eris

On 11/3/2017 at 1:57 PM, bzpop said:

don't really care much about desqueeze, and not i don't even use it on GH5, as long as i can see the whole frame it doesn't matter to me ,

but 4:3 mode is an awesome feature, can't wait til Adobe will bring the 6K footage fix

Agreed.  Don't use on-camera de-squeeze since my monitor can do 1.3, 1.5, 1.75 and 2x.  I guess it would be important if you're going lightweight.  My DP, Mauri Galiano tried the GH5 in open-gate 6k anamorphic with a variety of 2x lenses.  He said it's fantastic and the only problem right now is there's a bug in H265 decoding in Premiere.  

I use Davinci so it's not so much of an issue.

Now I just need to get a good mount for my Sankor 16D.

This would be completely acceptable as production ready footage. (IMHO)

35 minutes ago, bzpop said:

true that, but to me anamorphic is not about convenience, it is about the look:)

True enough.  1.5x looks pretty good.  significantly better than 1.3x which I agree -- why bother.

I'm tending towards 2x now that the GH5 has great support and CoreDNA is available.

On 10/21/2017 at 11:17 PM, tweak said:

I can't really see the point in 1.5x, if you're going to all that hassle and expense you might as well go the whole way.

Because 1.5x will take HD or UHD (present on all cameras) and convert it to scope.

That's why

Here's a very nice Sankor 16 test.

One of the coolest Sankor 16 demos I've seen.  This is how you get a lot of anamorphic on the cheap.  The model helps too.

I have a couple metabones adapters for my GH4, but was considering getting a C/Y Metabones Ultra (.71x) adapter for the GH5 and anamorphic.  Why?

1) It gives you access to some fantastic Contax Zeiss glass.

2) An inexpensive M42 adapter on the C/Y metabones might well give you access to CZJ and Pentax primes (of which I have a number: 35mm Flektogon 2.4 and Super Takumars especially)

3) M42 to C/Y adapters take advantage of the fact that there's only a .01mm registration distance difference between them.  The M42 adapter usually sinks the M42 lens into the mount very slightly to fix this, but ...

4) Is there enough latitude on the metabones ultra front glass to allow this?

5) Has anyone tried metabones-adapted 35mm glass as the taking lens on Bolex 32/16 or Sankor 16D anamorphic glass for vignetting? On the GH5?

Thanks... good luck on you projects.

Here's an anamorphic frame from our spec Star Wars trailer "Beyond The Dune Sea".  Shot with Bolex 16/32, Zeiss Contax 50mm on a Sony FS700 and recorded on an Odyssey 7Q.  More frames to come. Cinematographer: Mauri Galiano.
 

Forgot to mention that this is also using a Rectilux single-focus adapter for the Bolex.

Maybe it's too early, but like Alien, the original is a thing of beauty that doesn't need remaking nor a sequel.  With Aliens we got lucky, but what I've seen of the this trailer doesn't impress me.  No anamorphic, no beautiful music, no Rutger Hauer, no poetry.  It's almost as if AIs tried to mimic the look and feel without the substance and then screwed up the look and feel.  Sadness.

Considering the amount of time and effort for another OS to be designed and develop an application base, that's unlikely to happen.  Either Apple pulls their head out of their nether regions or the only alternative to Windows is Linux.  Nothing wrong with Linux.  It's a great OS, but it would take movement by major application vendors like Adobe and Blackmagic to get together.  Maybe if Ubuntu decided to capture the pro market they could be convinced.  It's either that or Hackintosh.   Someone will undoubtedly take professional advantage of the situation soon.

I'm glad Panasonic is taking their time with the GH5 and I'd rather pay a little bit more ($2000-$2500) to get a revolutionary camera than a simple GH4 evolution.   Also it avoids Sony jump-stepping them.  The "high assurance" rumors would make a great camera.  Icing on the video cake would be 4:4:4 / raw out, VFR out, better VFR quality, seriously improved DR.  If they don't have a pro-model anywhere near this price range there are a lot of features they could include for a great all-around camera without cannibalizing their Pro market.  Please nail this one to the wall Panny!

