Caleb Genheimer

Darn. I've always hoped to be the first person to really "go at it" with an anamorphic/TS combo. You beat me to it. Good luck!

I was just wondering, because as far as dual-focus is concerned, I'm set with my Kowa. That being said, I'm still hoping to upgrade to something single-focus in the future. I was under the impression that this meat either an Iscorama or a Lomo with a coupled Lomo back lens.

Those are double-focus though, correct?

Just thought I'd throw out the heads-up in case anyone is interested. It isn't mine (obviously), but the Todd AOs are decent AFAIK and complete single focus units.   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Todd-A-O-Anamorphic-lens-55mm-T1-3-canon-Arri-PL-Panavision-/330864182042?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4d090ac31a

The issue was I think that it wasn't an improvement over projection/DV anamorphics that are already available. It is dual-focus, and the widest compatible taking lens is 35mm on GH2. My Kowa is double-focus and can do 35mm. It can even eek out 28mm. The squeeze ratio thing seems to be more or less a personal preference thing. Some folks (me) prefer the look of 2X anamorphics. Others just want the correct aspect ratio of 2.35:1 without cropping, so they prefer 1.33X adapters. The Apefos did seem to possibly be sharper and flare more than the DV 1.33X adapters, which honestly might have been the one unique thing it had going for it. Even when compared to other 1.33X adapters, they probably have the upper hand overall, as the LA7200/Century/Optex are all focus-through and useable at wider than 35mm.    Honestly, I think he ran into the technical walls of his lens design. He couldn't seem to get higher (2X) squeeze factors without a lot of barrel distortion, and he was having issues with the quality of lens grinding available to him. That, coupled with the fact that it was a dual-focus design were unfortunately the ultimate hindrances.    If anything is to be taken away from this, it is that good anamorphic lenses are very complicated, even the dual-focus projection lenses are difficult to reproduce . . . let alone anything like a single-focus Iscorama. I still think there is a place for a new (expensive) 2X Iscorama-type lens if someone can figure out how to make one.    I wonder where the Iscorama patents and designs are at. Even a new direct optical copy of the 36 would fetch a pretty penny. I've got to think that it is (if anything) more easily manufacturable in this day and age, what with CNC machines and everything. Sure, nothing is cheap to make, but it is just a metal housing and the right glass in the right place cut to the right shapes and coated correctly. The design as Apefos found out is the most difficult part, so why not bring back an older design like the 36 that is already known to be a brilliant design, even if it is something made to-order.

With the SpeedBooster imminent, if BMCC were to enable full sensor 4:3 recording, I'd be almost forced to buy this camera as soon as I had the money. 4:3 35mm-equivalent (boosted) 2X anamorphic footage at 2.5K RAW? I can't imagine needing much more than that, ever (especially with ProRes as a non-raw option).   Edit: they need to get these cameras out and in people's hands ASAP. @EOSHD any idea how they're doing on that front? Are they still massively pre-ordered/back-ordered?

Good job! Good music choice, I love Drive.

Glad to say that caffeine is as far as I've gone on the drug scale. Not many people my age can say that.

I finally found the short film that I worked on all semester in LA a year ago, albeit sans color correction. We shot a special flat profile on the FS-100 with Zeiss Super Speeds (per my suggestion). My friend and I were co-soundmen, all the way through from pre-post production.    They've disabled embedding. It is on this page, and is called "The Star". http://www.bestsemester.com/lafsc/

Good filmmaking! And the rap is very good even if you don't know Spanish (I don't).

