Sean Cunningham

Hi Thomas, great news !
I've been using 5dtorgb ever since I found out it existed, there's no way I could ever go back to using Mpeg Streamclip or Media Converter.  Great software you guys made !

The P6 Zeiss lenses are very good, especially the 80mm Biometar mine is a 1964 version pre zebra with a plastic focusing ring and it is one of the sharpest lenses I own !!  its a great lens with alot of character
 
 
or
you can buy the Russian KMZ copy of it the MC VOLNA 80MM F2.8
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/MC-Volna-3B-80mm-f2-8-lens-Pentacon-six-Kiev-60-Biometar-copy-Arsenal-/201051218476?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2ecf96222c

Something to consider while looking at the Jena series is I've read steer towards the Pentacon 6 mount and not the M42 version.  P6 is the medium format version.  Performance is reportedly about twice what the numbers would lead you to expect when paired with a smaller format camera.  
 
Also, it may be better to go for the "zebra" versions rather than the black painted or anodized "MC" version because I've read at least one reference that states the coatings on these later versions suffered from supply problems in communist DDR.  The earlier, larger, single-coated versions are going to have more "magic".  I don't know if this is true for the entire family of Jena glass or just the longer end, or just folklore but the proof is in the pudding AFAIC with the 80mm Biometer.
 
The DSO option sounds like a great alternative if nothing in the 28-35mm range pans out.

It's called 'contrast' sir. Hate the flat HDR look.

As a child, Batman, Jurassic Park and Terminator 2 were the first movies that made me want to make movies (even though I didn't know what that really required and meant when I was that young). But the first films that motivated me to make a movie were Scream and Halloween. I was way too young to watch them, but, nevertheless, I did, and they changed me. There was something so visceral about the horror in Scream (the satire was lost on me when I was 10) and Halloween was the first time I became aware of the camera, with that great steadicam cinematography (in 4:3 on VHS, no less. seeing it on DVD in widescreen years later was an even bigger revelation). At age 12, I finally made my first movie (on Hi8): a parody of slasher movies. Of course, in high school, the first movie that made me realize I could be a filmmaker was El Mariachi. My Hi8 movies looked like crap, I thought making real movies was too expensive and impossible, so I had thought about just being a novelist, even though my heart was really in film. With that out of the way, the films that really influenced me artistically...
 
2003-2004 were huge years for me. My sophomore and junior years in high school. Earlier that year (2003), Silence of the Lambs opened my eyes to the possibility of genre. It was technically a horror movie and a detective film in a drama's clothes. I think this was the first really artful film I saw, where I was more aware of the craft: the direction, writing, acting, cinematography, editing. I was aware of all of those things before, but this was the first film where I could see how they all worked together as a whole. And I realized film could be something beautiful, even with ugly subject matter. Speaking of which...
 
The summer of 2003 was huge. It started with Taxi Driver. That film knocked me out. It didn't have a conventional plot to speak of. It was more episodic. It was crazy. It was gritty. De Niro, whom I had known better for Meet The Parents at that time, was incredible. THAT was acting. His monotone voice-over, his charmingly psychotic smile, his lack of emotion during the graphic shoot-out. And of course, Scorsese. The slow motion, the overhead tracking shot a the end, the heavily processed footage of the streets, from inside of the taxi. It felt surreal. And the script; the things Bickle said in the voice-over really got under my skin.
 
Later that summer, in one weekend, I saw Rushmore, Ghost World and The Graduate. The Graduate I didn't really appreciate until I was older. I liked it, but it didn't fully click at the time. But , Rushmore was sort of a teenage version of The Graduate. I noticed the influence The Graduate had over Rushmore immediately, but I connected more to Rushmore. I was even the same age as Max Fischer when I watched it. Wes Anderson's filmmaker was so striking and bold. The tracking shots, the sharp, deep-focus widescreen, the colors, the wardrobe, song choices, title cards, curtains with the seasons, just...everything. Much like Taxi Driver, it existed in it's own slightly unreal world.
 
Ghost World I watched three times in a row, in one sitting. Like Rushmore and The Graduate, it was very melancholy, but also, in my opinion, then and now, the funniest of the three dramadies I watched that weekend. The dialogue was so real and so sharp. The filmmaking was pretty anonymous, but the storytelling, tone and mood were part of a clear vision. It felt so real, and as a teenage boy trying to navigate the secret world of teenage girls, it felt like a real window. I knew girls like Enid and Rebecca. I was surprised that the film was written and directed by men. I also had a huge crush on Enid. Not Thora Birch, but the character of Enid. Ghost World is still my favorite film of all time.
 
