Sean Cunningham

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.   

Wow Sean, thank you.  Someone needs to do this for the Letus, too haha.  Answers a few questions and just seeing that much natural footage puts my mind at ease.  I'd ruled out the SLRMagic for a number of reasons, now I'm trying to figure out how I can buy one immediately and not preorder from England!!!
 
You also do a great job of explaining in one place the benefits of 1.33x adapters, some of which, (vertical field of view and what-not) I had previously filed under 'it just looks different', now I know why :)...

With the caveat that any list of influences I make is highly incomplete, and that I try to draw from anything that may be a good reference for a shoot, here's some of my choices.
 
1. Fight Club
2. Bringing Out the Dead
3. M
4. The Wrestler
5. The Departed
6. Girl Shy (Harold Lloyd is known for his comedy, but the photography and storytelling in this are as close to perfect as I've ever seen)
7. Dodsworth
8. The Terminator
9. Paths of Glory
10. Dark City

My first anamorphic test, any advice and critic is well accept

Hi guys,
 
We just shot this video with the BMCC, Metabones Speedbooster, Nikon Lenses and Iscorama 54MC.
RAW files were developped in After Effects CS6 (with Camera Raw) to Prores444 2400/1350. Color grading was done in AE.
 

 
Please let us know what you think, we'd love to get some feedback.
 
Cheers,
Mihnea

Less than that from an iscorama 36.  this will be measured, but it's expected to be less than 1/3rd of a stop.  The glass surfaces are designed to accommodate more light transfer than a f2 aperture requires.  the only loss will be from optic reflections, but being modern multi coated this wont be much.  One of the main criteria in the brief is for the sections to deliver similar optical degradation to what you would expect from a rama 36.  - which even on full frame, the degradations are almost nil

micro 4/3 so it only uses the Center part of the lens!!  no distortions
they are very good almost optically neutral .
 
Most of the Centurys are made for Sony Pro Video cameras so they are optimised for smaller sensors not full frame .
 
Schneider Magna Com is absolutly stunning , this a a vaiable focal length reducer used in Cinama Projection lenses
the glass is high end industial , practically optically neutral .

I do really like your idea of a Helios with different wide adapters on it ,
 
I would like to see the 25mm version , as that my standard lens focal length on micro 4/3

And remember, "story" doesn't have to be a whole complex narrative.  It could be something of a theme explored or imagery related to a mood the music produces or some interpretation of the lyrics, literal or otherwise.  Here are some of my favorite examples of this where there's a story but not anything resembling a typical short film:
 

...these guys mix your typical shoot-the-band-playing-the-song type of music video with images that could be right out of a longer piece.  There's a "story" there but not one you need to really explain or explore beyond how the imagery fits the mood of the piece.
 
 


...here you don't even have lyrics, just mood and themes, but there is a "story" to be interpreted.
 
 
If you decide to forgo story, going with the seemingly "simpler" approach of shooting the artist performing, I've been terribly impressed over this last year by how creative and busy a fellow GH2 shooter has been, the young DeShon Dixon.  Armed only with his GH2 and a fast 35mm prime he's constantly doing videos for new artists in LA.  He has no lights and rides the bus to location.  His story is rather incredible and even though most of the videos have nothing approaching "story" he's often able to create something that keeps me watching, even though the music itself isn't to my taste:
 
http://vimeo.com/80451208
 
...he's fairly masterful at finding natural lighting scenarios and positioning the talent relative to what's just there, even at night.  Check out his VIMEO channel for other examples.

I confirmed just in the last week my suspicion that 5DtoRGB improved even All-Intra footage and this was visible with a simple A-B between the two clips lined up on top of each other, in both Premiere and After Effects, without any special tricks to highlight the differences (being slightly zoomed in did help, however).  Boundaries where the edges of very colorful objects meet darker parts of the image were smoother in the transcoded Prores.  In the instance of two brightly colored objects that overlap or otherwise share an edge this smoothness was even more apparent.  I also noticed areas with chroma noise being overall a little smoother (though that was only really apparent under magnification)
 
Not all footage will show off the improvement of course.  You need to look at the kinds footage or subject scenarios that hits color under-sampling where it lives.  Then decide how much "better" is worth the investment to actually do work with the better methodology.  
 