My newest song. Already up in the Screening Room, but I figured I'd share it here too as it was shot anamorphic. Listen with headphones.   The camera somehow got in an interlaced mode for some of these clips, that or I had some hack settings wrong. I almost threw all these clips out, but I'm glad I didn't. I think it actually adds to the look and feel of the video in a strange way.    http://vimeo.com/58524262

My newest song. I'll do a proper music video later on. Listen with headphones.   The camera somehow got in an interlaced mode for some of these clips, that or I had some hack settings wrong. I almost threw all these clips out, but I'm glad I didn't. I think it actually adds to the look and feel of the video in a strange way.    http://vimeo.com/58524262

Not really sure why BM didn't go with that mount, actually . . . it has a slightly shorter flange focal distance as well as having a bigger opening that can take an APS-C sensor. Not that the BMCC camera needs either, but if in the future they want to make a Super 35 camera, they'll have to use a mount other than Micro Four Thirds. Of course there is Canon EF which they are using already . . . but that's an absurd mount for a mirrorless body.   Regardless, there'll be a Micro Four Thirds Speed Booster before too long, which will make the current BMCC that much more attractive and  will also (IMO) put the GH2 back in the game more than people realize. If the SpeedBooster works on Micro Four Thirds with even a few good "true" Super 35 cinema lenses (i.e. PL mount), the GH and BMCC will be capable of . . . well, some pretty amazing images. Imagine the GH2 or BMCC with some nice Zeiss SuperSpeeds or even the LOMO lenses, utilizing the correct part of the image circle for those lenses. 

3D is not dead. It is very much here to stay. It is getting better all the time. Yes, it still has some technological problems, but not many. The dimness is the worst of it, really. In a good Sony 4K 3D theater, 3D can look fabulous. But the production needs to film it correctly. Use the correct rigs and (even more difficult) use the rigs correctly. Headaches come from shots that were not filmed correctly. These bad 3D shots should be a thing of the past, with many robotic 3D rigs existing that do all the complex adjustments for you.    Sadly, the makers of 3D films haven't got their crap together. Too many cuts, too much fast motion, shallow DOF, jumping focal points drastically on cut . . . all these things still happen in 3D, including the occasional object that still flies out at your face. I think contrary to popular wisdom, 3D is most suited to films where the camera flows more, cuts less, and doesn't in general do anything drastic. With 3D everything should linger, giving the viewer plenty of time to sink into each space.    You can say you don't like it, that's fine. but don's say it is dead, at least not in theaters. In home viewing/consumer cameras . . . yeah. maybe it is not really going to work right now. But even that is really rooted in how the technology works.    all the fancy adjustments for 3D shooting . . . interocular distance, convergence, etc. isn't just calculated based on the scene in front of the cameras, oh no. You have to factor in your final delivery screen size too. So when Peter Jackson shot The Hobbit, the physical relationship of the two cameras to each other was set assuming a large movie theater display would be the final delivery screen. If they set everything correctly, you eyes shouldn't hurt and you shouldn't really get headaches. But what happens when The Hobbit is released for home theater? They cheat. They fudge things digitally as best they can, but for The Hobbit to look correct on your 40" plasma, the cameras would need to be in a different physical relationship to each other during filming.    This is possibly why consumer level 3D is and will always be a bit of a gimmick. Well, not a gimmick, but limited and imperfect. All these small double lens 3D units for interchangeable lens cameras are crude approximations of how 3D ought to be captured in order to look correct, and that is why sometimes they look flat and almost always look just so very slightly wrong. 

I just shot outside in the snow with my Kowa for over an hour. It was very cold and I had no fogging issues, but don't plan on racking focus quickly, the oil/grease whatever in both my taking lens (Konica) and the Kowa got very thick in the cold, nothing to worry about but significantly more difficult to turn the focus mechanisms. I'm in a digital stills photography course right now, and I borrowed my father's EOS 1DS MK II (fullframe Canon), and I'm using a basic 85mm Ultrasonic lens with the Kowa. It doesn't hard vignette and seems to be fairly sharp  stopped down to around f2.8, but this is no fault of the Kowa, which is tack sharp at wider apertures on some of my other lenses. Good luck shooting and be sure to share your finished footage! The Kowa will steal your heart if you're not careful, though :-)   http://vimeo.com/56519741

I really hope they get their act together and offer some genuinely powerful video machines some time in the future. I'm simply not drawn to their stuff right now, and I sincerely think it is that either their 1080p looks like crap, or you must pay ludicrous prices for the decent stuff. I'm even more afraid as other manufacturers start to all use Sony sensors. Where's the diversity?   The one area where Canon still blows others out of the water is the color reproduction out of their sensors. It is gorgeous. If they would stop half-assing the video side of their products, they'd probably take back a large piece of the pie.    Also the apocalypse-weather sealed unubtanium bodies are mighty attractive.

