using vignettes into the sides specifically because I know that I am cropping them off anyway. That’s how I can use a 28mm lens behind my Kowa. If I look at my direct sensor feed, there are large black sections on the left and right sides of the image. But on my SmallHD monitor, I have it set to de-squeeze and then crop to 2.39:1.
    In theory, this sounds scary, like you are throwing away precious pixels and information. In practice, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Your vertical line count of resolution is still exactly the same, because all the scaling happens only horizontally, so the perceived sharpness is the same. I would also argue that on compressed codec cameras, the black areas take a load off of the image processing, allowing more of the algorithm to be dedicated to a quality image in the center of your sensor.
    The vignetting is caused by the scope’s limitation, and correlates to a specific angle of view, regardless of sensor size. Mine would be approximately 28mm M4/3, 38mm S35, 56mm Full Frame. Those are the widest without vignette that the scope allows on each sensor size, without vignetting, when the final target is 2.39:1 aspect. And if shot side by side, they would appear as essentially identical/equivalent  focal lengths. You can’t make any scope wider by changing sensor size.
    And remember: it is a 28mm lens in the vertical axis, but horizontally it is closer to a 14mm. 
    It’s kinda one of my pet peeves when people say that 2X is “too stretched,” to be honest (though I understand you’re just learning how it all works.) 
    That’s just not even a real thing if you understand how scope lenses work. 3.55:1 is obviously too wide a ratio to be using, but you just crop it. It’s as simple as that. You don’t loose anything by cropping, and in fact (as hopefully I’ve explained decently), you actually gain angle of view. You gain out of focus compression. You gain robust flares. You gain character. Because you crop more off the sides with 2X, you can shoot with more vignette and then completely get rid of it.
    Of course, if you are shooting with a 4:3 camera, that ends up as a 2.66:1 image when stretched, and to arrive at 2.39:1, you don’t crop off very much at all. But as I already ran through with focal lengths, you will arrive at the same maximum angle of view regardless of what size or aspect of sensor you shoot on, and you will always stretch it by a factor of 2. Cropping doesn’t impact that. 
    There are some 1.5X lenses that get equivalent angle of view to the top dog 2X lenses, but guess what? Those are going to be the top dog 1.5X lenses like the Iscorama 36, and other even rarer lenses. The really good 1.5X lenses are much more expensive than the 2X ones, so if you’re on a budget, best of luck. 
    The variable diopter allows you to take incredible blocks of vintage anamorphic glass and use it for filmmaking. It doesn’t matter that the glass is originally for projection, in fact, the image quality expectations for projection are, if anything, a higher bar. Some people see the dual-focus thing as an instant non-starter, but they are missing out on a look that otherwise only exists inside rental houses for very high day-rates. The new anamorphics are good, but not the same. A Kowa, Elmoscope, Moller, Sankor, etc. built in the 1980s just does that “thing” that made anamorphic famous in the first place. Those lenses are cut from the same cloth as all those lenses that shot (and still shoot) our favorite films.
    You should see if there is someone local to you that would meet up and let you test drive their 2X lens rig, so you can take the footage home, and play around with it. It’s much easier to wrap your head around all this by just using it, versus trying to explain it. It’s a wide angle adapter, but only horizontally. Vertically it has no angle change. 
    To give you numbers that relate somewhat to your system, my Kowa with a 38mm lens on your S35 sensor camera, would horizontally be about a 19mm lens. Not quite the 17mm you are referencing, but not far off either. If you have a 19mm spherical lens and add black bars top and bottom in post so that it is 2.39:1, you’d see very close to what I see with my setup. 
    Someone else can enlighten me if I am wrong, but I specifically have my lens because it gets as wide if not wider than pretty much every other projection scope out there. 
    Genuinely not trying to be a downer, but scopes don’t go quite as wide as you’re hoping... at least not for prices that mortals can afford. 
    They still go satisfyingly wide though, and at super wide angles with deep depth of field, the differences between anamorphic and spherical footage are hard to spot. Just shoot spherical and crop it to 2.39:1 if you need a specific shot that wide. There are flare filters, oval bokeh filters, and distortion in post if you really need your spherical shot to look the part. 
    It is far more important to compose a good shot that serves the story you are attempting to tell, than it is to fret over exactly what pieces of glass you are shooting it through.
  22. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from leslie in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    Everyone will have a slightly different opinion on this, but I would pretty much say if you’re after anamorphic in 2019, it is for the stylistic optical idiosyncrasies historically associated with Hollywood’s long-standing use of 2X squeeze factor lenses. 
