Sean Cunningham

if getting radioactive poisoning is what it takes to use interesting glass I'll take the risk thanks:)   If someone told me to eat the lens you mention, I'd give it a go as long as it was medium rare and not overdone.  a couple of button mushrooms, some chips and maybe a side garnish of horseradish sauce. - And if anything I'd end up more healthy.  Boom.  

10 μSv is the dose everyone just got from background radiation in the last 24hrs.
 
So 1 hour of cuddling the rear element of your radioactive lens = 1 normal day living on earth.
 
Just after Fukushima I went to Japan.
 
People there over the entire year had a 1,052 μSv dose of radiation based on Tokyo's readings.
 
That is still only 2% of what the US allows workers to receive per year at work!
 
Source: http://www.blacksmithinstitute.org/blog/radiation-101-what-is-it-how-much-is-dangerous-and-how-does-fukushima-compare-to-chernobyl/
 
So say you spent 5 hours shooting with your radioactive lens per day, EVERY DAY of the year. That is still only 1825 Î¼Sv exposure and still under 5% of the total limit which is considered 'safe' by the US authorities.

The only attempt so far, that I can find, of a comprehensive look at these adapters relative to the more expensive MB offerings:
 
http://***URL removed***/forums/thread/3627547#forum-post-53156458
 
...of course, charts don't tell the whole story.  Just ask the Helios 44.

Yeah, real world shooting will be more forgiving.
 
The Mitakon looks pretty good relative to the Metabones.  Being softer isn't necessarily a bad thing in some cases.  It's like a focal reducer, stop booster and OLPF all in one!

This is what Andrew Chan posted on EOSHD:
 
The SLR Magic Anamorphot works well with the SLR Magic 35mm T1.4 CINE II but it does not necessary work well with any taking lens. It is more likely for the SLR Magic Anamorphot to work with prime lenses with a front element diameter smaller than 50mm (not filter thread diameter). If the front element is larger than 50mm you either need to stop down or it may not even work at all. The lens is also more likely to be compatible with prime lenses.
 
So far this is what we know that works from user feedback:
 
Blackmagic Pocket MFT camera only
SLR Magic 17mm f/1.6 @2.8
Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 @2.8
 
MFT cameras
 
Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 @1.7
Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 @0.95
SLR Magic 35mm T1.4 CINE II @2.8
Canon EF STM f/2.8 @2.8
Contax 45mm f/2.8 @2.8
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 @2.8
Contax 60mm f/2.8 @4.0
Leica Summicron-R 90mm f/2 @5.6
Contax 100mm f/2 @5.6
Prakticar 135mm f/2.8 @5.6
 
'?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>>
 
We should make a comprehensive list for all lenses compatible with the Anamorphot.  Here are a few of mine:
 
Panasonic 14-45mm F3.5-F5.6 @ F4.0
Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 X @ F2.8
Panasonic Leica 25mm DG F1.4 @ F2.0/F2.8
Canon 40mm F2.8 STM Pancake F2.8 @ F2.8
Canon 50mm F1.8 @ F2.8
Canon 100mm Macro (non-IS) F2.8 @ F5.6
Contax Zeiss 50mm F1.4 @ F5.6 (for me, different from other people)
Contax Zeiss 85mm F1.4 @ F5.6/F8
Contax Zeiss 135mm F2.8 @ F8
Helios 44-2 58mm F2 @ F4/F5.6
Jupiter 9 85mm F2 @ F8
Nikon 50mm E AI F1.8 @ F2.8
SLR Magic 35mm CINE II (MFT only) F1.4 @ F2/2.8

More than once I saw a list that, I think, Andrew Chan posted with maximum aperture results on various lenses, as reported by testers and early adopters.  For the life of me I haven't been able to remember where I saw it, in a post or in e-mail and my searching through e-mail has turned up nothing.
 
I know I saw at least one or two lens offering sub f/2 performance.  That's more important to non-boosted MFT and BMD (or other S16 size) cameras since, if you're trying to match cine stops, you need to factor in your iris as well as FOV conversions.  Going between the GH2 and anamorphic 35mm is a factor of 1.64 based on the differential between sensor and negative.  So matching an f/2.8 on film (think the opening shot for Boogie Nights) needs an f/1.7 on the GH2. 
 

