Jump to content

Julian

Members
  • Content Count

    1,653
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    35

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Julian got a reaction from jbCinC_12 in Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera c-mount lens compatibility list   
    Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
     
    I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
     
    How?

    Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
     


    In Photoshop:
    Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

    To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

    List terms explained:

    Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    No = doesn't cover the sensor
    Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
    Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

    Primes
     
    Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
     
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
     
    Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

    Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
    Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
     
    Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
     
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
     
    SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
     
    Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

    $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

    Zooms
     
    Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]
  2. Like
    Julian got a reaction from Juxx989 in Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera c-mount lens compatibility list   
    Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
     
    I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
     
    How?

    Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
     


    In Photoshop:
    Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

    To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

    List terms explained:

    Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    No = doesn't cover the sensor
    Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
    Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

    Primes
     
    Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
     
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
     
    Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

    Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
    Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
     
    Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
     
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
     
    SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
     
    Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

    $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

    Zooms
     
    Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]
  3. Like
    Julian reacted to Ian Edward Weir in Cameras With 4:3 Anamorphic Mode?   
    Wow Julian! Best Kowa B&H footage I think I have even seen. Thanks!
  4. Like
    Julian got a reaction from Ian Edward Weir in Cameras With 4:3 Anamorphic Mode?   
    Get a 50D instead of a 550D. The 550D is seriously bottlenecked by the SD card, the 50D can handle higher resolutions.
    The 50D doesn't record audio though, so you have to do that externally.
    7D is also a good option, but not as cheap as the 50D. 5D Mark II is even better, and pretty great combined with a VAF anti moire filter. Gets you close to 5D3 performance/resolutions.
    My Canon EOS 50D is for sale by the way
    Here you can see al the Canon cameras and their ML raw capabilities (it doesn't list 4:3 modes though):
    https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgQ2MOkAZTFHdFFIcFp1d0R5TzVPTVJXOEVyUndteGc#gid=5
    I shot this in 1280x960 24 fps, but I think you can get a bit higher. I don't know what are the 4:3 options in the recent ML builds.
     
  5. Like
    Julian got a reaction from webrunner5 in Panasonic G7 and Metabones Speed Booster XL hands-on - Super 35mm 4K for cheaper   
    ​True. The G7 is hardly crippled in terms of video compared to the GH4. There's no MOV, only MP4 (does that matter anyway?). No Master Pedestal I think? No slow motion and no 200 mbps 1080p (does anyone use that?) But everything else is there... Cine profiles, Zebras, curve adjustments, etc.
  6. Like
    Julian got a reaction from kidzrevil in Why recording LOG with an 8bit codec is most probably going to get you in trouble.   
    My personal opinion: most people are crap at grading.
    This became evident when Magic Lantern RAW gave everyone the possibility to pull off extreme grades with the raw files... this resulted in a lot of terrible grades. Same happens with the LOG footage from the A7S and GH4.
    I think this is a a bigger issue than 8 bit vs 10 bit.
  7. Like
    Julian reacted to MountneerMan in Summary of latest Samsung NX1 hack progress   
    As a long time lurker watching the progress happen and trying out some of the hacks my self here is a brief summary of main accomplishments.
    Current hack achievements in no particular order
    Increased bitrate on both NX1/NX500. So far there is no consensus on the optimal bitrate. Further testing is required by experience videographers who are good at analyzing footage. Added 2.5k full sensor readout with increased bitrate on NX500. I do not own an NX500 so I am not sure what is really happening with this hack. Perhaps someone else could fill in. Removed video record time limit on both NX1/NX500. This is something I haven’t personally tested as I do not need it but reports sound like it works perfectly fine and can be used to record videos that will fill up your card. Fully electronic (silent) shutter on the NX500. Not yet working on NX1 from what I understand. There are currently three main ways to apply hacks to the NX1/NX500. The original method by running in factory mode by running a script on the SD card root called info.tg that can run other apps such as Otto K’s keyscan The WiFi method. Similar to the blue tooth method below but more risky. The best method is the blue tooth method. This is done by modifying the file /usr/sbin/bluethd in camera to execute a scripts that can run whatever other program you want. Telnet (busy Box) can be run from the SD Card to remotely execute any command on camera.  Alot of the built in camera commands have been figured out and you can now write scripts to make the camera do pretty much anything you want. Even I was able to written a few scripts .  
    Current progress
    Lately (past few weeks) the majority of the activity has been around trying to remove the in camera NR for video. There has also been quite a bit of talk about creating a GUI for all the hacks. If you are a programmer and are interested in getting involved I think this is likely the area where you could really help out.
      If there is anything I got wrong or missed please don’t be shy and call me out on it
  8. Like
    Julian reacted to richg101 in Craft Camera is coming!   
    Looks a bit like a 3D Design / product design university student major project to me.    Just looking at those renders makes me weep at how many of the mechanical aspects need to be fulfilled flawlessly.  It's all very well drawing something novel and pretty, but making them is another matter.  That sucker looks like they'd need a Sony R+D budget to pull it off at their expected price.  The reason the RED modularity works is that they price their gear to allow for the tremendous costs associated with making them work properly.  
    I hope I'm wrong and they deliver because if they don;t I can see a handful of optimistic early adopters being very disappointed.
  9. Like
    Julian reacted to Don Kotlos in Craft Camera is coming!   
    I bet right now it is just a drawing:
    "WHERE IS ALL THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS?
    At this time, we are only publishing a few technical specifications. We hope to publish our final manufacture and testing specifications in early summer."
    Also when God is involved, you usually end up loosing money:
    "SHIPPING IN DECEMBER? REALLY? SERIOUSLY?
    Yes, shipping in December. Well sort of. We will be shipping our first units in December. With that said, we cannot guarantee this for your order. A lot of factors will determine your actual ship date including but not limited to the total number of reservations placed and your number in the reservation line. Also, any unforeseen manufacturing shortages, and of course natural disasters and/or acts of God could change things."