    1.33X squeeze factor lenses will get you a very mild/watered down version of that look, and in most cases will end up being almost as expensive as 2X options, or will be poor quality optically. 
    1.5X lenses can be great, but there were never many made, so they fetch a high price.
    Good 2X adapters are well-regraded at this point, and you’ll be hard pressed to get one for a truly “budget” price. But there are still a decent quantity of quality examples floating around. All this being said, they are priced as they are because the resulting look is absolutely worth it, and they are still priced low enough that they are accessible.
    Your best compromise is probably a smaller 2X, for example, a Sankor or Kowa 16-s. You won’t be able to use as wide of back lenses without vignetting, but the image quality is still top notch. 
    If you decide to jump right in, the top dogs would be the Kowa Bell and Howell, Kowa 16-H, and the Isco Ultra-Star. If you are seriously shopping, get the @Andrew Reid anamorphic guide, and watch @Tito Ferradans YouTube channel. 
    To use these projection scopes reliably, you need good clamps. Redstan are top of the line for Kowas, and HTN has a great locking front replacement lens body that gives you standard threads while also locking the focus.
    The budget variable diopter is the SLR Magic Rangefinder. It resolves excellently and increases vignetting minimally, but the coatings produce flaring that some find difficult to work with. The king of variable diopters is the Rectilux Hardcore DNA, but it is priced accordingly and is only made in small batches with a waiting list.
    You are going to want one of these two. Double focusing is a pain and almost impossible to get perfect. It can be the last item you buy, and you can get used to anamorphic without it, but you will need one.
    Expect to spend at least $1500 by the time you have a scope, clamps, variable diopter, and a prime taking lens that plays nice with your scope. That’s scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting lucky, but as lens prices go, that’s really not crazy money. $2500 or maybe a couple hundred more should be enough to get you into a good Kowa with a desqueezing monitor and all the extra goodies. 
    There is a new line of 1.8X primes coming out that’s running just over $3000 per lens. I’m planning on transitioning to a set of those, but they’re for m4/3 sizes sensors.
    There’s a certain economy about the projection adapters, considering the same anamorphic block can be attached to your prime lens of choice for the various focal lengths, but at a certain point, dealing with countless clamps and adapters can get tiresome, and the lens rigs can get long and heavy. Ultimately, projection scopes are not well-suited to a truly professional style production. They’re perfect for passion projects and style-centric work like music videos, short films, etc.
    A crafty person who has good problem-solving skills can absolutely DIY some of these things and potentially save a little bit of money, but as I’ve pointed out, there are tried-and-true solutions already on the market for reasonable prices. I for one would say you’re lucky, even if the prices are now higher on the actual scopes.
    when I got into it, Redstan was the only good clamp option even though they didn’t have support brackets back then, and variable diopters weren’t even a thing. There were no affordable monitors with anamorphic desqueeze.
    now you can pick up a SmallHD Focus (which I would highly suggest you do), and it will serve you well in all your production, not just for anamorphic desqueezing.
    If I have one serious piece of advice, it is that cheap clamps will make your experience miserable. Get a lens clamp that can clamp down to 15mm rods. Sloppy loose lens rigs make for unusable footage with jolts in it, and clamping to rails ensures that, once aligned, your anamorphic will remain aligned. No “parallelogrammed” footage.
  23. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from thephoenix in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    An important thing to understand with anamorphic is that you ALWAYS have to stretch the footage by the multiplication factor of the anamorphic for it to look right, regardless of sensor size or sensor aspect. 
    After stretching, to achieve specific aspect ratios, you crop the image. That is, unless by stretching the footage, you hit your target aspect (which is rare). For example, on the P4K, I am always recording in 16:9 (aka 1.78:1). When I stretch the footage in post by 2X (because I have a 2X lens), it yields a 3.56:1 aspect ratio image. If I want my final video to be 2.39:1 (standard CinemaScope), I have to crop the sides off to achieve this.
    It is important to note that this cropping is not a negative thing! In fact, you need to understand it if you are going to get the most out of your scope. You see, I don’t care if the lens I’m using vignettes into the sides specifically because I know that I am cropping them off anyway. That’s how I can use a 28mm lens behind my Kowa. If I look at my direct sensor feed, there are large black sections on the left and right sides of the image. But on my SmallHD monitor, I have it set to de-squeeze and then crop to 2.39:1.
    In theory, this sounds scary, like you are throwing away precious pixels and information. In practice, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Your vertical line count of resolution is still exactly the same, because all the scaling happens only horizontally, so the perceived sharpness is the same. I would also argue that on compressed codec cameras, the black areas take a load off of the image processing, allowing more of the algorithm to be dedicated to a quality image in the center of your sensor.
