tweak

If you say so. Imo it would have been a non issue if one read the post before answering it. But maybe that's just me.

Imo the three point bold lettered bulletin list was enough.

Yes that is one of the effects of Anamorphic, how it renders the OOF areas is a little different to a regular lens and also the distortion adds to this effect.

It stretches the whole image horizontally (in this case 2x), it's supposed to be the same across the image, but due to the nature of an adapter lens I think sometimes it's not 100% uniform across the image (can be a little more at the sides if you shoot super wide like this maybe).

This grading was pretty bad, I didn't really know what I was doing (still don't really).

The 4:3 mode on GH4 actually gives you more sensor height than in the 16:9 mode, it's pretty cool, 1:1 mode gives you even more height again.

First you say its false and then you agree with me.... and no Im not the one who brought it up. 
You also say, "Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF."
My point exactly, you change the exposure. Not equivalent at all. For me its important to expose properly.
"As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. "
My point exactly.
 
 

The same old story pops up online all the time. Doesn't matter how many times it gets explained.
DOF and Exposure doesn't change with a crop sensor. Its just a crop. And that's why a FF never can emulate MF with so called "equivalent lenses". Just like a 1" can never look exactly like a FF.
If you change lens to get more SDOF youve done just that. Changed lens. Which means a different background compression.
One can see it as a problem or use it as an advantage. Its up to the shooter. I choose the later.
Example:
I like using a 35mm on the street since I can then fill the frame with a person from a comfortable distance.
Only problem is that the DOF is so shallow at f8 set at 3m (2-5m) that its tough to get things on focus.
If I instead use a 17mm lens at f8 set to 3m I get from about 1m to Infinity. Much better.
But its to wide, people dont fill the frame as easily. They look tiny.
Solution, m4/3 crop sensor camera.
Exposure does not change. The DOF is still roughly 1m to Infinity. The only thing thats changed is the crop. I can now fill the frame from roughly the same distance as the 35mm on the FF.
Comparing the 35mm on FF  side by side to the 17mm MFT there is another difference though. Background compression. It has changed because they are different focal lengts. A 17mm and a 35mm. So the "equivalent" wasnt 100% equivalent after all.
So a crop is a crop is a crop is a crop...
This is why Medium Format and Large Format is cool. I can use a 90mm portrait lens, with its DOF and compression. But still see as much background and stay at the same comfortable distance as I would with a 35ish mm on FF.
"Equivalent lenses" is only for distance. A FF can never emulate a MF. Exposure and DOF is unaffected.
The biggest reason for all the fuss imo is that soooooo many people only stare at DOF, DOF, DOF and DOF. They go blind to all the other characteristics of an image.
Same when you try to discuss "image quality" with a large group. At least one sees sharpness and only sharpness as image quality. The discussion is pointless because anyone not picking the sharpest image is brushed off as an "idiot".
The whole thing is just so tiering. I made a video on sensor sizes recently so I could have just a link to post every time the discussion gets brought up. But I haven't had time to upload it yet. And when I see all the heat people get from the DOF cruisaders Im not even sure its worth it.

Nofilmschool can fuck off.

There's no point being anti-raw when you have it on something like a 5D Mark III, and it turns out to be a million times better than the compressed option on that camera.

and it's not 4k...why are they nominating films that are not in 4k at least? doesn't make any sense!

Yeah, with an Alexa. 

We're sorry that you weren't satisfied with your viewing experience. Please contact the manager for a full refund.

Compressed 8-bit is no match for the power of Raw!  

Yeah, I will definitely miss the ease of the a7s. The 4k and low light don't concern me much, as I have always found the awkward rigging of the shogun well.. awkward haha! For lowlight, the 5D holds up very well to ISO 3200, maybe even 6400 - which is plenty for my use. There is also an NAB-factor here. Will be interesting to see whats gonna happen to the older generations of the a7-line cameras, if Sony keep outperforming their products  Price wise
 

I actually said goodbye to my a7s yesterday to make space for the 5D3  Looking forward to explore the magic!