When will we arrive at a long-term workhorse camera for $2000 that doesn't let us down in low light and easily drops a high quality 4k 4:2:2 feed internally?  Something that doesn't fall apart in various post situations?  What I mean is "in the old days" you could depend on a reasonably priced Bolex with anamorphic adapter and good film stock to deliver independent film grade quality for a number of years.  Maybe we already have it in the GH4 or are about to get it in the GH5?  Right now I think you could shoot judiciously on the GH4 or Sony and get very close with an external recorder.  Other than that maybe we have to simply make the leap up to $5k+ cameras and shut up.  I'm not trying to say that current $2k cameras and Bolex Super 16 cameras can be made technically equivalent because there's too many variables, just that the more you pay for a camera the longer a useful life you wish it had.

On 8/8/2015 at 9:19 AM, Hans Punk said:

Many Canon DSLR's running ML raw video can shoot 4:3 aspect, the 5D3 can shoot the highest resolutions of 1600x1200 pixels in this specific aspect (continuously)....or higher resolutions in shorter 'bursts' - until the buffer/card tends to choke and stops the recording.

Still very pleasing results, as the Uncompressed 14bit raw with it's large dynamic range of the image more than make up for the 'lower' resolution compared to other modern cameras that support 4:3. The colour rendition has yet to still be beaten IMHO...I don't personally care for higher resolution if the dynamic range or 'look' is not there. Full frame Anamorphic is an incredible look, ML raw is still the cheapest way of getting this at a high quality with a tonne of latitude to grade with. 

5D3 not the most friendly of cams in terms of workflow, but perfect for short-form projects or when you don't mind considering your camera as a traditional film camera (i.e being selective in shooting to conserve stock)

Here is a couple random Vimeo finds, there are plenty out there to look at:

 

 

Really nice color there.  (Song's not too bad and good singer, but the Casio piano makes my head ache

Of course it all depends on a thousand different factors including the specific sample of the lens you get, but I've found that my Russian Helios 44M, Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 Flektogon and Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 are all tack sharp at "reasonable" settings.  Maybe you could explain your shooting requirements and environment a little more.

Exotic and beautiful work.   Were you using a fast shutter instead of ND on this?

Ricardo,

Everything is relative.  One man's low-budget could fund another guy for 5 years. 

Usable anamorphics range from $300 Sankor to $40,0000 Hawks.  Add to that figure lens/rig mounts, additional accessories, calibration for 40 year old lenses, single focus adapters etc.

If you just want to play around with anamorphic you could probably get away with a $350 budget (uncalibrated, dual-focus, no weight concerns etc).  If you want production-ready anamorphic (except for very limited use), you'll need either a native single-focus lens (prices go from $3000 to $7000 to $40000 or rent) or a high-quality dual focus (Bolex Moeller comes to mind), adapter (use the custom ones out of UK), calibration (a couple great sources), single-focus adapter (Rectilux seems to be the best), good taking lens (any number of great old lenses here, beware of too much anti-flare coating) and other misc items to hook to a rig.

Again, for experimentation: Sankor 16D 2x and adapter: Probably around $350 - $400.  Beautiful blue flare like the big Panavisions used in Alien and Blade Runner.

For Production: (One possible example) Bolex Moeller 1.5x 32/16 ($2000) , Rectilux single focus ($1000), Mount Adapter ($120), Calibration ($350), taking lens (Helios 44m for $30, Jupiter 85mm for $175, Canon FD 50mm for $60, Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm f1.4 for $60, Nikons are great but have had heavy dual coatings for a long time, otherwise the list is endless).

Other great anamorphics are the Bell and Howell, the Baby Hypergonar and Kowas among others.  Good to great single-focus anamorphics (in order of increasing cost),  Iscoramas ($3000-$5000), Lomos ($7000-$15000), Hawks ($40k) 

I have both the Sankor 16D for the specialized flare-heavy, night time science fiction look and the Bolex for more exacting and lightweight optical demands.  The Bolex is a 1.5x compression lens which allows you to use the 16:9 sensor mode on any modern camera into good looking anamorphic.  The Sankor is a standard 2x compression which either requires a camera with an anamorphic (4:3) sensor mode (GH4 and some others) or you have to do excessive cropping and throw away resolution.

Good luck on your adventure.

eris

On 9/1/2015 at 11:20 PM, Zak Forsman said:

i have a GH4, Kowa B&H and Rectilux. For the taking lens, I like using the SLR Magic 25mm, 35mm and their new 50mm (which might not be officially released yet). rounded aperture blades help keep bokeh soft. but I also find these three look great at T/2.8 or T/2 and you can go down to a T/1.4 but I start to see a touch of purple fringing at that point.