 
That's Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4-2.0 split and the +1.33 so that I could focus as close as I was.  Without the achromat I could still get workable focus at this stop from further away but it also firms up the bokeh.

Yowza!  I think my stomach did a backflip just reading about that.  I don't know how many times I've fantasized the MFT adapter un-coupling and sending my whole lens assembly tumbling to the floor, or dropping an achromat.  

Yes, but what that ultimately means is different based on the vertical height of your sensor.  Your vertical FOV determines your framing and distance to subject which directly feeds into your DOF at a given stop.   That may or may not be important to you depending on if you're using theatrical anamorphic films as your reference.  

There's definitely wider lenses to build out a Jena set.  Here's one of the best threads I've found on the subject, if you're not already familiar with it:
 
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?91477-Which-Zeiss-Jena-set-to-build
 
...down at #9 lists what appears to be a full set.  The f/2.4 Flekogon looks pretty decent in what little poking around I've done.  At APS-C f/2.4 is decent.  Assuming Metabones produces a Speedbooster for the D16 as good or better than the one for the BMPCC, you'd be looking at an equivalent f/3.5 or so compared to anamorphic 35mm, but that's using the BMPCC numbers.  The D16 could be better in this application because supposedly they'll open up the height on the sensor, one of these days, when they stop messing about with silly f/4 c-mounts and leather bags.  
 
Regardless of scaling up to APS-C a 16:9 sensor is still at a disadvantage because vertically it's still highly cropped compared to anamorphic 35mm on film.  Supposedly the D16 will eventually be 4:3 for anamorphic purposes and that will be pretty major.  Still, keep in mind the stops used on real films, even those considered "wide open" are rarely terribly big.  Django Unchained was shot mostly at 40mm - 50mm and around T3.1 while Boogie Nights was also mostly 40mm and 50mm, T2.8 for night (on really slow stock) and T4 for most everything else.  
 
One of the most wide open anamorphic films in recent memory, some might say irresponsibly so, is Killing Them Softly and they did shoot mostly in the lower T2 ranges but that's a very rare choice.  It's spherical films that need to be more open, because the act of cropping throws every focal more telephoto compared to anamorphic, forcing the camera to back off, pushing the subject in the direction of the hyperfocal, reducing bokeh.  That's part of what's to blame for Super35's reputation for sharpness and greater ease of focus.
 
On your GH2 + Iscorama project it makes total sense, the problems you encountered, because that 35mm was the equivalent of shooting with a 55mm lens in anamorphic 35mm, a fairly "normal" focal length, not terribly wide.  That Helios was the equivalent to shooting a 94mm lens in the anamorphic 35mm film format (anamorphic frame height = 17.5mm and the GH2 sensor height = 10.7mm so that's a 1.64 factor).

My advice is use Premiere and set the playback resolution to 1/4.

External drives are actually more common with serious editing, usually some kind of raid solution, sometimes sharing between multiple editors, etc.  This provides greater access to the drives themselves for maintenance and expansion while lowering downtime on the host editor.  Home editing of course doesn't have to be overkill though and a couple internal drives is okay for small stuff.
 
The speed of the drives and implementation used as well as the speed of the connection play a big part in external solutions.  FW800 connected to an inexpensive raid is plenty fast for 422HQ Prores realtime, for instance, and for at least playback I'm getting realtime QT proxy playback off a single G-Drive with RED footage over FW800 and that's an interface that's fairly long in the tooth now.   eSATA and USB3 are way faster.
 
Of course, you don't need to be editing with 4K footage and if your machine can't handle it you make offline proxies, edit just fine and concentrate on editing, and then do your online conform at 4K and render.  Like a real editor.  An overwhelming majority of the films you see in the theater aren't finished in 4K and of those that are none of them are edited in 4K with camera original files.  
 
Tyler Durden would have a lot to say about all this prosumer/consumer 4K business...

If you're boosted up to being effectively APS-C then you're in the range of the 35mm portions of The Master.  As these were chosen specifically for their ability to cut well with the 65mm portions of the film that's "interesting" enough for my money.  That's plenty "magic".
 
That film is tangible enough proof that not all is lost when going smaller than full frame.  PT Anderson and his DP tested literally dozens upon dozens of lenses, access to anything and everything, and this was the selection made for cutting between formats without jarring moments.  There was no portion of the film that didn't look amazing and without having previously read specific references to what scene might have been shot with what format nobody here can either say what is what or that the proof isn't in the pudding.

