Caleb Genheimer

The ideal anamorphic for me would be 1.33X glass squeeze with a rounded-blade aperture shaped as an oval (I've checked, this should be 100% feasible), to bring the bokeh stretch into 2X territory. The anamorphic would be "dual-focus" so as to not infringe on certain patents, but the set of primes would have synched focus mechanisms and a focus coupler similar in concept to the way a LOMO anamorphic front is linkable to certain LOMO primes. To keep cost down, they'd probably be for APS-C/S35/M43 sensors but not for full frame. This type of lens would provide real anamorphic flares, proper 2.35:1 from 16:9 (which minimizes resolution loss), avoids Isco patents and gives fantastic stretched bokeh, all while minimizing cost through the one-anamorphic-many-primes concept. Alternatively, someone should just make a brilliant 35mm prime that is synched to the KOWA lenses and comes with a coupling mechanism. The only thing holding back the KOWA is having to focus both lenses.

uh, I'm a broke college student running FCP5. could that be my problem? the image still shifts for me considerably, at least between the paused image and the plaback image within FCP. vimeo suggests h.264 at 5000kbps

Axel, thanks so much for the detailed feedback. I really shoved this footage around pretty abusively, and on purpose. I do watch my histogram and waveform pretty closely as I grade, but one thing is I always grade in a completely dark room, and maybe I should suggest in the video descriptions that they should be viewed in a similar situation. The original footage was significantly brighter. Concerning the Pro Res master business, I convert all my footage to 422HQ via 5DtoRGB, edit in FCP at full res, grade and replace the 422HQ source files with Resolve, then re-render in FCP and export from there to H.264. Since I am working entirely with ProRes from the get-go, is there any advantage to exporting a full ProRes before conversion to H.264? Honestly, I'm developing an utter loathing for FCP's stupid Gamma shift business, and I'm seriously considering a workflow change so that my final export is from Resolve, not FCP. Why 7mbps for Vimeo? Why not their suggested setting?

http://vimeo.com/52799095

Here's a short longboarding video that my friends asked me to film for them earlier this summer. As always, I'd love some feedback! I'm still working on my grading skills with Resolve Lite, and on my grain effect, which Vimeo still doesn't seem to be capable of encoding properly. Panasonic Lumix GH2 | Standard Firmware | Mir-1B 37mm f2.8 | Kowa 16-H Anamorphic Lens | 72mm Lightcraft Workshop Fader ND MKII | Anamorphic front and rear clamps by Redstan

Give it a chance. I have been actively following this project over at Personal-View, and one important thing to keep in mind with the above video is that the lens is uncoated. As I understand it, the design is otherwise finished, and his plan is to try several lens coatings and then pick one.

[color=#333333][font='lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif][size=3][left]I think I fixed the brightness issues on this trailer, but the sharpness of the Vimeo version is still terrible. I think the grain effect is just confusing the encoder. [/left][/size][/font][/color] [url="https://vimeo.com/51967678"]https://vimeo.com/51967678[/url]

any ideas why it looks so dark? it wasn't this dark in Resolve. I've been working entirely with ProRes 422HQ files converted with 5DtoRGB.

[color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Hi, all![/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Here is the trailer for an upcoming short film that I am cinematographer and editor for. The actors mostly came up with the premise.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]http://vimeo.com/51967678[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Shot on GH2, Kowa 16H anamorphic with RedStan clamps and Tokina AT-X MC closeup filter, Mir 1B 37mm f2.8, Canon nFD 28mm f2.8, LightCraft Fader ND MkII. Edited in Final Cut Pro 5, graded in Resolve 9 Lite (first time, still learning how to grade properly).[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Any feedback, constructive or otherwise is more than welcome.[/left][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Hey, everyone. I've been gallery hopping in Chelsea today, and I came across a really interesting film/video piece in the James Cohan Gallery. Anyone in NYC should definitely go check it out. I think it is open for another week or so.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]Jesper Just has made some short films in anamorphic that have two cameras (and therefore two screens) following the story and scene in tandem. They are projected on opposite walls of a dark room in uncropped 3.55:1, with two projectors for each screen. I must say, I looked for the dividing point between the two projector images that make up a single large image, and it is difficult to find and therefore not distracting at all.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]It is a surprisingly immersive experience, requiring you to look back and forth between the two opposite walls. Some of his other films are listed as shot on 35mm, but the 3.55:1 aspect ratio of these images (along with some other things) leads me to believe these were shot on digital.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left]As a side note, I'd love to hear from anyone who has successfully "merged" projector images for higher than 1920x1080 resolution. I had always assumed that it was theoretically plausible but realistically too finicky to bother pulling off.[/left][/size][/font][/color] [color=#000000][font='lucida grande', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', tahoma, sans-serif][size=3][left][url="http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/jesper-just/selected-works/"]http://www.jamescohan.com/artists/jesper-just/selected-works/[/url][/left][/size][/font][/color]

I found it, actually. doesn't exist until you run VLC for the first time ;)

I'm having trouble finding the preferences file. I'm running Lion, which might be the issue? I've already unhidden my user library, but there doesn't seem to be any VLC stuff in there. Where else should I look?

If I had to guess, the projector anamorphics from Kowa, Sankor, etc. use a different optical design from the focus-through anamorphics. They were made during a time when Isco had a patent on focus-through technology, and the more recent focus-through designs are all 1.33x squeeze factor, from the La7200 to the Century/Optex units. That being said, there are quite a lot of decent 2X projection lenses, and some downright brilliant ones (the Kowa 8Z/16H as an example). If someone smart figures out how to mod these into focus-through units (even if they must be permanently coupled to the spherical lens), they'd be able to make a pretty penny. I'd shell out a couple thousand to have my Kowa modded to focus-through and coupled to a Voigt f0.95.

