Mr. Ambiguous

On 26/09/2017 at 11:50 PM, Andrew Reid said:

Yes perfect for that.

Yes, the guide included explains everything.

Andrew, I've been trying to contact you for almost half a year now, several emails... still no reply. I haven't received any email regarding the upgrade either, what's going on?   Please get in touch with me, I'd appreciate it.

I've now received my unit and as you can see on the pictures it shouldn't be a problem! Judging from the pictures of the original Core DNA, the Hardcore version appears to be wider at the back, which is good.

18 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

It should be fine, 83mm would be the largest I'd recommend though. Apparently from the press release of the Hardcore DNA, there is now more material on the rear section to accommodate people who want to mod with a lathe, yet maintain strength in the aluminium. Maybe take a 77mm step ring and something that is 83mm diameter with you to the machine shop and see what the guy/girl feels more comfortable in doing to try and preserve the nylon screw holes.

(Sure thing, show them my pictures if it helps).

Machinists like to measure everything themselves so if you have part 'A' (your anamorphot) and part 'B' (your HCDNA) they can use proper precision calipers and work out exactly the best method and final diameter. That will probably be the easiest and clearest way to explain things...with both parts in hand so you can say 'I need this to fit inside this, until it hits here'.

Sounds good! I noticed just by looking at the pictures from the press release that the design is different, and yes you can see that the placement of the screws are further down and it seems that rear section is wider / thicker. I'll upload some pictures once I receive my unit.

The outer diameter of the Anamorphot 1.33x - 50 is 82.6mm

The outer diameter of this 77mm ND-filter is 79.9mm

Judging from your pictures, removing another 2.7mm in diameter (1.35mm on each side) seems risky. Do you think it'd be possible or do think you'd run into the holes for the nylon screws? It would be neat to clamp the DNA directly to the anamorphot though...

This is great information! Thanks a bunch! If you don't mind I think I'll also show the person who'll be working the lathe your pictures from this thread, it doesn't get any more obvious what to do than that, but I'll of course bring a 77mm step ring too.

5 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

You may not need to lathe the rear diameter if you clamp 2 x 72mm empty rings with 77-72mm ring (to effectively give DNA 77mm male rear thread), but you may find that the optic distance and vignette might be too much for your needs, in which case, the lathe method is the way to go...especially when wanting to use DNA on larger lenses.

I was thinking about this regarding the potential vignetting issue, does it actually help to lathe in order to fit 2x 77mm rings instead of 2x 72mm rings? Judging from the pictures it looks like it's going to be the ring closest to the glass that'll be responsible for the vignetting in that case since you won't be able to get the DNA closer to the adapter, or am I missing a piece from the equation?  I understand the benefits of being able to fit your anamorphic adapter directly "inside" the DNA. It would be nice to fit the Anamorphot directly inside as you did with your Kowa Inflight, but I think it'd be a bit of a stretch...

5 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

...this will eliminate any unwanted reflections to the rear optic and make the lathe job look 'factory'.

Great tip! Everything looks 10x more professional in matte black.

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

Just found this guy who makes adaptor ring for DNA front and rear use...quite decent designs, but still does not address vignette issues or allow larger lenses to be attached easily.

I'll look into it!

4 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Yes, I used a lathe to open up the rear diameter a few mm's (enough to push a 77mm step ring inside snugly)...and the result? - no useless 75mm rear thread on the DNA anymore. In these pics you can see the mod I did on my DNA (original model) - I expect the Hardcore DNA has the same rear diameter as mine did before I enlarged the rear. Now you can see how I can just drop a 77mm with 72mm step down ring for 72mm lenses...or just keep 77mm step ring for 77mm lenses. The step rings just drop into the new recess, then clamp in tight with the nylon screws.

The larger opening (without step rings installed) now allows me to use the DNA on my larger Kowa inflight 1.75x lens and get the optics way closer than the original design..

Thank you so much! This is great! I have no experience what so ever using a lathe... Did you do it yourself our did you go down to the local metal shop? I guess you found a way to remove the glass? Sry for the millions of questions but I'm so curious. I just bought a Hardcore DNA thanks to you

1 hour ago, Hans Punk said:

From memory, that will work (with 72mm rings).

I have since machined out the rear of my Core DNA to accept two 77mm step rings to be clamped into the rear, works very well...the outer rear 77mm thread is now in the ideal position.

Sounds good! Did you use a lathe? In that case I guess there are no rear threads on the Hardcore any more?

Do you happen to have any pictures of the modification?

7 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

First use a 77-72mm step down ring, then add one or two 72mm uv filters with glass removed...making a shallow hood, giving enough thickness for the Core DNA to firmly clamp on the outside diameter of the 72mm step rings (as if it was a lens front).

Great idea! Thanks!

9 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

Yep, I don't understand why the Hardcore DNA doesn't have a standard size thread. Good thing is that some people are working on a solution to that problem

Indeed, 75mm appear to be the most incompatible front thread on the market. I'm seriously considering buying one and gluing it onto the anamorphot

Hi,

I'm trying to find a way to mount the HardcoreDNA to the anamorphot 1.33x 50, but no one on planet earth appears to be making a 77-75mm step-down ring. Any ideas how to mount it?

