Tito Ferradans

Hey Dude!

Regarding your first question, no, that is NOT the FF equivalent, but the cropped lens. You can use the calculator and most of your issues can be sorted out!

www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go

It doesn't have specs for the GH5 yet, but I'm sure you can work it out based on the GH4. Zooms are not ideal for many reasons, especially because of the design, which favors vignetting from the adapters.

Good luck!

Thank you! :D

4 hours ago, Mike Needs said:

Thank you for the reply!.. I am very new to the anamorphic world, and I am just realising the size on this monster!.. do you think it would be single focus or double?.. 

many thanks again

Mikey

That I know. Double focus.

16 minutes ago, Mike Needs said:

Hi there, Thank you for all this information Tito!.. a lot of work there!...

Just wondering if you know anything about the Isco Gottingen Kiptar 2x ?? 

Mikey

Hey Mike,

Thank you! :D

The Kiptar is too big for me now. I never had one and I don't fancy it too much.

But there's definitely someone in this forum that has one and loves it.

Here's what I got from using the Anamorphot 2X on the 5D3 - http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8331

On 2/3/2017 at 8:12 AM, Sean Keen said:

on ebay now

Hey Sean, do you still have any of those?

10 hours ago, elgabogomez said:

is as we say in México "eyes that don't see, heart that doesn't feel " (ojos que no ven, corazón que no siente) :D

We have the same saying in Brazil! :D

8 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

I'd say both, it's great to have more vertical resolution, but having to crop less is more "storage efficient" to me. (with magic lantern being limited by the card write speeds, it's easier to achieve more vertical resolution in 3:2 or 4:3 than in 16:9  )

I actually shoot more in 3:2 with magic lantern as it allows slight movement in the shot in post if wanted, but 16:9 is just too much cropping to me.

Yeah, in the case of ML, cropping goes smoother on the card.

I was thinking and maybe I didn't express myself quite right at the start. I started this rant because of the amount of messages I get from people saying "My camera doesn't have a 4:3 mode, so I'm not able to use 2x stretch lenses" and stuff like that. I don't know what leads them to think that.

7 hours ago, Timotheus said:

Use Tito's calculator :-)

http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=13386

THIS guy! :P

7 hours ago, BrooklynDan said:

I think that it's important to look less at the specific aspect ratio of the sensor than at the height of the sensor, especially when it comes to using professional anamorphic lenses. When shooting for a 2.40 aspect ratio, having a taller sensor means using more of the field of view of the lens. And this comes into play when using older lenses that may not have the wide angle options, or have wide angle lenses that are unusually large or oddly shaped. At my job, I have compared Lomo anamorphics on the Alexa (18x24mm sensor) and the Red Dragon (15x30mm sensor). On the Alexa, you can more or less get way with using the 50mm as your widest lens. On the Red, the 50mm is more like a 60mm, and you're gonna be relying more on the 35mm Lomo, which is a big heavy lens with a giant front diameter, and a lot more barrel distortion and softer edges. It's just more practical to have a sensor that matches the full height of the 35mm academy format, regardless of whether it is 4:3 or not. And with how high resolution have gotten lately, there's no need to fear cropping. No use crying over spilled pixels.

now THIS is more like the arguments I was looking for. When it comes to the GH4 (and 5 - as well as any Canon shooting ML RAW) I know they have increased sensor height when shooting 4:3, but most people requesting the feature just seem to neglect that.

I didn't mention before, but this thread is a case study for an upcoming episode. I want to make people realize that "just" a 4:3 crop is no big deal. :P

Ok, I get it that you take advantage of all the pixels in 4:3, but if you have no EXTRA pixels is there really an advantage? You get bigger files, but, are they big enough to impact your workflow? I don't mean that for high-end cameras, like RED or Alexa, because these will indeed clog your edit, but for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras the difference is pretty small.

It's just like filming 4k for outputing 1080p. You get a lot of room to play with reframing. So, if anything, shooting 16:9 would give you an edge because you can reframe your shots in post.

Also, cropping the sides is not really hard in any editing software, and framing on set isn't hard either since most cameras have guide frames and you can enable a 4:3 guide in order to see what's "in your shot". For monitoring, it takes 5 minutes to make an accurate cutout of a 2.4:1 frame (I've done it many times for directors who couldn't understand a 3.56:1 frame.

So, if we're not really getting any EXTRA data, just "making less leftovers", is it really a problem?

