Jump to content

Brian Caldwell

Members
  • Content Count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from leslie in 2x anamorphic essentially 1.5x and 1.33x   
    The main reason for shooting 1.33x (actually, 1.344x would be best) is to get 2.39:1 output with no waste of a 16:9 sensor.  Shooting 2x on 16:9 and cropping throws away resolution.  Aside from these considerations, there is the aesthetic look that different squeeze ratios provide.  Many people dislike 1.33x because it doesn't look very anamorphic.  However, even 2x anamorphics don't always share the same look.  Rear anamorphics don't look anamorphic at all.  Zeiss 2x Master Anamorphics actually look more like 1.64x true front anamorphics due to their mixed front/rear design.
  2. Thanks
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Emanuel in Difference between original Speed booster and the Ultra 0.71x   
    The Ultra uses a significantly better optical design, with very high MTF and insignificant corner falloff.  As a result, the Ultra will sharpen up any lens that is attached to it, including the Zeiss Otus series.  Below is a very detailed MTF comparison of the original M43 Speed Booster, the Ultra, and the XL.  The XL is also very sharp, but is a little more specialized than the Ultra.
     

  3. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Cinegain in Difference between original Speed booster and the Ultra 0.71x   
    The Ultra uses a significantly better optical design, with very high MTF and insignificant corner falloff.  As a result, the Ultra will sharpen up any lens that is attached to it, including the Zeiss Otus series.  Below is a very detailed MTF comparison of the original M43 Speed Booster, the Ultra, and the XL.  The XL is also very sharp, but is a little more specialized than the Ultra.
     

  4. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from tupp in Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame   
    Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners.  These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays.  The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle.  So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on.
    The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization.  The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center.  The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh".
    I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect.  I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.
     
  5. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from andrgl in Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame   
    Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners.  These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays.  The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle.  So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on.
    The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization.  The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center.  The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh".
    I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect.  I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.
     
  6. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from EthanAlexander in Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame   
    Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners.  These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays.  The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle.  So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on.
    The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization.  The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center.  The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh".
    I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect.  I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.
     
  7. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from noone in Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame   
    Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners.  These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays.  The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle.  So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on.
    The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization.  The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center.  The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh".
    I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect.  I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.
     
  8. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from KnightsFan in Fast apertures on the GH5 = Full frame   
    Oblique rays strike the center of the image as well as the corners.  These are aperture dependent and are called marginal rays.  The relationship between f-number and the marginal ray angle is given by f/# = sin(theta), where theta is the marginal ray angle.  So, at f/1 the marginal ray angle is 30 degrees, and so on.
    The obliquity of the marginal ray does cause a form of pixel vignetting that perhaps should be called pixel apodization.  The effect is that the edges of bokeh blurs - where the marginal ray obliquity is highest - is darkened relative to the center.  The good news is that this is the definition of "good bokeh".
    I think Andrew's two sample images reveal this effect.  I would guess that the bottom image was shot with the faster lens.
     
  9. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from foliovision in Canon XC-M ???   
    I haven't carefully read every post in this thread, but everyone keeps incorrectly referring to the document in the first post as a "patent", when it is in fact only a published patent application.  Patent applications aren't officially issued patents, and normally haven't even been reviewed by an examiner when they are published.
     
  10. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Matt James Smith 🎥 in Canon XC-M ???   
    I haven't carefully read every post in this thread, but everyone keeps incorrectly referring to the document in the first post as a "patent", when it is in fact only a published patent application.  Patent applications aren't officially issued patents, and normally haven't even been reviewed by an examiner when they are published.
     
  11. Thanks
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from kye in Canon XC-M ???   
    I haven't carefully read every post in this thread, but everyone keeps incorrectly referring to the document in the first post as a "patent", when it is in fact only a published patent application.  Patent applications aren't officially issued patents, and normally haven't even been reviewed by an examiner when they are published.
     
  12. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from TheRenaissanceMan in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I'm assembling and adjusting the first 100mm prime right now.  Samples of the 100mm and 32mm should be ready by the time Cine Gear rolls around.  Another two (50mm and 150mm) hopefully by the end of the year.  The "in-betweens", 40mm, 60mm, and 75mm will likely not appear until next year.   I'm not sure about the adapter schedule yet.
  13. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Orangenz in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  14. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from maxmizer in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  15. Thanks
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Emanuel in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I'm assembling and adjusting the first 100mm prime right now.  Samples of the 100mm and 32mm should be ready by the time Cine Gear rolls around.  Another two (50mm and 150mm) hopefully by the end of the year.  The "in-betweens", 40mm, 60mm, and 75mm will likely not appear until next year.   I'm not sure about the adapter schedule yet.
  16. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Juank in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  17. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Georgios in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  18. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Cinegain in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I'm assembling and adjusting the first 100mm prime right now.  Samples of the 100mm and 32mm should be ready by the time Cine Gear rolls around.  Another two (50mm and 150mm) hopefully by the end of the year.  The "in-betweens", 40mm, 60mm, and 75mm will likely not appear until next year.   I'm not sure about the adapter schedule yet.
  19. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from jonpais in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I'm assembling and adjusting the first 100mm prime right now.  Samples of the 100mm and 32mm should be ready by the time Cine Gear rolls around.  Another two (50mm and 150mm) hopefully by the end of the year.  The "in-betweens", 40mm, 60mm, and 75mm will likely not appear until next year.   I'm not sure about the adapter schedule yet.
  20. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from IronFilm in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I'm assembling and adjusting the first 100mm prime right now.  Samples of the 100mm and 32mm should be ready by the time Cine Gear rolls around.  Another two (50mm and 150mm) hopefully by the end of the year.  The "in-betweens", 40mm, 60mm, and 75mm will likely not appear until next year.   I'm not sure about the adapter schedule yet.
  21. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Emanuel in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  22. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from sudopera in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  23. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from buggz in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  24. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from elgabogomez in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


  25. Like
    Brian Caldwell got a reaction from Cinegain in GH5s Anamorphic Mode Question   
    I've built prototypes of an iscorama-style single-focus adapter, but its really only suitable for shorter focal lengths in the 35mm to 75mm range.  Also, its a bit large, and the front element moves during focusing, which may cause some issues with matte boxes.  I'm also building a second type better suited for longer focal lengths in the 75 to 200mm range.  I'm still debating whether to modify these for internal focusing, which would be good for heavy-duty cine use, but would make the adapters larger, heavier, and more expensive.  To be honest, I've put the adapter project on hold until I get a few focal lengths in my anamorphic prime series completed.
     
     
     


×
×
  • Create New...