So, a medium format DOF adapter?  Neat.  Get that GG vibrating/spinning and it should be pretty cool.
 
What are you using for a transfer lens?  That fellow Henry was using an 85mm I believe.  I remember my M2 used a rather gigantic achromat.
 
 
edit: this was also how the fellows who shot Bellflower got the texture and feel for their film.  They used the tiny little SI2K and homebuilt 35mm DOF adapter.  There are occasional shots in there where you can tell the GG isn't spinning.

https://vimeo.com/88964445
 
pass : IMAX
 
 
IMAX from the Pocket:)

Sean please come over to the lens part of the forum and contribute here with me in this new section on lenses and lighting.
 
 
Not many people on this forum have gone through the whole process from start to finish of making a full length feature film -
you and your Brother have and we need you to share your experiences and how you did it and what 'do's and don'ts' you came across while filming .
 
You and I are into the same style of lighting with Practials and augmenting it to looks real .....a la 'Fincher , Bigelow ' etc

it depends on the use, and on the overall equipment you have, i have invested in canon so all my equipment is best matched with my mark 3
lenses extra batteries,mods, also im used to the ergonomics, which i think they are great! 
 
if you are a semi-pro i think the mark 3 is an awesome tool, 
if you shoot weddings like me the mark 3 is gold,
I have no use for 2k or 4k footage in weddings, it would just make things more difficult, time consuming..
 
if you shoot commercials then i think its worth going GH4 and 4k
if you shoot docs then again go for the gh4
 
the mark 3 is a workhorse, for me, and its softness is fair for the faces of people in my line of work, 
 
and if you are an artist go get a mark 2 hack it with ML get some vintage lenses and go wild.
the camera above all is a tool you are the one that makes it work.
 
:D

This is my fifth attempt to find an affordable stabilization solution for the BMPCC, particularly for the heavy setup with Speedbooster and Sigma 18-35. It works perfectly, and the only two things that are missing are
1. Pistol grip to be clicked underneath the cage with a quick release plate and
2. Lanc-controller with button on top of the grip for START/STOP.

 
It consists of an old, self-built shoulder pad with counterweight (aluminum rack, ~$ 5,- , bent in a vice and padded with foam rubber, ~ $ 2,-), a micro goose neck with 3/8" connections, ~ $ 7,- , filled with a steel rod, ~ $1,-) and a ball head (~$ 30,-).
 
The ball head allows for fast height- and angle-adjustments. I found this to be the most crucial aspect of all shoulder supports. You both stress your neck with only half an inch of unergonomic proportions and run the risk of unintentionally rotating your frame. Not with this ball head.
 
If you loosen the ball, you can screw it on or off the cage within 10 seconds. 

 
The counterweight could be substituted with a battery pack, and the rod that helds the goose neck stiff could also be a steel tube (well, perhaps, it could turn out to be too weak then) to hide the cable.
 
The shoulder pad doesn't look particularly elegant, I'm sure you can do better. 

Im up for moderating a section on lenses and lighting ,
I'll even film examples to post on intersting topics people can do ,
if anyone is interested?

I'd take a crack at it. 

I subscribe to the 'evolution' theory above.

There are so many changes in the video market, one just can't google everything. I receive newsletters from Adobe, Avid, BMD, Apple, Panasonic, Sony, CreativeCow, NoFilmSchool, Wolfcrow and a bunch of german sites, but I learn faster and more from EOSHD.

Here is how it works: Andrew shovels in articles. People leave their comments, many in the way of dogs who set their marks on new trees. But very quickly you have a broad scope of opinions, of aspects. They aren't reliable, many aren't even on topic, but in the end, one knows more.

I keep thinking that its not THAT heavy or way too big nor way too expensive.
 
Here's a look at AlexaPlus weight:
ALEXA Plus camera body + SxS Module: 7.0 Kg/15.4 lb
ALEXA Plus camera body + SxS Module + EVF-1 + Viewfinder Mounting Bracket VMB-2 + viewfinder cable + Center Camera Handle CCH-1: 8.4 Kg/18.5 lb
 
And in terms of Dimensons:
ALEXA: Length: 332 mm/12.95", width: 175 mm/6.89", height: 158 mm/   6.22"
URSA: Lenght:                12.35", Width:             6.12" Height (w/handle): 9.63"
 
So, in theory it'll be like handling an ALEXA. If we compare it to a DSLR or other small camera like a BMPCC, Cinema EOS, even a RED Scarlet well yeah its THAT heavy.
 
