Leaderboard

Forgot to update this thread for a few weeks! Some more videos online, including a new series - Anamorphic Chop Shop - with shorter videos presenting tips and guides on how to tweak the lenses to your needs. ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - CENTURY OPTICS 16:9 RATIO CONVERTER.http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7670 ANAMORPHIC CHOP SHOP - CENTURY OPTICS BAYONET TO 52mm.http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7708 ANAMORPHIC CHOP SHOP - UNBOXING THE RECTILUX 3FF-W.http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7694

Just got this camera and so far i am in love! did some filming of a police helicopter searching in the park close by here in Oslo, Norway. And the camera handles motion perfect! almost no rolling shutter! insanely good Here is a 4K video i shot on Auto downscaled to full hd : https://vimeo.com/133804417 - There was not much time to grab a tripod or anything, so this pretty much all handheld on auto, and no grading.

Do you really enjoy the canon pinkness?

PREFACE: I have been doing some testing with this lens for a while now, but lately I have been swamped with work. Also, there has been some sadness surrounding the girl who appears in the demo video (and several other anamorphic tests of mine), so anamorphic shooting has been on the back burner for a while now. But I'm seeing now that someone else has had the same idea, and is trying to make an unrealistic profit from it. And so I feel that I must post this write up, because this isn't a $1400 lens. The search for the perfect anamorphic lens is over (at least for me). Some months ago, I saw a post here from a member named frerichs. He claimed to have purchased a Bell & Howell 2x 16mm Anamorphic Projection lens (not the excellent Kowa model) for cheap and discovered that it was single focus, like the coveted Iscorama. I was skeptical, but since they can often be had for between $75 and $150 on eBay, I bought one to try out for myself. At first glance this lens does not look like a winner. It has neither the steam punk appeal of the Lomo square fronts, nor the timeless curves of the Iscorama. The impossibly long and narrow build of the lens suggests that this would never be viable match for anything but the longest taking lenses. And yet it works. The front element is a -7 diopter that focuses the other two elements in the housing as the head is turned, similar to the Iscorama. Unlike the Iscorama, the lens takes about five full rotations to go from infinity to close focus, which is limiting for practical use. But I have been working with a CNC machinist to resolve this, and I now have a prototype that allows me to do a full range rack focus in a one and a half turns: (Want to do this yourself? Ask a machinist to design a new front housing with a "multi-start thread" that will house the front diopter and screw directly onto the existing thread on the tube; this could also conceivably be done for Iscoramas to the same effect). We have also added a standard 58mm threading for easier filter mounting, and I've since installed a custom seamless ultra-wide delrin focus gear to add just a little torque for even easier focusing (not pictured). The Bell & Howell projection lenses that originally shipped with this lens were f/1.2 and f/1.4, so it is designed to be sharp at faster apertures -- and I find that it is. Perhaps not razor sharp, but as sharp as I'd ever want an anamorphic lens to be. And once you've removed the two limiting screws from the "head" of the lens, you can focus as close as two feet without diopters. Too much closer than that and the head will screw right off, but it's just as easy to screw right back on. Flaring is nice: The lens is not without its drawbacks. For one, it focuses to about 40 feet, not true infinity. That's not an issue for me, but it might be for some shooters. It's all-metal construction makes it a bit heavy which combined with its length will benefit from a lens support (which eliminates the shake that appears in my rack focus test). It vignettes when paired with wider lenses, so it is a better fit for smaller sensor cameras or Canon DSLRs with Magic Lantern raw crop mode enabled. For instance, I can shoot 1600x1200 with a Pentax Takumar 105mm f2.8 lens on my 5D Mark III and I don't see any vignetting before f/8. I also tested it with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AI-S on my GH2, and it was vignette-free so long as I cropped my 2x image down to 1.5x. So how does the footage look? Here's something that I shot with it: I am excited to add a sharp, easily rack-focusable, short minimum-focusing anamorphic to my arsenal. It won't be the right lens for every anamorphic user, especially those who want to be able to shoot as wide as possible, but for the price, it could make single-focus anamorphics more accessible to those who have not had a chance to work with them yet. Happy shooting!

The Sony RX10 M2 is our first look at Sony's new 4K XAVC-S codec at 100Mbit/s, the same which will be on the A7R II come the end of July. The RX10 M2 also brings 1080/120fps and up to 1000fps at lower resolutions. It features an extraordinary 24-200mm Zeiss lens with constant F2.8 aperture and built in ND filter. Is this the run & gun camera you've been waiting for? Read the full article

​That's a cool idea, Bold, there used to be a guy who sold these (Amit), there are plenty of references of him around the web, but I couldn't find a single adapter for sale. If you push forward with this, let me know how it goes! I'd love to offer that option to people, instead of hacking step rings.

