Leaderboard

Also, what's up with the flare hate around here?! Everything in moderation, fellas :) Just because the new Star Trek had too many flares doesn't suddenly make them bad, just like everyone and their mum shooting on DSLR didn't make shallow DOF a bad thing either.

The original aperture is completely removed and in its place sits a very thin and precisely milled brass insert. There are a number of other people doing similar things, but they just seem to go for the laser cut acrylic route and as such the actual ovals are never as perfect due to the cut always being a bit graggy. Rather than modify the limited range of alternative focal lengths from the same era and source, I have developed a ultra high quality wide angle attachment (the FF38), which FF58 users can install on their lens to widen the fov to 38mm. all of the lens character of their ff58 remains intact, but the fov is widened. and as it happens the wide angle attachment improves sharpness. Moderate barrel distortion is visible, but nothing too bad!

I'll chip in if I may...:) I literally don't know which I prefer and I'm actually building these things. The reason dso started was to add a degreee of dirtiness to the iscorama (which at the time i wanted more gragginess from, with the singla focus and sharpness left intact!). The 1.5x oval was created to add to the look of the 'rama and give a 2x oval look, which also sharpening the helios marginally. A wide open helios 44 + iscorama is indeed a beautiful thing that will never quite be matched with an oval aperture alone - 58mm, f2 and a 1.5x widening of horizontal fov as well as the physicality of the big hunks of glass from the 'rama' is a hard thing to match with anything. The ff58 does not deliver horizontal streaks so if this is important then the ff58 will not do what you need. The benefits of the oval aperture is that you gain sharpness by a huge amount (since the aperture on a 2x oval is stopped down by around 1.5 stops), but you maintain some of the shallowness of an f2 lens due to the oval remaining the same height as the original f2 aperture. Then keep single focus capability, and keep size down - particularly on a full frame sensor since 58mm is relatively wide and you'd need an 85mm taking lens on a full frame snesor if using an anamorphic. end result is a very similar fov. though the 85mm will look 'bigger'. The new FF38 attachment is a nice addition to both the ff58 and the helios 44. since it widens fov while actually sharpening the image quite drastically. If you have the pixels to spare, a big sensor or speed booster, and enough light to cope with the 1.5 stops slower aperture due to the oval, and can afford to crop, the ff58(2xoval) + FF38 wide angle attachment will stand head and shoulders above the iscorama for 95% of image quality criteria while being a lot less of a financial and creative burdon - when i take the iscorama out it always causes worry which always seems to impact on workflow. I'm still gonna grab a 'fm module' when they are available so I guess that says it all:) you cant beat real anamorphic if it's really needed!

Andy, I live in the extreme south of Tuscany, 150 km from Rome... If you come to shot near my home I can lend you my G6. If you go to Siena (Tuscany) there are two nice shop where I buy all Panasonic things: Siena, Foto Ottica Moderna Di Andrea Fanetti - Via Delle Terme, 8 Siena, 53100 - Email: andrea.fanetti@alice.it - Sito: http://www.fotootticamoderna.it And http://www.fotomodernasiena.com Otherwise there are some Lumix shop in Rome: Roma, Fotoforniture Guido Sabatini Spa - +39 06 3207278 Via Germanico 168/A Roma, 192 - Email: f.tudini@sabatini.ws - Sito: http://www.sabatini.ws Roma, Il Fuoco Della Fotografia Srl - +39 06 48 84 302 Via Di Santa Maria Maggiore 143 B Roma, 185 - Email: videofotoelettronica@virgilio.it - Sito: http://ilfuocodellafotografia.jimdo.com Roma, La Placa Group S.R.L. - +39.6.8173765 Via Val Trompia 12/18/-24/40 Roma, 141 - Email: filippo@laplaca.it - Sito: http://www.laplaca.it Roma, Metrophoto New Srl - +39 06 35498666 Via Medaglie D Oro 248/250 Roma, 136 - Email: info@metrophoto.it - Sito: http://www.metrophoto.it Don't look to their site to know if they have a G6, call them, because they never update it!

