Julien416

Focused at infinity?

Yeah sure, there's not better way to spend his lifetime pension for a middle class retired american in Vietnam than buying an overweight 7000$ single focal anamorphic lens. Way to go dude. I mean... Guys. Come on. Overkill is the word coming to my mind...

@jonpais You might also want to check that link ;-)

Probably, but they avoided complicated gear train by doing it with an arduino and some basic step motors. Going the gear train way would require skills I do not have even though it's pretty basic mecanical stuff. They did it this way in the 50's Example taken from the excellent filmoscopeFR website It depends on the lens indeed, but even the best ones breathe a lot. I used to shoot with a Kowa 8z without rectilux and was forced to resize with a 1.8 ratio at minimal focus distance. A face 10% larger than usual doesn't look too good honestly. I went the rectilux way and even though it - very slightly - degrades the image, it's so much easier to focus without being bothered by breathing that I haven't looked back. But of course, the FM lens and the rangefinder aren't so good and bring a lot of CA...

Hello, It's definitely possible. Rapido Technology even sells such a gear : http://www.rapidotechnology.com/products-services/rapido-single-focus-solution Now, what you need to know. Anamorphics changes their compression ratio when you focus closer. It's called breathing. The first CinemaScope lenses back in 53 worked this way. But it quickly became unacceptable as it made actors look fat onscreen as the close up had a ratio closer to 1.6 instead of 2. This problem was first fixed by Dyaliscope, an obscure french lens maker of the 50's. But it was only with Panavision in 57 that the solution was widely adopted in the industry and from that moment Panavision became the de facto king of anamorphic. Now, if you built such a gear, or use the one from rapido, you'll basically be using the equivalent of a 1955 lens. It can be pretty cool, but you have to understand the shortcomings. As much as I do love the old CinemaScope, I'd rather shoot without too much breathing. So a single focus solution is probably a better path to shoot anamorphic. Problem it can be expansive and make your setup heavy. Well it's anamorphics, no simple solutions unfortunately.

If the sensor was really to be around 12mp, it would be bring the GH5s pixels/cm2 ratio to the likes of Nikon D850. No need to remind you its DR. Just saying.

They also just reposted their infos from photorumors without citing them as source... We're running circles here. 43rumors post infos from here and we comment them. Silly.

Just when I had finally decided to pull the trigger and buy a gh5... Come on !

The rectilux is just a variable diopter. You're still missing the anamorphic element. Add another grand in the mix. And probably another one just because anamorphic is the new sexy.

Careful Jon, there is a speedbooster (actually a lens turbo 2) that brings the S35 depth of field

@jonpaisBuying one single atlas Orion optics for recreationnal use sounds like pure folly if you're wisely counting your bucks honestly. What we tried to demonstrate on the atlas thread is that you can achieve a very similar look easily for a fraction of that price (and that weight)... The recipe is already known. A taking lens, probably a sharp one as you tend to favor clean look, a cinelux ES (or isco ultra star), and a rectilux (HCDNA) is the recipe you're looking for. An example of what you can shoot with it It really seems infinitely wiser to go this route when you're an enthusiast shooter IMO.

The problem with speedbooster and Sigma 18-35 is only with the speedbooster XL. You're safe with the lens turbo.

Guys, -Wagner was anti semitic but his music is pure genius. -Louis Ferdinand Celine is considered one of the greatest french writer of the 20th century. Problem : he was a wicked anti semitic as well and wrote the infamous "I'd prefer 12 Hitler to one omnipotent Blum" (a leftist - and jewish - french politician. One of the greatest.) -Roman Polanski raped a 13 years old girl, yet he is considered one of the great directors of our time. To sum it up : geniuses can be ass holes. You may not like it, i certainly don't, yet it's the sad truth. You'd think being smart, rich and talented would avoid bigotry, racism, lust for teenagers and what not. Unfortunately, nope. We are in mid grey areas. Life isn't black or white... Both your arguments are valid. But admiring Griffith accomplishment doesn't qualify anyone as a racist. Griffith, as racist as he was, almost invented cinema grammar. You'd never speak of Martin Scorsese a racist, right ? Yet he was the one by whom I heard the first time about Griffith. I remember him speaking in great terms about what Griffith had done (in film making...) when I was younger and interested in film history in his "personal journey with martin scorsese through american movies" (a classic by the way...). I even bought "Intolerance" in VHS right after. It was quite a snoozefest but still... Fortunately I didn't buy BOAN... What does that tell us ? Nothing much. Life's a bitch maybe and nothing is as clear as pure water... I wish it was.