Premiere and After Effects show a slight difference in their handling of the AVCHD footage.  My guess is because you engage Premiere's precision as a render setting, meaning any interactive color correction is only semi WYSIWYG, unlike After Effects which has a color managed viewport.  Premiere does no chroma filtering of AVCHD to the viewer.  It might when you crank up the rendering precision and be somewhat closer to After Effects quality.  
 
After Effects does seem to do some form of chroma filtering to AVCHD footage when dropped into a 32bit project file.  It just doesn't do as good a job as 5DtoRGB.  Unlike Premiere, however, now I figure I can manually filter the chroma on the AVCD in After Effects and be as good as the 5DtoRGB filtering and skip the transcode if I'm finishing in After Effects, which is generally the case.

On paper,..
 
for a gh4 in non 4k mode you'll need a 25mm at f1.4 (approx) to match the depth of field / field of view equivalent to what you're seeing on your 50mm at f2.8 on full frame.  
 
in gh4 in 4k mode you'll need a approximately an18mm f0.95 to get an equivalent of what you're used to seeing from a 50mm f2.8 on full frame.  
 
And thus, the m4/3 system becomes less and less appealing from the viewpoint of someone used to the full frame look.
 
 
the 'equivalent' we all use as comparisons is also a very loose term very few people consider properly.  for example, a fast wide lens on a small sensor will never resolve the same in/out of focus information in the same way as a longer lens on a bigger sensor, despite showing the same field of view and ratio between focused subject and maximum defocused subject.  The dof will be a lot less forced on the bigger sensor, and to me I find this a more attractive aesthetic.  This aesthetic tends to be cherished more by still photographers, hence the natural progression from 35mm film was to move to medium format or bigger.
 
 
It's harder to demonstrate the intricate differences, but it becomes even more apparent when you look at large format photography and their use of a 250mm lens for a 'normal' focal length and you see just how much control of in and out of focus subjects the photographer has at their fingertips.  and that '3D pop' you get.  The rolloff is completely different.

DOF isn't fixed though.  It depends on distance to subject.  Give an MFT shooter a Noktor/Nokton lens and a stack of ND and he can make you think you're looking at 5D footage  :D
 
Of course, following focus on these tiny lenses, that's an interesting problem.

I just watched the trailer.  It actually looks like good fun.  There's an interesting aesthetic in a lot of martial arts films in this period.   Back in '83 to about '86 or so I was obsessed with ninja.  I loved the Golan/Globus/Canon productions with Sho Kosugi and that silly TV show with Lee Van Cleef (The Master).  
 
A beautiful anamorphic film from the '80s that has been an influence, I suppose, is The Ninja Wars, aka Death of a Ninja.  It's finally available in a halfway decent form as part of the Sonny Chiba collection as well as streaming on Amazon Prime.  You'll see a lot of motifs that John Carpenter would borrow for Big Trouble in Little China, particularly the "devil monks" featured. (TRAILER HERE)
 
It has a dreamy, storybook atmosphere that I think about and have thought about since I was a kid.  I normally like realism in setting and production value but this film and Ronny Yu's The Bride With White Hair have got to be my favorite use of theatrical lighting, sets and production value in a fantasy film. (TRAILER HERE)  
 
They're both very stylish while having fantastic stories and characters as well.

You Europeans and your laws. You have some absolutely nuts ones. I'll seriously consider taking my blog out of Germany and back to the UK if I was ever stopped from practicing my arts by tree hugging personal privacy nuts.
 
It's just unpleasant, which is why I don't really want to talk about it on the forum.
 
I was once out with Slashcam testing the Canon 1D C and testing the lens for focus breathing by racking focus some shrubbery on my side of the pavement to a woman stood smoking on the other side of the road, at least 25m away and out of earshot. Guess what, 2 mins later she was stomping down the U-bahn steps after me and demanding I format the card. Horrible encounter with a nut job. Some people just need to chill out. It is not the era of the Stasi secret police any more, it is the modern world we live in.
 
The funny thing is these politicians are always banging on about the freedom of artists and freedom of expression then putting laws in place which diminish freedom.
 
Dear Berliner on the street with your finger up... My freedom begins where yours ends. Don't overreach yourself.

Yeah it uses the full sensor area and samples at that resolution. There's no crop.

I was at the state fair last year and I had my camera hanging down my back while I was having a beer. some dude snuck up to it and did the shocker symbol and pushed the shutter button. He got off a few shots before I noticed. So I went ahead and put his photo on craigslist casual encounters male seeking male section.
 
