Caleb Genheimer

Wouldn't the ideal anamorphic resolution be 2048 x 1716, half of the DCP 4K standard of 4096 x 1716, if it is possible? That'd be ideal for Anamorphic 2.39:1.

What we want is 2048 x 1716, half of the DCP 4K standard of 4096 x 1716, if it is possible. That'd be ideal for Anamorphic 2.39:1

Hey, All!   I've been wondering . . . there are inflight Iscos that look a lot like the Inflight Kowas. Are all the inflights dual-focus, or do the iscos single focus?

We'll see. IT isn't J.J. I'm worried about, honestly it is the Disney overlords. J.J. didn't do anything fabulous with Star Trek (probably what we should be looking most closely at in terms of what is in store for Star Wars), but then, the writers on his first Trek weren't exactly what I'd call Trekkies, and neither is Abrams.   From all accounts, he IS a longtime Star Wars fan, though . . . and arguably he has better writers than he did on the first Trek film. I think Super 8 shows that he is one of the few big directors out there that understands how those '70s scifi films work, and I hope he brings that to bear in Star Wars.    His visual style is still ultimately too sleek for what I would want in a new Star Wars film (that is one thing that was wrong with I-II-III). If anything, I'd want a director with some serious visual grit . . . Guy Ritchie or Tarantino. Those two have some serious character chops. They understand how to make a character cool . . . that Han Solo mojo. That is what was missing from the Lucas prequels . . . the charisma. I hope J.J. has the presence of mind to carefully analyze what Lucas did wrong in the prequels, and to get whatever help he needs (writing or otherwise) to avoid a repeat flop.    Also, as an aside . . . I wanna see Gosling and Chastain as Jedi. Just throwing that out there.

  I personally think the Kowa is actually better glass in most cases. Certainly they are equal. Other than the dual-focus issue, Kowa has more advantages, IMO. The Kowas are all metal and built like a tank. They are 2X and sharp as a tack. They are the widest 2X around (AFAIK), and on top of all that, the flares are very classic.    Don't get me wrong, those iscos are nice too, but the flare is often clear (or the color of your light), and they're only 1.5X.

  Nowhere close, from what I gather, he is keeping mum on the budget, because he got a lot of criticism for how low the budget was on Primer, and he doesn't want a similar reaction. My guess is it is still a very low budget.   I'm going to see it in theater tomorrow night, and I've been excited for the past month to do so!

I have this same lens, and JohnBarlow is correct. Depending on the taking lens and distance to the subject, the Kowa can vary from 2X to 1.5X squeeze. That's why when I film people I always crop to 2.40. That way, I can vary the stretch down from 2X if need be.

Hi, all! Let me preface this by stating that I'm no optics or lens expert, just a guy with a idea.   But I've been wondering . . . is it possible to turn dual-focus anamorphic setups single-focus by setting the two lenses to infinity and simply moving them closer or farther away from the sensor? Could the dual-focus challenge be solved by a variable-length lens mount adapter with a nice built-in helicoid?

+1, try to cut some more of the CA. Other than that, I wants more pronounced ovals! Maybe you should throw an oval aperture in there just to be tricksy?  ;)   It looks great, though! I hope you offer it with similar coating/flare customization options like the FF58. I wants blue flares! (Yeah, yeah . . . I know. For some odd reason, anamorphic nutters seem to treat flares as taboo . . . loose the snobby hipster attitude, the signature blue flares are cool.)   You might also putts around with other lenses just to see if you can find one or two other focal-lenth lenses that it can synch to. I know, that's a tall order, but you never know! something longer focal length might be nice for closeups, especially if it suffers from "mumps" (y'know, if you're too close, it makes faces look fat).    I just had another idea for the FF58 too. You really should get your hands on a proper blue streak filter and do another promo video with that on front . . . I've always wondered just how close a spherical could come to looking like anamorphic with a good blue streak filter and internal oval aperture mod. I suspect that all but the most stickler wouldn't notice a difference.

I'm surprised no one has jumped on these yet . . . I would just fork over $2K no sweat if I had the cash. Alas, college has severely damaged my financial situation.

