QuickHitRecord

From where I stand, I believe that making a living in this industry comes down to being willing to share credit and to take criticism, having a willingness to learn regardless of your experience level, and going out of your way to make the life of the person that hired you a little easier.
 
Also, punctuality and responsiveness to emails.
 
These are the kinds of people that I want to hire (and be hired by).

From where I stand, I believe that making a living in this industry comes down to being willing to share credit and to take criticism, having a willingness to learn regardless of your experience level, and going out of your way to make the life of the person that hired you a little easier.
 
Also, punctuality and responsiveness to emails.
 
These are the kinds of people that I want to hire (and be hired by).

I work for a big corporation. I have never freelanced and I often wonder what it would be like to set my own schedule and have more creative control. I suppose that the grass is always greener. But many of my friends and old classmates who freelance seem to think that I have the "holy grail" of video jobs. I never wanted to believe this, because I often feel that we are steered away from making the visually striking and thought-provoking content that I have always wanted to create. But then about two years ago, my boss posted an ad for another Producer -- basically my job. We got a lot of replies, and now every freelancer that I meet asks where I work, and then tells me that they applied for that position. We are certainly not the only in-house creative department in the area, but this has happened dozens of times.
 
So, the question that I pose to the other people looking in on this thread is this: apart from the established filmmakers, hot-ticket commercial DPs, and above-the-line production folks, are a steady paycheck and health benefits really as good as it gets for people in our field?

Looks great, Tito. I haven't seen the Foton used in a modern narrative piece before and it really shines. What a wonderful location you have there. I am curious to see what happens next!

4:3 Recording Times (5DMiii; 64GB 1000x card) 
1920x1288 > 98.9MB/s > About 10 minutes* 1600x1200 > 76.8MB/s > About 13 minutes 1472x1104 > 65MB/s > About 15 minutes 1344x1008 > 54.2MB/s > About 18 minutes 1280x960 > 49.1MB/s > About 20 minutes *I can record for about 30 seconds, but I can't get RawMagic to recognize files shot at this resolution.

I don't think that they appear for sale often enough to have an understood price point. But probably.

I'm just floored that Canon have made one of the most accessible cinema cameras out there -- and they weren't even trying.

I'm just floored that Canon have made one of the most accessible cinema cameras out there -- and they weren't even trying.

I'm just floored that Canon have made one of the most accessible cinema cameras out there -- and they weren't even trying.

I find that the aspect ratio fits narrative action better and gives the characters more room to move. I was reminded of this a little while ago, before I was even shooting with anamorphic lenses, when a client came in asking for interviews shot at 4:3 rather than the usual 16:9. I used to shoot 4:3 all the time, but it was weird going back and it was difficult to frame the subjects in a way that I felt good about. Now I feel the same way shooting in 16:9 during my day job rather than 2.35:1 or 2.55:1.
 
I think that for most people like myself who go through the trouble of shooting with anamorphic lenses, it's less about aspect ratio and more about aesthetic. There's simply nothing else that looks quite like it (well, Rich's FlareFactory lenses do come pretty darn close but I don't think of them as anamorphic; they are something else entirely). Not everyone will be able to tell the difference between spherical footage and anamorphic footage. But for me, once I was able to spot it, I was hooked.
 
Also, I certainly don't mind the ability to shoot at higher resolutions while taking up less card/disk space. 

I just did a test recording and can confirm that I am able to record continuously on the 5D Mark III at 1280x960 (4:3) for 20:41 on a Lexar 64GB 1000x card. 

I have not seen this comparison yet so I decided to test it out.
 
I tried to match the shots and then colors as closely as possible, setting the look with the raw footage (starting from BMD Color Space) and then trying to conform the AVCHD to it. The severity of the grade was moderate:
 
5D Mark III (Raw DNG)
 

 
FS100 (w/ Frank Glencairn's G-Log Ultimate)
 

 
And here is where the codecs really show their differences:
 
5D Mark III
 

 
Sony FS100
 

 

http://vimeo.com/70264199
 
I had all but given up on ever finding the perfect 8mm anamorphic lens, but I recently got my hands on what I think is the most rare anamorphic lens that I have ever owned -- the Zeiss Ikon Anamorphot 22/1.5x. It is almost impossible to find any information on this lens. I could not find any pictures of the lens, nor any test footage. In fact, the only reason that I knew that it existed was a tip from anamorphic Godfather Kostas Petsas, who also has one. He compares his Ikon to the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x.
 