Later that summer, and into the fall, I saw Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill Vol. 1, which had just come out in theaters. Tarantino was practically all I thought about for a year. I read everything I could about him. I read all of his screenplays, and obsessively re-watched everything. I was an addict. I wanted to keep re-experiencing the high of watching Tarantino's films for the first time. Much like Wes Anderson and Martin Scorsese, the filmmaking was mind-blowing. It was bold, brazen, different. The structure and storytelling choices were unlike anything else I had seen. And that dialogue... I ended up writing a ton of Tarantino-inspired scripts for a year.
 
2004 included the release of three films that came out in theaters at just the right time: Shaun of the Dead, Kill Bill Vol. 2 and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. Of course, the last two were by filmmakers I had just fallen in love with, but Shaun of the Dead came out of left field. I saw it early, in the summer of '04 at comic-con, with Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright doing a Q & A after (Greg Noctero, Robert Rodriguez and Ken Foree were in that audience too). All I knew about the film was that it was a British zombie comedy. I hadn't seen a trailer, or knew much else. I hadn't heard of anyone involved with it. I saw it totally blind, and it was like walking down the street and finding a million dollars in cash in a bag. It was special. It was one of the funniest films I had ever seen, but it also had very real human issues and character drama. And of course, it was well-made and gory as hell. Earlier that year I had become obsessed with Romero's Dawn of the Dead, which had become more accessible because of the re-make (Romero wouldn't be a real influence, just an obsession at the time). After the screening, I was using the restroom and Simon Pegg peed in the urinal next to me. It was the closest I came to God at the time. I told everyone I knew they had to see it immediately. I don't really need to say much more about Kill Bill or Life Aquatic, since I said enough about Wes Anderson and Tarantino already. 
 
Later that year I saw two more important films, the first being A Clockwork Orange. I don't know what else to say about it, other than it was like Taxi Driver all over again. It was one of the most extraordinary films. The opening, with the synth score, the long-zoom-out from Malcolm McDowell as Alex, staring into the camera, immediately put me in a trance that I've never awoken from. That halloween I dressed as Alex. Around close to the same time, a kid name Johnny I knew peripherally, but not well, approached me, wide-eyed, asking me if I had ever heard of Eraserhead. I said I had heard the title, and indeed I had seen the iconic poster image of Jack Nance as Henry Spencer, with the hair sticking straight up, back-lit, with a crazy expression on his face and dust in the background. "You've gotta see it, man." Johnny told me. The next day, he presented a VHS tape to me. The cover art was there, though it was clearly a regular VHS box cut up into a slip cover to fit on a clam shell. I don't think the tape even had a label. It was a copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy, with video static at the bottom of the frame that Johnny claimed added to the experience of the film, and indeed it did. That night, I turned off all the lights in my bedroom and watched it alone. It was the first film I had seen that really, truly captured the feel of a nightmare. I thought about the visuals and sound design for several weeks after. I haven't been the same since.
 
Looking back on my life, those were the films that really had the most profound influence on me.

Yes, this is doable at a pinch...like you say with bigger rigs.

I used to own a Stedicam 'SK2' and you could just about get away with it on that, as the weight of the the sled + ENG camera + ISO arm would be great enough to carry some slight external attachment. I only did it twice with a BNC cable coming from the back of the camera, being 'cable bashed' by an assistant whilst I was operating. Even that was a real hassle, as the gimbal is so precisely balanced, any slight tug from the weight of the cable would effect the pitch of the steadicam.

A handheld stabiliser would be even worse, as the only isolation of of movement is within the gimbal, anything to offset its balance - no matter how slight will cause problems. By attaching any external tether/ focus whip to a steadicam (or similar), you are effectively making the isolated stabilisation null and void.

The good news is that many applications of fixed focus steadicam can be done with success, With a wider lens it will help smooth out any visible bumps, as well as keep everything at a sensible depth of focus. Anything other than wide angle on a handheld stabiliser is going to start to reveal the limitations of the single gimbal design IMO.

