JohnBarlow

Hi Christina,
 
You have a 5D3, then with Magic Lantern RAW and using the crop modes you have the perfect full height CinemaScope camera.
Full height CinemaScope is 18.6mm sensor height and the crop modes will easily accomodate this.
 
The Scope you should be looking for is a 2x stretch and the Bell & Howell Kowa 2x is a perfect choice for beginning your journey into Scope.
 
Later you may want to upgrade to the RectiluxNo5 which I am developing
 
The Kowa looks like this one

http://lenses.zeiss.com/content/dam/Photography/new/pdf/en/cine/master_anamorphic/master_anamorphic_depth_of_field_tables_meter.pdf
 

BLOW OUT
 
 
https://vimeo.com/76478462
 
 
here an artsy farsty one
 
htotps://vimeo.com/groups/33332/videos/24358873
 
 
 
more study here
 
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/deep-focus-use-of-split-diopters-in-film/

BLOW OUT
 
 
https://vimeo.com/76478462
 
 
here an artsy farsty one
 
htotps://vimeo.com/groups/33332/videos/24358873
 
 
 
more study here
 
http://nofilmschool.com/2013/10/deep-focus-use-of-split-diopters-in-film/

I use one of those 5 ways on my lampheads to scatter the beam. Makes for interesting light.

The man behind Black Narcissus is Jack Cardiff...
Try to see these documental about the cinematographer. Really great!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1626811/
Best.

I was out and about the other day and saw some fellow filming with a very odd thing in his camera hotshoe.
 
It was a small motor with a small eccentric weight which gently vibrated the camera at some set speed. He explained that is was a cheap (<£10) way of ridding moire from his footage.
 
I thought he was maybe quite mad, but later found that Pentax are using their in-body stabilisation to perform the same function.
 
How weird is that?

I was out and about the other day and saw some fellow filming with a very odd thing in his camera hotshoe.
 
It was a small motor with a small eccentric weight which gently vibrated the camera at some set speed. He explained that is was a cheap (<£10) way of ridding moire from his footage.
 
I thought he was maybe quite mad, but later found that Pentax are using their in-body stabilisation to perform the same function.
 
How weird is that?

I actually don't like the battery mentioned in the OPs video and others like it, because you will have no idea what the discharge status of the battery is while using it. I bought one of these on ebay for about $60:
http://www.amazon.com/Naztech-PB15000-Universal-Charger-Extended/dp/B007URKIGC/ref=sr_1_cc_3?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1382108393&sr=1-3-catcorr&keywords=15000+mah

Over a year ago, except mine was 18000 instead of 15000mah. And it was a silver version, but otherwise identical unit. I had to record a concert and couldn't swap batteries in the middle of the show, so I wanted to be safe. This thing comes with tons of plugs, and a 5V USB DC-out plug that works independently of the regular DC out. So what I generally do is run the main DC out to the camera at 9v, and the 5v USB goes into my Tascam audio recorder. It powered everything I needed to go on for well over 8 hours. It comes with all the plugs I needed, and it worked so well that I've used it for all-day shoots (8+ hours) and have never had the battery run down on me yet!
 
A couple of things you should know:
The DC-coupler from Panasonic has a weird polarity- the positive and negative parts of the plug are the opposite of what is generally accepted in the electronics world. Some say this was done on purpose to keep parts being proprietary to Panasonic, but who knows. I bought a new standard sized plug from radio shack for less than $1, cut off the plug on the DC Coupler and attached my own with some solder and Sugru (I *love* sugru!). Plug works great, but for a less messy approach, I've seen some adapters for sale that might work too.
 
As far as how the voltage thing works... there's been a ton of research on the GH2 doing this on other forums, but I'll give you the gist of it.  These cameras have a range of voltage. The battery for the GH2/G6 is 7.2v fully charged, and as long as the camera recognizes it as a Panasonic battery (with the ID chip embedded inside), it will happily chug along until it reaches low enough that it is in danger of shutting off (I don't recall where that is, maybe 6.8v?), and will signal the camera to gracefully shut down so you don't lose your footage. 
 
