nahua

2015 has been unexpectedly busy already work-wise. This is awesome but it means that I have no time for personal projects and so I'm selling my Canon/Kowa anamorphic setup. I've used this mainly for home movies and fun little things and just love that look.... but I can't justify it sitting lonely on the shelf like a guilty secret.
Here's the breakdown from L-R:
Komputerbay 64Gb 1066x CF card 2 x Canon batteries Canon 7D 3rd party battery grip Strap EOS lens cap M42/EOS adapter Helios 44-2 58/2 (has a 49mm-58mm ring glued to the front) 58mm-52mm ring Redstan Clamp Kowa 8-Z Anamorphic Redstan Filter Clamp 72mm-77mm ring 77mm lens cap All in really good condition apart from the helios which is in the condition of a helios! Oh, and a battery charger of course.
 


 
And here is the last thing I shot entirely with this combo:
 
 
If you are looking to get into anamorphic RAW shooting this kit is everything you need on the hardware side to get started. Blending the 7D raw with the helios and kowa gets you a look very like 16mm film to me with all of the incredible flexibility of raw video.
£1000 including paypal fees and tracked UK delivery. Discounts for cash and you are welcome to come inspect in Oxford. Will post overseas at buyers expense. If you want me to shoot something specific or you have any questions message me!
 

Yeah, I don't know why people get their panties knotted about certain digital cameras not looking cinematic enough.  These are judgements based on what exactly?  Vimeo or YouTube videos from amateur goofballs like me slapping a kit lens on a camera body, lazily applying some ill-conceived color grade, and uploading it?
Jeeze, if it looks too "digital" to you, change the lens, change how you shoot, change the color grade. Okay, maybe a certain camera gets you closer to a subjective cinema-look to start, but it's still up to you to finish the job.
If you can't find a recipe to make your shots cinematic, you're doing it wrong, not the camera.
I'll guarantee you someone with talent and skill could grab my modest Panasonic GM1 and make visually stunning shots while I could run around all day with an Alexa and create a pile of worthlessness if I didn't know what I was doing.  
Too much worrying about the wrong stuff when it comes to cameras, I think.

As an example of what can be done with any good, modern camera...  I think you could probably replicate this scene quite easily if you had the time, the actors and the proper lighting.   Here, crushed blacks are half the fun.  We should do "replicate this Blade Runner scene" as a weekly challenge.   Compare this to the KineMAX snapshot.
 

Using my Panasonic lenses less and less I have to say. The 100-300mm is a kind of specialty lens which is nice to have on hand and the pancakes are just incredibly small. But what optic feel concerned I'd very much prefer the Olympus line-up as far as native e-lenses concerned. To me they're somewhat like the Sigma ART line-up. Clean, sharp, but not in a videolike sense, which with the Pana's is a little harder to shake... the Olympus lenses have some nice character, rendering and color reproduction. Love the 45mm f/1.8 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 (also have the 60mm f/2.8 macro). I'd love to get the 75mm f/1.8, but for that kind of money you can buy another Olympus body! The 12mm f/2 has come down in price a tad bit, but same story more or less (wouldn't mind having it for the BMPCC though). The 25mm and 17mm f/1.8's are pretty cool too from what I've read/seen, but I kind of already got that range covered in meanwhile. Panasonic's own lenses... unless they're not Lumix, but Leica branded, such as the 42.5mm f/1.2 (and I thought the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 was expensive, lol) they tend to be a little too modern looking. Pretty much tack sharp, but kind of emotionless... little cold, contrasty, not as creamy in rendering.
Picking the right lens, will get you the right look. Lately I've been leaning more towards good old vintage glass and quality lenses meant for larger format cameras. They just render nicer, have a chiller vibe to 'em. Especially when you're not just using a regular dummy adapter, but a lens turbo with optical elements to widen the lens and boost performance. Surely part of getting the right look is applying a grade that fits the piece. Naturally I'm more attracted to the still somewhat flat look over the crushed blacks and heavily saturated stuff out there.
All that said. There we absolutely some nice shots in there and overall was a really enjoyable watch.
@ Rudolf: nothing wrong with the GH2. It's still an absolute charming camera to me. I love the look you can squeeze out of it. If you have one, definitly keep it. If you don't and can get one on the cheap, definitly worth considering to add to your inventory still.

