Tim McC Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Just a simple lens test trying to see how wide an aperture I can get with this setup... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Don't understand Why using 4:3 on BMPCC to get 2:1 with 1.5x anamorphic lens? Did you see the forum said "Only people who think in wider than 2.35:1 allowed! "? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McC Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 The BMPCC doesn't have a 4:3 option. Are you thinking of the GH4? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 The BMPCC doesn't have a 4:3 option. Are you thinking of the GH4?BMPCC is already 16:9. You add 1.5x and still get 2:1(18:9)? What is the point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McC Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 BMPCC is already 16:9. You add 1.5x and still get 2:1(18:9)? What is the point? 16 x 1.5 = 24. 24:9 = 2.66 which is more than wide enough to fit a Cinemascope frame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 BMPCC is already 16:9. You add 1.5x and still get 2:1(18:9)? What is the point? Anamorphic is not just about a wider aspect ratio. Characteristics like flare and oval bokeh are much more important in my opinion. Rudolf 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McC Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 The 2x anamorphics definitely have a stronger "look" and more pronounced bokeh, but I don't know of any 2x options that are usable below f/4 or so... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 16 x 1.5 = 24. 24:9 = 2.66 which is more than wide enough to fit a Cinemascope frame.I thought your video is 2:1, not 2.66:1, not right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McC Posted June 5, 2015 Author Share Posted June 5, 2015 I thought your video is 2:1, not 2.66:1, not right?The above video is 2.37:1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudolf Posted June 5, 2015 Share Posted June 5, 2015 ...the rare Cinegon! Wish I could watch your clip. Unfortunately due to license problems with the music the video is blocked on youtube Germany. The Cinegon is the predecessor of the 36 and came with the schneider Cinegon lens for a couple of super 8 cameras. With a special step ring made by Heliopan for a Leitz cinegon (Leitz has a special thread) I have coupled my Exakta Iscorama which is smaller (32 instead of 36mm). Luckily it worked great without vignetting (super-sharp combo). The 1.5 stretch is very good for 8-16mm film and absolutely common since the late 50's. 2x stretch is too wide and produces oval grain on revearsal film. But I think Kowa/BH, elmoscope, Moeller 32 work good even wide open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.