Like the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x, it's an 8mm "baby" lens that is fully rack-focusable. The helicoid is smooth and has a very manageable throw, so focusing is no problem at all as you will see in the test video above. The slightly wider diameter actually makes the lens easier to focus the baby Isco, and of course it is much more focus-friendly than the strenuous focus throw of the Iscorama.
 

 
It's a little bigger than the Iscomorphot 1.5x (front filter thread is about 43mm, and rear diameter is about 32mm) but still much smaller and lighter than the Iscomorphot 2x or the Iscorama. It's nice not to have to add in a support system to hold the weight of the additional lens. Coupled with a DSLR, a taking lens with a silver finish and a silver clamp from Redstan, this could be a great stealth anamorphic setup.
 
I think that perhaps the most substantial difference between the Ikon and the Iscomorphot is that the Ikon is usable when the taking lens is wide open (at least at f/1.8). Though it is not razor sharp like the Iscorama, I don't see a limitation here. 
 
The minimum focus distance is impressive. I've been able to focus as close as 22" wide open without any diopters.
 
I haven't really put it through the paces yet, but from what I've seen, the lens has some nice, understated character. It's a lot less smeary than some of the 8mm anamorphics that I have used. The flares are thinly stretched blue ovals, similar to my Moller 32/2x (but I think that I may like the Zeiss flares even more).
 

 
I have been able to use it with my FS100 with a 50mm lens, which is usually my go-to lens when I first get an anamorphic lens. I'll have to test it to see if I can get away with using a wider taking lens.
 
I am excited about this lens. It is the easiest, simplest anamorphic lens that I have ever used and the image is very pleasing. I think that this is a winner. If anyone else has one, I'd love to compare notes.

I really haven't had much of a chance to play with this lens, unfortunately. But if our Government remains closed next week, I may have a few days off and perhaps I will get around to it.
 
It really does seem to be the full package, at least for my purposes. I think that mine looks pretty great at f/2.8. In my opinion, it has more character than many of the more popular and sought-after anamorphics out there.
 
(And by answering this, I am losing my '666 posts' status that I have been hanging on to for a while. Rock and roll.)

Make sure that the image stabilization is turned OFF on your lens.
 
But I suspect more that it's a side effect of shooting at 24 frames per second. If an object takes less than about seven seconds to pass from one side of the screen to the other, then you are likely to experience motion judder when viewing on a 60hz monitor. It is one of the limitations of that frame rate.
 
If you really need smooth motion, you may find that 30 and 60 frames (especially 60 frames) per second are better for your purposes.

After setting it up and calibrating it, I feel that the AC7 is the ultimate anamorphic monitor. You can switch the anamorphic mode I mentioned above on and off with ease, and the image that you get is so large that it is really easy to check critical focus, especially by assigning Focus Assist Max to one of the buttons. This monitor breathes life back into my GH2, which does not allow the camera's magnified focus assist to be used when an HDMI cable is plugged in. I could never tell what was truly in focus. But now it's become my primary anamorphic camera again.
 
I only wish that it had waveform monitoring, but the false color feature is pretty easy to use.
 
I saved some money (and weight) by buying the HDMI-only LCD version, but I can always send it back to SmallHD in the future for the SDI upgrade. 

Ah, now i understand!
Yes, totally agree - there needs to be a separate section were regular members (+50 posts) can advertise.

As the originator of that particular post (and other posts about anamorphic discoveries), here is a question that I pose to my fellow forum members: if someone finds an interesting anamorphic and there hasn't been much written about it online, should he/she:
 
[A] Post the information so that other people may also enjoy the lens, at the risk driving up prices?
[B] Share it with a select group of people via PM or email?
[C] Keep the information to him/herself?
 
I am curious to hear your thoughts.

Hey everybody, please let Convergent Design know that we want anamorphic monitoring on their new Odyssey monitor:
 
https://vimeo.com/72494555
 
If they add this feature, we will have a big, fully-featured, waveform-capable, anamorphic-friendly OLED monitor (and a great external recorder as well) for about $800 less than the SmallHD DP7.
 
Please leave them a comment!

