Caleb Genheimer

First off, letterbox to 2.35:1 aspect ratio. If you want to go even wider, 2.75:1 was used for Ben Hur and some other films. Plenty of people crop 16:9 footage to 2.35:1, so 2.75:1 might be one way to stand out a bit more.    Second (and I have done this so I can vouch for it as working pretty good), cut yourself an oval aperture shaper and put it in front of your lens. it may take several tries to get the oval the right shape and size so that it both shapes your circle of confusion and so that it does not vignette your lens.    If you want the flares, stretch a fat bit of fishing line vertically in front of your lens, just like the VidAtlantic filter. I've even had moderate success coloring the fishing line with Sharpie markers for different colored flares. Of course, the color range of green/blue/purple is the classic flare color for anamorphic, with blue being the most common for sure.     When you do get an anamorphic, save a bit extra and get a good one. I saved to get a Kowa 16-H, and even that lens has its limitations. If you are serious about getting a real anamorphic setup, buy Andrew's Anamorphic Guide first. It will save you from spending lots of money on the wrong lens.

I mean, theoretically when lightfield sensors become standard across the board, there will be all sorts of lens simulations available in post-production. With information on each light ray's direction, it would theoretically be possible to eliminate certain rays, effectively stopping down the lens or changing the aperture shape. It would follow that via remapping and/or synthesizing, an anamorphic lens could be simulated in post. Most cameras would come equipped with a very sterile fast aperture wide-tele zoom and a lightfield profile of that lens. From that base profile, other lenses could be simulated for effect.    All that being said . . . there's nothing quite like using the real thing.

Well, I've found the Tokina to retain image sharpness. I don't know about the image improvement that some credit it with, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't make anything drastically worse, and that's saying something because many of the cheaper diopters available certainly do make things worse. Also, it is a low power diopter, which is less common and far more useful.   As for the front clamp business, I'd rather not go fiddling taking my lens apart to find these alleged threads. It is in very good condition, and the RedStan clamp is working just fine. I always do my research before buying anything, and I did no small amount before putting together this anamorphic setup. The RedStan rear clamp is absolute top quality as far as I am concerned. It is solid anodized aluminum machined to a precise fit with excellent threads and sturdy plastic lock screws that do not scratch my anamorphic. The front clamp is much the same, although it is a tad more bulky than need be, perhaps.    I have been using this setup for half a year, and have recently completed a 30 minute short film shot entirely with the Kowa, Tokina diopter and Redstan clamps, not to mention many shorter videos.    At the time of purchase, I emailed RedStan directly (I believe I found his email on the RedStan site), and I ended up trading RedStan for the package deal (Tokina and RedStan clamps). RedStan was courteous, prompt to reply and eager to work out a mutually beneficial deal. It is difficult to calculate precisely what I paid for this setup because it was a trade of goods, but there was no way with the exchange rate that I would have been able to afford the USD $300+ price of all these parts. Obviously I'm thankful and happy that RedStan was willing to cut me a deal, because I love anamorphic shooting and will never go back. 

Exactly. I'm just hoping that the number of people adding flares and widescreen in post increases, leaving the good anamorphic lenses cheaper and more available for those of us that know the above-mentioned. I for one have gone anamorphic and will never go back, but knowing the limitations of double focus, I'm hoping to one day pick up a 1.5 or 2X rack focusable unit. At the current time,  these are all in the multiple thousands of dollars.

  Just a funny picture demonstrating the insanity and joy I get from using my Kowa :)   [sharedmedia=gallery:images:143]

hey, all! I'm curious what everyone thinks about the rise in popularity of anamorphic lenses in indie/hobby filmmaking. Clearly a lot of people are into it right now, as certain lenses have become difficult to find in good quality at reasonable price. To those who have been using and buying anamorphic lenses for some time, do you think anamorphic lenses have become permanently rare items, or is it a fad that will wear off for the vast number of current anamorphic shooters?

I understand the complexity as I have a Kowa 16H. The dual-focus of my anamorphic has me on the prowl for a single-focus anamorphic solution. I just finished a half hour short film shot all on the Kowa, and while it is sharp and clear, the double-focus turned out to be a difficult limitation to work with creatively. 

The Bolex 1.5x requires both lenses to be focused, though, right?

Andrew, what is this news on the EM-5 getting an update with video benefits? I was pretty attracted to that camera when it first came out, but (as you have mentioned) the video quality is lacking and that kept me away.    Also, you've used one, right? Perhaps you could clear up something that I was never able to find a straight answer for: does the EM-5 use 5-axis image stabilization in video mode, or not? 