  10. Like
    Julian reacted to Cinegain in Should I wait for a blackmagic price Cut this summer?   
    I see... yes... something's going to happen in the future...
  11. Like
    Julian reacted to Andrew Reid in Canon 80D video quality still atrocious   
    Just had a brief time with the boxed up retail model. I say brief. I sent it back almost straight away.
    I might upload the clips to the original footage thread, but there's hardly any point. You know the score with these cameras.
    Soft, aliasing ridden, huge moire problems, not even 1080p resolution.
    Very sad - they have a brand new sensor in this thing and had the chance to step at least the 1080p up to 7D Mark II levels, or even in line with the rest of the market, or the Nikon D5500, much cheaper.
    This is a 1300 euro camera!
  12. Like
    Julian got a reaction from Jonesy Jones in Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera c-mount lens compatibility list   
    Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing.
     
    I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images.
     
    How?

    Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC.
     


    In Photoshop:
    Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm!

    To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it.

    List terms explained:

    Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera
    No = doesn't cover the sensor
    Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications
    Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example)

    Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list

    Primes
     
    Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
     
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info]
    Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof]
     
    Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
    Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]

    Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof]
    Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof]
     
    Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
    Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof]
     
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes =  37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof]
    Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)]
    Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof]
     
    SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD)
     
    Tokina TV Lens  8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof]
    Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof]
    Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof]
     
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof]
    Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof]

    $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof]

    Zooms
     
    Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof]
     
    Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]
  13. Like
    Julian reacted to TheRenaissanceMan in Lens porn: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art   
    Yikes...what a train wreck. 
    Back to the subject at hand, what makes this lens more exciting than a speed boosted 70-200 is that it basically comes "pre-boosted," so it can be boosted again for m4/3 and BM cameras. 75-150 f/1 on the speed booster XL, and even faster on the BMPCC booster (too lazy to do that math right now). 
    Of course, the practicality of using a lens this huge, expensive, and heavy on a GH4 or BMPCC leaves something to be desired...
  14. Like
    Julian reacted to BrorSvensson in Lens porn: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art   
    this lens + gh4 + xl speedbooster would be amazing. F1 brightness with 75-150 focal length 
  15. Like
    Julian reacted to Nikkor in Lens porn: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art   
    I won't read through your posts. If you take a 70-200 2.8, put a 0.7x speedbooster behind it will give you a 49-140mm f1.96 lens, with an APS-C sized image circle. The sigma is 50-150 f1.8, so it will be brighter. End of story.
  16. Like
    Julian reacted to Nikkor in Lens porn: Sigma 50-100mm F1.8 Art   
    That's incorrect, the fstop is a standart, if after speedboosting you get f2, it will be slower than f1.8
  17. Like
    Julian got a reaction from Tito Ferradans in The Diopter Thread.   
    I've actually never used it. Collecting dust in my closet with my collection of anamorphots. Shame on me... I know
    It's mounted onto my Kowa B&H though. Perfect fit with the 72mm size.
    What I've seen/heard it's really good, like the Tokina. The Tokina is expensive because most people who have it know what it is. With the Minolta that's not the case so you can get it cheaper if you're lucky. But actually it kind of is the same product, both diopters were originally design to use with big telezooms.
     
