richg101

unfortunately using a diopter will do the same thing as setting your lens to a closer focusing distance.  the closer you focus, the less the anamorphic squeeze.  a 1.5x anamorph will be 1.5x at inf, and around 1.3x at 1m.  with or without a diopter, the squeeze ratio changes according to how far you deviate from infinity.

A 2x anamorph will be 2x at infinity and around 1.7x at 1m.

It's an attribute of all anamorphic systems which use a spherical focus section up front.

Never the less unfortunately the terms '100mm front element', 'anamorphic lens' and 'affordable diopter' will never sit well together in the same sentence.

​preowned they can be had for under a grand a lens.  great value.  from tests I've seen they look great.  Still they're not gonna give you any more of a cinema look than typical modern low end zeiss like compact primes.  I'd sooner spend the money on a 35 50 and 85mm cooke s2 remounted to PL.  

True creative people will deliver better results with better gear than they will with inferior gear.  However limited equipment and resources will direct a creative person into thinking out of the box and as a result magic can and often happens.  One skilled person will use a single lens and get more variety from that one lens than a gearhead with 20 lenses can ever get.

Creative people work with what they have, then they get to the point where gear isn't a factor since it's just rented on the production company's budget.  Non creative people who like the idea of being creative use their limited equipment as a reason for their lack of productivity, they make NOTHING, and consume more and more gear thinking it might help in their success,  2 years later they give up and start a family and work a job they hate.  Then they die without leaving a trace of their existence.

You may be at the point where your work demands better dynamic range, capability to use better lenses than those for m4/3 etc in order to stand up against competitors at the same level, with the same level clients who might be shooting on higher end equipment.  The higher end equipment might not improve your creativity but might add to your overall output, boost your confidence, speed up efficiency etc.  It might also bankrupt you, cause money issues and affect your happiness and thus harm your creativity.

​not as flexible as the sony e-mount.  e-mount can be adapted to m4/3, but m4/3 can't be adapted to e-mount.  

be sure to only tighten the screw a tiny amount.  since when tightening you'll notice the optical cell shifts to one side.  this wont help since plane of focus wont be parallel with the sensor.

that s35mm crop is begging for the speed booster ultra!  I've pre ordered the A7Rii.

good news is its on an easy to access element.  keep it in direct sunlight in a  sealed clear bag surrounded by silica gel pouches.  always do this if lenses get used only occasionally.  the light and lack of moisture will kill it dead.

I use a ikea jansjo desk lamp to blast light into lenses on a regular basis - as well as some silica pouches.  

be selective of the tech you use.  most wont have experience opening an isocrama.

my choice would be this:-

Metabones Speed Booster Ultra Maxi=

optics to provide 0.6x focal reduction from 80mm image circle to 44mm image circle (medium format down to full frame).  No expense spared, even if it were the same cost as an otus.

mount: hasselblad v/rolei 6000 to e-mount - with electronic interface for af and aperture control of rollei lenses.

I'd love to compress all the information from my rollei apo symmar 90mm onto the 42mpx a7rii sensor.

Metabones / caldwell ?  You hear me?  

​on paper its an f1.7.  (or t1.6), but in practice shooting 4k on the gh4 it equates to the same dof/fov as a 40mm/f5.6 on full frame.  not as wide and 4 stops deeper dof than the 35mm/1.4 zeiss.  all in all a boring lens with little capability to separate in and out of focus subjects.  

Sony Full frame cameras might be marginally more expensive, but the huge availability of full frame lenses from a bygone era make glass investment a lot cheaper - particularly on the wide end.  Anyone who wants to prove me wrong...  show me the m4/3 equivalent of the £650 contax 35mm/1.4 on full frame.  There aint one!

​Why else would Bob Richardson (currently one of the most in demand and respected DP's) have shot the Hateful Eight on the bigger format?  Just for the fun of it?  

At the top of the game professionals look to the Esoteric in order to differentiate themselves from the norm.  Many younger dp's (proper dp's from Hollywood) and colleagues of Mr. Richardson will follow suit. - maybe not shooting 65mm film, but shooting big frame digital in order to get a similar look.  I bet my life on it.   

​It wont be the standard, but will become the benchmark and naturally the first choice for top DP's who want their work to exhibit a look different to the norm.  The Master 'looks' better than There Will Be Blood.  Both films have the same production values.  One is shot on 65mm film.  They look drastically different aesthetically and in quality terms.  If someone can;t see the difference - even when watching a 480p dvd release, it's likely they'll never understand the point i was making.

​Ignorant

​Projection is nothing to do with this discussion.  the fact that the master was shot on 65mm film means it has a 'look' different to s35.  Same with The Hateful Eight.  watch it on a netbook and the look of 65mm acquisition is still there.  

​Exactly!  Cinematic TV is exactly why Hollywood (Theatre movies) need to have something to make it stand out.  

The 'Average movie goer' does notice the difference - that's why they still pay to watch movies in the theatre.  The Average film viewer sees the film for the first time on Netflix.  If you think that The Hateful Eight won't receive extra press based on its larger format then you;re ill informed.  The Master (large portions shot 65mm), Interstellar, etc.  It was widely broadcast that these films were shot in a special way, and as a result had an aesthetic which was different to 'Cinematic TV'.