I just saw it in 48fps at a theatre on The Hobbit's official list of HFR theaters, and I have to say, the 48fps made a difference. It didn't erase the story or makeup/set problems, but the cinematic aesthetics were improved by the high frame rate, most notably the action sequences which are too fast and blurry in 24p to even be decipherable. In 48fps, that stuff was actually readable. I too caught the "ramping" effect in Bilbo's walk in the beginning, but I'm not sure that they ramped, I think it was the 48fps. Here is my theory on the "speed ramp" effect that seemed to pop up here and there:   48fps is (obviously) higher frame rate than we are used to seeing in the cinema, and for most motion in the cinema, it is fast enough to not even really have a noticeable flicker. But when objects in frame reach a certain (not sure of the right term) "screen speed", they CAN still break up and reveal the 48fps cadence. When this happens, it has the illusion of having been ramped to 2X speed, because the cadence is double that of 24fps, which we have been trained to accept as normal speed. Because 48fps is double what our brains are expecting, it registers as having been sped up even when it as not. I paid pretty close attention to shots were this was happening, and I don't think they were sped up from their original speed. 

No more of NYC in the foreseeable future. I am back in Minnesota from my school semester there. The good news? Here there is lots of SNOW!

Has anyone here seen anything with a significantly high frame rate (100+fps)? anytime I've heard rumor of such things, the verdict seems to be that it looks incredibly lifelike, not at all like 60fps TV and certainly better than gimmicky 3D. Unfortunately, 48fps seems to be locked in as the new 3D projection standard for a while now, but I'd like to see super high frame rates become at least limitedly accessible.

My ultimate dream is to have the opportunity to someday do one of Tolkien's works faithfully as a TV drama for A&E, AMC or the like. The Hobbit itself (like I said) is almost succinct enough to be a long feature film screenplay without much work. If you read it, Tolkien has pretty clear scenes, montages, bits (small jokes) and even directions for production design. The pace at which it moves along is anything but slow, and not a single bit of dialogue in it is superfluous. Jackson was 100% successful in disrupting Tolkien's original flow.    What is most unfortunate is that the 48fps HFR business has gone mass-media, and I fear that the mediocre nature of the film as a whole will color the public's opinion of HFR filmmaking techniques. I see no reason for 48fps to be a deal breaker if the storytelling is good and the cinematography is done in a way that plays to 3D's strengths.

The Hobbit was not shot for 3D! I can only say this so many times. The action sequences you speak of had far too many quick cuts and were too close in on the action. Even in 2D I couldn't make head nor tale of what I was looking at half the time. in 3D, this translates into abstract garbled mush.    I agree with Andrew that the first part of the film was the most enjoyable, mostly because the cuts were less frequent, the motion was tightly controlled; this is how 3D ought to be handled.    **SPOILER ALERT FOR ALL BELOW**   There are severe problems with this film even on the script level. So they want to make The Hobbit 9 hours long? I don't actually have a problem with that. I'd love to know what Gandalf is up to when he mysteriously disappears on a rainy night . . . except for he doesn't. Tolkien's The Hobbit is a tightly written masterpiece, primed and ready for a faithful film adaptation.   There is more than enough room in 9 hours for both the original intact narrative and plenty of epic additives ala Gandalf's away time. Instead, the best aspects of every original chapter were altered, leaving the charm of Tolkien's style dead and lifeless.        There's something charming about Bilbo inviting the wizard to tea and ending up with 13 dwarves in his home.          There's something charming about Bilbo signing the agreement, then waking up and thinking it was a dream, only         to be rushed out the door by Gandalf without even a pocket handkerchief.         There's something charming about a cold, rainy night river crossing, when the rain has got into their clothes and         the wizard is suddenly nowhere to be found. There's charm in the elves teasing the dwarves with song as they       enter Rivendell.          And there's something scary about running through completely dark, cramped goblin caves with nothing but the           light of your swords, which are only lit because there are goblins on your heels. Where did all the light in the       underground scenes come from anyway?            Surely Gollum's eyes don't give off all that light in his cave.         They have nine hours in which to tell this story, the least they could do is include all the riddles.

Well, I've seen it twice, in 2D and 3D both. There is so much blurry action, it disgusts me. Even in 2D I couldn't make head nor tale of what I was looking at during several action sequences. In 3D, all that is amplified into a downright nightmare. Jackson didn't shoot this with 3D in mind. I've already pretty much spoken my mind concerning the story itself.