But here's the thing- without an ID chip telling the camera it is a Panasonic battery, the camera WILL NOT ACCEPT an 7.2v power source. It will complain and say you aren't using authentic equipment. But it will accept a 9v one. 
 
Why? Because Panasonic's DC-coupler has no ID chip either. It's just a pass-through that feeds direct current to the battery cavity of the camera. It seems that Panasonic designed the camera to be able to tell if it is running off a battery vs AC adapter by looking at how much voltage is coming in. Is it more than 8.4v of direct current? Must be using that AC adapter, don't bother checking the battery ID. It is less than 8.4v? It must be a battery and we must require a chip ID!
 
Long story short... assuming the G6 uses the same batteries and adapters as the GH2, it is designed to operate at 9v constant power. The problem is, it assumes that the source is consistent and not coming from a battery. That means that unlike using batteries, where it will detect voltage dropping if the battery is dying and gracefully shut off, here if your external battery pack drops too low it will just suddenly shut off without warning. So you really need to watch the voltage on the external battery. This is why I don't recommend the battery in that video above. It will work fine, but it has no battery meter and neither will the camera when using it. The one I linked to has a life meter on the LCD display, which is really wonderful if you need to keep an eye on it.

The above battery is a v-mount and can be found here
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/221258458850?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
 
I am building a Scope Steadicam rig and got this:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/360764269513?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649
 
I figure I can charge it on the mount with any 15v charger since it is a component level unit, however there are plenty of cheap v chargers on ebay
 
 
If you want the OP's battery style, the cheapest (half price) I found is here:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/380725018911?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
 
V mount will get cheaper though and have the charge remaining indicators...

Sounds like a great idea! I suppose you'd start by getting the spec sheet of the lens in question and then modelling a mount from that and your camera.
 
It's need to quite sturdy plastic I should imagine!
 
Actually I have a friend working for a 3D printing company so I'll ask and get back to you...

No I mean are you paying cash as you are suggesting we do.
 
It's not a troll comment. You've thrown quite a lot of vitriol towards other gear blogs like PB for this exact thing, it only seems fair if you are specifically inciting your reader base to purchase this thing, that you disclose if you are doing the same. S'all i'm sayin.
 
 

130Wh - not too shabby at £125
 

Shot this in 3:2 on the 50d running magic lantern raw with the Bolex anamorphic lens.   The 50d was a real pain to work with, the firmware is still fairly unstable & would usually take several tries on each shot to get the camera recording "continuous."   There have been a few firmware updates since this was shot & that seems to have stabilized things a bit, but it's not rock-solid reliable yet, IMO.
 
 
Anyway, the raw video was nice to work with in post:   Tons of latitude & just plain good looking.   The 3:2 aspect worked perfect with the Bolex as it's a 1.5X squeeze.
 
Enjoy!
 
http://youtu.be/cCERCFJBKCE
 

An oldy but goldy, but worth another look if you've seen it before
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5yhxqkJiAQ
 

Will be good to see some of the new anamorphics used with some older taking lenses to see if they can be given some character.
 
Andrew i'd still like to know if you are paying the 1300 to participate in the prototype round, it's fair disclosure since you
are suggesting we do.
 
Thanks!

about me for example 800 dollars are a lot of money to find out by my self. I can buy a "pellet stove" with that price.

C'mon Andrew; your'e sitting on a mountain of choice glass which no doubt includes the aforementioned lens range and it did not cross your mind to see how this thing performed with them. What kind of review is that?
 
You got me thinking that you may have sold yourself cheap for the price of a pizza  :rolleyes:
 
Asking folks to spend $799 or more without an option for a refund is illegal business practice in the European Community, as it contravenes distance selling regulations, inciting folks to do it is an entirely different ball game (cf bollocks!)
 
So what is the answer to my question - let me guess - B-L-U-R ?

