richg101

a7s and set wb correctly so you dont have to correct as much?  the kelvin scale gets you close, then a bias will do the rest.  the 8bit 4;2;0 issue became null and void when the image you get from the a7s is so solid in low light the lack of depth is made up for.  correct exposure, correct wb and zero noise is better than a murky 10bit 4.2.2 image with loads of noise masking the colour information.    

Does it also have this "field curvature" on the vertical axis?

The skyline shot is showing how drastic the difference in squeeze ratio the cinelux has from middle to edge of it's physical limit  any wider taking lens and the edges of the front of the cinelux are visible.  notice the difference in oval bokeh at the edges of the frame.  the point of focus (the aerial on the chimneys) for this shot is approximately 15mtrs away.  

C/Y , ZF/ZE or Otus? Thanks!

trusty old C/Y - west german.  this is however a 'good example'.  I have worked on a lot of these 85mm's and this one has the least fringing wide open of the lot.

and another.  wide open at f1.4.

Here is an example of the cinelux es 2x running on the zeiss 85mm f1.4, wide open on full frame.  no cropping.  3:2 still from the A7r then de squeezed.  Incredible image quality.

though in 90% of cases things like the difference between a canon nifty fifity on a 550d / t2i vs a c300 + a zeiss 50 is overlooked, it should be noted that if you want the really good clients, they'll be used to seeing the results from proper cameras and proper lenses.  

Personally I don;t aspire to service clients who can;t tell the difference since then the hard work also gets overlooked in the same way. 

a personal favourite for dslr's with live view through a built in evf is to use a battery grip and bring the evf to exactly the right eye level when the base of the battery grip rests against my shoulder.  it adds a very solid point of contact, and since the shoulder is all bone you get no heartbeat/micro shakes.  

this technique has 4 points of contact-  the eyebrow, the shoulder and both hands.  added to this, the elbows can be kept close to the chest forming a very solid shooting position.  pans are also easy since you can lock your upper body and just rotate your hips/waist for a smooth 180degree pan.

 yep 50mm 1.7 Carl Zeiss in C/Y is a killer lens - may fave 50mm

yep.  with a focal reducer it will become a 35mm f1.3, and even at f1.7 (f1.3) it'll be a wild man for resolving power onto the 4k sensor.  go to f2.8 (f2) and it'll be unreal.

Unfortunately not much time for extensive testing.

 

Focus Module with ES Cinelux 2x:

 

Taking Lens: Nikon 35mm @ f2

GH4 4k Photo Mode @ 4:3
Picture Profile: CineV -5/-5/-5/-5/ 0 iso 200-1200

I think this looks very good.  Not forced and without loads of shallowness.   The rather overcast lighting is helping things out i imagine.  is there much edge glow on high contrast shots with that 35mm f2?  

What is concerning is that what with the gh4's crop of 2.3? in 4k mode the 35mm lens is about as wide as you can go - and it is yielding a similar fov to an 85mm on full frame (again the widest taking lens for full frame).  However having to be wide open to get any type of defocus blur it looks like the 35mm is struggling to deliver adequate levels of resolution to feed than small imaging area and is mushing things a little.   Granted, the vimeo compression is hurting things, but the overall look doesnt look like it was acquired in 4k

I'm pretty sure a 50mm + speed booster copy would be a much better option since it will compress more of the 50's resolving power into the sensor, gain more control of dof due to the faster aperture and longer focal length.  I think a 50mm f1.7 contax + a camdiox speed booster for m4/3 will be the order of the day on smaller sensors!  

I agree.  The 85 at f2 looks wonderful.  it's got that look I love from anamorphics.  As it gets cleaner it's still anamorphic, but not LOMO anamorphic like it looks wide open

Those damn ninja star aperture blades then the 85/2 is set to f2.8!  Other than that, the results are really good and i like the glow.  I have a feeling it might be from the cold - creating misting on one or more of the optics?    

I am forced to blow my own trumpet again - and with my back ache, I need to limit how much I do this! :)

I am absolutely certain that there is a difference between rendering of imagery between smaller and larger sensors.  I see a difference, and obviously professionals who spend £80k on a medium format digital back see it as well - otherwise they'd just shoot 36x24 and pocket the difference.

You write that condescendingly but this and this (shot with a phase one) are both examples of shallow DOF. With the latter being more about background separation. If you disagree then there's surely some kind of conflict in our terminology..

