Jump to content

William Reynish

Members via Facebook
  • Content Count

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About William Reynish

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,210 profile views
  1. Went to see a soccer match and tested out the 1080p slow mo in the a7sII. All 100p. Really annoying that you can't pick 120p when in PAL mode. You can't even switch to NTSC mode on the fly. If you do, the camera erases your card! The whole idea of using the concept of PAL/NTSC is really stupid. Just let me pick the framerate I want In general, this is a great camera, slightly let down på crap menus, crappy button layout, crappy record button, stupid inability to use the shutter release for movie recording, etc. It's great engineering with a pretty rubbish UI. Really a shame that Sony doesn't s
  2. Thanks for the great responses. In practice it seems like most anamorphic adapters are mostly useful on 4:3 sensors so that you can actually use 2x anamorphics to get the full effect. And most aren't designed for full frame. On the A7s, the options seem fairly limited and frustrating though. Here's hoping Sony will enable us to use the full sensor, not just 16:9.
  3. ​Seems like a weird workflow. It's easier to grade at the end. That way you have the original footage with all the data for grading. You wouldn't really want to grade twice - you'd just loose data and information for the final grade. If the log footage is too low contrast you can apply a LUT while editing. This is built in in FCP X for log footage.
  4. You can use the Osiris LUTs. There are also many free ones on the web. For example, here: https://vimeo.com/105782210
  5. You can just shoot in SLOG and use a log LUT that you like. Doesn't have to take that long. Or, just shoot in rec 709 and avoid grading completely. You can do this just fine.
  6. Hi anamorphic people. After having bought the SLR Anamorphot (which apparently was a bad sample) it got me thinking: what is truly the point of these anamorphic adapters? They seem to achieve these two things: 1: Theoretical increased resolution by avoiding having to crop the sensor to go to CinemaScope2: Aesthetic optical side-effects, such as oblong bokeh and streaky flares However, it seems to me that these two things aren't worth it. Here's why: 1: The increased resolution is negated by the fact that most anamorphic adapters aren't really that sharp2: You can easily achieve oblong bokeh an
  7. Just wanted to chime in again with an update: I've figured out the main reason why the Anamorphot was never getting sharp. The front element of the adapter is loose, and was slightly off! Now that I rotate it back it seems better, but it's not viable to use it like this, as its impossible to use in practice. It means I've not essentially got three focus rings: the taking lens, tha anamorphot and the anamorphic front element. It was already hard to use with two focus rings, three is not going to work. Either the build quality is not that great of I just got a lemon. I've not used the lens once
  8. griplimited: The diopters seem ok. Trouble is that I can't really get it to be sharp under any circumstances. But the diopters don't seem to make it any less sharp In fact, the SLR Magic diopters were used on this video, which does seem nice and sharp (doesn't use the anamorphic though): I've got a Pentax 40mm pancake lens coming tomorrow. Hopefully that will work better with the anamorphot and actually produce sharp results at f4, let alone f2.8. We'll see.
  9. Yes, the omission of the FS7 seems weird. I've got the A7s + Shogun, but the FS7 is clearly a breakthrough 2014 camera, whereas the 1DC is not.
  10. ​You need to be in movie mode for the output to work right, otherwise you get this issue
  11. Here are some examples of the troubles I'm having. Taken with the Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro. Anamorphic off at f5.6. Full 4K image: 1:1 crop: Anamorphic with close focus diopter on at f5.6. Full 4K image: 1:1 crop:
  12. The official instructions tell you to not use wider than 2.8 up up till 50mm, but I find it's very hard to get sharp results with 50mm lenses set to 2.8.
  13. Yeah, does seem to vary with different taking lenses. Just ordered the Pentax-M pancake 40mm f 2.8 to test - I heard that pancakes are good for anamorphics. We'll see
  14. The difference between UHD and DCI 4K is quite small though. Although I can see that if your workflow is entered around DCI it's a bit less practical. Also, the A7s can't output DCI 4K, and the GH4 only does it in 24 fps (useless in Europe where 25 fps is the the standard)
  15. Thing is, most 1080p cameras can't actually resolve 1080p. This is due to de-bayering, scaling and compression. Zoomed in 1:1, most 1080p footage is blurry, lacking super fine detail. 4K (itself not completely sharp when looking at it 1:1) downscaled to 1080p gives you 'proper' 1080p with superb detail, way sharper than 'native' 1080p cameras can resolve. Oh, and as for lenses, most prime lenses can definitely resolve 4K. 4K is still 'only' 12 megapixels. Almost all stills cameras are higher res than that. If lenses couldn't out-resolve 12 MP, why would you ever need more than 12 MP for stills
×
×
  • Create New...