My experience is that straps are a freaking pain for video work. They always get in the way.

Last night I was looking on Vimeo at GX7 videos to see what other people were producing. For the most part it all seemed very casual, not much good stuff in there. But then I came across this: First of all you should know that I've been shooting with my GX7 for almost a year now and I've messed around with the camera settings and resultant footage loads. So I pretty much know GX7 footage when I see it. The video above looks completely different to anything I've seen previously.I remember a phrase Andrew used in one of his videos regarding the BMPCC, "The camera has a very filmic response to mid-tones". And I guess this is the only phrase I can use to quantify what makes this footage look different. If you look at the tags on the video above you will see a mention of "Tiffen Ultra Contrast 5". So I did a little more research and it seems these things had their hayday a couple years ago around the time when the GH1/2 and Canon rebels were popular. These days some people still use them even for high end cameras like the RED. Here is the description from Tiffen itself: I quite like the look that diffuser filters give and it sounds like the Low Contrast filter will give some of that look along with the softened contrast. Does anyone here have any experience with these and can make recommendations?

Read my thoughts at DPReview in the Panasonic GH4 review (page 7), here As was the case with the GH3, the GH4's video capabilities were enough to achieve a gold award at DPReview. Read the full article here

Got a vid-atlantic clamp for my ultra star too. Probably needless to say - but the ultra star is pretty scratched after using that clamp.

Really, it's a bit apples and oranges. Sure, they do similar things, but not altogether the same things. I think as Rich pointed out, DSO is PERFECT behind an Iscorama. The 1.5x is more practical, but its effects less pronounced, and that's where the DSO lens can help with its oval aperture. I'm very happy this FM lens is a possibility though, because (as Rich said), the cinelux are very sharp, and it'd be a dream to single focus one of those bad boys on front of my C/Y Zeiss glass and one of those new 4k cams

I have to disagree there. And I also think as time moves on the resolution gain will become less and less of an argument for anamorphic. For example... (and I'm purely saying this from an a7r 36mpx point of view, which is around 8k, and over 14 stops of dr in 'cinema terms', so about 5 years ahead of what we're currently seeing from most 24p cinema cameras today) Even the Iscorama degrades the resolving power of a taking lens quite drastically wide open at say f2. It's still usable, and beautiful too, but it doesnt resolve very high levels of detail when compared to the spherical lens on its own. I'd say that nowadays with 'true 1080p' and 4k, the degradation in image detail from cropping away 1/3rd of the pixels is less harmful than putting any anamorphic lens on the front of a system. All but the cinelux and similar are not delivering very high levels of resolving power. 2 years ago when everyone was shooting 1080p that looked like todays 720p the benefit of anamorphic for resolution gains was there. - since cropping away footage no more detailed than 720p is gonna result in lower res than 720p. but IMO the gains are no longer valid now we're able to shoot true 1080 which is often oversampled from 4k (gh4, a7s, etc) which is visibly 2 to 3 times more detailed than what we were getting from 5dmk2's!.

That was my thinking as well. 24-135mm on full frame translates to an S35 focal range equivalent of 16-90mm, which is pretty close to that Fujinon Cabrio that everyone wishes they had. There's also a cheaper (and more abundant) Sigma 28-135mm f/3.8-5.6 that is supposed to have a non-rotating filter thread, a non-shifting focus ring, and a manual aperture if you get the Pentax or Nikon mounts, but I don't have that one.

Imagine the kind of 70' opening zoom you could do with that ^^. New York city panorama zooms to a window and continues to zoom onto a handwriting, that's some clichee.

A couple of cable ties would do the trick, if you dont like the width of a strap, I lugged my manfrotto twin leg thing & 501 all over Italy, not sure I would do it again though, A clamp & ball head handy for the bag, all the extra gear is a ball ache, but if you need the shots and there's a group(and some wonga) of people, not so bad.

