dhessel

I will give that a shot, thank you.

Anyone know where to get something like the lens support shown in this picture or know what it might be called? Thanks.

http://i1243.photobucket.com/albums/gg541/QuickHitRecord/Lomo%20SquareFronts/Lomo_Set_2_zps1865b29d.jpg

on the BM cameras ISO has no effect on the raw data. ISO is only stored as metadata but underlying data is the same. It only matters in prores.

Not likely as others have said, the horizontal compression of anamorphics especially 2x tricks auto focus and focus peaking  into thinking something is in focus when it is not. I have generally found that things like peaking are pretty useless when shooting anamorphic unless it is on a monitor that can desqueeze it first. I have never shot with a 1.33x anamorphic though.

Reduser.

I just got one with the slog 4:4:4 upgrade, Berkley top plate, zacuto base plate, rods and Anton Bauer battery plate for just over $2100 shipped.

Good point, I will do that as well. Thank you.

Thank you, that is what I was thinking as well but have no pratical experience as I have always been able to dial whatever ND I wanted.

Finally going to be getting a mattebox and using solid NDs rather that a variable one. I am wanting to get 2 ND s that when stacked will give me 3 strengths. I will be wanting to shoot ISO 800 at 1/48 second from 2.8 - 5.6, maybe 8 at most. What do you all think would be the best strengths to get for this scenario. Thanks.

Yes that is correct.

If the lens is able to hold infiinity focus while zoom then it probably would.

Another interesting possibility with this is close focus on dual focus setups. This acts roughly like a variable 0 - 1.1 power diopter. So when focus is set to infinity for both it focuses from infinity down to about 3 feet. But for something like the Kowa if you set the lens and anamorphic to focus at 4.5 feet it will now go from 4.5 feet to 1.8 feet. These numbers are approximate and based off the 3' min focus reported for this thing but the concept should be correct. It would be nice if someone who has one can test that.

​Looks like you have completely missed the point of this article, try not to take it so literally and maybe you will get what Andrew is trying to say.

​FYI, there is no free version of Resolve for linux, not even the $995 one. The only Resolve that works with linux is the full blown setup which is well beyond free. Not sure about fusion though. I also use linux and am interested to hear what others find. Personally one missing component for me is a good color grader on linux since Resolve is not an option. Also I recommend going with Centos as your distro. I have used many others but they update so frequently and many are testbeds for the other some slowly evolving distros that I find they tend to develop problems and self destruct over time. Centos is the free equivalent of RedHat and I have found it to be much more stable. As I have not used anything but Centos for a while now, this may have changed.

Not if it is a 16:9 sensor readout and you want a 2.4 ratio. When 2x (3.56:1) full frame anamophic is cropped to 2.4:1 it has a 1.5 crop factor(aps-C) in the width so it will not vignette and you can get a wider FOV. Full frame cropped from 16:9 footage you effectively have a 24 mm x 20.25 mm sensor where aps-C cropped would be essentially a 15.7 mm x 13.1 mm sensor after cropping away the excess on the sides. For spherical s35 lenses aps-C is a must but not 2x anamorphics. With the A7s you have the option of shooting FF and aps-C so you get 2 focal lengths out of a single anamorphic prime. I used a Lomo 50mm squarefront on the A7s and that was how I came to realize this as I thought aps-C was a must as well.

Yep just downscale in whatever app you use. The whole 4K to HD 10bit theory was incorrect so you will gain nothing by tracking down the specialty apps that were made for this.

lomo foton 37-140mm is exactly what you are wanting and even has an interchangeable mount. In fact it is designed to work with a anamorphic front as well. It is designed for s35 so not sure if it will cover the sensor. However with all lenses on a still camera there is the issue that you cannot adjust back focus. For a lens to be parfocal its flange focal distance must be correct which could be a problem. The foton does have a back focus adjustment as I recall.

I loved my foton before its aperture failed, they go for $600-$800.

