Sean Cunningham

  I was being sarcastic with the "obvious failure".     edit: oh, and it wasn't poking at you either.  You were one of the only posters by this point that was still on-point.

Um, Tony was following the course the conversation was taking.  Or does realtime, line-of-site HD transmissions from space have SFA to do with some new 65mm sized sensor collaboration between NASA and Panavision?  This thing hasn't been on topic since the punters read "70mm" and "4K" and fabricated their own implied equivalency (that was nowhere to be found in the original article) so they could show how smart they were in pointing out both NASA and Panavision's obvious failure.

You're missing the point of this sensor.  Making it the size of a 65mm (70mm is for projection, not acquisition) with lower density pixels, but still ample for compelling imagery, means this thing is going to see in the dark better than and have lower noise than smaller 4K sensors.   8K is closer to the scanning density that would be necessary to adequately represent the information contained on an anamorphic 35mm frame and the reason why a lot of DPs consider it wasteful, still, doing digital-IP on films acquired with anamorphic 35mm photography.     This camera isn't about capturing 65mm film's potential detail, even the "little" version of 65mm.    They haven't fully replicated the full potential of 35mm yet.

  Anamorphic 35mm is 21mm, between the GH2 at 19mm and APS sensor at 22.3mm.  Given the histrionics over sensor sizes and a few mm  either way seemingly make-or-break, rendering any new camera god or goat, the GH2 and 7D are much closer than Super-35 at almost 25mm though don't take this as an endorsement of smaller or bigger being better.     I mean, it's been a while since I was in a math class but I recognize this as a simple truth that's often overlooked.

  And closer to achieving the same look-and-feel of anamorphic motion pictures.  Closer than the common obsession with Super-35mm and full-frame sensor sizes which don't really factor into the look most would like to replicate in the first place.

I'll echo the above.  I originally went looking for Nikon glass to build out my kit for a Redrock Micro M2 35mm Cinema Lens Adapter and have thankfully been able to continue using these lenses with my GH2.  The classic SLR Nikkors are great values for the money, often faster than similar Canon glass and fully manual.   (24mm F2, 35mm F1.4, 105mm F2.5).   If you click on those links you'll be taken to the Ken Rockwell pages for these and tons of other Nikon lenses.  Lots of really good information there, especially if there are several versions of a particular lens over its production lifetime, the various differences, etc.  He loves the 85mm too, if I'm remembering correctly, and there's a whole section on "portrait lenses" which directly translates to our use as CU lenses, explaining why telephoto is used (more importantly than throwing the BG into bokeh-land).     edit: of note, there's a line of Panavision anamorphics that use Nikon taking lenses

Tony posted a reference elsewhere to some classic TohoScope films that were indeed beautiful.  Some of these are viewable on HULU as part of the Criterion Collection (Jigoku and Kwaidan in particular).  Today I got my copy of the Sonny Chiba collection and finally able to see one of my favorites from when I was a kid, in full ToeiScope glory:  Ninja Wars (1982, aka Death of a Ninja)   Don't let the name fool you, it's really not as silly as it sounds.  There's ninjas and samurai, devil monks and sorcerers.  There's even an appearance by the legendary character Hitori Hanzo, which I didn't remember or connect to this film when I saw Kill Bill. It also seems possibly influential on the Ninja Scroll anime series, if not influenced by similar source material.   There's some really nice cinematography in here, both location-based and beautiful sets in shrines and traditional Japanese palace grounds.     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQmkxG7D10U   ...the Amazon streaming version is the same dreadful pan-n-scan dub that I remember as a kid, and looks like it was digitized off an old 1/2" copy no better than the bootleg of the entire film you can also find on youtube.  In this trailer at least you can see the potential I always felt from the photography and finally was able to see.  As far as I've been able to find this Sonny Chiba disc is the only way, currently, to get ahold of this film in full scope save a Japanese-only disc that might be out there.

Wow, that's awesome.  I definitely want to eventually pick one of these up.  

Clamp and lens design seems to be the determining factor here.  Other folks on the forum have gone 24mm with the GH2 and this adapter, which is a very attractive capability.   Very nice looking footage there, btw.  What was your average stop during the shoot if you don't mind my asking?