    The vignetting is caused by the scope’s limitation, and correlates to a specific angle of view, regardless of sensor size. Mine would be approximately 28mm M4/3, 38mm S35, 56mm Full Frame. Those are the widest without vignette that the scope allows on each sensor size, without vignetting, when the final target is 2.39:1 aspect. And if shot side by side, they would appear as essentially identical/equivalent  focal lengths. You can’t make any scope wider by changing sensor size.
    And remember: it is a 28mm lens in the vertical axis, but horizontally it is closer to a 14mm. 
    It’s kinda one of my pet peeves when people say that 2X is “too stretched,” to be honest (though I understand you’re just learning how it all works.) 
    That’s just not even a real thing if you understand how scope lenses work. 3.55:1 is obviously too wide a ratio to be using, but you just crop it. It’s as simple as that. You don’t loose anything by cropping, and in fact (as hopefully I’ve explained decently), you actually gain angle of view. You gain out of focus compression. You gain robust flares. You gain character. Because you crop more off the sides with 2X, you can shoot with more vignette and then completely get rid of it.
    Of course, if you are shooting with a 4:3 camera, that ends up as a 2.66:1 image when stretched, and to arrive at 2.39:1, you don’t crop off very much at all. But as I already ran through with focal lengths, you will arrive at the same maximum angle of view regardless of what size or aspect of sensor you shoot on, and you will always stretch it by a factor of 2. Cropping doesn’t impact that. 
    There are some 1.5X lenses that get equivalent angle of view to the top dog 2X lenses, but guess what? Those are going to be the top dog 1.5X lenses like the Iscorama 36, and other even rarer lenses. The really good 1.5X lenses are much more expensive than the 2X ones, so if you’re on a budget, best of luck. 
    The variable diopter allows you to take incredible blocks of vintage anamorphic glass and use it for filmmaking. It doesn’t matter that the glass is originally for projection, in fact, the image quality expectations for projection are, if anything, a higher bar. Some people see the dual-focus thing as an instant non-starter, but they are missing out on a look that otherwise only exists inside rental houses for very high day-rates. The new anamorphics are good, but not the same. A Kowa, Elmoscope, Moller, Sankor, etc. built in the 1980s just does that “thing” that made anamorphic famous in the first place. Those lenses are cut from the same cloth as all those lenses that shot (and still shoot) our favorite films.
    You should see if there is someone local to you that would meet up and let you test drive their 2X lens rig, so you can take the footage home, and play around with it. It’s much easier to wrap your head around all this by just using it, versus trying to explain it. It’s a wide angle adapter, but only horizontally. Vertically it has no angle change. 
    To give you numbers that relate somewhat to your system, my Kowa with a 38mm lens on your S35 sensor camera, would horizontally be about a 19mm lens. Not quite the 17mm you are referencing, but not far off either. If you have a 19mm spherical lens and add black bars top and bottom in post so that it is 2.39:1, you’d see very close to what I see with my setup. 
    Someone else can enlighten me if I am wrong, but I specifically have my lens because it gets as wide if not wider than pretty much every other projection scope out there. 
    Genuinely not trying to be a downer, but scopes don’t go quite as wide as you’re hoping... at least not for prices that mortals can afford. 
    They still go satisfyingly wide though, and at super wide angles with deep depth of field, the differences between anamorphic and spherical footage are hard to spot. Just shoot spherical and crop it to 2.39:1 if you need a specific shot that wide. There are flare filters, oval bokeh filters, and distortion in post if you really need your spherical shot to look the part. 
    It is far more important to compose a good shot that serves the story you are attempting to tell, than it is to fret over exactly what pieces of glass you are shooting it through.
  24. Thanks
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from thephoenix in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    The top dog 2X projection scopes will give you the widest angle. You have to remember that you double your field of view horizontally. 1.33X/1.5X scopes may be compatible with similarly wide lenses, but they don’t increase your field of view by as high of a factor. On M4/3 with my Kowa I can go as wide as 28mm. That’s 28mm vertically. Horizontally it is 2X factor, so almost a 14mm. 
    If there was something wider I would have bought it by now. The SLR Magics definitely aren’t. 
    If it is the stylistic aspects of wide angle that you enjoy, rejoice! Anamorphic does similar things at all focal lengths. Slight barrel distortion, curved focal plane and bokeh field distortion. 
    As others have said, don’t sweat the “single focus” crap. All anamorphics become single focus with a variable diopter. I run and gun mine all the time with an SLR Magic Rangefinder in front. The focus throw is long like a cinema lens, but that makes for smooth focus pulls. 
