Leaderboard

5D MII and 5D MIII with open apertures (sDoF) and @ 24/25p will provide aestetics that are as cinematic (as a parody almost) as it gets. Run&gun with said cameras, with clipping highlights, inappropriate shutter, shaking and shivering, small apertures, big DoF and no or boring motifs will say 'video'. Careful lighting, good framing, interesting motifs - in short, creation of images - and an old HDV-camcorder ....

Above: beautiful new film from Seb Farges shot with the SLR Magic Anamorphot on the Sony A7 and Olympus E-M5. SLR Magic have officially announced the Anamorphot developed with feedback and technical assistance from EOSHD and the anamorphic community. Read the full article here

Sony have taken their Alpha re-think to the NEX 6. For video it looks like an interesting alternative to the ageing NEX 7, adding a 16:9 screen, zebra, dedicated movie mode, new sensor and uncompressed HDMI output. It also points to some of the new features we're sure to see on the NEX 7's actual successor, the A7000. Read the full article here

Could it be that the new 7D becomes the first DSLR to implement the new h.265 codec in video mode? That way it would not be 422 nor super-high-bitrate and certainly would be aimed at a different crowd than the Cinema EOS line... Same video file size but double the quality, slightly improved dynamic range and low light performance and maybe a headphone jack. Sure they could add peaking and zebras (costs nothing really) + some other firmware related features, but delivering the same concept of "non-gradable" video with the much improved quality of h.265 would make it competitive in certain segments.

I still consider making the best use of natural or available light under the realm of "lighting". So we are not in disagreement.

For a start I have purchased these lenses: Walimex Pro 85mm F1:4 / Nikon-mount, Sigma 19mm F:1.8 / MFT-mount and a Canon FD 50mm F:1.4. Even the Canon FD makes pretty good focus peaking on my G6. By the way - I´m pretty surprised by my quite cheap FD/MTF adapter. Besides precise inf. focus it also gives me step less aperture :-). The Nikon/MFT adapter is also precise in focus, but does not give the added bonus of step less aperture.

Honestly guys this percentage breakdown thing is ridiculous. If you're a shit shooter accounting for 20% of the overall look, your overall look is going to be zero percent good not 80% good thanks to a camera and set of lights.   And if your camera and lens looks horrible and can't deal with the scene or the light, then even a good shooter will struggle.   Back to the original question of why some cameras are more filmic than others...   It's a combination of some key things but not exclusive to this list only -   Motion cadence, 24p Dynamic range Colour Compression and codec and the effect that has overall especially on grain texture Lens   If your right brain loves the D600 then it's probably due in part to the footage and the way it's shot, also the sensor size and lens used. Because nothing else in terms of the D600's image is more filmic than the GH3. It has more compression, more weird digital artefacts, more moire and aliasing. It's just easier to make full frame look like film because of the lovely rendering of optics at that sensor size. GH3 needs fast optics to really shine.

If the Anamorphot looks too clinical, pair it with a taking lens that has some soul like the Trumps. Edwin's footage looked pretty good on full frame with the Zeiss. Also bear in mind it's a $899 anamorphic not a $3000 Iscorama. And the flare heavily depends on the light you're using to flare it with. A lot of LED lights are actually multiple bulbs and they don't create a nice flare at all.   Everyone is entitled to their opinion :)

I think most modern camera's with a big sensor can look cinematic, in the right hands. I don't think a GH3 is less cinematic than a 5D or D600 at all. It can be, but that would be because of the cinematography. Give whatever camera the correct exposure, a cinematic framing and especially grading, that is what is going to make the difference. And then, I would rather 'start off' with a camera with a high resolution, non aliasing, low contrast 'base-image'. And I tell you the GH3 can do that.

I was limited by the speed of my card so I could not record any higher than I did. What I meant by full hd is the ability to record continuously, not super short clips. I based that statement off this chart: but things move very fast in magic lantern so maybe with the mlv format the capacities have been extended

Here's some 50mm Zeiss and full frame from Edwin Lee: ...I think it's got a great look. He's got some shots in there where he stacks diopters like in some other videos I've seen which can produce nice looking ovals on even 24mm and 35mm on a 1.33x compression anamorphic but I'm betting an oval FF58 would look sick. Performance coupled with my F.Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 is one of several potential benefits over my Century Optics adapter that I'm most excited about. I love shooting on it in straight 16:9 but have to be stopped down to near f/6 with the CO adapter if I need infinity focus. To shoot with it at f/2.8, like the SLR Magic Anamorphot can straight out of the box,

Looking at this footage there is no denying the image is sharp, and the flares are also there - I'd like it if my iscorama gave a blue flare of this hue, but maybe not as prominent. I believe this video brings up a valuable factor IMO - that it is key for users of this anamorphic to find a suitable match in terms of taking lens selection - some of the shots bring to me a feeling of disconnection between the taking lens and the anamorphic - from certain shots it's quite obvious it is 2 separate optical designs working together but not fully in unison as you feel with a cinema anamorphic lens. It's hard to express in words. But a few minutes into a test i did with Hans_Punk's lomo square front it is illustrated here:- I'd like to see the slr magic lens in partnership with various semi modern primes such as contax zeiss, Olympus OM zuikos, and later FD / Nikon lenses. I think something like a helios 44 might be a bit too vintage to marry well with this anamorphic, whereas something like a 1980's cutting edge slr lens might have a better time amalgamating with the slr magic. I also felt the Sony A7 footage though less detailed, had a lot more of a aesthetically pleasing feel to the imagery - probaby because I'm a whore for the Full frame look and it's rare to see anything less than an iscorama delivering in the sharpness stakes on full frame. Please Please Please someone test the slr magic on an oval FF58. A year ago when i was testing a Century with oval ff58 prototype it automatically made it feel like a real anamorphic. I think the SLR magic will create better results.