Andrew Reid has been testing one of the prototypes over the last few months and should be subjecting it to a review soon:)

not to mention I really like light tripods, the wind catches straps and shakes the camera.

thank you Jazzbox very much for this info and your kind offer much appreciated kind regards Andy

A strap is secondary on a Jib, there's a hole in the bottom for fixing, lol only playing, but I generally wrap the strap round the hand, or in that case attach it to the jib, still usefull unless you dunked the end of the jib. Anyway hopefully you got things sorted, and some cracking footage is on its way(to a paying client) I will keep an eye out for your video posted here.

because the adapter for micro 4/3 has a nice area in the back you can put an oval apperture and vertical fishing line - then you just shoot as normal and swop the lenses over on the front of the adapter - I cant think of another system that does that , this simply - thats why - it works well

This...especially the last bit. Its not all about flares & in fact the flares can end up ruining perfectly good shots - you don't want people to say "look it flares!", you want them to be enveloped by your beautiful framing etc... Also, shooting car headlights, torches etc...is the most boring, pointless, waste of time I can think of. Dual focus lenses aren't that hard to use, it forces you to be more inventive with your shot selection & you end up learning the basics about framing/shot types far quicker.

you can get a very very good anamorphic effect using Pentax 110 lenses add an oval aperture in the micro 4/3 adapter back and a vertical piece of fishing line and then just shoot as normal - it looks great and you just swop out the Pentax lenses on the front of the adapter as all the gubbins is in the adapter , you have 18mm,24mm 50mm and 70mm lenses at f2.8 to play with frame to 2.39 add black bars in post - and most people will never know... cheap and looks nice!

thats Lomo is a brick - its massive very hard to rig up as its barrel is so wide and it weighs a ton , hang that off the front of a Nikon 28-70 and you will rip the front of the Nikon lens clean off The Nikon front is delicate as it extends 1 inch when zooming and you do not want to hang anything heavy off it , NDS are fine just not massive Lomos I would advise you against even buying the Lomo to try shooting a feature film , it will take you x4 longer than normal just to use the Lomo as its duel focus and huge . - avoid Shoot spherical and frame for 2.39 and add black bars in post - thats what they did on the last James Bond film Skyfall and the Bourne films too and so many Arri Alexa shot films these days , its accepted industry practice these days -

Personally I'd get the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 instead of the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 unless you absolutely need an ultra wide-angle lens. I own the Tokina 11-16 and for most shooting scenarios, 11mm on an APS-C body (1,6x crop factor) is too wide in my opinion. I like to use the lens without a Speedbooster on my GH3, so that's a 22mm full frame equivalent. Using the Sigma 18-35 with a Speedbooster and the wide angle converter, the result will be a 22mm full frame equivalent, too. Plus the Sigma is a lot faster, extremely sharp and very usable even when shot wide open. The Tokina isn't exactly sharp unless you step it down quite a bit.

looks like there is enough mojo in this? Jeremy Snell used DSO lenses throughout both as taking lenses to iscorama and Kowa as well as 1.5x oval aperture intercut with the genuine anamorphic. Brad Ragland shot this using DSO FF58 with oval aperture on 5D/7D (no anamorphic used): I know Rich's aim is not to even to pretend an attempt to replace true anamorphic, but it's looking more and more difficult to tell the difference these days as the refinements to his lenses mimic anamorphic artefacts extremely loyaly. Last years low contrast craze is Not everyone's taste but Rich can keep the contrast levels 'clean' if required, and so many other aberation options can be made to suit the customer. Horses for courses I guess, as anything goes regarding aesthetic choice. But personally I'd recommend if totally new to anamorphic shooting, then maybe start with buying Andrew's shooters guide, buy a Sankor or Kowa duel focus lens to appriciate real anamorphic properties and love/hate issues involved with a duel focus system. Shoot horizontal streak flares for two months of night traffic and sunlight coming through trees in the park, get that out of your system. Then get a DSO lens with 2x oval and realise that it's all about the stretched bokeh/ lower contrast and more subtle rainbow flares, not the horizontal streaks on every light source....but as I say Horses for courses. You can have the best of both worlds by mixing and matching like the Jeremy Snell - 'Imagine' video does above, using FF58 as taking lens to real anamorphic front - and intercut on its own with an oval aperture. I'm off to feed my Horse.