I enjoyed that. Nice work!

http://vimeo.com/70264199
 
I had all but given up on ever finding the perfect 8mm anamorphic lens, but I recently got my hands on what I think is the most rare anamorphic lens that I have ever owned -- the Zeiss Ikon Anamorphot 22/1.5x. It is almost impossible to find any information on this lens. I could not find any pictures of the lens, nor any test footage. In fact, the only reason that I knew that it existed was a tip from anamorphic Godfather Kostas Petsas, who also has one. He compares his Ikon to the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x.
 
Like the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x, it's an 8mm "baby" lens that is fully rack-focusable. The helicoid is smooth and has a very manageable throw, so focusing is no problem at all as you will see in the test video above. The slightly wider diameter actually makes the lens easier to focus the baby Isco, and of course it is much more focus-friendly than the strenuous focus throw of the Iscorama.
 

 
It's a little bigger than the Iscomorphot 1.5x (front filter thread is about 43mm, and rear diameter is about 32mm) but still much smaller and lighter than the Iscomorphot 2x or the Iscorama. It's nice not to have to add in a support system to hold the weight of the additional lens. Coupled with a DSLR, a taking lens with a silver finish and a silver clamp from Redstan, this could be a great stealth anamorphic setup.
 
I think that perhaps the most substantial difference between the Ikon and the Iscomorphot is that the Ikon is usable when the taking lens is wide open (at least at f/1.8). Though it is not razor sharp like the Iscorama, I don't see a limitation here. 
 
The minimum focus distance is impressive. I've been able to focus as close as 22" wide open without any diopters.
 
I haven't really put it through the paces yet, but from what I've seen, the lens has some nice, understated character. It's a lot less smeary than some of the 8mm anamorphics that I have used. The flares are thinly stretched blue ovals, similar to my Moller 32/2x (but I think that I may like the Zeiss flares even more).
 

 
I have been able to use it with my FS100 with a 50mm lens, which is usually my go-to lens when I first get an anamorphic lens. I'll have to test it to see if I can get away with using a wider taking lens.
 
I am excited about this lens. It is the easiest, simplest anamorphic lens that I have ever used and the image is very pleasing. I think that this is a winner. If anyone else has one, I'd love to compare notes.

About $200.
 
eBay.

http://vimeo.com/70264199
 
I had all but given up on ever finding the perfect 8mm anamorphic lens, but I recently got my hands on what I think is the most rare anamorphic lens that I have ever owned -- the Zeiss Ikon Anamorphot 22/1.5x. It is almost impossible to find any information on this lens. I could not find any pictures of the lens, nor any test footage. In fact, the only reason that I knew that it existed was a tip from anamorphic Godfather Kostas Petsas, who also has one. He compares his Ikon to the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x.
 
Like the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x, it's an 8mm "baby" lens that is fully rack-focusable. The helicoid is smooth and has a very manageable throw, so focusing is no problem at all as you will see in the test video above. The slightly wider diameter actually makes the lens easier to focus the baby Isco, and of course it is much more focus-friendly than the strenuous focus throw of the Iscorama.
 

 
It's a little bigger than the Iscomorphot 1.5x (front filter thread is about 43mm, and rear diameter is about 32mm) but still much smaller and lighter than the Iscomorphot 2x or the Iscorama. It's nice not to have to add in a support system to hold the weight of the additional lens. Coupled with a DSLR, a taking lens with a silver finish and a silver clamp from Redstan, this could be a great stealth anamorphic setup.
 
I think that perhaps the most substantial difference between the Ikon and the Iscomorphot is that the Ikon is usable when the taking lens is wide open (at least at f/1.8). Though it is not razor sharp like the Iscorama, I don't see a limitation here. 
 
The minimum focus distance is impressive. I've been able to focus as close as 22" wide open without any diopters.
 
I haven't really put it through the paces yet, but from what I've seen, the lens has some nice, understated character. It's a lot less smeary than some of the 8mm anamorphics that I have used. The flares are thinly stretched blue ovals, similar to my Moller 32/2x (but I think that I may like the Zeiss flares even more).
 

 
I have been able to use it with my FS100 with a 50mm lens, which is usually my go-to lens when I first get an anamorphic lens. I'll have to test it to see if I can get away with using a wider taking lens.
 