I don't think I'd try the Samyang/Rokinon linses, but maybe that is just me. They are not small lenses, and the 35mm at least has a bad breathing problem. I've been sticking with a mishmash of Canon/Tamron in FD mount, the Mir and the Konica for use with my anamorphic, planning to sit tight until a suitable new complete lineup of lenses is available. Voigtlander was looking promising for m4/3, and SLR Magic's recent additions to their lineup are making their stuff look mighty tempting. Here's to hoping that they make a full lineup of cine lenses.

Tony, you hit the nail on the head. "full o satanick decay ups close". 5D video in a nutshell.

http://vimeo.com/56742204   Any comments or feedback very much appreciated.

Yes, he is a lively little fella. Truth be told I was just carrying the whole folded tripod with the camera attached. The added bulk makes for a nice poor-man's stabilizer. It doesn't stabilize much, but it cuts down on jello-inducing fast movement.    No Hypergonar for me, I've got a Kowa with RedStan clamps and a LightCraft Workshop variable ND filter. The taking lens was the good 'ol Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8. If my memory serves me there are a few other Kowa owners on the EOSHD forum that use this taking lens with their Kowa optics. My copy at least is pretty bad wide open, but at f2.8 it sharpens up. Most of these shots were at f2.8 or f4 . . . that or balanced in the middle :-)

Thanks, gentleman. I've done a few short videos now with this splitting screen concept, and actually the first wasn't even anamorphic. Several of my others slide clips in and out, up and down etc. more aggressively, but for this I wanted to try to do split frame as unobtrusively as possible. The bottom looped clip is intentionally simple and secondary. About the length . . . I know that 11 minutes is long for this sort of video, and honestly I don't think most will watch it fully, but the slow and longer approach in this video is intended to more fully capture the real-life experience of taking a walk in the woods for those interested in watching the whole thing.   Here is my first "split frame" experiment, same Konica 40mm but without the anamorphic.  http://vimeo.com/42735440   Then I did a longboarding vignette on the fly for some friends utilizing the anamorphic, and the split frame concept made even more sense. This one has lots of pushes/slides/fades/scrolls what-have-you.   (Note: this is graded to be watched in a dark room.) http://vimeo.com/52799095

TDKR was the same in theaters I believe as you describe your bluray. All formats filled the screen fully in the horizontal dimension, and the aspect ratio changes took place by varying the black bars on top and bottom frame. I'm not bashing that technique, by the way . . . but if you want to fake non-anamorphic footage as anamorphic, I'd say the aspect ratio is the first place to start, especially if you are intercutting it with real anamorphic footage. The aspect ratio changes in TDKR scream "look, this footage is different from that footage!"

Just thought I'd share this also on the anamorphic forum specifically. Gotta love the Kowa image!   http://vimeo.com/56519741

It is winter in Minnesota, and that means snow. There is nothing quite like the experience of a walk in the snow clad Minnesota forests. The soft snow and sharp cold winter air create a new extreme of quiet that can only really be experienced first-hand. The accompanying music can only hope to capture some of the mood. Shut out the hustle and bustle this holiday season for a relaxing 11 minute walk by the frozen Sunrise River behind my home.   http://vimeo.com/56519741

I doubt anyone on this forum would bash you for mixing. Hollywood (except for the already mentioned J.J.) very often mixes anamorphic and spherical footage. Especially for low/no-butget films, getting certain shots with anamorphic is simply not feasible, most notably wide establishing shots like the ones under discussion here. And really, anything as wide as what is being discussed will have pretty deep depth of field with most subjects, so the ability to differentiate aspherical shot from an anamorphic one would be quite difficult if not impossible, provided you crop both types of footage to the same aspect ratio.