With a 16:9 readout, you can use any anamorphic. With a 4:3, you can only use 1.78x compression or stronger.

I wanted to understand why is everyone so obsessed with 4:3.

Is it because there's more height pixels, or because of the aspect ratio itself?

6 hours ago, Timotheus said:

Mind power cropping! Should be able to manage...now on to mind power desqueezing! :-p

Found another test vid btw, not too bad either.

 

I like the social quirkiness of this test!

And mind power desqueezing is already enabled for me. I don't have a monitor for 90% of my shots. The best I have is 4:3 frame guides when using 2x scopes. :P

4 hours ago, Timotheus said:

Very nice to see a new review Tito, always happy to get a notification of a new video of yours! On topic: as SLR Magic specifically markets this as a MFT/S35 solution, I wondered why you didn't use it as such (S35 mode on your A7S2)? I realize time is a scarce commodity, but this not-quite stellar FF performance perhaps leads us to criticizing the lens on a performance it was not intended for...

Thanks Timotheus! I'm happy to hear!

Yeah, I thought about that, but if I didn't test it on full frame, people would be asking about that. And to figure out APS-C, you can disregard most of the edges anyway and visualize with... *the power of your mind!*. hahahahaha. Just kidding on that last bit, but I think it's easier to estimate APS-C performance from full frame footage than the other way around. What do you think?

1 hour ago, jase said:

How close can you get withou a diopter, Tito?

The review details it. 1.2m

Thanks, guys!

Lots of people weren't fans of Image Quality, according to the comments on the review. I think it would be better on a smaller sensor.

And here's the review - 

I'm posting a full review on Sunday! :D

Heeey everyone! As a way to say "Thank you!" for helping me get to the 3000 subscribers, this week I put up a CineMorph filter giveaway along with the review. Yep, FREE GEAR.

You can find the rules and reviews at the blog!
http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=13998

And, if you're looking for much higher chances of winning, join me on Patreon! Besides the better odds, you'll be helping the channel to grow better and faster. :)
http://www.patreon.com/anamorphic

Thank you!

On 2/1/2017 at 8:31 AM, Sean Keen said:

I do have one or two diopters with some light scratches and cleaning marks 

 can give it for 500 + shipment

You need lomo or foton ?

Both for $500? If so, then I'm in.

The best I can pay for one of these is $300.

I already have the Foton and the Anamorphic block.

On 2/1/2017 at 8:31 AM, Leepatterson said:

BMPCC SLRM 1.33 anamorphot/SLRM 35mm

THIS IS SO GOOD!

1 hour ago, Sean Keen said:

Anybody interested in Foton and Lomo diopters ? Want to empty some space for my new gear  

Yeah, but not if you're selling them for $500.

shot by Matt Leaf, using a Kowa 16-H, rangefiinder and russian primes on a RED camera. Matt has been putting his Kowa to use in various music videos here in Vancouver - BC.

Here again, Kowa B&H and Elmo II with Rectilux, russian primes and 5D3 shooting RAW + BMPCC.

7 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Cheers. It was a quick test with Magic Lantern x5 crop mode with diopters on a regular anamorphic setup...I could have gone way closer, if I used a different taking lens (and will do in my next test).

So to answer the question, it was a bit of both - closeup ability, with an effective sensor crop of the full frame by using ML crop mode. The subject of these stills was a 3inch diameter glass ball with shower gel/glitter and other liquids poured over it - and let to run down the surface to diffract and sparkle at different depths. It was an experiment to see how easy it is to create ambient light / fluid effects.

Password: macro

Ive got lots of old enlarger lenses I've put into Chinese helicoids that work really great for macro work...extreamly sharp and extreamly cheap, so I'll probably dig those out soon for a better test.

I'll come back when I find words to describe my reaction to this. For now, I'll stick with "mindblown and mesmerized".

How strong was the diopter you were using? Just triple checking, it was diopters AND macro rings?

How are you doing this crazy light that moves so smoothly with such beautiful hues and shapes? Damn, I need an episode on this.

1 hour ago, Justin Bacle said:

Wah, these pictures are gorgious ! Can you explain the setup a bit ? DO you need macro rings or is the close-up ability only done with the diopters ?

I second that!

10 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

Tito, this is great work!

Have you thought about putting all your blogs in a book form for instance on Blurb?

Thanks Cary!

I'm working on something similar. In the meantime, I continue with the weekly episodes. :D