They have a variable power diopter in front of normal anamorphic elements that are fixed set at infinity focus. The variable diopter consists of a Plano-concave lens all the way towards the front then a Plano-convex lens then the anamorphics. The focus ring moves the the two Plano lenses closer and further apart varying there power. When the two Plano lenses are touching they have a 0 power when at their max they have a .5 power in the case of the iscos. The design and concept is simple but finding lenses large enough to work on anamorphic adapters is not easy. I have tested and seen this first hand on an isco and with some cheap demostration lenses and was able to make it work with a Kowa. It worked in concept but the quality was not so good. Also in theory the lenses I used should have had a 0 power when together but they didn't so it lost infinity focus. 

Oh my, what a silly little man.
 
Funny realy.
 
Like all cowards, when confronted with your ignorance you reply with child-like gibberish hoping the response gets you out of the hole you keep digging for yourself.
 
Watch out for the earth coming down on top of you. Dead and buried.....
 
In the meantime sunshine, give us some more comedy. I'm bored today.

when someone says movie i think of movie.
i repeat nobody is gonna make a movie motion picture with this new optic.
why would you.
it does not make any sense.
if your making a 1000 dollar movie ok maybe.
but that is not gonna be a film a movie a motion picture.
that is gonna be a you tube clip.
 
I'm not sure your thinking movie is in any way relevent. Have you even tried it? The adapter is a very acceptable piece of glass that relies almost exclusively on the look of the taking lens. Put on some stellar optics, and the Anamorphot rewards with stellar results.
 
Test it yourself before blowing FUD. With a script, some money and a great taking lens, you absolutely could shoot an indie movie that would be worthy of the best art houses.

Yes me, it's working perfect ! I have also put it on variable ND, so I can put the diopter alone, the ND alone, or the diopter + the ND.
It's enough strong to carry all this, even with my heavy achromatic diopters.
 

These guys have just finished a Kickstarter campaign which I backed.
http://www.24shots.com/articles.asp?id=282
 
This would be ideal - although you will have to wait until its on general release, or even see if you can get one anyway!

Stuart, I see you've met Gollum.  He wants to talk to you about his precious.  He might actually have less practical experience than a babysitter working under the 2nd AD and so he clicks "like" and takes his opportunity to commit irony.  He must have been lost in trance, staring into his collection of glass.  I expected his emergence from the shed earlier.

Er...Tony...I'll be making a movie on this China Anamorphot or one just like it...15 minutes of messing around run and gun is EXACTLY what we needed to see from day one with this thing, and we need to see more of it from other adapters.  

Just when I think I've looked everywhere, I find another source and another video...one of the better looking things I've seen with the Letus, but weirdly, suffering from artefacts I'd expect to see on my LA7200.  No silver bullet that says, 'buy it', yet.  Still torn between diopters for the LA7200 (almost there Tito, sorry), and an SLR Magic...or both.  
 

Here's my first compilation of test footage with the SLR Magic Anamorphot.  Even before the lens arrived I knew this would be an upgrade in both performance and functionality coming from the Century Optics 16:9 adapter I'd been using for over a year now but I was anxious to see just how much.    My favorite lens pairing on the Century Optics was my Nikkor 24mm f/2 which, on the GH2, became pleasantly wide instead of feeling more like a normal focal length.  Some folks hate the distortion you get from non-rectilinear lenses once you start getting this short but I love it.  It's a subtle curve that doesn't feel fisheye at all and the anamorphic glass + scope framing just accentuates this quality.  Paired with the GH2 both adapters can go a bit wider, to about 18mm-20mm depending on the lens design, but this Nikkor is the widest prime I currently own.   On the Century Optics if I needed infinity focus I also got soft, chromatic edges regardless of stop with the Nikkor.  This isn't always an unattractive quality and more than once I've read reputable DPs giggle over their choice to shoot on some vintage set of anamorphics *because of* their soft, soft-edged, chromatic character.  One man's lens with character is another man's junk lens.  Anyway, if I didn't need infinity focus then slapping on my Tokina +.4 achromat provided good, sharpenened up footage mostly free of chromatic effects.  The SLR Magic Anamorphot, on the other hand, doesn't need any extra help.  It's sharper at f/2.8 on my Nikkor 24mm than the Century Optics at this stop with or without the Tokina doublet, doesn't go soft at the edges and doesn't go all chromatic either.   Where I really felt the limits of the Century Optics adapter was anything above 24mm.  For straight 16:9 shooting I loved the look of my F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 even though it's a bit soft and exhibits coma wide open because most of its faults are hidden from the GH2.  To get soft but still *maybe* useful footage with the 50mm on the Century Optics I'd have to be at f/4 though I really needed to be more like f/5.6 which is decidedly not "bokehlicious".   Stacking diopters let me open it up but with a serious restriction on range.  With the SLR Magic Anamorphot I could happily shoot at f/2.8 on the 50mm thanks to its close-focus system which behaves like a built-in variable diopter.     Speaking of, SLR Magic decided to also produce a new line of high quality achromats as a set (+1.3 and +.33).  Where diopters are an absolute necessity with the Century Optics and LA 7200 adapters they're totally optional on the SLR Magic Anamorphot.  They become more of an aesthetic choice for further enhancing bokeh in close-up photography, enhancing its stretched quality.   SLR Magic rates the Anamorphot as sharp on lenses in the range I shot at as wide as f/2.8 though YMMV depending on the complexity of the lens design.  Some lenses have been shown to perform even better than the ratings provided by SLR Magic.  For the sake of this test footage I kept generally to the f/2.8 - f/4 range, which I anticipate will be my preferred spread of stops for shooting with the lens though for anything serious this will require a 1st AC to pull focus.  A few daylight exteriors are likely shot at f/5.6 but I only went further stopped down, to f/8, on one comparison shot against the Century Optics adapter.   