  I get whiplash from this video because I'm expecting, based on the title and tone that he's set out to prove the GH2 isn't as good as people say.  In the end, no, he's saying it's awesome too which begs the question has there ever been a rumor of significant momentum that the GH2 didn't live up to its hype, in terms of pure motion picture quality and untouchable value?    Anyhoo, I liked his video shooting locked to the "Indoor" WB for everything.  I've been reading through so many ASC archives lately that I forget now which director/dp combo it was but I was reminded of his WB video when it said the director preferred not shooting with an 85 filter for tungsten stock when shooting outdoors.  Film has way more latitude to correct afterwards of course but it was still interesting to read and compare it to the rumor that was floated around post-T2 that the "look" created for future Cameron films was born from accidentally forgetting the 85 filter and then shooting to match.

Sometimes it's hard to decipher the nuances of your posts but I enjoy them anyhow.  Hopefully you weren't interpreting what I said as anything but complimentary.  So many things get asked and stated multiple times on these (or any) forum, I mentioned your Moller revelation because that was really interesting and I'll be on the lookout for one when I'm back in the market with discretionary funds.   Anyway, by unrealistic I meant folks condemning other lenses simply because they're not as good as the really exceptional if not freakishly exceptional lenses that exist.     edit: yeah it's interesting about those old lenses from Panavision.  Time and time again when I look up even modern anamorphic films to see what equipment was used it'll be the C-Series.

OMG, did those little kids know what they were doing there towards the end??? How rude, LOL!

It isn't as useful or attractive, in the context of anamorphic usage, unless you're shooting with one of the 2X adapters.  I doubt many folks are using it with 1.33X adapters.  It would be pretty counter-productive.  

What magic anamorphic lens are you using where a night stop like 2.8 delivers a picture as sharp as a daytime stop with daytime light?   Also, are you operating under the impression that the lenses used to shoot Apocalypse Now and Die Hard and Boogie Nights and all sorts of other watershed scope films perform well at their widest stop, were used at their widest stop or focused close without a diopter?     Reading ASC interviews with the DPs that shoot these films there's a close parallel to a lot of discussion here.  Anamorphic is never chosen because it's easier to deal with, cheaper, requires less light and doesn't require diopters for close-up focus.  All of these things are a given even for the big boys and it's their choice in spite of the caveats.   The performance of the Bolex adapters being better than the big dogs, as pointed out by Mr. Wilson, is a lofty goal for all other consumer products but it's also kinda unrealistic.  Kinda like expecting a significant number of these things will ever be used to shoot something other than a vimeo equivalent test shoot (ironic here because that Porsche footage was done by a pro).

  Very nice looking indeed for imagery we're being led to believe in this thread isn't to be expected or, worse, even attempted.   ;)

  No.

  It's kinda interesting you mention this.  The Dark Knight Rises BD takes a cue from the laserdisc and dvd releases I have of Trumbull's Brainstorm and mixes aspect ratios based on the photographic process being used.  The 65mm sections pop out to full 16:9 coverage while the anamorphic pieces are letterboxed.   It's less distracting than Brainstorm which centered a 1.85:1 frame in the middle of the screen, both letterboxed and pillarboxed on a 4:3 set where the edges would pop out to 2.2:1 letterbox for the parts shot in ShowScan.

  ROFL   You can't prove you're right and can't post samples or references to support any of your claims.  You've been doing nothing but guess work on this subject and making the fatal internet mistake of assuming your experience or expectations are true for the world.  Not trying to beat you up here but you've not presented anything compelling at all or consistent with information that's a google away, if not already known through experience.     edit: the harsh reality is not everyone will be able to afford or support their interests.  They should design their projects according and work within their limitations.  They shouldn't be telling themselves or other folks stories so they feel better about it.     edit2: also, 35mm is considered medium focal length for 35mm-gauge photography (35mm - 50mm) and under this is considered "wide angle".  This does not change "because anamorphic".  The reason?  The same reason cropping and clever filters will never recreate the true magic of anamorphic photography.  Stop thinking two-dimensionally.     While you must be aware of what happens in the two-dimensional frame, a choice of lens, and the fact of its existence as "wide angle", "medium/normal" or "telephoto", you should also consider its handling of depth, perspective and relative shape and movement.  None of that changes based on sensor size or anamorphic attachment.