Thanks

Hi all!

Is there a way to use an Anamorphot 1.33 - 50 together with a Rectilux 33F-W or Hardcore DNA? We're looking for a single focus solution for an upcoming low budget feature, but I wasn't particularly impressed with the rangefinders optical performance ( a lot of chromatic aberration, patches of blue color and got vignetting at 50mm already on FF) The Rectilux 33F-W looks solid but I can't seem to find a way to mount it to the the Anamorphot.

Then there's the Hardcore DNA, but I can't find a step-down ring from 77 to 75mm in order to fit it on the Anamorphot. Is there another way? Do you think it'll vignette more or less than the Rangefinder? (it's got a smaller rear thread of 75mm, but a bigger front thread of 86mm)

//cheers

On 2017-5-8 at 8:09 PM, Martin Rieder said:

I bought the PDF and I have an A6500. Maybe I'm not reading the manual right, but I really don't understand the white balance part. Or how I should achieve it I should say. Do I point the camera at a white- or grey card until I reach the K? Or just point the camera around without white- or great card?

I think it's really hard to hit those numbers. Can I alternatively use a white card to white balance every time instead? And then make the B2M2 adjustment?

One last thing. The PDF says that A6500 does not allow color depth adjustment while an S-Gamut color mode is selected. I can choose S-Gamut3.Cine and adjust Color Depth on my A6500. So do I keep the S-Gamut3.Cine color mode or Cine4 as the PDF states? Confusing.

Hi Martin, try this:

On 2017-3-6 at 0:24 AM, Mr. Ambiguous said:

For those of you struggling with the white balance setup, here's a super easy way of doing it. Since you can't adjust the Kelvin on Custom 1, 2, & 3 (for some stupid reason) on most Sony cameras, you have to point the camera at different light source and hope you nail the desired kelvin. Instead, open up a white background in photoshop. Ad a second layer and fill it with orange color. Then you just point the center of the camera on the the computer screen and dial the opacity of the orange layer to achieve the desired kelvin degree. If you want to go higher on the kelvin scale, just switch the orange layer to a blue layer and adjust the opacity accordingly to get the desired white balance

//cheers

For those of you who own a Mac with the latest OS update, you can use the Nightshift function and adjust the warmth of the screen with the help of the slider, works great too!

On 2017-5-13 at 11:05 AM, Shirozina said:

The whole idea of this profile is to not shoot in S- LOG 2 so you can use the footage with no or minimal grading. It also gets around the problem of banding and macro blocking  artefacts that come when you reverse the LOG curve in post / grading as the huge compression  applied to the internal codec throws away so much of the tonal info it can't be properly reconstructed later.

I believe all of us (including myself) asking for the S-log2 settings are well aware of the banding issue and the fact that S-log2 needs grading. I've personally never had any issues with banding in S-log2 on my A7sII, and I personally believe that S-log2 is worth the "hassle" for the extra dynamic range and highlight protection, but also for it's grading compatibilities. 

On 2017-5-13 at 10:32 AM, Davey said:

Yes. They do work, though - just check out Harv's video and audio stuff on YouTube. He has got the best results using S-log 2 and Pro Color.

He's definitely got a point. I've personally had pretty good results with using the original Pro Color settings with s-log2 gamma instead, it's just that I'm curious to see for my self if Andrew's S-log2 settings were even better.

Will be shooting a project this summer and we have a Sony A7S II at our disposal. Since grading capabilities is limited, we want the most accurate color possible straight out of the camera, and EOSHD Pro Color is by far the best profile I've seen out there, but we'll be shooting S-log2 for various reasons.

Would anyone be so kind to PM me the specific S-log2 settings from the old document given that I provide proof that I've actually bought the profile?:) I've read so much good stuff about the EOSHD Pro Color s-log2 settings, so I was confused when I discovered it had been pulled. Any reason why? (I have version 2.0)

Also, I understand that the S-log2 profile of EOSHD Pro Color works really well with the LUT package available for 19.99$ atm?

42 minutes ago, Dude_ger said:

But with the Rangfinder there´s no need to focus the 50mm

Precisely my thought   We'll use a lens support because of the heavy setup, it'll be a very heavy rig but I don't bother, a couple of weeks of back pain is definitely worth the look we're hoping to achieve 

Hi all!

I have an upcoming project which we'd love to shoot anamorphic. However, we're on a tight budget and since renting anamorphic lenses is not an option, we're now looking into the possibility of shooting with SLR Magic's Anamorphot 1.33x - 50, together with their rangefinder. We'll be shooting Full Frame on the Sony A7s II with the Sigma MC-11 adapter and Speedbooster for those APS-C shots. The SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x - 50 requires the taking lens to have a front element of no more than 50mm, preferably less. Our original idea was to shoot on the Sigma ART series since we need fast and sharp lenses for some night exteriors, however, the Sigma ART lenses are too big for the Anamorphot (except the 35mm), so I've looked at some alternative lenses and I'd love to hear your input on the following combination:

Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art - Front element: 45mm (and yes, 35mm will probably vignette somewhat in FF, but we can crop a few percent on those shots. We can't use the Canon EF 40mm f/2,8 STM since it's to small to use with follow focus, which is a necessity) 

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - Filter thread: 58mm, front element looks to be around the 40-45mm range.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - Filter thread: 58mm, front element looks to be around the 45-50mm range.