That facial AF stuff fascinates me, that it works at all.  Sooner or later they'll get some kind of optical flow or motion vector calculations in there to help it maintain continuity if the subject turns their head briefly, so it doesn't just go searching around.

This is my test video with my GH3 + 12-35 X + SLR Magic Anamorphot + Tiffen Vari-ND.  Sean is right, mostly used around 20-25mm wide end, and a few 35mm.  Everything shot with AF on Face Detect, so you can see it going in and out of focus.  Not the best way to use AF, but it was just me doing this.  Anamorphot was slightly mis-aligned, but overall AF worked very well.  Sorry about my ugly face in all of this.
 

 
Edit: I did Fast Color Corrector and some Film Convert for WB adjustment and added a little grain.

That's not really a "to each their own" case.  Discounting what I said in favor of a single aesthetic at the expense of all others on a production says you've never been in that position, working with real actors, or under those kinds of pressures.  You have the luxury of having that kind of naive position to take (edit: not being pejorative here).  I have to think practically and make choices based on knowing everything is a compromise.  
 
So I'd want to be a principle on production that isn't going to constantly be saying "no, we can't do that," or always slowing down setups more than camera department will be blamed for anyway.  I'm not going to impose something that will possibly incur more takes because there is now no flexibility with actors hitting marks.  Not only would this be wasteful and fatigue inducing it will also potentially lead to animosity between talent and myself, and I don't want that.
 
Not to mention, most narrative work is wider, not longer focal lengths.  You've got it backwards.  Dynamic movement and flexible blocking trumps preciousness in close-ups for most of the running length of a motion picture.  
 
edit: But even considering all that, on something like the GH2 a 50mm is the equivalent to shooting on an ~82mm lens in anamorphic 35mm terms.  This adapter allows full fluency of cinematic focal lengths, barring super-telephoto.  The key is to find the right taking lens to pair it with.  The 24mm corresponds to ~40mm in anamorphic 35mm terms, the lens most of Django Unchained was shot on and, I believe, many of the signature shots in Rushmore.

If FCPX works for you- it's a great value (+ Motion). I use FCPX for access to some of the effects but use PPro as it runs faster and has superior audio handling & better color grading built in (no color curves in FCPX?).

Resolve is also evolving into an NLE- very fast and even better color grading tools (somewhat archaic GUI and flow, but nothing a little googling can't solve).

I stopped thinking full frame when I started shooting motion pictures ;)  

I dont think it terms of full frame as I dont shoot full frame , I shoot m4/3
so a standard lens for me is 24mm and I think forward for telephoto and backwards for wide
 
so 24mm with a speed booster like this is a 17mm in my head, so it wide angle
 
 
I understand now that you think in terms of full frame - everyone does this different ,
 
I stopped thinking full frame when I shoot micro 4/3

Cheap CFL bulbs are convenient, efficient and economical - but they typically have a lower Colour rendering index compared to Tungsten based lights and other more expensive lighting systems. 

Just how much of a difference is there? 

You decide
 
(additional images/stills on my website: http://www.tommajerski.com/critest.html )
 
 
Shot on the BMCC 2.5k in Raw mode. Samyang 35mm 1.4 lens with no ND or filters. 



