richg101

**The below comments assume we are all aware that use of anamorphics is no longer something we do in order to maintain resolution since most anamorphic lenses degrade the resolving power more than the act losing pixels through cropping**
 
IMO use of anamorphic for the majority of our purposes should be undertaken with the fastest and sharpest taking lens available - particularly on smaller sensors.  
 
Since our use of anamorphics is an aesthetic choice rather than an attempt to maintain resolution, there is not much point in shooting anamorphic if the dof is so deep, and with no separation between in/out of focus parts of the frame, the aesthetic is no longer noticeable.
 
I think one of the main reasons anamorphics like the SLR magic 1.33x have had such a bad time is that firstly it works best with wider lenses and smaller sensors, and slower apertures (meaning dof is so deep the already weak 1.33x look is even less obvious). - it's a disaster combination and why such lenses don;t command much respect from anamorphic purists.
 
I feel if a anamorphic requires the taking lens to be closed to f5.6, on an m4/3 sensor the anamorphic is not up to the task of the sensor it is being used on, the user loses a lot of the 'look' from anamorphic.  And adds hassle, weight, and unpleasant optical degradations into the equation.  The end result often just looks like spherical cropped to 2.35 with a gaussian blur and CA added in post.
 
to me a rough guide / criterion similar to this should be considered in order to make the job of shooting anamorphic a worthwhile choice (without unpleasant degradations to resolving power, CA, etc), while maintaining some type of anamorphic 'look' :- 
 
1. using full frame the anamorphic needs to be able to accommodate an 85mm @f5.6 or faster, or a 50mm @f4 or faster 
 
2. using aps-c / s35 a 50mm @f4 or faster, or a 35mm @f2.8 of faster
 
3. using m4/3 a 35mm @f2.8 or faster, or 25mm @f2 or faster
 
4. gh4/4k mode will need a 30mm at f2 or faster, or a 18mm @ f1.4
 
5. s16mm (bmpcc) will need a 20mm at f1.4 or a 12mm at f1.0
 
 
The lens speed can be 1 stop slower for every lens focal length step, for instance using an f-135mm lens on full frame would still look anamorphic set at f8.  a 200mm lens would still look anamorphic when closed down to f11.  
 
a separation between in/out of focus areas is a critical attribute you need for anamorphic shooting to be beneficial for most uses.  

I use it and to reduce damage to the grain by youtube/vimeo I find it best to oversharpen the main output before export.  So I don;t apply any sharpening to the footage, then I overlay some fine grain like 4k gorrilla grain, then apply sharpening onto the nested grain and footage.  get the sharpening to the point where it's perfect when viewed at 100%, then boost it a tiny bit more so it starts to look a bit graggy.  then go back to half way between 'perfect and 'graggy'   the grain and footage behind it glue together nicely and the grain has enough edge to be seen as detail to be preserved by the youtube/vimeo compressor.  I also feed them a 2560x1440 file rather than a 1920x1010 file - even if the original footage was only 1080p.  seems to maintain more of the grain.

definitely.
 
On a side note the stacking of two off the shelf 2x units presents quite a few limitations.  length of units dictate longer taking lenses or smaller sensors in order to keep field angles small enough to avoid mechanical vignette.  both of which have and adverse effect on dof - meaning the effects from the system don;t show up as much.  also the longer focal lengths require larger diameter glass to provide adequate transmission of light.  I expect a 135mm on full frame, in combination with two 2x anamorphics will result in no faster than f5.6 apertures - even with the taking lens set to f2.8, the size of the anamorphs are gonna limit things.  I think for the ultimate setup based on this concept using off the shelf parts you;d want a kowa b+h and a 120-135mm at f4 on full frame, then a iscorama 54 on the front.  that way dof, fov, transmission, iq, and used sensor real estate are all optimmally balanced.  
What will be rather mad is when something like a big rare Kowa 35 - 2x is partnered with a 75-85mm/f2 on a portrait orientated a7s, then OLIVIA SCOPE is installed up front.   16:9 aspect, with lots of oval defocus, incredible shallow dof, wide angles, efficient transmission and deadly sharp.
 

Shoot log with your wb set up correctly and you dont need to do any grading at all! - just use your curves/levels to get to the contrast level which leaves the highlights unclipped, themids natural and the shadows not crushed.  then boost saturation if required.  

I think Sony lenses are gigantic for two reasons. Firstly lens designers have mainly been working with retrofocus designes for the last 60 years. Look at the otus line, even the 85mm is some sort of retrofocus design, it permits even illumination and resolution across the image, at the cost of complicated and large designs.
Obviously there is leica and the rest of rangefinder stuff, but here comes the second problem, digital sensors still need telecentricity, so this leaves us with large lenses for the time being. But this will change once the mirror becomes a thing of the past (unless the focal reducer approach is so good that it becomes the norm and this needs long register distances.