    You are of course free to try a 1.33X lens, but in my experience they disappoint. They will not give you pronounced oval bokeh and always have thin flares. AKA what even is the point?
    It remains that if I need an ultra-wide lens for a specific shot, I just shoot spherical and crop the top/bottom to 2.39:1. I rarely need to go wider than my anamorphic allows though.
    Part of the beauty of anamorphic is that vertically it can be a portrait lens (50mm), while horizontally being a wide (25mm). They’re essentially a big hot mess of both at once. If you’re really in love with a spherical wide look, anamorphic might not be for you. It almost always looks “portrait-y,” even if the field of view is quite wide. The exception maybe being if you’re focused to infinity with nothing out of focus in the foreground, but in that use-case you would be hard-pressed to spot the difference between anamorphic and a spherical with some barrel distortion.
    I guess one question I have is, what is this “wide” you are in love with? What focal length on what size sensor? Wide is a general category of lens focal length, and can vary as much as anything.
  25. Like
    Caleb Genheimer got a reaction from heart0less in newbie questions / xt3 starter kit   
    Everyone will have a slightly different opinion on this, but I would pretty much say if you’re after anamorphic in 2019, it is for the stylistic optical idiosyncrasies historically associated with Hollywood’s long-standing use of 2X squeeze factor lenses. 
    1.33X squeeze factor lenses will get you a very mild/watered down version of that look, and in most cases will end up being almost as expensive as 2X options, or will be poor quality optically. 
    1.5X lenses can be great, but there were never many made, so they fetch a high price.
    Good 2X adapters are well-regraded at this point, and you’ll be hard pressed to get one for a truly “budget” price. But there are still a decent quantity of quality examples floating around. All this being said, they are priced as they are because the resulting look is absolutely worth it, and they are still priced low enough that they are accessible.
    Your best compromise is probably a smaller 2X, for example, a Sankor or Kowa 16-s. You won’t be able to use as wide of back lenses without vignetting, but the image quality is still top notch. 
    If you decide to jump right in, the top dogs would be the Kowa Bell and Howell, Kowa 16-H, and the Isco Ultra-Star. If you are seriously shopping, get the @Andrew Reid anamorphic guide, and watch @Tito Ferradans YouTube channel. 
    To use these projection scopes reliably, you need good clamps. Redstan are top of the line for Kowas, and HTN has a great locking front replacement lens body that gives you standard threads while also locking the focus.
    The budget variable diopter is the SLR Magic Rangefinder. It resolves excellently and increases vignetting minimally, but the coatings produce flaring that some find difficult to work with. The king of variable diopters is the Rectilux Hardcore DNA, but it is priced accordingly and is only made in small batches with a waiting list.
    You are going to want one of these two. Double focusing is a pain and almost impossible to get perfect. It can be the last item you buy, and you can get used to anamorphic without it, but you will need one.
    Expect to spend at least $1500 by the time you have a scope, clamps, variable diopter, and a prime taking lens that plays nice with your scope. That’s scraping the bottom of the barrel and getting lucky, but as lens prices go, that’s really not crazy money. $2500 or maybe a couple hundred more should be enough to get you into a good Kowa with a desqueezing monitor and all the extra goodies. 
    There is a new line of 1.8X primes coming out that’s running just over $3000 per lens. I’m planning on transitioning to a set of those, but they’re for m4/3 sizes sensors.
    There’s a certain economy about the projection adapters, considering the same anamorphic block can be attached to your prime lens of choice for the various focal lengths, but at a certain point, dealing with countless clamps and adapters can get tiresome, and the lens rigs can get long and heavy. Ultimately, projection scopes are not well-suited to a truly professional style production. They’re perfect for passion projects and style-centric work like music videos, short films, etc.
    A crafty person who has good problem-solving skills can absolutely DIY some of these things and potentially save a little bit of money, but as I’ve pointed out, there are tried-and-true solutions already on the market for reasonable prices. I for one would say you’re lucky, even if the prices are now higher on the actual scopes.
    when I got into it, Redstan was the only good clamp option even though they didn’t have support brackets back then, and variable diopters weren’t even a thing. There were no affordable monitors with anamorphic desqueeze.
    now you can pick up a SmallHD Focus (which I would highly suggest you do), and it will serve you well in all your production, not just for anamorphic desqueezing.
    If I have one serious piece of advice, it is that cheap clamps will make your experience miserable. Get a lens clamp that can clamp down to 15mm rods. Sloppy loose lens rigs make for unusable footage with jolts in it, and clamping to rails ensures that, once aligned, your anamorphic will remain aligned. No “parallelogrammed” footage.
×
×
  • Create New...