What about a tele lens above 85mm? SLR Magic claim that the Anamorphot can be paired with a taking lens between 40-85mm in FF, above 85mm the image quality will drop. Why is that? It'd love to include a tele-lens as well but it's difficult to find a lens with a small enough front element. Do you guys have any ideas?

Doubtful but would be nice:

Tamron Telephoto SP AF 180mm f/3.5 Di LD IF Macro - Filter thread: 72mm, front element looks to be around the 55-65mm range judging from the 360-view on B&H product view.

Sigma 150mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro - Filter thread: 72mm, front element looks to be around the 50-55mm range judging from the 360-view on B&H product view.

What do you think about this setup? (especially regarding the 35, 50 & 85mm lenses) Any better alternatives? Own experiences etc.

//cheers

2 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

Camera was set in still mode not video - working now.

Well, a lot of stuff to keep track on

5 minutes ago, Shirozina said:

It's set to 100+

That's wierd. Does it start working again if you switch back to another picture profile?

2 hours ago, Shirozina said:

I'm using an A7r2 and with the recommended Gamma setting  it's disabling the zebras - anyone else confirm this?

You have to choose different zebra settings depending on which gamma you're working with. If you want to see what it actually clips, set the zebra to 100+

For those of you struggling with the white balance setup, here's a super easy way of doing it. Since you can't adjust the Kelvin on Custom 1, 2, & 3 (for some stupid reason) on most Sony cameras, you have to point the camera at different light source and hope you nail the desired kelvin. Instead, open up a white background in photoshop. Ad a second layer and fill it with orange color. Then you just point the center of the camera on the the computer screen and dial the opacity of the orange layer to achieve the desired kelvin degree. If you want to go higher on the kelvin scale, just switch the orange layer to a blue layer and adjust the opacity accordingly to get the desired white balance

//cheers

This looks superb! But I'm confused whether there is an S-log2 setting or not? This video compares Sony's standard S-log2 setting compared to EOSHD Pro Color S-log2 setting, but my impression is that there is no S-log2 settings as of yet? Clarification on this?

Edit: I saw in the comments that the maker of that clip just applied the EOSHD Pro Color settings to the standard S-log2 setting (in this case on the A6500) I bought it

7 hours ago, Tito Ferradans said:

Thank you! Make sure to subscribe!

And yeah, that sums it up. I bet one of those compact 85/2.8 would do an amazing job, but I haven't had the chance to test one yet! :D

Subscribed my friend! Keep up the good work

Yeah I've been looking at a few lenses now and most of the narrower ones have quite a big front element, but I've found a few that might do the job. I'll post another thread where I've gathered a Canon prime setup, I'd love to hear your input on that once I've posted!

//cheers

4 minutes ago, pablogrollan said:

In cinema lenses the housing is kept consistent across the whole setup regardless of the glass element size so that you can swithch lenses without having to reposition the follow focus and mattebox, but in photo lenses the filter thread size is pretty much the diameter of the front element plus 1 or 2 mm because the goal is to make the smallest lens possible without compromising speed or optical quality.

Usually... but the Sigma 50mm f1.4 has a 77mm filter thread and weights over 800 gr. which I'm not so sure means a huge optical improvement over my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 with a 52mm thread. Same applies to some Zeiss/Contax designs which are very compact yet fast and optically superb... With stills lenses there isn't as direct a correlation as with cinema lenses...

That's the reason a cinema lens costs so much more compared to photo lens with the same specs, and yes... it's very nice to have. I've worked a lot with Cooke and Zeiss cinema primes and those are marvellous, but this time they're way out of budget. Fast and sharp on a "low budget" is key here. Anamorphic would be amazing and suite the project well, but there seems to be no good way of pairing these criteria. Maybe Letus AnamorphX would do the job, but then there's the budget issue again... 

On 03/03/2017 at 7:49 AM, Tito Ferradans said:

www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go :D

aaaand http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8330

it's not that you CAN'T go beyond 85mm, is just that image quality starts to drop considerably.

Awesome, great tool! Watched a lot of your videos on YT, looks like you know your stuff  I bet it's hard though to find a sharp taking lens above 85mm with a small enough front element to be used with anamorphic adapters?

1 minute ago, jonpais said:

I don't suppose anyone here is interested in why Mr. Ambiguous wants to know the size of the elements. 

Anamorphic compatibility for those who wonders   We want fast and sharp lenses at a good price point (Sigma ART series) and now we're looking at the compatibility of pairing those with various anamorphic adapters, hence the importance of the diameter of the front element, not the thread diameter.

//cheers

6 minutes ago, BrorSvensson said:

if you know the filter diameter you can look up a photo taken straight forward and see how many percent is the element and just do the math yourself

Good idea