Tee hee

From http://eddavid.tumblr.com/post/111
I was told I had to redo my W9 income tax form, because the form I filled out was the Nov 2013 form, which was expired.  So I went and filled out the Dec 2014 form and noticed something new - a whole extra page of paperwork - It went from a three page document to a four page document - and that’s our government, the king of bureaucracy, in action.
Bureaucracy was the big theme in this month’s Harpers, currently my favorite magazine of all time, up there with the Atlantic and the Week and the New Yorker as what I read (sorry novels, I haven’t read you guys in a while and maybe that’s another essay to write about next).  
In this issue, they mentioned that bureaucracy also bleeds into the arts, which is my field of work as a cinematographer.  The use of credentials - like a police chief or military commander or certified doctor -  a practice that exists in places like Soviet Russia have fallen into our field.  The highest esteemed titles, like DGA or ASC even go after your name on a movie title (also the only art industry in the world where you put the credits on an advertisement for the product - does Colgate Toothpaste do that?)  Saying “Joe Schmoe, ASC” does that make Joe Schmoe more certified than his name without that title?  Does it make the film any less beautiful?
At what point in the arts are you certified as an artist?  At what point can you say, “yes I know what I am doing.”  Some great artists do their best work before they “become” recognized. A lot of famous artists reminisce about how much easier it is for them to create good art before they are lauded, such as Jackson Pollock.  Once he was called by Life Magazine, “is this the greatest artist of our generation?” his life suffered immensely.
My theory is, you are an artist when you create art.  So anyone is an artist, if they put pen to paper, dirty finger to keyboard.  But in our filmmaking industry my whole life I have felt guilty because I didn’t go to a film schoo, I didn’t get certifiedl - I went to a liberal arts college and was an anthropology major and almost a film studies minor, as well as one point a music major.  I didn’t have the training everyone seemed to be whispering that I needed.
I felt so guilty,  that I didn’t know how to load a film mag, that I didn’t ever sit down and learn lighting or even lenses.  I had no photography background - that was my sister. I didn’t know the difference between a wide angle lens and a telephoto lens, surrounded by many people who did. I didn’t know soft light vs hard light, or the angle of lighting and how it changes on a face in shadows.
I grew up shooting documentaries and prank videos on VHS-C cameras - made one in high school called “perspective” and interviews young people, older young people, and my parents about various historical issues like the Vietnam war, trying to show how our age affects how we interpret history, as well as education level, etc - bigger issues I didn’t address like race and class, because, well, I grew up in the wonderful safe bubble of Fairfield, CT.  I didn’t light it - I didn’t think about the aesthetics of it at all, just what I was trying to say.
But that guilt of me not having the credentials for filmmaking has haunted me for so long.  I would show up on set and be so nervous that I didn’t know anything about lighting - or 35mm film or real lenses - that I would call for the wrong lens - that I was being judged by everyone.  I remember about 7 years ago or so I was on a low budget tv spec spot and an electric asked me my age and I think I said I was older than I was so I could pretend that I knew what I was doing.
But the more I do cinematography, the more I know that whatever unique perspective I have is an advantage.  Not going to film school, coming from an anthropological and philosophical perspective gives me strength, a different way of seeing.  And it is skills that can actually be learned on the job, online on forums, by talking and observing and learning from others.  I  have learned so much about filmmaking from a vimeo series called “Every Painting a Frame” that is just some passionate film editor named Tony Zhou doing it on his own time as from a youtube series spoofing George Lucas, and of course on set mentors like the great DP David Tumblety I shot with a few times.
Everyone who brings a fresh perspective to filmmaking is so needed - we can not just have people do films all the same way.
 I think more and more there is a gluttony of film set behaviors that rewards the same and bureaucratic method of making “films” - traditional, boring, waiting - not just trying to find moments and capture little tiny ideas and bigger thoughts - but this route system of regimented military-like crew that does things traditional ways that people like Paul Thomas Anderson rally against - no marks - no lets go overt here instead - untraditional approaches that open up wonder again.
But also that wonder is not anything without intense concentration and commitment and hard work.  You can’t be lazy and successful.  It’s sweat.  My Puritanical work ethic was at one point rewarded vastly by my former boss and greatest mentor, Joe Baron.  He runs Attitude, Inc - a post house in New York City.  He taught me about perseverance  - about going for perfection - “crossing the finish line” - which would sometimes be at 3am to get a piece to a level of standard he believed in.  To not be mediocre, no matter what anyone else believes - to put one’s full heart into anything.  To not get upset and bogged down by bureaucratic methods - to just be a part of a small group of people and be passionate.  He found my strengths, and didn’t make me feel bad about my flaws, my quirks.  
I didn’t learn this in school, and this mentorship under him, as I assistant edited under him for two years.  And his voice has been guiding me ever since, as I navigate through my adulthood. And whoever I get down because maybe I switch a lens too late or change my mind too suddenly (all artists need to be open to changes that can occur at any moment - spontaneity) - I always think of him there, watching over, making sure I’m okay.  