And I laughed pretty hard about it.

For me the Sony heritage in the GH3's chip reveals itself in how it handles highlights as well as biasing towards a "cold" image compared with other sensors.  You can remove the cold feel or any color bias in your grade but there's nothing you can do about electric, harsh highlights.  
 
Both the GH1 and GH2 don't feel as harsh and electronic.  Pre-grade, the color and tonality can feel quite photographic and decidedly not camcorder-like.  For almost a year before ever purchasing my GH2 I reviewed shoot-out after shoot-out, with the GH1 in the mix with 5D2, 7D and other cameras and my eye always favored the image of the GH.  I lusted after the ridiculously sublime shallow DOF you could get more easily with the 5D2 but it's color (we're talking pre raw here) never spoke to me and even on YT/Vimeo streams it was easy enough to see other cameras didn't have as much detail as the GH.  The GH2 only seemed to improve Panasonic's position compared to all comers.
 
When I saw the GH3, before finding out Panasonic had outsourced its sensor, I could tell right away that something was rotten in Denmark.  The secret sauce wasn't there.  Detail, sure, but that's it.  The Sony revelation made everything clear.  Top to bottom, from the VX1000 to today's F65, I just don't really like the way their sensors look and top to bottom it usually has to do with electric highlights.
 
Anyway, Driftwood-patched (take your pick) GH2 is still king of the hill AFAIC if you have to shoot compressed.

A trailer for an upcoming feature film I wrote and co-directed.
 
We shot the movie on a C300 using the 16/32/1.5x Bolex Moller anamorphic adapter lens. Many thanks to the people on this forum for helping me figure out the logistics of this during pre-production!

YouTube Link
 

LED work lights are small cheap and filcker free
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ROLSON-72-LED-PORTABLE-MAGNETIC-WORKLIGHT-TORCH-CAMPING-LIGHT-/131131567723?pt=UK_SportsLeisure_Camping_LightsLanternsTorches&hash=item1e880cee6b
 
I have a whole bunch of them I cover them with LEE difuser and then use gels on them to alter the colour temp.
 
also these LED tube strips are superb ( as used on Only God Forgives film)  Ive just started using these this past 6 months to replace my Kinoflo lights as these are smaller lighter cheaper and flicker free they come in 3200k or 6000k colour temp
 
the 9w version is very very bright , I have built these into banks of 4 like Kinoflo
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/T5-9W-84-LED-3014-SMD-Warm-White-Fluorescent-Light-Lamp-Tube-Bar-AC90-240V-60-CM-/400588726101?pt=UK_Light_Bulbs&hash=item5d44f2df55
 
 
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/T5-4W-30cm-SMD-2835-20-White-LED-Tube-Light-Lamp-Bar-320LM-Office-Market-/111251225393?pt=UK_Light_Bulbs&hash=item19e716fb31

Very cool Andrew!
 
The only time I've ever really seen "content" become a hot button issue here at EOSHD would be when someone would inappropriately try to derail a technical discussion already underway.  It's a common pretense that attempts to establish the troll as somehow above it all while downplaying the importance of technical craft, education and experimentation.  It's completely disingenuous and bothersome behavior showing both a lack of respect and context.
 
Having an appropriate framework and context for the discussion should help keep things clear and constructive.

I do agree something like this is needed at EOSHD as well. I love to talk about ideas and get inspiration from people for shoots. My recent shoot at the Aeropark would not have happened without Lars telling me about the location and I've done a shoot at Crosby beach with a 80-200mm F2.8 based on James Miller's stunning Brighton beach footage shot with the Production Camera.
 
So I have created a forum for inspiring each other to go out and shoot, share stories, script ideas, talk films and anything that isn't gear related...
 
http://www.eoshd.com/comments/forum/21-creativity-and-ideas/

Drop a tennis ball into a football sock and then spin it as fast as you can in a circle above your head. Make sure nobody you like is standing nearby. That circle is your film. The ball is Content, the sock is Form. They need each other. One is not any more necessary than the other. They are the two essential ingredients of any artistic endeavour. The ‘art’ is in the spinning. If you can get the tension between the sock and ball right, you’ll knock ‘em out.
 