Price.... well... $6k vs an $8k up to $80k market?  Think about it... I mean it can't be any cheaper.
 
I agree that URSA is kind of a heavy-overkill alternative for us DSLR shooters but I'm glad it's budget friendly and by the looks one of good quality.
 
Remember, there is no perfect camera.

Over the last few months it has been a shame to see such good information from level-headed people here on the forum being totally drowned out by poor quality posts, bullshit, rudeness and just general argumentativeness or stuff which has nothing to do with filmmaking or even reality.
 
Frankly it is becoming a real pain to moderate and I just don't have time for it.
 
All over the internet forums are the same, they are all a total PITA to read because of a disruptive few.
 
I am considering a change to the forum which would effectively see it closed but for a few selected members who have a proven track record of good posts. The forum would have a lot of exposure and readers. Like a 'second blog' to EOSHD that everybody can get something interesting out of.
 
In preparation for the potential change over the next few weeks I will name the top quality people on here. Those who contribute interesting and cool stuff to the forum...
 
This is so EOSHD readers can check their profiles and check their posts more often - essentially I want to start drawing attention to the good guys rather than them always being drowned out.
 
By quality content I also mean good attitude towards other members, not just regular posting of constructive and creative stuff. People who help other shooters out when they are in need of it... and people who avoid the inevitable mud-slinging when someone with 2 or 3 posts jumps in to stir things up for their own enjoyment!
 
To have so much good info here especially on the anamorphic forum, drowned out by a vocal minority of idiots is simply unacceptable.
 
I'm not going to start censoring and banning en-masse - it is a shit job and I won't do it. I will simply close the forum and when it reopens it will be a circle of friends and 100% constructive. No bullshit. Like a cool hangout before the tourists get hold of it and ruin it.
 
Some may feel this is undemocratic. I will listen to them and get feedback on the idea before I decide on it 100%.
 
I just really think a forum with fewer members but LOTS of readers would be more useful to the readers of EOSHD.
 
So to those who get a kick out of a fight or a kick out of annoying myself and other filmmakers on the forum, it's time to consider whether you want the forum to continue, or whether it will end up being closed but still readable. I am thinking this could be the most useful outlet for the good stuff on the forum and a way to assist me in running the site.
 
Cheers - Andrew

It's not 10 bit YCbCr, and I've been careful not to mention that. Everyone knows you can't get 10 bit YCbCr from an 8 bit source even with a 1/4 downres (maybe an 1/8 downres, though). The claim is that the result is 10 bit 4:4:4, which it is. The DPX file wouldn't work otherwise. :) I think I've been clear that due to the limitations of the 4:2:0 color planes, only the luminance channel contains "true" 10 bit information. The color planes are 8 bit, and since there's only 1/4 the resolution in color (4:2:0), I can't sum the color planes and maintain the full resolution. There are still discrete chroma samples at 2K (so it's true RGB/4:4:4), albeit with a combination of 10 bit luma and 8 bit chroma. Keep in mind, however, that luma contributes to RGB, so all three color channels are being derived from a mix of 10 bit and 8 bit information. Green is almost all from luma, so the green channel is going to be almost all 10 bit.
 
Oh and as others have suggested, this app should work with other H.264/4:2:0 cameras just fine. If people find that it offers a real benefit, I'll consider adding a GUI and ProRes 4444 export. Or just maybe add the functionality to an existing product.

Stunt shots are not significant pluses.  In virtually any of these cases the SI2K and One Cam are even better and can go into even tighter places than camera the size of a GH2. 
 
I'm talking about the shots composing 99% of all other shots and making films that don't care about putting a camera in a cupboard.  The best films that have ever been made, that might ever be made, were made with cameras that couldn't go in these tight places and, guess what, nobody missed not having a shot from a cupboard, or looking out a glove box, or from behind a steering wheel or whatever gimmick you care to come up with.
 
The DSLR is bad for general shooting and must be kitted out to move right and let the operator see what they're doing, be held in a good position, and often these things are at odds with one another.

I don't have a mustache I can wax nor do I live in Echo Park and visit NAB on trust fund money.  Am I still allowed to buy the camera?