What you are disregarding is that dof isnt just about the ratio between the in focus and out of focus blur.  It's about the intimate step between the two.  Generally when comparing a longer and a shorter focal length (both of the same quality), the longer focal length will be higher resolution with less aberrations, distortion, and less vignette wide open.  This is known as a rule which is rarely broken.  a fast 50 will always be better than the same quality fast 35mm.

when you add these apparent strengths of a longer focal length and then obtain a wider fov by increasing the format size you maintain the quality of the longer focal length while gaining the same fov as the wider lens delivers on the smaller format.  This is what makes the difference - the ratio between in focus resolution and the amount of blur is contributing to the clear difference between how different formats render the same fov's.

The reason fast zeisses lenses are known to have their 'zeiss 3d pop' is because they are able to deliver large amounts of defocus blur while also delivering very sharp in focus subjects.  A 50mm 2.8 hasselblad distagon on 6x6 format 50iso will out perform a 25mm f1.4 (if there was such a thing worth mentioning!) on s35mm at 50iso when we consider both will render similar fov and dof ratio but the 50 f2.8 distagon is razor sharp at f2.8 and the 25mm f1.4 will be nasty and need to be closed to f2.8-f4 before it comes close to the resolution of the 50.

the 25mm will be 'in focus' on the subject,  but in comparison to the 50mm lens the in focus area won't look sharp.  

If only he'd backtrack 20 or so years to the days of terminator2 and aliens..  making 18 certificate action movies with practical efx and soul.

My iscorama just lost it's value...  goes to show how powerful an 85mm + full frame + 2x ovals + 2.66 :1 is!

Had a feeling it might sway, which is why the lens holder should have some sort of bayonet. Seems to flare quite a bit, even when you where looking at the dog, some stray light causing some artifact, which makes me wonder is it multi-coated.

I imagine the front face is almost flat and will therefore catch the light at certain angles.  Bear in mind the light causing the flare is the only light in the room and that flare wouldnt be very noticeable with more light in the room - i bet he was at 16000iso to bring that flare up!

I'm seeing that nasty distortion from the 3.55:1 aspect ratio the 16:9 sensor is deivering - not as strong as what we'll see form the cinelux, but on pans it seems rather distracting.  I'm dreading this thread as more and more tests show up - it means I'll need to get the mastercard out at this rate! 

 Might be asking for too much here, though, as that requires actually using the cameras...

Pop out and shoot something then:)  - easy!

Rich where did that dropbox image come from, you have an FM unit and your not shouting about it? what gives.

ah I get it this is before the FM unit, different setup.

due to funds being tied up in scary optical developments I've yet to be able to put hard cash down on an FM module:(  Based on my experiences, the two optics that make up the fm module variable diopter are very unlikely to cause any degradation to what we're seeing here in my cinelux tests.  even if resolving power were to be degraded by half, the optical path will still deliver resolutions good enough for 4k at f1.4 on full frame.  I donlt think even panavision's modern anamorphics can deliver this level of resolution at such speeds

a smaller sensor + wider lens will usually outdo a bigger sensor + longer lens if deep dof and low light performance is important.  

However, the A7S in full frame mode, ramped up to 6400 to accommodate an f5.6 aperture on a 35mm lens will likely come close to outdoing what the gh4 will need to be set up as in 4k mode to get the same d0f/fov ratio:- 15mm @ f2.8 running at 1600iso.   there are very few 15mm lenses that will match a basic 35mm at f5.6 in resolution terms - I very much doubt there are many that will also deliver 4k into such a small area when in 4k mode. 

the two moon shaped sides are a little separation.  the other is cement.  neither should effect the performance, - if any effect it might be that the opened optical faces might catch the light when flaring from off axis light sources.  the effects will be small but will drastically reduce it;s value if you ever sell it.  bear that in mind when offering the amount you do for it.  

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7xyzd48ujcgl396/DSC00237%28100%25crop_f1.4_far%20corner.jpg?dl=0

100% crop of the top right corner of the 8K still (36mpx) from the A7R in full frame mode with the zeiss at f1.4 wide open.  Astounding

Richg101, could you post some 36mp samples with a 85 1.4?

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a86l8cq9vzio1gn/AACpiLt-1sPRWSie1nWFR9zRa?dl=0

6 shots.  just jpg's.  full frame 36mpx.  

first 3 images show centre performance at:-

f1.4, f2. and f2.8

the final 3 images also show f1.4, f2 and f2.8

chart was approximately 2.5mtrs away.  No focus adjustment between the centre and the corner sharpness shots

flare isnt aligned since I had to tape the cinelux to the planar due to not having a suitable step ring to hand.  

as with most schools, the people teaching are quite often the ones who never made it in the real world.  If they had done, they'd be on set rather than taking the money from people who don;t know better.  Obviously this is a generalisation, but unless you're being taught by someone who actually has some proper background, don;t pay a penny! 

put the money in the bank, and live off it while working for free in the real world in a decent place with real people.