5D is hands down the best cinema tool I could possibly ask for. It is the tool that closest resembles a rock guitar for filmmaking...you just pick it up, and you JAM. With RAW we have pretty much everything we could ask for....and I'm sure BM4K will fill in the final gaps for us soon.

They're already including the +0.4 and +1.3 with beta versions of the anamorphic.
why if they have a new design?
 
 
 
interesting as they said many times that diopters where expensive and not needed with a new design? which is true if it was a new design this is proof it is just a revamped vamped china century copy with a copy of the japan tokina. these guys are true originals. the reason they need close up achromat is because the anamorphic is single element. nothing wrong with the kit should b sweet but we are then way over 2000 dollars yes no. by my guess the moller 1.5 should then be trading at 2400 as it will always optically be a better lens than the slr magic.
 
someone with a big brain show me how single element cylindrical lens bests double element.
 
 
 
here is my custom original designed achromat not an easy copy of the tokina
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34211301@N00/10062412625/

Need anymore cheese from Holland Tony? :)

With a 2x CinemaScope lens the goal is to produce a 2.35:1 aspect ratio image with the 2x compression. In post you take the recorded image and stretch it horizontally 1.5x to (1920x1.5) = 2880 and also compress it vertically 0.75x to (1080x0.75) = 810.   Then you keep the middle section 1920 wide, which means you discard the sides. The final corrected image is therefore 1920x810 which is 2.37:1, with black top and bottom borders in a 1920x1080 frame. This is the aspect format used in Hollywood movies and it has the desirable 2x compression.   The reason you discard the sides is because the camera records in 16:9. In Hollywood movies they use something closer to 4:3 which is a better fit, but the scope is always 2x.   Using this technique with a 5D or full frame camera you have to use longer lenses starting from 85mm upwards.   (NOTE The 5D3 can shoot Magic Lantern RAW format which means that you can set a custom aspect ratio. So if you use say 1280x1080 crop then you can use lenses from about 60mm, go to the Magic Lantern site to learn more on this.)   Now for the tricks :)   I have set up a shot with a 5D and 1.8/85mm lens to demonstrate this to you, using a Moller 2x   The photo transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/testkit.JPG, shows the kit used for this quick test.   I didnt do a perfect align so there is some non symmetric framing. Focus is set to the Beatles record.   Then I took the images into Photoshop to simulate a post operation using the technique from the first two paragraphs and they are here: transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/F18desqueeze.jpg transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/F28desqueeze.jpg transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/F4desqueeze.jpg transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/F56desqueeze.jpg transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/F8desqueeze.jpg   These images are now in the same format that you see from Hollywood,  with a mild fall off in the corners as you stop down   You will have even better results using say 90 or 100mm, and if you use Magic Lantern RAW you can record at 1280x1080 then stretch to 2560x1080 which is better than Hollywood 2k format and if you want blu ray just uniform scale by 0.75

This is much better than the previous test, as I suspected the constant soft focus must have been due to user error. The image quality here looks great, nice and crisp. That said the flares are horrendous and the anamorphic character is so mild that simply letterboxing your footage would get you close enough to this and you could spend the $1500 elsewhere to bump up production value.

When I spoke about gearing I was talking about the relationship between the throws of the two optics, not necessarily toothed gearing.
 
The slotted approach is a well tried and tested solution.
 
I would advise you to accurately plot the throw of the scope and the lens on the same axes, to see the difference in the focus profiles. Set up some targets from 1.5m to INF at say 0.5m intervals, to get a high resolution plot of this behavior to assist you with the design of the slot. I would be surprised if it was not some snaky shape as you illustrated above.

New film from Malick
 
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1595656/
 
Interesting use of Scope on a Steadicam, pretty much all deep focus.
 
Some of the Steady shots are a bit glitchy surprisingly.
 
Efficient use of cheap sets, eg new home building plots, car lots, cheap hotels, open spaces, looks like it was shot quickly and for pennies.
 
Worth a watch, to see what can be done for next to nothing.