I have my eye on the Dog Schidt Optiks FF58/38/88 line for taking lenses with a lot more character. Should look something like this. Notice the swirled bokeh form the Helios 44-2.

 

Some great footage there, Zak.  I also like the Helios 44-2 taking lens, but haven't had much chance to play with it.  I did a lens test with the Helios and the Bolex 16/32 last year and like it.  Here's the test:
Bolex 16/32, Helios 44-2 Anamorphic Test in Snow

Very nice, Seb.  Great mood.

I'm still waiting for someone to design and manufacture high quality copies of the Bolex 16/32.  Still one of the sharpest adapters.  That and a Rectilux and a fantastic combination.  I'd also like to try my Sankor 16D with one as soon as I'm done closing on my new house and funds are available again.   I think the ideal anamorphic would have the sharpness of the Bolex and the blue flare of the Sankor 16D in 1.5x compression.

I haven't used GH4 "anamorphic" mode yet although I'd like to since I have a couple great 2x anamorphics.  I use a very general solution that combines a Bolex 16/32 1.5x on several different taking lenses.  Combine that with a good variable diopter and you have a anamorphic solution that's capable of very close to Hawk ($40k) quality levels.    Monitoring this only requires feeding the HDMI output to an external monitor of your choice.  It has to be able to desqueeze 1.5x.  I'm using both the SmallHD AC7 and a Sidefinder 502.  SmallHD support is excellent and their firmware upgrades come fairly often.    This is not a "cheap" solution, but it is very flexible, not limited to the GH4 and IMHO is the best bang for the buck unless you want to rent Hawk or Panavision lenses and get a PL adapter for your GH4.  At that point I'd be wondering why you don't just rent a Red or Arri setup along with it.

Brian,

Interesting analysis.  Some time ago I did a comparison of the tradeoffs between resolution, anamorphic effect, cropping etc.  From that posting (I could look it up), it became clear that at least on a GH4, 1.5x in UHD gave the best combination.  UHD in 1.5x gives a 2.67:1 ratio which is wider than standard anamorphic, but doesn't give you the "periscope" effect.  Cropping to 2.39 is simple without losing excessive information.  In fact this brings up an interesting point.  Historically scope was shot at a 2.67:1 recording ratio and only projected at 2.39:1 because they needed to include soundtrack information on the projection negative.  Your mileage will probably vary.   I often change between 1.5x and 2x because my day-to-day anamorphic is a Bolex 16/32, but I love night shots with the Sankor 16D which has blue flare to die for.
 

On February 5, 2016 at 8:01 AM, BrooklynDan said:

The red circle is caused by the old magnesium fluoride coatings on the spherical components. And considering The Thing used Panavision Super Speed lenses, the spherical components might've been from the 60s or 70s when such coatings were prevalent.  The old Todd-AO 35 anamorphics as well as the Dyaliscopes had similar artifacts. If you want to reproduce it, you should pay special attention to the taking lenses you use. Maybe something like a Super Takumar, or even older glass would make it happen.

I've seen red spherical flares on old Jupiter and Helios taking lenses.  For great flares (not necessarily the best optics) check out jupiter and helios taking lenses on Sankor 16D anamorphics.

Fine if you want to engineer an unreliable, high power android solution.  I think just getting a smallHD 502 would save you the effort with better resolution an software.

It depends what you're going to be cleaning off them.   Normally I would agree with much of what's already been said.  Also if it's just fingerprint smudges etc then a lens pen works just fine.  On the other hand if you're going to be anywhere near ocean spray I suggest you protect the focus rings and other moving parts with a zip lock back or similar and use special enzyme lens cleaner (you can get them in packs from your photo shop).

GH4 in UHD 4K, Bolex 16/32 1.5x anamorphic yielding 2.67:1 cinemascope recording aspect ratio.  I have several taking lenses.  The first is a series of Minolta Rokkors from 35mm up to 100mm with an MD Speed Booster.  The others are a Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm Flektogon f2.4 and a Carl Zeiss Jena 80mm Biometar adapted from large format.

I find it interesting that the NX1 is heavily featured here, but in other news Samsung has shut down their mirror less camera production.  

Really, really waiting for the Ursa Minor, I mean Ursa Mini 4.6k.  Either renting it or purchasing may be the biggest news of 2016.