I am have not researched the exact reason why that much so what I say may be a little off but here is my understanding as to why. Zoom lenses have both front focus and back focus. Front focus is for the tele end and back focus is more for the wide end. You have a parfocal zoom when both front and back focus are in sync focusing at the exact same distance so you can go through the zoom and the focus will remain constant throughout. However back focus is much more sensitive to the flange distance than front focus is and offseting the flange distance is essentially altering the focus distance of the back focus. So by having an incorrect flange distance the back focus has been affected and is not focusing at the same distance as the front focusing is as it is not as sensitive to the offset and the lens is no longer parfocal. 

As an example say you are focused at an object 10 feet away. On a properly collimated camera and lens a parfocal zoom will have its front focus at 10' and its back focus at 10' so you can zoom and hold focus. Move the lens foward a fraction of a millimeter and now the front focus is still 10' but the back focus has shifted and is now focusing at 8'. Zoom the lens and the focus will now vary from 8' to 10' throughout its range.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/2012/11/why-its-almost-impossible-to-have-true-par-focal-zooms-on-the-cheaper-35mm-camcorders/

​Camera's and adapters can do exactly what the OP is describing. Yes it is true that still lenses were never designed to be parfocal although some can be quite close. Still lenses are not manufactured to the standard that cinema lenses are there are much larger tollerances. Camera manufactures know this and make their still lens mounts a little short to guarentee focus on these more cheaply manufactured lenses. Just look what happened to blackmagic when they followed the exact EF spec of 44mm on their first run of cameras. They got a flood of complaints from customers who's lenses would no longer hit infinity so they reduced the flange depth out of spec to allow for better compatibility. 

The same is true of adapters, they are intentionally made short to guarantee compatibilty with a wide range of lenses, no one wants a lens that won't focus to infinity. So on a camera with an adapter chances are it is much more out of spec than on a camera with a native lens mount. In order for a parfocal lens to remain parfocal the flange focal depth must be correct.

I had a PL lomo foton which is a parfocal cinema zoom. Put that on a PL camera with a proper flange depth of 52mm and it was perfect. Put in on my canon with a EF to PL adapter and it was no longer parfocal because the flange depth was no longer correct. 

It is quite possible that the lens is be having worse on the NX1 with an adapter that it was on his other camera with a native EF mount. 

Also the EF mount on lens and camera bodies is not as strictly accurate as lens mounts like PL are. They have some manufacturing tollerances and cannot be adjusted or shimmed to the correct flange focal distance. As a result this distance can vary somewhat from one body to the next which could make it closer to par-focal on some cameras compared to others but would be total random and no way of knowing util you try. Also I bellieve this lens is at best almost parfocal when zooming from tele to wide. The wider the focal length the more sensitive it is. 

A quick way to test if your FFD is correct is to see if the lens hits its witness marks. I have put the same lens on 3 camera bodies (5D mkII, c100, and A7s with metabones adapter) and each of them missed the witness marks by varying amounts... 

Hello,

I am trying to see what my options are for a clap on mattebox for a lens with 130mm O.D, it must be able to support an 18mm on s35. So far one option I have found is the MovCam MM4 but I am curious to know of any others. The lens has a non-rotating extending front so I think clamp on is probably the best option and I mainly want it for ND. Any advice would be great, thanks.

For raw the only option I can think of that will get you 24P at full HD and an APS-C size sensor would be a black magic camera with a speedbooster BMCC or pocket, or the 4K as is without a booster. Other than that the A7s has an option to shoot full frame or APS-C. It has a log mode and other benifits but no raw. Like Juilian mentioned you can try ML raw but if I recall correctly you won't be able to get continuous raw HD with a 7D, you may not even be able to get full HD at all but it would be best to check out their site as I a don't follow it as closely as I used to and things may have changed.

FYI the mini is not sensor upgradeable, only the Ursa is.

My solution was a Sony A6000 with an RJ Focal Reducer which is fine since I only use manual glass. So I have a near full frame camera, 1.08 crop, 24 Mega Pixel photos with good  video and video features for just under $550. Thanks too all for the input.

If ML is any kind of benchmark it would appear that Full HD may be possible at least for a decent length burst depending on the buffer size and if they can actually get usable footage out of it, but the chances any kind of compression or even bit rate reduction are slim to none. It is highly doubtful that the camera would have the processing power to do anything other than dump the data to a card, which is all ML on a canon can do as well.

I think that depends on how much you are looking to spend.