Here's some comparative prices: http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/canon_eos_c100 http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/sony_a7s_xlr_kit So taking this as an example site, you're looking at about 800 quid difference with XLRs on the Sony. The answer of which you get depends on what you want to do with it. I have no experience using an A7s, but I've played with footage and it's excellent and has a great unique look in S-log 2. It looks really good for low light and cinematic colour, so for indie film it's got a lot going for it, since lighting set ups are often minimal, and it's a good geurilla cam. From a working perspective however, I use C100 a lot: We have two C100s and I was considering a Sony A7s too. As the Ebrahims say, since these C100s are used to make money etc. simplicity helps and the slightly higher initial cost pays off. We also already had glass from using Canon SLRs, which aided the decision. The C100 means you never have to f*ck around, but it costs you some more up front. You pay for convenience in bucketloads. You get a ton of footage in a 32GB card and it looks better than it should at AVCHD... voodoo. Voodoo, but not magic. There are limits to what you can do with 24mbps. Wide DR profile grades brilliantly. C-log is indeed available and grades very well IF you're careful, but can go fudgy in AVCHD. Add a Ninja 2 for ProRes HQ C-log happiness. a Ninja 2 gives you better footage than internal C300 plus an external monitor. Quite an upgrade... XLR and internal stereo mics are included on the top handle, ergonomics start brilliant so rigging is minimised. You can now run without top handle and side handle for ultra small setup if needs be, since the newest firmware allows more control remapping. Three built-in NDs are a godsend for working at high speed, I love them. Battery lasts hours and hours, I was in LA shooting recently at a show, and I think we got something like 2 and a half hours from one battery. It could have been more. Madness! You can forget about it, unlike with the SLRs. Also you can plug it in to the wall with the stuff you get in the box. I'm not worried about it being obsolete to be honest, because good footage doesn't become obsolete, and I know I can make good footage with this. Good footage at very low res does, but no one is yet demanding work in 4K as a rule in my experience. They will start to soon, but it won't be the majority for a while, and when it is we can hire in the transition, then buy something new. By then it will be available. Almost all films are 2K (a little wider than HD) at the cinema. It's damn good. I do not make decisions based on rumors, as Andrew rightly says, it's no basis for a financial decision. Yes, Canon could release a 4K C200 in NAB 2015, but if they do, my C100 won't suddenly be rubbish. My 600D isn't rubbish! I still like it. It's more likely Sony will obsolete/depreciate the A7S first though, they release a lot of cameras. Still, all of this paragraph is just conjecture really, and shouldn't influence you: you buy from what's available now. You do not need the latest camera to make a good film OR to make money from talent, knowledge and ability. So why am I considering an A7s? It has a some good toys that aren't in the workhorse C100: High speed footage - goof for music promo S-log/S-gamut look is very Kodak and I like it, I think it'll be nice for drama and music promo. It's a great stills camera, with extreme low-light sensitivity. Option of 135 frame (vistavision/still full frame) video recording What don't I like about A7s on paper: The blue channel hard-clipping issue - problematic for blue LED light especially. No internal NDs (expected). 4K requires very expensive external recorder. I pretty much ignore it as a purchase-decision specification. Slow motion is pretty fuzzy compared to true 1080p. Recording time limit precludes use for events etc. That pro's list is pretty small for the price of investment so I've cooled off a bit on the idea. I figure I'll hire an FS700 for high speed shots as 200/240fps is sharp, plus you can hire with external recorder for 2K raw slowmo... I make decisions like this with mostly logic and not too much heart, since it's investment in a tool. Also, since it's a depreciating asset in a business context, return on investment is directly related to how well it works on deadline under pressure, also known as convenience. So there's one experience with the Canon and my reasons for purchase decisions. As usual, your own situation may nullify one or all of my points as far as your own decision is concerned, but I hope this constitutes useful input. This typing isn't helping my jetlag though ;)

It should be getting in tomorrow. I'll let you know. I have high hopes! Here's what the good folks over at Dyxum had to say about it: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-24-135mm-F2.8-4.5-Aspherical-IF_lens130.html

Yes it has an XLR add on. And don't let a rumour made up by a 16 year old teen in a bedroom add a cloud of doubt over your filmmaking work.