Again, I would argue that almost none of the problems with this film lie in the production execution. So what if you can see how the rain was lit? Sure, I'd prefer it to be less obvious, but I've been completely sucked in by many good stage plays that had far less realistic scenery (heck, I've been sucked in by shoddily shot films before too).    My biggest beef (SPOILER ALERT) is that so much of the original plot is removed, and what is left of it gets rushed through in order to get to the newly created parts or to a Mario-esque action sequence. WHY didn't Bilbo invite Gandalf to tea? WHY no Green Daragon meeting? (oh wait. I remember. BILBO DIDN'T EVEN AGREE TO GO WITH.) Why approach three trolls unarmed . . . just because? What happened to being cold, hungry and wizardless? Why is Voldemort riding a white warg?    Why mess with Riddles in the Dark . . . AT ALL?   Why change the original when there is plenty room and to spare for added backstory? I have recently re-read The Hobbit, and it would make a passable script as-is (certainly it would be a better script than whatever piece of trash was used for Jackson's "retelling").   I am going again in a few hours, and I'll admit that sometimes I change my mind after viewing a film again; we'll see, but I doubt that's going to happen.

Well, I just got back from the theater. Needless to say, the high frame rate and 3D were not the true problems with this film. I'm still not sure what I just watched, but it wasn't Tolkien's The Hobbit. 

I wrote a short blog post a while back on this very subject, specifically after having viewed Ridley's Prometheus in 3D. While I admit that I went to it purely as a litmus test for films to come (read: The Hobbit, they use the same cameras and lenses), I ended up surprisingly impressed with the careful attention paid at times to 3D as a different medium from that of 2D. Wel, I won't go in depth, but Prometheus is the first 3D film that I have seen that seemed shot with 3D in mind . . . not shot like a 2D film, that is. Here's the full post. It is a pretty short read:   [url="http://23point976.blogspot.com"]http://23point976.blogspot.com[/url]

I for one am all about illusion when I make films. That's the fun of it! film is illusion of motion, wether at 24 or 48fps, 2D or 3D, black and white or color. It is interesting, Andrew, that you bring up Dogma films. I'll give 'em a nod for effort, but the whole Dogma mentality fights against what film actually is . . . illusion. Besides, "reality" TV uses the Dogma playbook because it is a style associated with reality. I for one will be sticking with 24fps because I love how it looks, and 3D isn't my cup of the (at least until I've mastered the second dimension).   I do understand the benefits of 48fps for 3D, though . . . and part of me wants to hold off judgement until I see The Hobbit with my own eyes. Deep in my heart I like to think that I can trust Peter Jackson to have made the right decision in regards to FPS, 3D and resolution. 

Here is one more. The first was ungraded ProRes, this has a quick grade thrown on. Not sure if I like the grade, though.   [url="https://vimeo.com/55254355"]https://vimeo.com/55254355[/url]

Hi, All! This is just some of my "practice footage" from late night (early morning) walks around NYC with my trusty GH2, 37mm Mir, Kowa, Redstan clamps and Tokina 0.4 diopter. Hope you like it. [url="http://vimeo.com/55186577"]http://vimeo.com/55186577[/url]

Here is my latest project, which I shot and edited. The characters and story are courtesy of the fine young gentlemen who acted in it. [url="http://vimeo.com/54590528"]http://vimeo.com/54590528[/url] Starring: Mike Peck | Thee Honorable Chris Chalgren â€¨And Joseph Peck as: Dick JohnsonWith: Esther Dronen | Emily Wissink | Miriam GenheimerShot and Edited By: Caleb Genheimer
_____________________________________________
Camera: Panasonic Lumix GH2 running original firmware
Lenses: Mir-1b 37mm f2.8, Canon nFD 28mm f2.8, Kowa 16-H Anamorphic
Master File: ProRes 23.98fps 422HQ, down-converted to 1080p for web delivery

Andrew, I see that Redstan anamorphic clamp on there, what have you been up to, hmm?  B) 2.5K RAW-recorded anamorphic footage ought to look INSANE, I can hardly wait and almost wish I had a BMCC myself (but I've told myself I'll wait for certain things before buying any new body).  

I'm just waiting for the BMCC to blow up in the lower markets. I've no intention of switching from my trusty GH2 until I can get at least a S35 RAW camera for around 4-5K. Also, I would hope for 35mm, with a S35 crop mode. standard 35mm is what anamorphic was designed for in the first place.

I'm sure I'll be renting these if they become reasonably accessible. This spring, I shot a short on old Zeiss SuperSpeeds, and just loved them. Even threw them on the GH2 for a few minutes just for fun, although for the short we used an FS100. I imagine these new Hawks as a sort of updated SuperSpeed. Dreamy of course wide open, but the extra 0.3 over the 'ol Zeiss stuff will sure make a difference. +1 for lenses with character. Shooting in low light seems to instantly add a bucket of cinematic cred for some reason.