Pulling the actors, script, sound lighting, budget card is null and void in this discussion since it is a given that such things are in place for Hollywood pictures!

Hollywood needs to upgrade to bigger than s35mm in order to differenciate itself from the roves of cinematic mcdonalds adverts.  

Red - Vista vision (2 times the surface area of s35mm)

Alexa 65 - 3 times the area of s35mm

Alexa Mini - 4:3 sensor - 133% bigger than s35mm

A7S - almost twice the area of s35mm

Kinifinity kinemax + focal reducer = 1.1x crop of full frame - giving almost th elook of full frame

FS7 + Speed Booster Ultra = another attempt to get rhe full frame look

Quentin, Nolan, etc = the best film makers are going for big format in order to maintain the aesthetic edge.

Me - I've built FORBES70 which dwarfs even the alexa 65 in terms of image capture area. - I get 3 emails a week from dp's asking for quotes.  It's only a matter of time before I get an email from someone with the budget to build a unit based around the Alexa mini for a project requiring the big frame look.

it happened in the 1950's-1960's where the corps needed to regain the advantage and overshadow tv.  they did this with large formats for the epic and visually immersing look.

Arri are limiting the availability of the alexa65 for one reason - so they have a system to offer to the proper film makers.  The hire rate prevents shit kickers devaluing the system.

I don;t think it's error on your part.  A a generalisation almost all of the footage I've seen from the 1.33x and now this new 2x shares the same optical 'look' to the contrast transitions.

The contax zeiss lenses all have a blue/purple fringing wide open on extreme contraty transitions. but I can live with it because they are so damn fast and so damn cheap.  by f2.8 its gone and you get that refined zeiss goodness.

With the 1.33x and the new 2x slr magics I always see a visually unpleasant fringing of blue and orange - its like its being created by a forced achromatic or apochromatic correcting which is over corrected and pushing each colour further than it needs to go in order to align when it reaches the sensor. - it looks exactly what the century adaptors create when used with fast lenses on big sensors.  If it were just one colour i dont think it would be as hard hitting to my eye.  For example, LOMO squarefronts have this attribute, but the colours are not at completely opposite ends of the colour spectrum and thus it's less unpleasant and more a 'look' of the lomos.

.     

This test shows some of the signature SLR Magic lens characteristics I have grown to dislike.  

1. Reminiscent of the Century 16:9 adaptors:  

The Image quality in general looks degraded.  The image lacks any tack sharpness on the in focus areas, even at f4.  This couldnt be further away from what I'd expect from a frame size only slightly bigger than s16mm, acquiring 4k.  I can live with a lack of sharpness if there is a lot of defocus blur - since the ratio would make the slightly soft infocus areas appear sharper. 

The unpleasant blue/orange fringing on contrasty transitions (even at f4) is really hitting hard on the look and also making the image feel like it's had some type of 1980's filter applied.

I hate being harsh on people's investments, but it prompts me to suggest others shooting on gh4 4k mode to consider retrying the century 16:9 adaptors (Which are very cheap now), and since the sensor area from the gh4 is so small I'm almost certain the century will fulfil the needs of those investing 3 times the price on these new slr magic items.

https://vimeo.com/47971206

this was the century 16:9 with a 28mm lens on the old nex5n.  considering how wide i was going and how behind the nex5n is comapred to the gh4, as well as a sensor almost twice the area, the results are pretty good.  i imagine a super fast m4/3 voigtlander, the century and a gh4 would deliver awesome things.

​

For landscape, low end anamorphics are the worst choice.  Even the best wide anamorphics will never match a basic wide angle spherical lens.  Gone are the days when anamorphic selection is to obtain greater resolution.  shooting on 16:9 mode with a high end wide lens and cropping will result in an overall better image for when dof characteristics are unimportant.  Anamorphic landscape shots where all is in focus gains no resolution or aesthetic advantage   Barrel distortion is also an undesirable quality for landscape shots.

Annoyingly despite being 100% happy with the a7r and a7s combo, This is very exciting.  I'm going to avoid any more sony marketing otherwise this might replace both cameras.

​The key selling point of OTUS is that it provides the closest replication of medium format.  A 55mm f1.4 which is sharp and clean wide open on full frame looks very similar to a 80mm f2.8 on medium format.  I'd say a hacked 5dmk3 shooting raw, with the 55mm/1.4 would probably be the easiest way to get the look of the alexa65 with an 80mm lens.

The fact that they cut corners and gave it a cheap and easy to make helicoid with a rotating front element goes a long way in advising what to expect with their selection of glass.

Thread.....  Dead...

​I think the new price is probably a 'break even' price.  

​

It's unfortunate since I know just how amazing that ultra glass is.  I was gonna go ahead and make some user installed subpl-e-mount adaptors so kine users could use the Ultra on their cameras.  Decided not to since kinefinity started offering theirs. Maybe it's still worth it.