Hey Tony . . . was the Isco Inflight 1.75x the one that was up on the 'bay a few months back? I almost bought one but couldn't find enough info to feel comfortable dropping the considerable amount of dough required. How is it?

A lens hitting the sensor? That is just silly. A lens is designed to be a very exact distance from the image plane, and any correct adapter will keep it at that distance. Since it is designed to be that distance from the sensor . . . only a lens DESIGNED to hit the sensor would be able to do so, and nobody designs lenses to do this (ultimate photographer troll, anyone?)

Tony, I'm talking about replacing the thumbscrew ones with the non-thumb-screw ones so they don't stick out all over the place.

I think I might just carry a small flathead screwdriver around and ask RedStan to send me six extra of the smaller nylon screws (Like three of the six already on the front end adapter).

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346711974' post='17259'] Maybe all these money obsessed filmmakers need to go to school as well. Or at least art class. [/quote] What? Filmmakers taking art classes? That's me; in NYC for the semester and loving it. L.A. last semester, no work this summer, NYC this semester, broke, single and in debt . . . life's a roller coaster. Before you go being a negative nancy, ask yourself what good it'll do in the grand scheme of things (usually the answer is no good at all). Just keep on trucking, learn from the hard stuff, work hard when you get the opportunity. That's what I like about products like the BMCC. There's clear innovation, and were there's innovation these days, there's usually a pretty special team of people behind it. They're persistent, passionate and professional; they wouldn't be able to innovate otherwise. I'm very excited for the BMCC not for the nitty gritty details that it is measured by. I'm exited about what it means on the grander scale. It is innovation and progress. Hats off to Blackmagic.

Ah, Dula Lock. Another brilliant little innovation from 3M. Gotta love it.

Anyone tried two cameras on a mirror rig to offset and double their FPS?

The game is changing fast, that's for sure. If this becomes reality, the next question is wether they will move the FS line over to this full frame mount. I could see it going either way. If they make the next FS full frame, it may be enough of an upgrade to give them one more model before they have to think about giving it RAW capabilities. They may, however, make the argument that as a small cinema type camera, the FS line will remain Super 35 . . . in which case I think they'll have to go RAW with that line pretty quick to stay on top of their game. Either way, the next FS cam will be in prime position to kill the current EOS cinema line. Canon needs to either jump in or jump out pretty quick.

I'd say wait a bit. New cameras are coming pretty soon.

I think this is yet another sign of how things will begging in the camera business from now on. Until such a time when there is a full-featured, high quality cinema camera for under $4K, enthusiastic cinematographers will continue to attempt and make their own. The GH2 is a prime example of this, along with the NEX body kit as well s ReWo and other high quality cages and gear. This goes to show that many are still looking for much more than what is currently available from any camera out of the box. The first camera company to realize this and cater to it would be able to capture a large and loyal user base very quickly if they played their cards right. The latest offerings are much closer but still leave something to be desired. The BMCC has a smaller than S35 sensor, as well as completely unnecessarily long FFD. The Sony FS700 does not yet shoot 4K, and does not deliver RAW, but is otherwise incredibly well-endowed. Canon is either using old sensor tech, or slaps on a $15K price tag. Also, rolling shutter is still an issue basically across the board. If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Sony coming up with the first truly great RAW camera. The FS cams are a perfect candidate, and the BMCC is almost certainly forcing many of the big players to seriously consider RAW offerings. They have all the trappings of a serious video camera (ND, XLR, etc.), as well as the incredibly short FFD NEX mount and a S35 sensor. I have a sneaking suspicion that there is another race happening in the shadows, though . . . one between RAW cameras and compressed codecs that are very nearly just as good. Compressed codecs have the potential to be every bit as good as shooting RAW once sensor DR reaches a certain point, assuming the DP is careful and exposes correctly. It may take until after several good RAW cameras are on the market before folks start realizing that RAW is not a necessity.

Oh, also . . . has anyone replaced the ungainly-long plastic screws in the Redstan clamps with some small female hex ones? I'm thinking of trying to do this. having them stick out is a pain, I'm afraid because they're elastic I'll end up breaking them off.

Ok, so I've had my Kowa 16-H for a while now, and just shot my first short film with it, and I now have a few questions after my first real use of the lens. [list=1] [*]I was shooting very quick, improvising as we went. This meant the Tokina ATX diopter went off and on the Kowa a lot. It inevitably got smudges, etc. Those with Tokina ATX diopters . . . how do you clean them? I tried a Zeiss lens cloth, but that left streaks. I'm seriously considering permanent protective glass either side of the Tokina seeing as it is an expensive, rare, high damage-risk type of item. Am I crazy for considering this? [*]How do you cap the back of your Kowa when not in use? I have the Redstan clamp set, which is great, and I'm thinking of getting a threaded rear cap that fits the rear Redstan clamp. Are there other options? [*]How to support the Kowa's weight? There's no denying, the Kowa is a massive chunk of glass and metal. The weight of it puts a lot of stress on the focusing mechanism of the spherical "taking" lens that it is mounted to . . . so much so that many of my taking lenses seize up, almost unable to focus. Does anyone have a support solution for alleviating the weight of the Kowa? Perhaps one designed for a 15mm rod system? A regular lens support won't work with any taking lens with a moving front (most older lenses). It needs to both support the Kowa and slide in and out with the taking lens as it focuses. [*]Has anyone tried pulling focus with two pullers and two follow focus units? Theoretically, this should be possible . . . assuming the camera and actor movements are accurate. Does anyone have a gear on their Kowa? Just curious :) [/list]