My Isco Ultrastar is also sharper edge to edge than the Isco 36. LOTS of resolution! And from what I've been able to judge on sample shots - it seems like the cinelux resolves far more than the Ultrastar. And Andy keeps on calling the cinelux the "king", and I guess he's tried a few :)

yes, I am astounded by the cineluxes I've been testing.  85mm f1.4 no sweat on full frame.  As i said on a previous topic, the lack of multiple elements of these modern lenses (only 2 elements in the cinelux) are going to seriously limit the amount of character the cinelux imparts on the image - we wont see magic like you see from the old Panavision or Todd-AO lenses as used in Apocalypse Now.  

I've been considering some approaches to increase the number of elements in the optical path to promote more internal face to face reflections and thus impart those much loved looks - glowing ovals during flaring, etc.

 My first thought was to install a UV filter on both the front face of the cinelux installed directly inside the FM unit, and another on the back of the cinelux between the cinelus and the taking lens.  Sourcing vintage UV filters will be a good move since they will have been subjected to use, not to mention glass choice may be better quality - Borosilicate rather than window glass!

obviously the approach will reduce light transmission slightly, but will likely promote some glass face interactions and more flaring.

if you can find a +1 achromat it'll still be a great addition to any lens collection.  a +0.5 non achromat isnt really that special since it doesnt correct for CA and using on anything more than a small sensor/aperture it'll degrade the optical quality.  But the reasons a +0.4 achromat is more desirable than a +1 achromat is this:-

a +0.4 achromat will reduce the minimum focus distance of your lens to almost half it;s original minimum focus (if you have a 1m minimum, the +0.4 achromat will change minimum to 0.6m.  However due to the weak diopter value it will still allow focus to all the way to 2.2mtrs.  this is a really good focus range for racking indoors.

a +1 achromat will reduce a 1m minimum to 0.2m so can get closer, but maximum distance when the lens is set to infinity will be 1 meter.

As a result, your focus pull range is drastically reduced.

So to answer your question, the reason is that a weaker diopter value lends itself well for users requiring focus pulling between 0.6m - 2.2m - still a rather useful range for medium/close shots, or powerful closeups from fast 85mm lenses which tend to have a minimum focus of 1m or longer.

I'm very excited about this lens.  Only recently have I been seeing optical characteristics from my iscorama that I feel could be better.  The cinelux does this - it;s drastically sharper than the isco 36 from edge to edge on full frame it would appear.  ````so focusing it with this unit should deliver maybe one of the sharpest anamorphic systems available. - assuming they didnt get the two front elements drastically wrong!

One of the primary concerns i see is the rotating front element.  @hans-Punk mentioned earlier in a previous topic that he is intending on fitting a uv filter straight away - since any coating damage or build up of grease can show up during focus pulls where flaring might be present. - the flares change during focusing creating a rather distracting look.  Not a horrific problem but would have been really nice if that front element didnt rotate.  

I also agree (based on my experience using the iscorama 36 (with a rotating front optic) that it might be wise to use a UV filter, regularly changing them as they get dirty, to limit the amount of contact the front optic has with pollen, stray fingers or other contaminations that can make contact with that big front optic face.

I was really pleased to see they included a focus scale on the unit - something the original prototype we've seen previously didnt show.

I am personally trying to locate a suitable short anamorphic that can sit intio the unit and allow the taking lens to also sit into the fm module barrel.  this will be a great way to shorten the total length.   

the topic brings up interesting conversation.  IMO the only real damage to the industry is that since there are so many desperate new people coming in with just enough knowledge to appear professional, trying to break through they end up giving off the appearance of knowing what they're doing, and offer a very low rate (or usually free) and take the work from the bread and butter sector. (stuff like a promo video for a new independent company).  

We got undercut this summer on a job that we were doing for cheap as it is.  we had 3 men on the ground with cameras, they had 8.  all not being paid, all with vague understanding but with very little artistic flare.  I think they thought they could produce something better than us due to having a bunch of expensive Canon L lenses and squeeky clean 5dmk3's.  Turned out their piece was rubbish and it never even got used.  Imagine what would have happened if I had been binned due to the saving the client could see from taking on the other guys.  me and my guys would have been out of pocket, the client would have a lower quality video documentation, and the guys who shot for free have lost money due to their expenses not even being covered.   I imagine this happens regularly!