Thank you guys for the quick replies! Zach please do let me know how the wedding goes with the a7s. Also yeah I saw the rumor so it adds a cloud of doubt. Andrew I was wondering if I remember correctly the a7s does have a xlr add on?

I don't like the look of Full frame at all , ...they dont shoot movies full frame in Hollywood! (Vistavision is dead!) I shot with Canon 5ds for 2 years then stopped and switched to micro 4/3 I personally do like the look of the Nikons with a speedbooster on micro4/3 it looks pretty stunning to me, as its closest to Super 35mm film cameras -

just as a point of note on lenses for films : David Fincher shoots most of the time with the same lens focal lengths even when he changes his DOP so even if it is Jeff Cronenwerth, Harris Savides or Darius Khondji on camera for him he is still using a 27mm 40mm most of the time and a 75mm for the close ups , at f2.8 with nds and at f2 at night , thats about it , most of the film is shot on those 3 lenses thats all he needs (page 162 of the book 'New Cinematographers' gives you a look at Harris Savides note book for the film 'The Game' he lists scene by scene what lens he uses and its f stop ....its mainly all 27mm 40mm 75mm at f2.8 or f2.... The late great Gordon Willis shot 90% of The Godfather series for Francis Ford Copolla on a 40mm f2.8 lens - if you get this months American Cinematographer magazine OCT 2014 its a special edition all on Gordon Willis - The Prince of Darkness and it reveals all on how he shot these great films . Then you have Paul Greengrass who uses long zooms all the time and the late Tony Scott who shot almost always on long lenses and used x2 extenders too, thats his 'look ' And then the great Sergio Leone shot all those Clint Eastwood 'Dollar' series films on a single Angenieux 25-250mm f3.5 zoom So my point is you dont always need very wide lens to make great films ..... as long as you have in Super 35 field of view a 28mm. 40mm and 70mm which the Nikon zoom gives you ,you can make a film.....what camera you use to get those lengths is upto you , you may need speedboosters or adapters but those are the numbers that work for me most of the time.

if you want lenses you can keep long term then dont buy micro 4/3 Rokininons I would get a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 IF D , it is a steller lens as used on THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM, CASINO ROYALE, QUANTUM OF SOLICE etcetc no focus breathing , very sharp and covers the range of 4 primes , 28, 35, 50 and 70mm plus if you put it on a speedbooster it becomes a 20-50mm f2 monsters lens !! very fast for night shooting and even sharper and wider . I have 2 of these and they are now my main go to lenses !! you can shoot wide open at f2.8 all day long an it is pin sharp with a superb bokeh and very very filmic look this lens is the closest you can get to a £15,000 Carl Zeiss 28-80mm f2.8 cinema PL mount lens http://***URL removed***/articles/4439044609/carl-zeiss-presents-28-28mm-t2-9-cinema-zoom-lens AND it has less focus breathing than the Carl Zeiss.....it is an amazing lens get one it will last a lifetime. its sister lens is the Nikon 80-200mm f2.8 IF D also used on Bourne Ultimatum - this the is killer!! with these 2 lenses and a speedbooter you can shoot 90% of a feature film! all with a constistant glass look and matched colours so no issues in post as its all the same great Nikon glass !! it works !

I already had a 72mm clamp floating around in the draw that came with a morphic lens from years back. Similar to the vid-Atlantic ones, basically a tin tube with rear 72mm thread and nylon screws, not at all Redstan quality but holds it well enough for testing with. As soon as the FM lens is in my hands, I'll probably throw that clamp in the river.

My experience is the number of people who will buy the camera for that reason is very low. And I couldn't agree more with Tim Naylor on the high end. When I got involved with ML I ended up trying to make the EOS-M a killer RAW camera (and it is, at 720p). My video tutorial has 6,589 plays all-time.