There may be many reasons why the Sont Lenses are Huge.
To begin with they resolve more pixels per sq cm of lens surface area. Canon's f2.8 lenses were unable to resolve the 50MP of their 5D S and R cameras and thus the f4 zoom was the recommended lens.
I am guessing the huge lens is because if is pushing the maximum possible detail into every single pixel.
I am guessing that for the same megapixel they would seem sharper than Canon and most likely Nikon too. 

a 80mm/2 designed for what looks like the sony 50mp cmos would be small and lightweight - no heavier than a 50mm/1.4 for full frame.  The lack of mirror means the system benefits in the same way a leica M system benefits - small lenses due to not needing to be placed 45-75mm from the sensor to clear the mirror.  think scaled up Loxia lenses.  fast, compact, very high quality.  

Yo Andrew.  Don't be put off by the huge influx of unemployed people who've recently gone into blogging/vlogging in an attempt to make a commercial name for themselves.  The days of celebrities like Philip Bloom are gone - gear nerds literally looked upon him as a god 3 years ago.  Personally I'd like to see you in a permanent product development position at Sony, while still keeping this blog running with details like your beautifully carefully written and informative articles.  I've been hoping to see your response to the Leica SL - I'm amazed you weren;t sent one before the rest of the hopeless 'brand ambassadors' who would sell their mother if it gave them a little more online respect from gear heads.
 
Lots and lots of readers here can focus on things for longer than 5 seconds.  Even a few millenials might be able to keep reading to the end of the article.  Your depth is why eoshd is the best of the lot.  One problem is that since the A7S arriaved, we literally got everything we always wanted.  most of those who are willing to learn how to use a tool are no longer looking for anything else.  I think the acquisition of a a7s and a 1dc makes one less interested in looking for and reporting on better gear - the improvements are so small the other bloggers need to resort to click bait titles.
 
finally, I think a few adverts wouldn;t do much hard to the site.  rather than brands, maybe partner with a retailer?  

point of focus is the text on the front of the lens.  bokeh bubbles are the same for both shots meaning the ratio between the in focus and fully out of focus areas is the same.  HOWEVER, on the aps-c shot the canon text on the camera body, the underside of the tripod head, and the text on the flash are are more blurred than the full frame image.  
so for a bigger sensor the dof rolloff is slower and therefore more of the camera is in focus.  as distance increases and focal length is lengthened this attribute is magnified.
 

FF is not MF in the same way that a Smartphone isnt a Large Format.
Your not gonna shoot a portrait of three people from head to toe at a six feet distance in a small room with a 105mm lens on a FF, no matter what the math say.
Yes the DOF and exposure is the same no matter what the sensor size is. Adding crop factor to the aperture is BS.
The difference is in usage. Can I get the DOF in combination with the perspective I want from the working distance that I want.
Thats why MF and LF is "better" for portraits. You can get the whole person and the room from a short distance with the lovely perspective of a 105 or there about.
 

Instead of reputation points, I am replacing the forum system with e-penis points from now on.

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8
 
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8
 
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8
 
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

give me a shout when you find a lens/sensor that will replicate my leaf afi-ii 10 and a 180mm/2.8
 
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7506/26997678725_133cd94b63_o.jpg

I'm not talking about math. I'm talking about SOUL. Something our industry is sorely lacking in.

Two afocal attachments in series should have significantly better image quality than a single shorter one with the same total squeeze ratio.

are you using a third party lens/ adaptor?  if so, it could be that the contact piuns are being shortcircuited

It appears that it's only the action sports/skater guys who still use canon dslr's for movie making..  they're so busy enjoying their full throttle lives they don;t have the time to sit browsing the web for the latest and greatest gear.  The only other camera the action guys seem to know about is gopro and if they're happy with the ghastly image from that, a crippled 5dmk4 will be a dream.  If canon didn't reach out to this crowd then they'd not sell any dslr's for video stuff

It appears that it's only the action sports/skater guys who still use canon dslr's for movie making..  they're so busy enjoying their full throttle lives they don;t have the time to sit browsing the web for the latest and greatest gear.  The only other camera the action guys seem to know about is gopro and if they're happy with the ghastly image from that, a crippled 5dmk4 will be a dream.  If canon didn't reach out to this crowd then they'd not sell any dslr's for video stuff

I don't know..  The image from your f35 will always be special, not to mention the motion.  I'd take fullhd upscaled to 4k from an f35 over any camera below an alexa.  what lenses are you using predominantly?

Isn't film and music so very middle-class these days?
Read the full article

imo the xdcam 35mbs files from the f3 are more 'solid' than the higher mbs xavc-s from the a7s.  colour and motion feel right from the f3 too.  s-log was perfectly implemented within the pmw f3, f35 and f65.  usable dr is more on the f3 from what I've seen too.  Love my F3.

IMO, the '1/50th rule' is a greatly overrated rule.  And taken far too seriously in the dslr film making world.  I have no problems with shooting 1/25th of a second if I need the extra stop of exposure.  for those pedantic about following a rule, but not with the fortune of shooting with controlled lighting or an alexa, 1/40th is gonna yield much better results than 1/50th IMO

Well, it looks like the Arri Alexa 65 has some competition.
Panavision have revealed a RED-Weapon-like cinema camera which shoots 8K from a full frame 41 x 21 sensor, to r3d RAW format.
Read the blog post