  18. Like
    Julian reacted to Richie Recoil in What is your recipe for GH4/G7 anamorphic?   
    To anyone who hates rap music, or doesn't have a sense of humor, I am very sorry.
  19. Like
    Julian reacted to Lavanboy in The Diopter Thread.   
    Nah I need a 72mm or larger and only iso achromats +1 or lower.
    Thanks though.
  20. Like
    Julian reacted to premini in The Diopter Thread.   
    Excellent quality. Good for small scopes.
  21. Like
    Julian reacted to Frank Einstein in 1.79x Squeeze Anamorphic   
    der chinese will copy you liks before, already dey read wot u wrote.....
  22. Like
    Julian reacted to Brian Caldwell in 1.79x Squeeze Anamorphic   
    I've recently started numerous anamorphic lens projects based on the idea that 1.79x squeeze is the ideal ratio when dealing with a 4:3 sensor .  It's often stated that 2x squeeze on 4:3 gives you the DCI standard 2.39:1 scope ratio, but of course this isn't quite true.  If you really want a perfect mapping of 4:3 to 2.39:1 without having to crop the sides, then the correct math  is:  2.39/(4/3) = 1.7925, which I'll round off to 1.79.  So, for the ARRI Alexa, RED Dragon and Panasonic GH4 used in 4:3 mode it seems to me that 1.79x is ideal.  Also, if you consider the Alexa in its Open Gate format (1.55:1) you get 1.55 * 1.79 = 2.77:1, which is almost exactly equal to the classic Ultra Panavision 70 (2.76:1 aspect ratio).
    You might be concerned that 1.79x wouldn't give enough anamorphic artifacts, but based on my experience so far it seems that the artifacts are very similar to 2x, and in addition there are significant advantages in size, weight, cost, and image quality.  Some time ago I built a 1.80x prototype that used very traditional rear-group focusing with counter-rotating astigmatizer aberration compensation, and found that it compared very favorably to a similar-spec 2x 140mm Hawk V-Lite:
     
    So, my question is, since I'm about to start spending money like crazy developing this stuff, am I crazy to be going in this direction?
     
  23. Like
    Julian reacted to Brian Caldwell in A Tale of Two T2.0 Zooms (for A6300)   
    The Fuji Premier 14.5-45mm T2.0 ( http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/840519-REG/Fujinon_HK3_1X14_5_F_HK3_1X14_5F_14_5_45mm_T2_0_ZOOM.html ) is pretty well known in the professional cine world.  But, if you've ever hefted one in person you know its not only priced like a small house (~$100k), its nearly the same size and weight as well!  So, naturally, I'm curious to know how it might perform on the upcoming A6300 in comparison to something much cheaper.  Like the Tamron 24-70mm/2.8 with a Speed Booster, which gives you a 17-50mm/2.0.  Obviously, the latter is practically $free compared to the former, and you do give up the 14.5mm - 17mm range along with perhaps 1/4-1/3 stop difference in aperture due to f/# vs T/#.  But, you gain autofocus, image stabilization, a little extra reach at the long end, and an unbelievably huge reduction in size/weight/cost.  I would not be surprised in image quality is nearly equal.
  24. Like
    Julian reacted to richg101 in Does it worth to upgrade to Zeiss Distagon?   
    Personally I'd always go for the contax versions.  Made in DE or Japan.  The ZE/ZF lenses suffer from modernisation of manufacturing processes - open one up and there aint brass mechanical parts in a ZE.  I expect the glass will also not be German / Japanese.
     
    IMO the 28mm/2 is one of the most over rated lenses ever.  way too expensive for what it actually does.  28mm lenses I find boring in general, and paying premium for an f2 where dof is so deep anyway it'd a waste of big bucks - particularly since at f2 it looks like crap.  I'd sooner get a contax 25mm/2.8 and a 35mm/2.8 for the same price as the single 28mm.  Or plump for the 35/1.4 for the extra £100.  Now THAT IS A LENS 
     
    On the flip side I think all of the faster zeiss dslr lenses should be avoided.  You pay a premium for the bigger apertures but when used wide open or even 2 stops closed they really fringe in a nasty way.    
     
     
  25. Like
    Julian reacted to VLFV in ISCORAMA 42 MC For Sale..   
    After long deliberations with myself I decided to let my ISCORAMA 42 MC go, because freelance life can get a bit tough in winter months, especially with the tax payments here in UK.
    The lens is in near new condition, probably one of the best you’ll ever come across. Body has almost no signs of use. Focus ring and all the markings have no visible wear.
    There are NO scratches, marks, haze or fungus outside or inside the optics. As with every vintage lens there are a few tiny dust specs inside. They won’t affect the image quality in the any way and most people wouldn’t even mention them, but I want to be as honest as possible.
    Focusing ring is super smooth, feels like new. Many ISCORAMAs 42 do not have the rubber grip on the alignment ring. This one has and it also has no visible wear.
    The lens comes with front and back caps, 82mm skylight filter (which was protecting the front element from scratches) and 82mm to 77mm step-down ring.
    I’ve recently added a seamless “compression fit” follow focus gear to this lens (I've added a few updated pics), which will also be including as part of the sale.
    I’m looking to get £2500 for this lens. I’m hoping to sell it locally (London, UK) but will considering sending it anywhere. Shipping and paypal/currency conversion fees to be paid by the buyer.
    Another one of these was sold for a similar price on ebay just a few days ago and it wasn’t in such conditions, so I believe I’m offering it at quite a good price.
    I absolutely love this lens and will be posting my review online soon, but I do not want to do it just yet because I don’t people to think I’m being biased just to sell the lens.
    I know that I'm a newbie on this forum, but I've been a long time reader and I'm quite active online in general, so people like Tito and hopefully a few others could certainly vouch for me.
    Oh and here are 2 test videos I shot with this lens so far.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dVaEObz7o
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54BMoWKcheM

×
×
  • Create New...