It's not all related to this topic but here's John McTiernan illustrating composition and film grammar:   http://vimeo.com/56000479   ...through all these anamorphic scenes the long lens stuff is a minority and pretty easy to pick out.  What's also interesting here is he illustrates and explains why he likes composing wide with wide angle lenses versus his reference to Tony Scott who will often compose a wide shot with a telephoto lens, even when he's shooting anamorphic.  Totally different feel.  Affects the viewer in a totally different way.   Telephoto shots are, generally speaking, in the minority for actual motion picture production unless the filmmaker has a specific affinity for compressed, telephoto composition (whether or not this is motivated or necessitated by having multiple cameras constantly running) like a Tony Scott or Peter Berg.  They're the special cases though and not reflected in the bulk of anamorphic cinema that's 99.999% of the reason why we're even here talking about this stuff.

Anamorphic isn't just changing the aperture shape.  Adding streaks is one thing.  Using something like the VidAtlantic filter to create an oval bokeh is another.  But these things plus cropping top and bottom to create a wider image are all two-dimensional affectations.     Daylight, stopped down, wide angle, deep focus anamorphic photography, not pointed into the sun (thus removing the telltale signs of anamorphic photography my mother can recognize) still represents a different photograph than the same scene shot Super-35 and cropped wide.  The anamorphic footage will have a different feel.  Anamorphic captures depth differently.  You have two effective focal lengths at work, one for vertical and the other for horizontal but depth compression and DOF are based on and consistent with the vertical focal.   I suppose if one of these future super-lenses were to capture a complete 180 degree hemisphere view it might be possible but...that's what I mean by "magick".   Manipulating what the spherical lens sees based on angle and depth is one thing but it would have to actually see more of the scene than your lens could see to create all the extra visible information that an anamorphic lens would capture.   For instance, sticking with Panavision or Kowa, since the math is easier at 2X, you'd have to stick a 25mm spherical lens on the camera to "see" the same width of the 50mm anamorphic but then you have the depth compression and DOF of a 25mm lens, not a 50mm lens like with the anamorphic.  Shooting 50mm spherical to get the desired depth compression and DOF would mean then pushing the camera much further back to regain the horizontal FOV that's now missing and an approximation of the anamorphic's vertical framing once you discard most of your image by cropping the top and bottom off.  And it's still not really going to "feel" the same even if it's even possible to push the camera back far enough.     In many cases it would necessitate digging a ditch to get the camera below the deck if the view is even slightly up-angle.

The only post processing that will create the same look as anamorphic would be actual magick.  

It's popular now because it's only recently that we have cameras capable of actually using the classic lenses as intended or re-purposing the the more modern adapters that were originally intended to overcome the straight jacket of 4:3 DV videography (which killed much of the 16mm and 8mm enthusiast and professional usage).   I remember the first time I ever saw the mini35 adapter for DV my initial thoughts were, "I bet anamorphic lenses would be awesome with one of these."   Lens makers are coming out with new lines of anamorphic primes and zooms which will, I'm betting, free up some of the scarcity of currently existing but maybe not as available options along with the stock that was bought up by people who really didn't "get it" and have grown out of this phase and moved on to the next thing they'll spend money on without really "getting it".

  I'll stop quoting there, because you're wrong again.  The C-Series is still widely used, as is their other, non-"Primo" lenses, including their Super Speeds.  Why?  If you did some more research you'd see that loads of DPs prefer these older lenses due to their smaller size, lighter weight and character versus the engineering darlings that are the Primos.     Discerning DPs, if you do some more research, are so smitten by these classic series of Panavision lenses they keep track of specific serial numbers so that they can use them again and source them from the US when travelling abroad (since there's evidence that Panavision USA cherry picked the best, gave the rest to the UK who cherry picked from there and so on, plus they've already done their tests for color and distortion uniformity).  In fact when you read about these lenses it begins to sound an awful lot like the commonly echo'd love certain other lensophiles have for certain Russian and Japanese glass around here.  Specifically because of their character relative to modern, over-engineered glass that strives to remove character as much as possible in exchange for clinical reproduction.   Cooke and Zeiss both offer anamorphic primes much wider than 35mm and I'll just make an assumption here that Hawk does as well.   These aren't specialist lenses.  They're appropriate lenses for the complete grammar of filmmaking and the myriad of challenges faced by filmmakers to tell a visual story with similar specificity to the written word. 

  This isn't true.   Their more recent Primo line may only offer a 35mm but that's not the widest offered by Panavision now or historically.   In fact, their wider offerings are in their smaller, lighter line for use in applications like hand-held, steadicam, etc.  Sounds like DSLR territory to me.   Diopter diameter may not be the most appropriate way of determining widest taking lens but neither is personal bias.

Yeah, I was just being a dick.   :)