5D2 is a waste of money, 5D3 is a lot better and worth the extra from what I've experienced and read.
The shots weren't so different until you shot the anamorphic stuff, then the 5D3 looked noticeably a lot better.
I'm also trying to get the cash for my own 5D3 at the moment, like you I think it could be a great all round performer. I'm shooting 7Draw all the time at the moment, but I can see how the 5D3 is a lot nicer (also for pictures, especially the DR).

Just wanted to share my pleasant experience as a home video enthusiast creating a family vacation video montage with ML Raw video and Davinci Resolve. I had several technical difficulties, and tried some convoluted workflows to correct them, but in the end stayed entirely in Resolve.
Sorry if the saturation/colors/clipping/banding causes any nausea ;-) I wish I had the time and skill to do justice to the ML raw files, but, for better or worse, I stuck almost entirely to the camera raw tools in Resolve. 
 

Definitely something I will look further into if the budget allows me to. On the other hand, I see the potential of the mk3 to become a full time production horse, with the  1920x1280 (anamorphic), 3200 ISO and slow motion functions that I (am still struggling with this) can live with

Excuse me for being a hopeless pixel-romantic. 

This dilemma has kept me awake for a quite some time now and I am hoping your subjective experience, reflection, input, opinions and/or advice potentially could give me some guidance (or potentially more confusion, which I will take full responsibility for).

My interest for Raw started when I played with the thought of replacing my a7s for a Digital Bolex D16. While I am usually very trigger happy, I managed to hold my horses when the chance to have a go on it complicated my relationship with it. I realized that, without a second camera (for budget reasons), the 20 minute boot-up and the sacrifice of photography would not make me happy in the long run. While I still want to be a Bolex-owner as I am a sucker for the CCD and its awesome audio features, it is not my time just yet. Nevertheless, the Raw fanboy is still in me and I think the 5D is the (next) best thing (?) and might be a good investment. 

Maybe I just answered myself, haha. However I specify that I am asking for your subjective experience/opinions. Maybe some of you have been in the same boat or the other way around.

I did quick and shamelessly dirty test today, if you find it interesting. The exposure is all over the place (unfair), more info on that in the videos description.
 

Thank you!
 

Hi,
I am looking specifically for the Elmoscope ii Anamorphic lens. If anyone is selling please PM/ let me know. I would be very grateful.
Thanks 

I'd go with framing, camera motion, lighting and color grade. With theses techniques cinematic looks can be achieved with a smartphone... https://***URL not allowed***/shooting-cinematic-iphone-footage-filmic-pro/

So i've been waiting for bit for a while and patiently waiting for the Core DNA to come back in stock to finish my setup. Here is how she sits now! The new Rapido system is great. Had some custom step up rings machined by Raf in russia and everything mates together now. Once I get the rectilux i'll do an initial test then send away for cleaning/adjustment at super16 inc.

Nice!

I've had 2 x Elmoscope II, 2 x 8Z and 1 x B&H. 
One 8Z had Gold flares, one Blue flares. The Blue one flared the easiest of any lens I've owned.
Both Elmo Scopes were Gold flares, Both B&H were Gold flares. The Elmo IIs I had seemed to flare a bit easier than the B&H.

The one I kept and use the most now is an Elmo II, but I think it's really dependent on production factors as to which is the sharpest/ best. They all can be good.

 

"6K/24p Anamorphic Video Mode, while fun, is severely hampered by its 4:3 aspect ratio"
UM!
That's what an anamorphic mode is - 4:3
Someone let our dear friends at Cinema5D know.

For me, bit depth matters much more than resolution.
JB 
I can't even remember it. Go shoot and tell us what you think.  
JB 

Apology to everyone including John Brawley - 
The Ursa Mini 4.6k from reviews is looking amazing .  They seemed to fix the various problems.
I'm going to do a skintone test on thursday with the sony f65 and red epic mx and canon c300 ii.