I am excited about this lens. It is the easiest, simplest anamorphic lens that I have ever used and the image is very pleasing. I think that this is a winner. If anyone else has one, I'd love to compare notes.

http://vimeo.com/70264199
 
I had all but given up on ever finding the perfect 8mm anamorphic lens, but I recently got my hands on what I think is the most rare anamorphic lens that I have ever owned -- the Zeiss Ikon Anamorphot 22/1.5x. It is almost impossible to find any information on this lens. I could not find any pictures of the lens, nor any test footage. In fact, the only reason that I knew that it existed was a tip from anamorphic Godfather Kostas Petsas, who also has one. He compares his Ikon to the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x.
 
Like the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x, it's an 8mm "baby" lens that is fully rack-focusable. The helicoid is smooth and has a very manageable throw, so focusing is no problem at all as you will see in the test video above. The slightly wider diameter actually makes the lens easier to focus the baby Isco, and of course it is much more focus-friendly than the strenuous focus throw of the Iscorama.
 

 
It's a little bigger than the Iscomorphot 1.5x (front filter thread is about 43mm, and rear diameter is about 32mm) but still much smaller and lighter than the Iscomorphot 2x or the Iscorama. It's nice not to have to add in a support system to hold the weight of the additional lens. Coupled with a DSLR, a taking lens with a silver finish and a silver clamp from Redstan, this could be a great stealth anamorphic setup.
 
I think that perhaps the most substantial difference between the Ikon and the Iscomorphot is that the Ikon is usable when the taking lens is wide open (at least at f/1.8). Though it is not razor sharp like the Iscorama, I don't see a limitation here. 
 
The minimum focus distance is impressive. I've been able to focus as close as 22" wide open without any diopters.
 
I haven't really put it through the paces yet, but from what I've seen, the lens has some nice, understated character. It's a lot less smeary than some of the 8mm anamorphics that I have used. The flares are thinly stretched blue ovals, similar to my Moller 32/2x (but I think that I may like the Zeiss flares even more).
 

 
I have been able to use it with my FS100 with a 50mm lens, which is usually my go-to lens when I first get an anamorphic lens. I'll have to test it to see if I can get away with using a wider taking lens.
 
I am excited about this lens. It is the easiest, simplest anamorphic lens that I have ever used and the image is very pleasing. I think that this is a winner. If anyone else has one, I'd love to compare notes.

http://vimeo.com/70264199
 
I had all but given up on ever finding the perfect 8mm anamorphic lens, but I recently got my hands on what I think is the most rare anamorphic lens that I have ever owned -- the Zeiss Ikon Anamorphot 22/1.5x. It is almost impossible to find any information on this lens. I could not find any pictures of the lens, nor any test footage. In fact, the only reason that I knew that it existed was a tip from anamorphic Godfather Kostas Petsas, who also has one. He compares his Ikon to the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x.
 
Like the Iscomorphot 8/1.5x, it's an 8mm "baby" lens that is fully rack-focusable. The helicoid is smooth and has a very manageable throw, so focusing is no problem at all as you will see in the test video above. The slightly wider diameter actually makes the lens easier to focus the baby Isco, and of course it is much more focus-friendly than the strenuous focus throw of the Iscorama.
 

 
It's a little bigger than the Iscomorphot 1.5x (front filter thread is about 43mm, and rear diameter is about 32mm) but still much smaller and lighter than the Iscomorphot 2x or the Iscorama. It's nice not to have to add in a support system to hold the weight of the additional lens. Coupled with a DSLR, a taking lens with a silver finish and a silver clamp from Redstan, this could be a great stealth anamorphic setup.
 
I think that perhaps the most substantial difference between the Ikon and the Iscomorphot is that the Ikon is usable when the taking lens is wide open (at least at f/1.8). Though it is not razor sharp like the Iscorama, I don't see a limitation here. 
 
The minimum focus distance is impressive. I've been able to focus as close as 22" wide open without any diopters.
 
I haven't really put it through the paces yet, but from what I've seen, the lens has some nice, understated character. It's a lot less smeary than some of the 8mm anamorphics that I have used. The flares are thinly stretched blue ovals, similar to my Moller 32/2x (but I think that I may like the Zeiss flares even more).
 

 
I have been able to use it with my FS100 with a 50mm lens, which is usually my go-to lens when I first get an anamorphic lens. I'll have to test it to see if I can get away with using a wider taking lens.
 
I am excited about this lens. It is the easiest, simplest anamorphic lens that I have ever used and the image is very pleasing. I think that this is a winner. If anyone else has one, I'd love to compare notes.