Andrew Reid

Heads are squished!!? OH GOD NO!! Glad you liked it Matt. Slow-mo is nice to have on the GH3. I think rolling shutter is almost at FS100 level with it. That is to say - very very good!

Wanted to draw special attention to this http://vimeo.com/53000431 I really do admire the way Anil Rao shoots. Great mood and ideas. Well done!!

I'd love to try some. I'll get in touch but PL to EF mount, hmm not sure that will work.

I really need to get out and shoot properly with my FS100 and SLR Magic T0.95. Did a very brief test at 3am and it looked great but yet to shoot in anger with it. The SLR Magic T0.95 is a good option for anamorphic too, I shot this with it on the GH2 a few months ago. http://vimeo.com/38339934 The more lenses like these Hawks, SLR Magics and Voigtlanders we filmmakers get, the more creative for all concerned.

They're great rental options for a special shoot though. More than anything I just love the whole philosophy behind the lenses. Whilst the corporations are making everything perfectly sharp, contrasty and clinical these guys are producing artisan cinema lenses with a 'dreamy' wide open look and two coatings, one for a low contrast and higher levels of flare. MUCH NEEDED!!

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FDTimes-VantageOne_coated_uncoated.jpg"][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FDTimes-VantageOne_coated_uncoated.jpg[/img][/url] These look like they're going to be a great rental option for creative filmmakers looking for that dreamy low light look. Hawk, famous for their anamorphic lenses have launched a new range of standard spherical cine glass. The aperture is F0.95 following in the footsteps of Voigtlander with their 25mm and 17.5mm for Micro Four Thirds. However Hawk have gone all out and done a massive range, and what is more these cover Super 35mm in PL mount. There's not only a 17.5mm and a 25mm but a 21, 25, 32, 40, 50, 65, 90 and a 120. I also highly recommend the SLR Magic T0.95 50mm for those with low light kings such as the Sony FS100. Leica M easily adapts to E-Mount. The Hawks however are PL so you can use them on the other low light king, the Canon C300.

Holy s*** This is going on the front page. Great find Andy!!

There are some technical advantages of full frame in terms of image quality. Of course resolution is one of them, and maintaining resolution along with better low light and dynamic range. We certainly don't need any more 22MP or 36MP full frame sensors for video though. 10MP is optimal.

You have mail Roald :)

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1354127481' post='22556'] I've worked with many different directors and cinematographers, and on many occasions there have been problems with the projectors or movie player software that causes slight aspect ratio distortions when we're watching dailies, and no matter how subtle these are, it is enough for them not being able to judge the work anymore and rather look at it later once the issue has been addressed. It's that much of a problem. [/quote] I guess it is not so much of a problem for me. Nearly every anamorphic work I've shot has been framed on an unsqueezed LCD and I do the squeeze in my head. Maybe I am compensating in the same way when I watch this footage. Maybe I need to step back from it and do a 3.55:1 version. Like I say, conversing about it has broken my spell a bit.

[quote name='ipcmlr' timestamp='1354119251' post='22539'] I did find the first "summer scenes" changing squeeze distracting. I think it was because at first I didn't know that it was not completely unsqueezed to 2x so I kept on thinking "why is some of it unsqueezed 2x and some of it not unsqueezed fully?" After those first 8 or so shots I was fine with it guess. Thanks for the video. [/quote] After the first 8 shots it is less of a mixture of cropped and anamorphic so there isn't that reference point to compare the squeezed footage to. Maybe that is why you accepted it more later in the video. The summer sequences involve a lot of vertical planes shot from quite far back and nearly 60% of the first 25 seconds are aspherical cropped. Again this test has been useful for me to see how far you can intercut and break the rules without it becoming a problem for the viewer.

[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1354116600' post='22535'] IMO faces or full body shots is what gives it away the most. In the closeups of her shorts when she's walking, for instance, it's hard to tell since I don't know her, it can make her look thinner or chubbier if it's wrong, but doesn't feel as blatantly odd as a face or full body shot does. I totally understand it's a look to have it stretched or squeezed, I just don't think it cuts well with undistorted footage, unless you go further and use more extreme distortion, then it would be clear it's a creative decision, this way it looks like something's wrong with it. [/quote] Well the close-up of her shorts was shot on the 135mm F2.0L and cropped from 16:9. After all this talk I notice the distortion far more now. Funny thing is, even whilst editing it and watching it a thousand times it didn't bother me. This from knowing that I was coming off the shoot with both aspherical and anamorphic footage that I needed to intercut. Obviously I noticed it but bother me it didn't because I liked the effect. I still find the slightly taller figures more attractive than odd, but one way around this would be to do an edit using split screen for the 16:9 sections as these (uncropped) fit perfectly side by side into a 3.55:1 aspect ratio, and then you can have the full 2x squeeze on the anamorphic LOMO shots. This is an experiment and it is interesting to see how people react and what new ideas it might generate, so even if I don't agree with some of you in terms of the subjective viewing experience (I don't find it jarring for example) I do appreciate the points of views a lot.