Hmmm, considering the success of Netflix which is greatly based on its TV series content, I am not sure I completely agree with you. It's true that young people's attention span has decreased dramatically. Yet there is a simple fact : these young people will get older. They will refine their tastes and open their minds to more intricate stories just as the countless sollicitations of teenhood will fade away. It took me a while to like the first blade runner, and at 15 years old I essentially perceived it as a boring - yet beautiful - dark snooze fest. It's now one of my favorite movie ever. At 15 I also thought a Mcdonald's that the best meal someone could dream to eat... People are not written in stone, they will evolve and start to learn that emotions and stories are better conveyed when you take your time to actually tell them... As of now, the trend in the industry is that cinema is becoming a thing of the past. The first reason is the lack of novelty, films are no longer innovative and are all based on the same basic formulas, no innovation means no success, but innovation is perceived as dangerous by studios and financiers who wants to cash in based on past success, it's a vicious circle that will badly end. The second reason is because people want longer stories while at the same time being able to see it whenever they want, hence the success of SVOD. I can stop watching a 50 minutes episode after 10 minutes and keep watching it in the bus or at lunch time... People will always want to immerge themselves in new narrative arenas, and they want them to last ! I mean youtubers may be producing very short stories, but they are making dozens, hundreds of them. If you add them up, it's hours of shows with often the same characters and story lines... The way the content is divided may have changed, but in the end it's still the same ol' stories being told...

Deakins never used anamorphic. he's a dogmatic i am effraid. Yet I was affraid i would miss it and I didn't. The movie is nothing short of spectacular. It's a masterpiece on so many levels. But obviously its cost is way too high. Nevertheless I am happy they spent too much money on such a refined film. In the history of cinema it will outlast a bunch of very profitable yet forgettable movies. Just like the first movie did.

Youtube web series is a genre in itself. I understand it's a new thing in the world we're living here. Is it the best way to come out as a potential feature film director ? I don't know. Even now, in my country - France - the best way to become a film director is still to direct some short films - usually 10 to 20 minutes long - and attend film festivals while hoping to get noticed. You can also promote your work on social network obviously. But your short film has only one goal, show the world you can tell a compelling story with the unique tools of cinema and grab the attention of your audience for longer than a 4 minutes period... Being a youtuber is nice and everything, but I did a little thing a few years ago with youtubers. They all had a few millions followers, yet I wasn't particularly impressed with their hability to tell a story as film makers (they're very talented nonetheless). If you're wondering what I am trying to say, it's just that everybody should try to master the art of film making before dreaming of castles in Spain (on YouTube). Shoot something and post it on YouTube, if it's 10 minutes - but good - it will get noticed. I know a lot of film directors wannabe who keeps telling me they never got their chance and that they could have been huge, make blockbusters if only, etc. The sad truth is that they were not good enough. In the business of film directing and writing, talent never gets unnoticed, I can tell you that from experience.

Loved it. Kinda hypnotic. Couldn't care less about the "Guess what lens it is !" side of things, i just loved the images and the music and didn't really think about the lens combo (even though i was wondering about that particular flare at... Nah i'll refrain myself ). Really a brilliant work. Thank you for that.

Careful, the HDNA brings a lot of additionnal vignetting. Typically i could go as wide as 50mm on FF with my 8z. With the HDNA it's more around 70/75mm.

I know it's been posted elsewhere already but this one stands out ! I know the alexa compareason is stupid. The GH5 is - at least - 3 stops short on DR, doesn't have 4:4:4, raw, Arri color science, you name it. But still. Motion cadence, tonality... And it probably wasn't shot with the latest 4:3 10 bits firmware. With proper glass and a competent operator the GH5 just shines. I could mix that kind of footage easily with an alexa and people would hardly notice the difference, even after being told.

It seems really reasonnable indeed. It shouldn't be so soft. You're right, shooting at f5.6 is really defeating the point of shooting anamorphic to get the look. However, i recently shot something with some pana serie C anamorphic gear and my DOP was really reluctant to go under 2.8. He really was fond on shooting at f4 where they supposedly shine. What i mean, is that f4 isn't something very unusual for anamorphic shooting. Anyway, a friend just received a rangefinder, i'll compare it to my hardcoreDNA to check if it's THAT soft.

Well the thing is supposed to be very soft up to F2.8½ - F4. Even with their anamorphic primes, they recommend shooting at F4 / F5.6... What was your average aperture when you used it ?

When rotating, the sensor just changes the alignment of the anamorphic lens. Result : it just wobbles. Well, IBIS and anamorphic just don't mix. End of story.

I have seen absolutely no difference (besides lens signature, aberration, etc) between a 35mm APS-C lens mounted on my APS-C camera and a full frame 35mm lens on the same camera. The larger lens circle doesn't change a thing.

It's a collector's item. I guess it's quoted as such. I've seen footage shot with some comparable anamorphic lenses from this era - dyaliscope, totalvision, you name it. It's soft, anamorphic mumps all over the place, and the distorsions are out of this world (and i love distorsions). Those lenses were really rough. I've used one of those on a commercial i shot lately and honestly, it's so soft that i am pretty sure my Kowa 8Z/rectilux combo looks way cleaner...

Hi, It's obviously a cine lens. From the pictures, at first i thought it could be one of those anamorphic add ons you had to put in front of old cine primes in the 50's. You had so synchronize both lens to focus with some long lost mechanical gear. But because the lens seems to have an aperture ring, I guess it's a prime anamorphic lens from the 60's. Looking at the size of it, it may well be a 35mm film lens. As for the mount, i have absolutely no idea, . Not much info on Agascope on internet. But they're supposed to be good lenses with nice anamorphic characteristics (and blue flares). Probably worth a few quids if in good shape and depending on the camera mount.