Leaderboard

Just watched Killing Them Softly (2012). I liked the movie a lot, but absolutely loved the look! Anamorphic porn :)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDyaNnrgdp4   I was curious about the cinematography. Found a nice article about it, very interesting: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/October2012/KillingThemSoftly/page1.php#   It's shot on Kodak film with Panavision lenses, but actually they started testing with those lenses on a 5D II and they wanted to recreate the 5D look with film :lol:       Here's a shot that shows this:       Anyway, check the link above and read it all.   I found it interesting to see so much shallow dof in an actual movie. And I have to admit, I loved it :)        

Rich, my experience is the opposite, the longer I've had my 36 the more I use it, total workhorse. 1.5x is a nice sweet spot, some bokeh without massive cropping on 16:9 sensors, on my gh2/gh3 I'm shooting as low as 25mm and up to 115mm, giving me a full range of shots  all with rack/single focus and clean optics. And with your mod I'm focusing down to 3.5 feet without diopters so I rarely need them.   The only lens in this bracket I can think of that compares/exceeds in terms of quality and versatility for real world narrative use is the centavision. (or a full range range of dso when they're ready)   sure 1.3 with 16:9 will result in a perfect 2.35, but so will just cropping your footage... whats the point of anamorphic if you are not getting the bokeh/burnt in stretch?    

Coming from someone who has slowly gone off their Iscorama 36 over the last few months, I almost feel the anamorphic bubble may have burst already (at least for me).  Though this sample shows promise, I hoped for a bit better.     I think one of the fundamental flaws in the design is the 1.33x.  though really good for using the whole of the sensor and delivering 2.35:1, added to this I think since it is a m4/3 lens i think this is also a critical error.     I'd rather see an integrated lens designed for aps-c (or ideally full frame) with the sole intention to allow use of a speed booster on m4/3.  it would mean their selected taking lens could be a 50mm (which would equate to a similar fov as their current 35mm choice.).  the longer focal length combined with the speed booster will equate to a much more pronounced oval bokeh distortion and might help out the 1.33x to be more obvious.     From looking at the video I also think the lens they were testing may not have had its curved elements properly aligned rotationally - the multitude of horizontals which are not all parallel would suggest this to me.  In particular in the first flare shot there is one short flare line which is particularly off from the rest.  Considering this, and the low light it appears they have created a rather good front mounted anamorphot.  Certainly a century and la7200 killer.  I imagine if the optics were tweeked this lens would be a lot sharper than we're seeing here.   I think people shouldnt be worried about doing the dreaded vertical crop to take a 2.66:1 down to 2.35.  Since the gh2 and gh3 and the m43 bmcc have very good resolution i dont think it is a problem to make the crop on the sides, and a 1.5x would help out the anamorphic look no end.     A matching achromat would be good too - allowing those lovely portrait shots to be even more obviously anamorphic. 

  Voigtlander Noktons are not very small..   What about SB + new dslr lenses (the smaller one, for APS-C not FF)? Not sure, but looks like cheaper alternative: Sigma 30mm/1.4    -->   21mm/1.0 any 50mm/1.4        -->   36mm/1.0 Samyang 16mm/2  -->   11mm/1.4  (big, but fast wide)   It's cheaper than Noktons and with 2 adapters (SB and regular) you get 6 focal lengths with 3 primes.   For example: Nokton 17.5mm(1150$) + 25mm(1000$)  = 2150$ = 17.5mm/0.95 + 25mm/0.95   Example above set: SB(430$) + Sigma 30mm(500$) + Nikon 50mm(400$) + Samyang 16mm(480$) = 1810$ [+ regular adapter] = 11mm/1.4 + 16mm/2 + 21mm/1.0 + 30mm/1.4 + 36mm/1.0 + 50mm/1.4

Just watched it.  Freakin' loved it.  This so didn't look like a contemporary film.  The only shots that didn't work for me were some of the process shots where it was obvious to me that Brad Pitt was shot against a greenscreen looking out the car window.     This film, like Fight Club, maintained a fairly consistent shooting stop regardless of day or night, interior or exterior, within ~.6 of a stop between the two films but the dogma is much more noticeable here because anamorphic.  This had such practical benefits with respect to lighting the scenes with economy, achieving naturalism while still being interesting and often beautiful to look at.     Totally works for me.  This, like the other, is a character driven film and it focuses the eye on the character, giving only an impressionistic view of the world they're inhabiting (in the case of Fight Club one that is, like Fincher purposely did with Se7en, never named).   Loved the car door shot.   That guy's 1st AC is a genuine focusing god.

1.3 - 1.5x is perfect, no issues with that.  I find the 3.55 stretch to be pretty tedious and other 2x solutions are widely available.   Although the modern art horizontal flares have a unique look, I think I'd get tired of this, and would prefer a more conventional oval flare as well.  Perhaps selling an uncoated version may be a reasonable way to recoup development costs faster.   I've spent much time looking at complex and occasionally dubious anamorphic solutions on ebay lately, and am fairly interested in a reliable, simple focus solution that doesn't involve blow torches, duct tape, and modified plumbing parts.     Hopefully this lens, or one like it, will make it to production soon.

I don't know. I think I will stick to my GH3 for my Micro Four Thirds glass.   And at £1500 the BMCC mFT is an option.   I can't risk having shots ruined by big white invaders from outer space.

THE SALE IS OFF. I am keeping the lens for now. Thank you all for interest.

The way I am handling it is -   If I am operating the camera on my own, no crew, then I bring 6 cards. That allows me to work for a good while before I need to do anything at all.   I then take the opportunity to have a break. It's good to have a break.   During that break, I have a coffee, and the cards empty swiftly via USB 3.0 to an external USB 3.0 2.5" hard drive, via Macbook Air. The Air and HDD are so small and light I hardly notice them when carrying them around, together they weigh less than my tripod.

DIalogue was shot on 12 minute long film reels to this day, and it never troubled anyone. Raw is 12 minutes per 64GB 'reel', and you swap out the reel when it is full.   Then you have someone, maybe even you, drag the folder to a Macbook Air. That takes less than 30 seconds and you continue shooting on a 2nd card whilst it is copying. After another 12 minute reel needs changing repeat the process, format the copied card when required.   On most film productions that is an easier job than making the tea!

The C100 and FS100 are both super 35 cameras. Which means that the only camera out of the 2 that can deliver a full frame look (if that's a priority, or you have a lot of EF glass as opposed to EF-S glass) is, ironically, the Sony. As metabones don't make an EF to EF-S speed booster. So your 24mm 1.4 will look like 24mm on the FS100 with the adapter. Get a Smart Adapter as well as a Speedbooster and that same lens can double as a, roughly, 35mm as well. Same goes for all the other lenses you have. Provided they are EF mounts. And you get 60p as well. On the Canon the Super 35 crop is all you've got. And you can only get 60p with the 60i Premiere CC work around. But the C100 is just so easy to pick up and shoot with. I've only used one twice, but each time it's a pleasure. The ergonomics and metering are spot on in my opinion. As for the FS100, I've only used it once and that was all tripod so I can't comment on what it is like hand held. But handling it at the end of the day it seemed ok but no where near that solid and compact feeling that you get with the Canon. Again just my opinion. The images that both these cameras can produce is great. Personally I haven't been able to justify owning anything other than my GH3, my SLR Magic 12 and 25 and my Voightlander 17.5. I feel that I have a hell of a lot to learn before I can truthfully say that I've out grown those.