if you can find a +1 achromat it'll still be a great addition to any lens collection.  a +0.5 non achromat isnt really that special since it doesnt correct for CA and using on anything more than a small sensor/aperture it'll degrade the optical quality.  But the reasons a +0.4 achromat is more desirable than a +1 achromat is this:-
 
a +0.4 achromat will reduce the minimum focus distance of your lens to almost half it;s original minimum focus (if you have a 1m minimum, the +0.4 achromat will change minimum to 0.6m.  However due to the weak diopter value it will still allow focus to all the way to 2.2mtrs.  this is a really good focus range for racking indoors.
 
a +1 achromat will reduce a 1m minimum to 0.2m so can get closer, but maximum distance when the lens is set to infinity will be 1 meter.
As a result, your focus pull range is drastically reduced.
 
So to answer your question, the reason is that a weaker diopter value lends itself well for users requiring focus pulling between 0.6m - 2.2m - still a rather useful range for medium/close shots, or powerful closeups from fast 85mm lenses which tend to have a minimum focus of 1m or longer.

A7s ​(1.1 crop)
Helios 58mm f2
Hypergonar Anamorphic
Anamorphic Shop's FM Lens

Here is another Promo we recently shot with a set of Kowas (40, 50, 75, 100mm) that I though some people might like to see. Any thoughts or feedback welcome. 
 
 
 
 

Update:
uploaded trailer
 

​Yes you will need some sort of lens support.  If you think it sags down now, wait awhile and see...  I really wish Panasonic released a firmware patch for external monitoring in 4K photo mode.  Really frustrating to shoot 3:2 or 4:3 with no monitor support.

​I'm wishing for the 4K photo hdmi out and a slog profile, but oh well, we will see 

​Yes you will need some sort of lens support.  If you think it sags down now, wait awhile and see...  I really wish Panasonic released a firmware patch for external monitoring in 4K photo mode.  Really frustrating to shoot 3:2 or 4:3 with no monitor support.

FM Lens rack focusing test ‪#‎FMLens‬ ‪#‎Anamorphicshop‬ 
Super Takumar 50mm f1.4, Isco Ultra Star Anamorphic Lens, Panasonic GH4 
Did some tests with the FM. So far loving it, its working perfectly now that I've gotten used to it a little bit and also solved the slouching problem i had initially. It takes some time to get it configured to your rig and camera but oh man smooth rack focusing is orgasmic after a long period of painful double focusing. And I like the fact that it protects the anamorphic glass elements inside. Only downside I see is your rig becoming considerably heavier but thats not always a bad thing. Will do a review and full test at some point.

Photography is for sure dying i went from $3500 jobs booked all the time to dropping to $1200 over a few years then i sold my photography business and got out.
Digital cameras is what killed photography. Back when you used film it took great skill to get a good exposure and you had less Shots Film to get the shot with. Then digital come out then everyone got a digital camera and then most people started to like what they shoot so much they could no longer tell good quality work from snap shots.
The fact is back only a few years back most photographers were all men then after years of digital it seems like now its most all house wives making extra money undercutting all the real photographers that are left hanging on. What kills me is almost none of them know how to use their camera in manual as they do not understand it.
I specialized in Off camera lighting all bringing more equipment and more skill to get it right most new photographers are not even entrusted in learning to take better photos they just want more cheep jobs.
This is a shot of mine all off camera lighting balanced to the sunset background. You can not get this look with on camera flash or on flash. I also designed and built and rented out the wedding setup and wedding chairs to them. Worked on the beach 7 days a week shooting all summer for years before selling the business. This was never put in photoshop i edited it in lightroom very little.

Its very hard to say without seeing the true / original image, but for sure the 1.4x looks better but she might have just had a round face! I grade a lot of music promos and its not uncommon for the Label to ask to give a 5-10% squeeze on the footage horizontally to make the artist look slimmer. Happens and awful lot, especially with female artist. 

​I see your point. When shooting faces I sometimes 'under squeeze' a bit (sometimes too much). I guess it a subjective thing. I think sometimes we get a distorted view of our images because we have seen the original. Plus i think it depends on different factors, focal length, subject  distance, talking lens.  It can make your workflow tricky.
If I saw the x1.5 version of your shot in something, I don't think it would leap out as 'wrong'. But maybe the x1.4 looks more natural.
its a weird one, but it makes shooting anamorphic more fun.
 

I prefer the 1.4x version.  Thoughts?