It's sad to think that we've moved on to 4K without making an earnest effort in optimizing the image of 1080p - a standard so many have told their stories in - especially since it's technically possible to do so. Canon has no excuses.

some optics have soul. every lens can be decoded and copied today but can you facsimile a mystery an essence of what was? enough of all this stuff about hawks or panavision c series iscorama already. that is a little silly and also unfair on newbies. lens should be treasure a financial investment for work or play or collections. can an optic have dna maybe maybe not but some are magic most optics today not. maybe it was the radiation of old in the glass that made the look so evocative so disconnected,so filmic and unreal without actuality. modern ism is kind of bland and as for an investment give me 2 old mollers over one new shooting kit that is not quite single point focus. just sayin but it's here. they made the product for you guys in your image. it has arrived so stop moaning just finish off the contract. now it is time to pay full fill your bargain. the reckoyning the bill must be paid. and why not, it works some say it's amazing like panavision c. so it must be so cos it is written.

Top frame is SLR Magic (from a sample video). Bottom frame is from my Iscorama. Perfectly oval bokeh in both examples. If I didn't know which is which, I would say the Iscorama looks more "videoish" because of the sharpness (which is more a function of the taking lens IMHO).

There's no holy grail lens, some may be better than others. This whole "filmic" thing is stale...what you're noticing is how this lens resolves detail off the sensor. No matter how it's sliced or diced in camera you're gonna get back what is captured. I think what you're expecting is totally wrong. From what I saw so far this lens will capture the very best as well as the very worst of what the sensor is capable of. To me thats a great lens. No doubt this seems to be a quality set of glass and I bet if it were the baby Hawks you'd be saying the same thing. "It's not filmic"...well wrong. Actually what you mean to say is "cinematic" and there's a lot more that goes with that than a lens can offer. Just my 2 cents, I think it's unfair to blame to a lens when in all actuality you should be blaming the sensor or one better, just blame yourself.

For Sale LOMO Anamorphic roundfront F = 50/2 type 35BAS22-2 , ser. # 780005 , PL mount stainless steel , lens has ARRI Standard 32 pitch Focus gear ring . Focus scale available marking in Feet or Meters . Lens in excellent condition , after service , has no fungus or dirty inside , lens clean and clear , multicoating fine - not damage , has front and rear caps . Price $ 5950 + shipp. '' target='_blank'>> '' target='_blank'>> '' target='_blank'>> '' target='_blank'>> P.S. - it is possible to fit on lens Canon EOS mount Best regards Sergey sergastr@list.ru sergastr@yahoo.com

SLR Magic specifically designed the adapter for the widest range of uses. Going higher than 1.33x with almost no support for variable aspect ratio or 4:3 shooting for their widest possible customer base would render the lens less useful for independent narrative filmmaking, or most professional applications. Ultra-super-wide means you must crop the sides off your image, reducing both resolution and field-of-view, effectively diminishing two reasons to use the adapter for the sake of one (pronounced oval bokeh). Wider than 2.35:1 - 2.40:1 and you are effectively limited to amateur venues. Odds are most customers won't be doing commercial work of any kind with the Anamorphot, just like most users of every other front-of-lens anamorphic adapter are not doing commercial work or trying to sell their work. Still, I believe SLR Magic would very much like to see their lenses used in a film that makes it beyond VIMEO or Youtube. 1.33x is a compromise that works for cameras that shoot 16:9 video. Hawk has a successful line of cine lenses (V-Lite) using this same compression factor designed for the same purpose but they also have a different optical design with reduced flaring and even more subtle anamorphic characteristics. Those lenses cost tens of thousands of dollars for even less blatant telltale signs of bent glass (see Danny Boyle's Trance for a recent example). With wider angles you don't get pronounced bokeh, even with 2X lenses. Look at the long tracking/steadi shot opening Boogie Nights. It starts with the op up on a crane looking at a neon sign, the crane moves across a nighttime street exterior, dips to allow the op to step off and continue walking into a night club in one un-broken shot, moving between people. It goes on unbroken for several minutes starting from ~T2.8 out on the street and transitioning to ~T4 inside the club. At the wider stop, outside looking down a lit up San Fernando Valley street, you don't see pronounced oval bokeh because you don't see pronounced bokeh. Regardless of being very "open" it's a very wide lens. That film was shot with 2X Panavision lenses. Even for the mediums, two and three shots in the club, you don't see blatant ovals, even though the scene is filled, like the street scene outside, with small lights and highlights all throughout the scene, giving ample opportunity for anamorphic giveaways. It's not until the shot ends on a CU of Wahlberg that the first really pronounced ovals appear. You do still have an image that's optically different than if you'd shot with a very wide spherical lens and cropped. It wouldn't feel the same. But as you go wider the most telltale trait will be the look of flares. You can still get decent ovals in close-ups with a little help from the diopters. That's where you typically appreciate them anyway.

  People's definition of video-ish is weird. Anything 30p or shot without an Alexa seems to be video-ish to some people. It is a judgement that has nothing to do with the lens or the content. Seb's video is great.