I really like EOSHD. Andrew knows his stuff and his reviews, if sometimes a little opinionated for my taste, are rarely boring. The thing I like most though is that his blog and forum cater to quite an exiting group of people. Low/no-budget filmmakers and videographers are living in exciting times - we all know this. I assume (perhaps wrongly?) that in one way or another the majority of you see yourself as artists who either don’t have access to enough money to make the films you'd like to, or who simply want to make films entirely on your own terms. I’m not just talking about wannabe Hollywood auteurs. I’m talking about anyone who is excited by the fact that good filmmaking equipment, allowing real cinematic creativity, is available to almost anyone now (even the new dad who thinks his kids are so great they deserve Dante Spinotti on them 24/7).
 
Of course EOSHD is a gear-orientated site, and gear is only one side of the filmmaking coin. On the other side the gear is in your hands and you have to actually create something good with it. That’s what this post is about. It isn’t about form vs content - that’s what’s called a false dichotomy (my title was a lie). This post is about our need to put the amazingly powerful tools we have in our hands to good use.
 
I’ve seen it on this forum many times now - posts asking if there’s a site like EOSHD for the creative side of filmmaking. I’ve wished for the same myself. If you know of one, please point me toward it. In the meantime I decided to set up a forum. It’s not my forum - I don’t know anywhere near enough about filmmaking for it to be that. It’s just a forum. If you guys have a use for it, it may start small and then grow.
If not, I’ve lost twenty dollars on a domain name and an evening in front of my Mac. I can live with that.  :)
 
Please have a look: www.creativcrit.com
 
GET STUCK IN, have some fun, maybe start a topic or two ... Everyone is welcome. On the homepage there are two boxes - ‘Group Crit’ and ‘Study Group’. The Group Crit is the place to discuss anything related to your own filmmaking. The Study Group is the place to discuss the work of established artists and experts (not just in film!).
 
By the way, in case anyone is troubled by visions of mutiny etc., this thread has the blessing of EOSHD. Creativcrit is intended as a complimentary site, not a competitor.
 
Thanks very much, Matt.
 
 
P.S. I’m very keen that the forum works democratically, so please leave ANY thoughts, ideas, criticisms, misgivings, suggestions, etc. below.

Hi there,
 
Check out my Iscorama 54 non MC shooting kit that I'm selling:
http://www.ebay.de/itm/291092214806?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649
 
A fresh test that I shot with it on the BMPC 4k:

 
The price is 2800€ on ebay (with all the extras i think it's a good price)
For direct Paypal you'll get it for 2600€ + shipping (we'll have to figure the best way/ price according to where you live)
 
Please read the full description on ebay and watch the pictures carefully. 
 
I'll be happy to answer any question!

I was reluctant to sell my LA7200 but I swear the SLR Magic Anamorphot is the better option.  If you have the money then I would say own both.  LA7200 is excellent for super wides, but you can use diopters so easy on the SLR Magic.  Plus the two diopters they sell are really worth it.  Very sharp, although heavy, glass that really does wonders for closeup shots.  BTW I never got smearing with GH2/3 with the LA7200 unless I went over 180mm.
 
I just got the 12-35mm X lens and I really like it too.  Has to be at F2.8 to even get close to shallow depth of field, but I really like it.  Great fast focus, IS works great and it's sharp too.  Not clinically sharp like most Panasonic lenses but really good.  I think Sean (BR) should really reconsider selling that old 14-42mm and get the 12-35mm X lens instead.  Footage looks way better and the IS helps a lot.

We agree on 1.33x lenses in general and I'm also with you on smearing in real life... 'The Mission' is a great inspirational example of this for me, Academy Award Winning Anamorphic Cinematography...edges look like an LA7200 all the time.  
 
I know companies can't control what random people put out but these guys got preproduction GH4s and free Letus' to play with and I just think it's a waste of everyone's time.  I see enough bad LA7200 videos and know my own results that I suspect the Letus may work for me, but I'd like to know for sure before dropping $2,700.  
 
I know people hate Panasonic lenses sometimes but I swear I'm getting a lot of mileage out of a 12-35 and an LA7200.  If I had a damn way of using the 35-100mm reliably I think I'd cave for whatever the solution was...even if it means having more than one adapter or some kind of diopter solution.  I'm just afraid of being light on close-ups shots and cheating some in and cropping is fine but it's not the same as we know well.