Emanuel

Well, I stand corrected. There are three different versions actually (had forgotten the triplex : D with and without the rangefinder + the compact without it too): https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1278825-REG/slr_magic_slra_40133xrf_anamorphot_133x_40.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1262722-REG/slr_magic_slra40_1_33x_anamorphot_40_1_33x_anamorphic_adapter.html https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1334046-REG/slr_magic_slrac_40133_anamorphot_1_33x_40_adapter.html More two examples here: https://vimeo.com/227004749 https://vimeo.com/227328540

The 40 model has two versions with and without Rangefinder. I guess the most expensive one (half price of the separate 2 pieces route, anyways) is a much better option exactly considering your line of reasoning. Ready to drop the bucks on it? Here's a shooter who bought single version: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?355394-Anamorphic-Travel-Camera http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?355703-More-Anamorphic-Travel-Footage&p=1986713249#post1986713249 He posted here: https://vimeo.com/224886124 "I don't work with the rangefinder because I need to use a variable ND filter. And if you are using the new adapter with an auto focus lens, the rangefinder is unnecessary." I don't see how a variable ND filter is non-compatible with the use of a Rangefinder when there's a front thread there anyway: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1278825-REG/slr_magic_slra_40133xrf_anamorphot_133x_40.html The 82mm front filter thread? And here's the direct link to the other clip where you can follow the discussion there: https://vimeo.com/223926601

Different worlds, unparalleled results, despite any effort to match the obvious that economy rules over all of it and state-of-the-art is meaningless when one is wholly meaningful over the other. E :-)

LOL Toys r us, man, all of us. Since birth to the last station. Anyways, I agree with you on that one. Fair enough. I just don't tend to see the glass half empty. I love to find it at the opposite direction, really :-)

Well said. In any case, neither resolution is the opposite of a good picture outcome as much as people tend to see it. A sort of tennis match ; ) That said, long life to higher hopes on resolution... LOL Large formats might never be less welcome. Or... there's somehow uncertainty that our content may surpass the time and be future proof ;-) Lots of FUD over this topic as usual seen when conservatism defeats pragmatism :-)

One thing is to comment this or that. Another one is to claim a definitive judgement as a final word on something you had no even a single chance to put your hands on it, to begin with. Add this one to taking presumptions, not really idoneous that you had the most skillful shooter to use the device and you'll have the answer to such assumption of your own. They are not an established camera maker as those fancy samples you're used to see coming from, in this whole forum as you say. I wouldn't much dare to bet on this course either or then, why to expect for the usual suspects as far as an upcoming entry concerns? Why to come and wait for an Andrew's review, as for instance, so? On the leftover, I invite you to read my last two lines of my previous post. Both examples left follow the point; I guess 35mm film in the hands of the crème of la crème can actually be seen here, there and everywhere as counter balance but to match the virtues and shortcomings of a consumer device such as this one discussed along this thread. Summing up the whole stuff of our controversy: you act as you're expecting a PRO outcome from and in anything other than a mere gadget, new technologies pitch aside. I see it as a new artistic tool choice, taken the customary boundaries of their own as due for sure. Frankly, I don't give a damn for professional standards when art can give me more than that. Within the professional pattern ballpark as much as possible, of course. As matter of fact, we're attending a full revolution on the democratization of media acquisition. It doesn't matter how limits you can gather to try to diminish it. Pardon me :-)

Form, content is a way beyond the technology used/based in. Who guarantees you the shooter is anyhow able to extract the best from there? Without mention certain limitations are the best tool the user must overcome or live with. Some other fallacy often reproduced over these pages is the misconception that content must be a perfect form of the state-of-the-art technology.

This is a consumer device, I guess. In any case, feel free to use it as artistic tool, isn't it?

Indeed. Hourses for courses ;-) I think it is too early to shoot the messenger, don't you agree?

Not at all. Deep or flat, shallow, whatever word used, such terminology doesn't apply only on DOF terms. I mean, discussing images itself instead. Take a look on this second sample from the same film feature example (on tonality subject): Any worthy discussion about pictures requires the matter of our subject indeed, not strictly under a technology or geek POV. So, is it any valuable for our discussion the fact we don't have a flawless device on here? Sure not. It matters the potentiality of the technology instead. The open doors from there. The way you can use the tool. Something you can have and you hadn't had before. Hence, the breakthrough, I am all in. You should do too. Sorry pal, but I'm afraid you had lost my point there :-)

It is not exactly the way you feel the device in your hands but 'the proof is in the pudding' concept behind. What do you want? Go deep or go flat? Any profitable discussion implies that. From that post addressed to tonality, comes to my mind this example here (sourcelessly, that is, shot on 35mm film but it is irrelevant for such matter):

So, we are here to review a camera you can't put your hands over so far, is that? Or the technology behind and beyond? Moreover, that consumer concept in hands of many seems to annoy a few of PROs much more focused to prone the pixel peeping abilities rather than the potentiality of the gear from and on their skills if any. C'mon...

Acquisition is actually the key.

That's not the best example though, mate, where detail requires much better ingredients to bake the perfect cheesecake indeed ; ) And, actually, my attack : D on your thread out there also shows these computational cameras can rock if in good hands. That is, if we know what we're doing and the proper basket where to put the eggs.

Sample fixed now -- original is 9388 x 7019:

Myth... *cough cough* Really? From 9.4K wide sample shot on the newest Light L16:

Husband's POV... Gotcha ;-)

Got it Glenn? Told you... GH5 rocks man, gonna buy one ; ) Or simply go to fake an orgasm and sell your content's workflow as politically acquired... : D They're asking for, though ;-) Nice guide anyway. That 240 Mbps rate is actually outstanding. Really. Means technology is finally democratized.

RED's I guess, even though Tom is Canon shooter too. Mainly for low light stuff AFAIK.

Lovely conceptual imagerie indeed : ) Kudos to him, pretty nice to applaud his achievement and that Terrence Malick's school as well :-)

Yes, it had been posted in the previous page: