Timotheus

Rectilux Core DNA: Extras to get by Ian Edward Weir
I would highly recommend getting these extras to make the Core DNA ready for use.
 
1. M3/M4 Stainless Steel Nylon Head Grub Screw Plastic Brake Buffer Bolt Screws Hex
This is so you don’t scratch up the coating of your anamorphic lens or housing.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/281858121964?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649&var=580836260280&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
 
2. 86mm UV filter to protect the front of the Core DNA glass.
 
3. Metal back cap for whatever size you end up using for your coupler if bigger then 75mm. 
 
4. A custom coupler made from this lens hood fits perfectly. “FOTGA Screw Mount 67mm Standard Metal Lens Hood for Canon Nikon Pentax Sony Olympus” 
http://www.amazon.com/FOTGA-Screw-Standard-Pentax-Olympus/dp/B009GFY858
Then a step down ring or step up ring for whatever the size of your front anamorphic thread is. I’m doing 77mm because this is what most of my front clamps are. I’m making a custom 75mm to 77mm coupler for Kowa 1.5x and Kowa 1.75x.
 
5. 86mm Fixed Spacer Ring
http://srb-photographic.co.uk/86mm-fixed-spacer-ring-5713-p.asp
You want a uv filter to protect the glass but having it on you can’t completely go to infinity. Lucky, even with the uv filter on and not being able to turn the Core DNA to infinity, I’m sharp for over 100 feet. This spacer is for clearing the full range of the focus and using filters.
 
6. You want to get some 86mm or higher diopters. You need them if you want to get sharp and close.
 

Ignore those last pics of cages they were just some test rigs I threw together from spare parts from our grip store , The Cages I use to shoot with are GINI RIGS see pics of the 2 Nikon Bourne Lenses fully rigged up with Gini Rigs 5D MK111 cages , I like these big cages as I can get my hands inside on the camera to make adjustments , I dont like small cages that totally cover the camera - so all my shooting rigs have these superb Gini Rigs cages and lens supports and super smooth Gini Rigs follow focus , these are BIG follow focus great for very fine focus moves, the camera is mounted ona quick release plate inside the rig so you can de rig the whole camera and lens assembly out the rig when needed , lenses are all cable tied to lens supports to stop any lens movement due to follow focus .

I believe the PIX-E5(H) has some cool zoom functions. Not exactly cheap... the go-to brands on a budget are Aputure, Lilliput, MustHD, Ikan, Feelworld, Seetec and perhaps Sony's CLM-V55. Viltrox has some that are rather inspired by that one. The Lilliput 663/O/P2 has the dopest features for the best price. Whereas the new Aputure FineHD-line probably has the dopest price with decent features. Look into these and I'm sure you'll find something to your liking.
Here's a B&H-listing with monitors up to 400 bucks incl. pixel-to-pixel zoom level: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?ipp=48&ci=1984&N=4028759510+3887600113&mxp=400&setIPP=48&srtclk=itemspp .
At any rate... recover well, buddy!

The main technical hurdle is that focal reducers reduce the physical length of a lens in addition to reducing the focal length.  So if you simply build a focal reducer from cylinders you would wind up with many millimeters of astigmatism throughout the image.  An even bigger concern, as valid points out, is that you don't get any of the desirable anamorphic artifacts with a rear anamorphic attachment. 

I’ll admit it, I use camera forums a lot.  Too much, probably. I use them to check out the latest cameras and lenses and lights and accessories. I waste about two hours a day on them.  Time I could spend watching “the View.”
When I started out shooting part-time in 2005, I got a DVX100 because a juggler who was a featured extra on a tv show called “Sons of Saddam” told me to.  “Cause it does 24p.”  I didn’t know what that meant, but I plunked down $3,000 - all the money I had in savings on this camera.  
The camera could have been a bust.  But I did it because a juggler who played one of Saddam’s sons goons said so.  That’s how easily influenced I am.
Then I bought a HVX200, not even testing it first.  “Cause it can do HD.”   I bought the Redrock micro adapter because I watched the work of MacGreggor and some other DPs back then do stuff on a Gorilla 35 lens adapter that hadn’t even come out.  I hadn’t even tried it first.  Just sent in my credit card info.  
Rinse and repeat.
All these periods of time I bought things just based on videos I saw shot on them. No tests - I didn’t understand tests.  Just videos shot with them and the opinions of people I respected.  I could look at screen grabs but just scroll down to their opinions.
Well finally 11 years later, I am seeing what I was doing - buying based on people’s emotions.  Based on the emotions of people whose work I liked.
This is fine to do, but it’s not always the smartest thing to do.  
There are several, maybe twenty influential figures online in the cinematography world.  David Mullen, Shane Hurlbut, John Brawley, Art Adams, Geoff Boyle, and of course Andrew Reid, come to mind as leaders who people follow and listen to.
Even the opinions of the above people and the other influencers are, in the end, just their opinions.
When someone says, “this to me screams filmic” or “this looks digital” - again, that’s all an opinion.  If they say, “that grade is terrible” or “man you nailed the skin tones” - again, that’s all opinion.  Even looking at test charts and camera tests, the results are subjective.  Aesthetic is subjective.  There are scientific tests, but they lead to opinions.  This isn’t pure math - this is an art form.
There is no such thing as filmic.
Everything is digital.  Film emulsions see the world differently, but they go through a digital intermediate.  They become digital .  And I think that’s probably about 99.9% of all films shot on celluloid.  Maybe a few hipsters shoot film and use a steinbeck, but they still upload their results to vimeo, which converts this to a h.264 file.
I have very strong opinions, and a lot of people have very strong opinions.  That’s why we work in film.  It’s an art form that is full of passionate people.  But I also have low self-esteem.  My whole nature of existence is based on others approval.  I’m getting better at trusting my own self, but this is my basis.  
I think maybe most artists have low self-esteem or why would they want to share their art?  Is it ego?  Or the attempt for others to connect?  Yes that’s part of it.  But whether you want to admit it or not, we love when people love our work.  We live off the feedback, or why would we check vimeo 5 times a day to see if someone commented?  Why else would we have awards?  Especially in an art field where awards are just based on opinions of a community who may or may not get your work?
Something is beautiful if you think it is.  You don’t need an oscar in cinematography to be happy with your lighting or camera movement or angle, or have your opinion mean anything less if you aren’t in the ASC.  Everyone brings something unique to the art form.  Everyone brings a new perspective that is needed, especially now, when everything feels pretty much the same.  

This one is with the Tokina RMC 35mm f2. This is also cinelikeD with everything dialed down. His skin looks orange here, but it is showing good on the vectorscope. His blotchy, Scottish skin is proving to be difficult.
 

This one is the same Tokina lens but I used the Natural profile with a variation of Andy Lee's settings. I left everything at default except I dialed down Saturation.

This one is still with the same Tokina lens and Natural profile, but I used Andy Lee's settings for the G7, which are... Contrast -5, Sharpening 0, NR 0, Saturation -5

And here's the last one. This was shot with the Minolta MD Rokkor-X 28mm f2 using CineLikeD with everything dialed all the way down.
 

I still don't understand Sony's crusade against touchscreens.  Yes, you can do pull focus with button scrolling, but why not have a touchscreen for focus point selection in addition to buttons?  Every other manufacturer seems to be implementing touchscreens, so I'm not sure what Sony's business case against them is.

I think the mirrorless is totally awesome (for stills obviously) and the estetics gave me a gear-kind of hardon.

Yeah, I'm all for waiting for real life comparisons.
But Andrew sure has a nice bite "...although Canon’s implementation of the technology is A-ok, the marketing of it is highly targeted at Video Oligarchs and people who like moire." ZINGGG

I've now finished and posted my review of the ISCORAMA 42 for anyone interested http://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/iscorama-42-review/

The black side is actually the back of the lens, so they are mounted at the front.
I thought this was an alternative design for the Iscomorphot 8/1.5, but there will be others here who know more precisely, Tito or Bold perhaps?

I love what Sigma are doing and am excited for the 50-100 F1.8 which I am sure will be mega sharp
But a Speed Booster solution is definitely better value for money.
The XL on Micro Four Thirds for instance is a 0.64x so an F2.8 lens will be F1.8.
The E-mount Speed Booster will make F2.8 a F2.0
The Tokina zoom mentioned earlier or the Sigma 50-150mm F2.8 II EX DC APO for APS-C would be the ones to go for. I have the Sigma, it's great.

That's because people are mixing depth of field and exposure and making false statements about them. Also, they want crop cameras to adhere to fullframe camera behaviour, although you could just as easily state you can conform fullframe to crop cameras if all you want is make them identical. Just bear with me:
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, regardless of sensor, you will get an evenly lit picture on either of two cameras
Next, we will define two cameras to compare. We'll be comparing a fullframe sensor camera (1.0x, no crop) against camera with Micro Four Thirds sensor (has 2x crop). For ease of comparison we give these two imaginary cameras the same megapixel count and shoot the same resolution video with it without additional crops.
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, to get the same framing between the two cameras, you'd have to use a lens half the focal length on the 2x crop body
Illustration intermezzo:

Say, we use two identical 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses at 200mm f/2.8 on both cameras as our starting point. The image circle is the same for both: 200mm f/2.8. For this example we just assume that in the illustration above the circular image on the left is what the lens gives off at 200mm f/2.8. The 35mm fullframe sensor uses as much width as a squared sensor can get out of that circular image, capturing most of the scene. The cropped sensor crops in on that image circle (which, as we can see, doesn't affect the image's brightness in any way). So, we said that for our example we use a 2x crop camera to compare to. Looking at the pictures at the same physical dimensions, we notice that the image of the cropped sensor looks zoomed in. So in order to get back to similar framing we will have to use the lens at a wider position for the 2x crop body (or move the entire camera back in opposite direction of shooting until the framing is the same, but this is inconvenient and may not always be possible). Luckily we're using a 70-200mm zoom lens, so for the crop sensor we'll adjust the focal length to half of that we've set on the fullframe (200mm f/2.8), at 100mm f/2.8. Let's continue:
[> At the exact same settings: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), the 2x crop body will have a deeper depth of field compared to a fullframe camera
We're now using the lens on the 2x crop body less zoomed in, meaning we are decreasing the subject isolation and increasing the depth of field
[> At the exact same ISO and shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lenghts), the 2x crop body will match the depth of field with the fullframe camera having its lens selected to a full stop darker
Pinching the aperture on the lens mounted on the fullframe camera to 200mm f/4 will result in a deeper depth of field to match that of the depth of field with the 2x crop sensor camera that's at 100mm f/2.8. However. Pinching the aperture on the the lens will make the image on the fullframe camera darker... leaving only the one on the 2x crop sensor exposed properly
[> At the exact same shutterspeed, with the same framing (two different focal lengths), with matching depth of field and the fullframe body with lens one stop darker than the lens on the 2x crop body, you'd have to increase the ISO on the fullframe camera with one stop to even out the exposure again
Luckily earlier on we would assume both sensors were made up out of an equal amount of megapixels. However, the fullframe sensor is physically larger than the cropped sensor, giving each individual pixel better light gathering capability. Kinda of like solar panels and their better efficiency when they're bigger. So upping the ISO doesn't have to result is terrible noise per se
THE LESSONS LEARNED (hopefully)
A lens is a lens. F-stop = f-stop. Cropping in on the image circle a lens gives off does nothing, absolutely nothing to the brightness. A crop sensor camera doesn't record f/4 brightness with a lens set at f/2.8, that's just bollocks! For the same focal length used, the crop sensor will have framing that appears 'zoomed in'. To counter this you have to either step back and create more distance between you and your subject, or the more convenient solution: use a wider lens or a zoomlens at a wider position When you want to equal the framing with the different sensor cameras at the same place using different focal lenghts you will create a difference in perceived depth of field To equal the depth of field you either have to pinch the aperture on the lens that's attached to the fullframe camera, or brighten the other one (this might not be possible) To even out exposure you have to work with the forbidden love triangle that is: ISO, shutterspeed and aperture (additional influences: external lighting, (variable) ND filters) In the end I think we're all on the same page. Just some people have poor wording or might just misunderstand the concept a tiny bit. Which is no problem as long as they get it right within their own world and others in theirs. Now, it's well past midnight and I've been up for way too long, so I hope I've jotted down everything the way I meant. If you feel I'm in the wrong somewhere, I'm open-minded enough to accept essays in my EOSHD Inbox and rectify this comment according my newly acquired knowledge. But you really got to bring it to make me a believer...
Now let's get back to that Sigma, ey?

This thread has gone quite of the rails. Still interesting luckily :-) Was working on an explanation also but Cinegain beat me to it, cheers haha. Very concise indeed...btw, this and what Tony Northrup is explaining is exactly the same.
As for Andrew's recommendation of the Sigma 50-150: it has my vote too. Great, portable lens well below 1kg (the one without OS that is). Probably very comparable to the aforementioned Tokina 50-135.

Seems Sigma has done it again:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-first-picture-of-the-crazy-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-lens/
Yet another uniquely fast zoom (for crop). You guys excited? I know I am :-) Now let's wait for RRP

Seems Sigma has done it again:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-first-picture-of-the-crazy-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-lens/
Yet another uniquely fast zoom (for crop). You guys excited? I know I am :-) Now let's wait for RRP

Seems Sigma has done it again:
http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/leaked-first-picture-of-the-crazy-sigma-50-100mm-f1-8-lens/
Yet another uniquely fast zoom (for crop). You guys excited? I know I am :-) Now let's wait for RRP

Cheers for the tip!
I'll keep an eye out for the Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8

Time to address the second most common question asked when it comes to anamorphics: "How wide can I go with this anamorphic?".
Your problems are over! Here I introduce my hFOV calculator!
Test it, break it, enjoy. Let me know.
http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8615
You can input all your settings (camera/crop factor, taking lens, focal reducers, anamorphic stretch and sensor aspect ratio) to check if you'll get vignetting, the equivalent focal length of your horizontal field of view and your final aspect ratio. You can also discover which taking lenses will give you a specific horizontal field of view and what crop should you set on your camera to achieve a specific final aspect ratio.