Why anyone is still paying heed to Canon for video is beyond me. I'm eagerly watching and waiting, with my eyes mostly on Blackmagic and Sony. Honestly, if Blackmagic would take a few camera body/interface design cues from Sony, I'd be sold. the FS/F cams from sony are the best form factor IMO. Blackmagic's is like a DSLR minimalist box to the point of no ergonomics, which defeats the point of that shape in the first place . . . which is to have hand grips side and bottom. Blackmagic has also gone to the extreme end of the spectrum by putting all tho interface in that touch screen. Some physical interface would be better, and can still be done minimally, even just physical interfaces for iris, iso, white balance, shutter angle . . . these things deserve wheels or buttons.    That is I think one reason folks are still attracted to cameras like the C-100, even if Blackmagic delivers better image . . . these are professionals that don't like messing with touch screens. Sony is getting a lot of stuff right, but the prices are still too high, and the interface a little overwhelming. Blackmagic is well on their way to an ideal 4K RAW cinema camera with the Production Cam . . . but ND and a shorter FFD mount are "musts".   So I watch . . . and wait. I don't upgrade camera bodies often, so when I do, I'm picky. I'm hoping either the next 4K RAW BMCam has ND and a short FFD . . . or that Sony drops price on their cameras.

Ok, seriously . . . I've seen this thing on ebay all the time. It looks insane. big front, short length, smaller protruding rear . . .    Who has actually tried this thing?! I want to see footage or pictures from it. Something about the fact that it pops up again every once in a while makes me wonder if it is a hassle or something.    

I did not realize there were so many larger options out there! Great to know for the future. I can hardly wait to get out of this icky school situation, get a job and start making some money. I love my Kowa, but I'm definitely into anamorphic for the long-haul and definitely ready to upgrade to a single-focus setup. This may be a bit premature, but the craze for these things seems to have settled down somewhat, and some of the better lenses (lomo/iscorama) seem to be freed up somewhat and moving around the marketplace a bit more.

Glad that this is finally an option. I've thought that this should be an ND solution for quite some time now. That being said . . . ND really ought to be built in to the camera body, especially on mirrorless cameras. With this, you still need a different one for each different lens type that you are adapting to your camera, and it also obviously does not work with other adapters like Metabones Speedbooster, etc.

There's no denying . . . it is massive. But AFAIK it is focus-through, and likely far superior to the DV 1.33X lenses from Panasonic, Century, Optex, etc.

Just thought I'd point this out . . . first of the massive "modern" 1.33X projection adapters that I've seen listed as biddable (usually they are buy it now for upwards of $7,000).   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Runco-WideVision-Wide-Vision-Anamorphic-Lens-/140954222271?pt=US_Video_Projectors&hash=item20d186bebf

  All the speedboosters will use the same 0.71X optics, only the mounts change. 0.71X is perfect for adapting fullframe lenses to APSC. So while m4/3 cameras with speedbooster will see a similar benefit, they will not be full frame-equivalent like APSC, because m4/3 is an even smaller sensor than APSC. 

2X, apparently: http://www.reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-40248.html

Hi, All! Just thought I'd post this up in case someone is iterested. It isn't me selling, I just spotted it.    To me it looks like a rebranded Kowa 8Z/16H, and it looks to be in really great condition.   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Optivision-XW5000-Anamorphic-Projector-Lens-Case-In-Box-Excellent-av-/290896488620?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item43bac828ac

  Ammendment: sorry, thought this was the topic for the Production cinema camera, not the Pocket camera. Yes, Assuming a M4/3 speedbooster is released, I think it should work.

Um . . . hate to break it to ya, but all camera mounts have a specific flange focal distance (FFD) that cannot be changed. EF mount is EF mount, you don't "fix" the FFD. The only way to fix it is to switch to a different mount that has a shorter FFD. EF-M would've been a better choice for that reason. Still Canon and EF-comaptible (with adapter) for all the Canon lens lovers out there, but short FFD (compared to EF) for all of us that want to adapt lots of lenses.

GH2 is the best non-RAW camera out there for the price if you're after a narrative film look. The hacked footage it gives is incredible, and I'm never selling mine, ever.

  Yessir. Anything adaptable to other M4/3 cameras is also adaptable to this. 

  My vote goes to FZ Mount. Same flange focal distance (18mm), more robust and intended for S35mm frame size.

  You forget . . . Resolve Lite is 100% free. The only limitation to the software is a 1920x1080 export frame size (AFAIK). Since that is supposedly the size of the sensor on the Pocket BMCC, they needn't include the full version of their software.     The 4K cam most interests me, though. It is, in my book, very nearly a "perfect camera" (on paper). The only thing I utterly despise is that idiotic EF lens mount. WHY?! There is no mirror inside it, so WHY?! It ought to have a short flange focal distance so that other lens systems are adaptable.