​Ebrahim, you clearly like the camera. I can't argue with your opinion that the difference in quality shows even on this YouTube clip, because it's an opinion. But I don't think you supported it with anything factual other than saying that the large sensor makes it possible to shoot wide shoots with less distortion. I don't believe that's accurate. As I understand, differences in distortion come from lens design. With the same design, whether you use a small frame with a wide lens or a large frame with longer lens, as long as you get the same field of view you're going to have the same level of distortion. So, frame size plays no part other than letting you go wider with the same lens. I may be wrong though, please point to a credible source if I am.

Thanks for posting this Tito, I like the footage! I have the Century 1609 in a Canon Bayonet mount. I've done the step ring hack, but I also acquired a Canon GL1 lens assembly which includes the bayonet. I'm considering making casts of the bayonet (probably in brass) and fixing those casts to step down rings, to live on each of my lenses so each lens can be attached quickly by bayonet, as originally designed. (Though I'm still deciding if it's worth the cost/effort}

​http://www.dvinfo.net/article/production/camgear/what-alexa-and-watercolors-have-in-common.html http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/sonyxdcam/sony_sgamut_vs_sgamut3.html#prettyPhoto Worth reading. Color negative film (not slides, which is why serious landscape photographers use Velvia or digital to get "insane" colors) grows less saturated as exposure increases, very unlike video. This is why tricks with the lum vs sat curve (in Resolve or Color) can give you a killer "film look" unless highlights blow out under mixed light. SLOG2 is awful. It can't handle mixed lighting, it doesn't clamp saturation, and the color rendering is... weird. But sony cameras don't HAVE to look bad. Let's look at the F55: SLOG3: SLOG3 with Alexa/Dragon style highlight roll-off (color desaturates as brightness increases): Shocking that Sony hasn't made the latter the default. So caught up in tech but so hopelessly out of touch with aesthetics. Fwiw, the C300 Mk II will get this right. Canon has slowly been improving Canon Log and WideDR modes and their color is already dramatically better than SLOG2, not as good as Arri... yet. Word is Canon Log 2 will be on par with Arri. Red started awful but is getting really good, too. But if you have an F5, do yourself a favor and download this: http://community.sony.com/t5/F5-F55/Release-version-3DLUT-s-for-S-Gamut3-Cine-S-Log3/td-p/287847 A7S owners: Can something like this be done with the A7S? A "look" file that clamps saturation at 30IRE. If so I would be much less interested in an A7S2, which NEEDS to be able to do this or it will still have weird color. Internal 4k and 240fps at 1080p would be great, of course. I feel like I'm the only person here whose clients don't request 4k delivery but for me it's not that important, it's just that the internal 1080p in the A7S is really poor relative to the GH4/C300/etc. and 4k gives you room for scaling/stabilization for drone shots.

​I think Jonesy was being tongue in cheek about the DOF because it's actually quite large in almost all the shots. And yes, the visuals are great, but how exactly is that because of Alexa 65 and its super large sensor? I don't honestly see how you can tell the difference from a YouTube clip. There are a lot of other amazing things going on in the trailer.

All good points. I actually really like the video quality, at a cheap enough price point the crop doesn't bother me too much. Of course, I am only interested in it as a 3-400 dollar manufacturer refurb. At that money, even if I shoot one short with it, it was worth it. I wonder if an upcoming NX mini will have the 2.5k preproduction function.

Thanks Emanuel. On my iPad the RX10ii looks terrible with banding and other crap. I hope Andy has not forgotten about his tests so we can see all the settings and side by side comparisons.

Ok, I'll go... Internal 4k. BSI sensor. Memory on sensor. 60fps 4k. That's what I said! 1.5 f/stop impovement over current model. No, it won't have this last one... But how about a flip out touch screen?

...

​Full informative post *thumbsup* classy, very well! I guess next time, better to wait for your input before to even dare to post or yours will always put ours at dust LOL : ) It is a pleasure to read your posts all the time any time though, keep up the good work! (E :-)

Same thing on my 4K Sony Smartphone. It gets hot as hell. So not very weird at all imo.

Looks strikingly like his photos.. https://instagram.com/chivexp/

​Always FF equivalent. 35mm because it is still photography world, not cine standards. Cine 35mm or S35 is normally associated to crop in still photography. Crop format (1.3x, 1.6x etc) came much later than FF. So, 24-200mm in FF.

here it is being used on aps-c and a ff58 with 1.5x oval. Very lomo-esq! the CA and softness i can live with. PS. this was decoated so flares up in a crazy way!