Ah. Another philosophical thread.
Actually, photography is very much alive, making it accessible to more and more people. The digital age does make it easier to get nice pictures without even knowing what you're doing, in that regard it's a pity that everything is so high tech and easy to get into... but then again. We used to have phonenumbers stored in our brains, now we have 'em in our phones... does that makes us dumber? Well, perhaps, lol, but now we can relocate our resources and be able to focus on other stuff (like the creative side of things). So a photographer can in fact embrace it and use it for the good of taking greater pictures.
Not each single individual is as talented as the next though, but overall there's much more quality stuff out there, which makes it harder to get noticed. So unless you fear that others are worlds better than you, I'd say you have nothing to worry about in terms of being a relevant photographer.

Hi Guys.
For those of you that are interested. If you change the clip attributes to DVCProHD pixel aspect ratio in resolve. You het a perfect desqueeze without having to scale or warp. Vey handy.
Thanks to Chris Elkerterton for the heads up. 

I did a quick test with the Must HD field monitor, GH4 and the Atomos HDMI cable (with isco ultrastar). I was meaning to do this earlier but a friend wanted to borrow the monitor to see if it was worth bulk purchase for their shop. This is for anyone who is interested in similar setup. 
Ok so to summarize what I think overall, this set up is great but not perfect (yet). The monitor image quality is good and works well with GH4 menu interface etc. but GH4 still needs firmware update for HDMI output for the 4k Photo mode, so that is a downside for the moment for anamorphic lens users like us. I don't think I can get a exact aspect ratio of the image I get from a 2x lens even if we get the firmware update because the monitor is fixed to certain aspect ratio modes (can't be customized). However I can get fair idea of the final outcome using these modes.  I think this monitor wins over even smallHD in terms of image quality and functionality, especially when you think of the price point. I just wish it had a better looking menu and a more robust body build. My friend who borrowed the monitor mentioned that the changeable battery mount on the back is a unique feature at this price point. 
The atomos HDMI to micro HDMI cable is GREAT.... like reallllyyyyy solid great. I don't need to worry about it one bit while shooting. Especially with the cable lock on the MustHD. Not sure if there are any other video purpose built cables like this but this is by far the best one i've used for a filming situation. 

Monitor hood flips out into place with a spring or something. Design is really good, materials not so much. I wouldn't want to drop it. This is a shame because I really think the lack of a solid steel body build will put a lot of people off from buying this monitor even though other features on this thing are great. 

Made a cluttery mess for the test. 

The Atomos cable you see here is the longer version (19.6-25.6") 

2x Squeeze from the Ultrastar lens. 

2.35 aspect ratio mode on the monitor. Exact same image as above, just desqueezed 

couldn't resist.... 
 
 

nahua, sorry if I misunderstood your point. I agree, shooting with these resolutions were a dream a couple years back, that's true. I enjoy very much the fact that we can do it now.
I'm against 4k and the way they're selling it, but have nothing against the people who like 4k, or shoot 4k! It would be just rude, like someone turning to me and saying "shooting raw is stupid", to whom I'd say "that's up to me to decide, buddy! It might not be YOUR thing!". So, if I sounded like that (and I think I did), I apologize.
Rich, good point there. I don't agree about the movies, though. It's not like there were more good movies back then, it's more like there are A LOT of bad movies today, but the number of good movies per year hasn't decreased. It's the ratio between good/bad that has shifted (this is me talking like the film history/production graduate I am).

IMO there is a fine line between character and resolution.  4k is simply a marketing term.  Pushed by the technology companies.  We don;t need it and never will need it, but the customer (who pays for our work) will often be susceptible to marketing terms and switch off if something is not 'up to date'.  
Classic case...  Music.  Modern music sucks yet youngsters donlt realise because its all they know.  same with movies.  modern movies suck compared to 1980's hollywood.  
 
But on topic, I think if a anamorphic system will deliver 720p with beautiful character, I'll take that over a boring lens that delivers 4k, 6k or any other number that non creative people like to hide behind rather than make art.
 
 

@Tito You would rethink 4K if you could shoot 4:3 or 3:2 like I'm doing with my GH4.  And you can always downscale 4K to 1080P if you want.  So much less hassle than ML RAW.  File sizes are so much smaller and I can do real time previews too.  If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with you.

I also think the guide should be redone.  Maybe a combination of Andrew's and Tito's guide.  Both are excellent!
The 2x or 1.8x look will always be the preferred anamorphic format.  I think the new options are very welcome and open a lot of doors for everyone.  Unfortunately at this point you have to buy and experiment yourself to find the right options.