Piracy is a very emotive subject, especially for creators of pirated content, and I have been involved in three industries now which have dealth with piracy in different ways: Music, Video Games and as a Youtube producer.
I feel because it is such an emotive subject, there is a lot of assumptions made and they can be incorrect, for example, every instance of piracy is a lost sale is a common attitude among publishers and studios in the video game industry, yet it is demonstratably false, and some studios report an increase in sales after a pirated version is released.
So this is my 2p, and the reason I created an account to stop lurking here: Piracy is a service problem.
Piracy was rampant in the music industry, it was and still is easy, the file sizes are small and nearly any album can be found and downloaded in 5 minutes flat. At first, the industry cracked down hard on the file sharers and site owners, however the legal system cannot keep pace with the internet and the vast majority of cases were dropped because digital evidence is notoriously expensive to collect, easy to manipulate and rarely is more than circumstantial. Besides which, for every site that gets taken down after a year of work, twenty more spring up, with more sophisticated defences against detection. Why then is the music industry, particularly the indie scene in rude health? Well, simply because it is easier to get digital music legally than it is illegally. People are definately willing to pay for music, and most people with the disposable income will pay for it if they can.
Now, lets look at the most pirated tv show of 2015 - Game of Thrones. Lets look at how convienient it is to obtain legally in the UK. You can of course buy a DVD set of season 5, watch it "live" on sky or buy a Now TV pass. The most expensive option by far is Sky, costing a minimum of £400, though admittedly, this gets you 2 seasons - 24 month bundle and you get to record it, watch on your tv etc. A DVD is the cheapest option, at £20 for the season, though you have to wait until you can buy it. The middle option is to buy a now TV pass each month that an episode is broadcast, costing £21, if you're smart and you get to watch it live. The problem is, people are already paying for a Netflix subscription, Amazon Prime, Spotify, have a library of steam games, have a library of DVD's, and quite often, they just want to be in the loop. They don't care about game of thrones as much as talking about game of thrones with their friends, so the £20 is not something they're willing to pay. So they don't because it's just not worth the money + hastle of waiting or figuring out Now TV. These are not people who will pay for GoT anyway. If you implimented a perfect piracy prevention system, they would not pay.
So the question is, if you can, as kaylee wishes, implement a perfect piracy protection system - which you never can - if it displays on a monitor, you can simply set up a dummy software monitor which "displays it" into a memory buffer and records it from there - but if you could and the budget made sense, they why wouldn't you? It's a service problem again. Yes, you may prevent piracy, but at what cost to your legitimate customers, the ones who gave you the full asking cost to watch your content. You make your product much worse for them, and that has proven time and time again to cost you customers. Gametrailers shut down this week, why, because of their insistance on using proprietry video player. The audience doesn't want to deal with "not as good as youtube", and so they just don't. They go elsewhere, even at the expense of missing out on that content. Kaylee, you could introduce some system with timed tokens and whatever, but all you would do is annoy people who gave you their money as halfway through watching your video, you get an error and they have to reload to start watching again, yet I promise you, the pirates who paid nothing, who stripped that system out of your video would be getting a better deal. You know what companies I will no longer buy from? Companies like EA, who's paying customers get a substandard product as a direct result of anti-piracy measures, when the pirates get the product the creaters intended.
I think you just have to accept the basic premise that piracy happens, it's a cost of doing business over the internet - the business 99% of small content creators wouldn't have if it weren't for the internet. It's worth considering that not every pirate is a lost sale, if the content isn't worth it to them, if they cannot afford your content, then they never were going to give you the money. That they get the content anyway is maybe worth making peace with, and focus your efforts on making better content that appeals to more people, so that the balance shifts, that it becomes worth the asking price for more people, and the evidence suggests that if you do that, more people will pay for your content.
Finally, it really is worth looking hard at the demographic of pirates. The research by Excipio shows that piracy is most common among the poorest, and youngest in their surveys - correlation is not causality, but can you so easily dismiss the idea that the $3 the Sundance Infographic tosses out as "only" when $2 is more than a days pay for half the worlds population - would you pay a day and a thirds pay for a movie? I wouldn't, because for me, that would, on a bad day be the equivilent of dropping £150. And yes, if you put the cost of access to your movie at £150, yes, I would pirate it.

This is partially the cost we're playing paying for the entry level into the industry being so low. Not but 15 years ago the cost of filmmaking, heck of making a reel, was exponentially higher than it is today. A kid in highschool with $2000 worth of gear and some talent can make a spec that would rival the industries best in the 90s.
That same jump in technology and low entry level means we have a harder time not only standing out, but means we're having to fight piracy at a level unimaginable 15 years ago.
 

This stands out to me as one of the best tutorials.  what he shows in this video provides the basis for just about anything else you;d want to do as far as grading is concerned.  

I use Natural (contrast -5 and saturation -5) and I store it as CUSTOM profile 1 .....leave the NR and Sharpening at 0
yes you dial the colour back in in post ,Im shooting alot of night interior scenes in this movie on sets and I want to record a much shaddow detail as possible , I dont want crushed blacks in camera . so contrast and saturation are -5 , it works great this way . I shot a whole moive that way last year and we got superb results with it.
 
this was shot Natural (contrast -5 and saturation -5) with the colour dialed back in in post /grade. all that detail in the actors uniform would not be there with crushed blacks in camera .

Andy, this is a little off topic, but I also am a G7 owner and I would love to know what settings you're using. As you probably know, there is a tremendous amount of conflicting information online regarding the best picture profile. I have been getting decent results with both cinelikeD and Natural, but any insight you have would be greatly appreciated, especially since I am in preproduction on my first feature. Is the XL a paramount part of the quality you are getting?

Here's a clip with the Takumar 35mm f/2.