Yep it is a intentional style thing. Just preferred it to the full squash and as I said in the blog the LOMO changes the actual squeeze factor depending on the focal position. Need to send them off to a repair guy and see if anything can be done because it seems impossible to rack focus like this. Question for you guys who find it distracting - was the distraction caused by all shots in the first 25 seconds (summer scenes) or just a few?

This is an interesting idea. Possibly the challenges are that it is a very specialist piece of machinery to produce and you can't really find a third party supply for it? Also heavy on the battery and would be difficult to fit in the mount. F65 has rotary shutter but that is PL not EF / MFT. I don't think they could do one for $500 either. This is a very high precision piece, it needs to be utterly perfect in manufacture for zero vibration and noise at such fast spin speeds.

[quote name='blazer003' timestamp='1354078800' post='22500'] I couldn't past the first 8 seconds of the video. That is horrible image quality! Needs to be hacked... ;) [/quote] Welcome to the forum. I'm glad you think filmmaking is all about sharpness and image quality. One more person I don't need to pay very much attention to.

I hope people are downloading the files and not just streaming the Vimeo clips. Also use a decent screen. I recommend Dell U2711.

[quote name='/p/' timestamp='1354024283' post='22436'] What exactly is the fascination of a FF GH3? Seems unnecessary.. If Panasonic decide to increase the size of the sensor it should be to S35 not 35mm FF............... Why drastically increase the price for near to no benefit whatsoever? Just look at what the BMCC does with an even smaller sensor............................ Tell me again why Panasonic should make a 35mm FF camera? [/quote] Marketing. There's no way they can compete with Canon when all the dummies out there are obsessed with sensor size with their 'bigger is better' mentality.

This discussion would be better visually. Can you show me some example frames and explain the squeeze that you find distracting? Basic screen grab and post on here would be fine.

Again if we take the view that it is JUST content that is important, there's no motivation for filmmakers to put any artistry into their camera work and cinematography. A disaster. If we take the view that it is JUST image quality that matters and that the camera is the most important thing, you lose the motivation to work on the content and just churn out pretty timelapses. Is this balance so difficult for people to grasp? Why is every argument in 2012 polarised, be it about cameras, politics, music, anything...

Well Bruno. Once again, I don't agree.

http://vimeo.com/54352877 Thanks Johnnie for another enlightening test. The image is sharp (sharpened in post) but soft out of the camera. Confusingly though we now have a different problem. Some intentional market segmentation causing this to be a worse camera for filmmakers than it needs to be. Moire everywhere! Terrible aliasing! No headphone jack! Therefore I cannot recommend it for video and I urge Canon to put a halt to this kind of bullshit immediately. Just make each product as good as it can feasibly be for the money. I mean seriously how much does a headphone jack cost!? I am going out tonight so no time to do a proper blog post on this but will look at it again later in the week.

[quote name='jcmbender' timestamp='1354013929' post='22419'] Living in France where the theaters are kitted out in 2K, even spectacular theaters like the Max Linder Panorama, I can say that I often find the 2K projection disappointing and far from seamless. At the Max Linder, the best seats in the house are at the front of the mezzanine, where you're just below the center of the screen and about 2.5 screen lengths away, but from there I often feel that I can see the pixels. Of course fortunately this is a city with dozens of little cinemas showing gems on 35. Got to see a fabulous, nearly pristine copy of Marker's [i]Le joli mai[/i] in 35 the other day — stunning! [/quote] This is interesting. I value real life cinema experience about the science actually.

Its OK keep it here. Nice stuff dude

Nice lenses addhawk. The 22mm is quite rare, not seen one before. Did you try it in the Canon adapter as well? Out of the 6 asphericals I was loaned, only 1 fits the Canon adapter so these are not the lenses you should have if you are an avid 60D user. Great on the GH2 and FS100.

[quote name='DJJ' timestamp='1354016582' post='22422'] So, I have to ask, was leaving the anamorphic footage still squashed a "creative" decision? I keep seeing the screenshots and have now seen the video, footage that isn't square pixelled and is squashed is something I can spot a mile off, it jumps right out at me, and I can clearly see it here in some of the shots. I can see you've stretched out the footage on the anamorphic shots, but not fully so it's still squashed, which is an interesting thing to do. I admit it's a personal thing and it bugs me, but everyone is different. It's not a criticism so no need to go ballistic on me, I'm just curious why you did it. [/quote] Really? You can spot that the pixels aren't square? Would this happen in a normal viewing situation or is it because you are concentrating more on the science than on the actual content? Not having a go, just curious as to how this 'jumps out at you from a mile off'. To me it looks fine! It looked weirder squashed to 3.55:1 so the 'creative decision' was just about making it look better. I don't give a damn about whether the pixels are square. It is ALL about the look. That is the important thing, no?