White balanced perfectly before the same colour grade was applied in Davinci Resolve 10. 


Debayered to UHD for better youtube viewing quality. For best results, set it to 4k quality and video on a HD monitor.
 

 
 
 
White balanced exactly to the same point before applying a simple Contrast + Saturation grade.

Debayered to 4k for best youtube viewing quality:
Select 4k Streaming 

Been waiting for your video!  Glad to see you got some great results!  I wish I kept my Nikon 24mm F2, but oh well.  The taking lens is so important for the look.  I think you're right about anything over 50mm (100mm FF) not working well.  I hope you can upgrade your camera soon.  So many great options coming out in the next month.  I loved my hacked GH2 too.  But with 4K, RAW and better codec options, it's about time for a switch.  BTW your brother's kids are adorable! 

I guess it's a balance of performance, size and price.  Letus has two of them - big price and big size - literally.  But performance - haven't seen enough footage to justify it.  SLR Magic has done a great job and they really balanced it out well.  The look is personal preference of course.  There is a difference in look for 1.5x-2x anamorphics no doubt.  But the practical side is hard - affording very expensive optics - whether it be Iscorama or Panavisions or Hawks; and also the physical size as well.  For small personal projects or indie films, you can't go wrong with a small 1.33x adapter that you can handhold.  Letus just seems way too large to handhold.  In any case, I wish you luck finding the right adapter. 

Here's my first compilation of test footage with the SLR Magic Anamorphot.  Even before the lens arrived I knew this would be an upgrade in both performance and functionality coming from the Century Optics 16:9 adapter I'd been using for over a year now but I was anxious to see just how much.    My favorite lens pairing on the Century Optics was my Nikkor 24mm f/2 which, on the GH2, became pleasantly wide instead of feeling more like a normal focal length.  Some folks hate the distortion you get from non-rectilinear lenses once you start getting this short but I love it.  It's a subtle curve that doesn't feel fisheye at all and the anamorphic glass + scope framing just accentuates this quality.  Paired with the GH2 both adapters can go a bit wider, to about 18mm-20mm depending on the lens design, but this Nikkor is the widest prime I currently own.   On the Century Optics if I needed infinity focus I also got soft, chromatic edges regardless of stop with the Nikkor.  This isn't always an unattractive quality and more than once I've read reputable DPs giggle over their choice to shoot on some vintage set of anamorphics *because of* their soft, soft-edged, chromatic character.  One man's lens with character is another man's junk lens.  Anyway, if I didn't need infinity focus then slapping on my Tokina +.4 achromat provided good, sharpenened up footage mostly free of chromatic effects.  The SLR Magic Anamorphot, on the other hand, doesn't need any extra help.  It's sharper at f/2.8 on my Nikkor 24mm than the Century Optics at this stop with or without the Tokina doublet, doesn't go soft at the edges and doesn't go all chromatic either.   Where I really felt the limits of the Century Optics adapter was anything above 24mm.  For straight 16:9 shooting I loved the look of my F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 even though it's a bit soft and exhibits coma wide open because most of its faults are hidden from the GH2.  To get soft but still *maybe* useful footage with the 50mm on the Century Optics I'd have to be at f/4 though I really needed to be more like f/5.6 which is decidedly not "bokehlicious".   Stacking diopters let me open it up but with a serious restriction on range.  With the SLR Magic Anamorphot I could happily shoot at f/2.8 on the 50mm thanks to its close-focus system which behaves like a built-in variable diopter.     Speaking of, SLR Magic decided to also produce a new line of high quality achromats as a set (+1.3 and +.33).  Where diopters are an absolute necessity with the Century Optics and LA 7200 adapters they're totally optional on the SLR Magic Anamorphot.  They become more of an aesthetic choice for further enhancing bokeh in close-up photography, enhancing its stretched quality.   SLR Magic rates the Anamorphot as sharp on lenses in the range I shot at as wide as f/2.8 though YMMV depending on the complexity of the lens design.  Some lenses have been shown to perform even better than the ratings provided by SLR Magic.  For the sake of this test footage I kept generally to the f/2.8 - f/4 range, which I anticipate will be my preferred spread of stops for shooting with the lens though for anything serious this will require a 1st AC to pull focus.  A few daylight exteriors are likely shot at f/5.6 but I only went further stopped down, to f/8, on one comparison shot against the Century Optics adapter.