Caleb Genheimer

Also, I didn’t think they could possibly update the Pocket and make it MORE of an ugly duckling. Somehow, they managed to do exactly that.

It’s a step down for your wallet, that’s indisputable. I would absolutely dispute any claim that it’s an objectively better camera. Both cameras are EXTREMELY similar. There are subjective reasons that someone might prefer either camera. The question potential buyers will be asking is, “are those subjective reasons important enough to me to justify the higher price tag?” For me, it is definitely not. If I want a camera compatible with EF full-frame image circle lenses, I’ll just get a cine speedbooster for the P4K. It really is that simple from my perspective. I actually see the 6K as little more than a spec sheet bragging number. Seriously, for almost all practical work (that I do), 4K is more than enough. Anything more just means bigger files. If you do work that simply MUST have 6K Raw, by all means, nobody is stopping you. Get the P6K. The difference between APSC and Micro 4/3 is honestly pretty negligible. Any claims of it having less noise or better dynamic range due to its sensor are COMPLETE and utter conjecture. I’ll believe it when I see real tests, and according to all the press per BM, the DR is exactly the same. It is 2019. The concept that 6K APSC versus 4K M4/3 is a HUGE deal radical difference (all else being equal) is honestly not only laughable, but potentially bad consumer advice. They’re just different, and both are a steal compared to anything else in the market. I guess I should apologize for voicing my honest opinion on the pros/cons of these two cameras. I didn’t realize this was supposed to be the blind circle-jerk thread.

Explanation: Bolt this to a P4K cage: https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BTB Fullframe EF Cine Mount camera. Better than a normal EF mount. End of story. It just is. The LucAdapter will be the closest thing for the P6K by making it fullframe, but it still doesn’t give you a locking cinema mount. You’re stuck with the bog-standard EF mount on that camera thanks to BlackMagic.

I would argue that with a proper cage that has support for hard mounting a booster, the cine locking EF (or PL I suppose) booster actually makes the P4K MORE of a cinema camera than the P6K would ever be. I don’t care how well-machined a standard SLR bayonet is, a positive locking cine mount is infinitely superior for any real cinema camera work with follow focus units. The Metabones optics are already fantastic, and now they have versions specifically for the thinner sensor stack of the P4K. There are a million things to worry about when doing cinema work other than 6K resolution. Sure, the oversample is a nice perk, but 4K is plenty. Again, I feel like an SLR mount on a mirrorless camera is low-key stupidity. Let me put on a dummy EF adapter! Maybe even one with ND or a booster... but I digress. I prefer the form factor of the ZCam stuff for sure, but their pricing I think is awful ambitious for a new company, no matter how good the cameras are. At the very least, the P6K will change the market’s price tiers for the better

Gotcha! I have no actual optics experience, nor any way to measure the optical power of the lenses, so it is nice to have quantified confirmation of what I was hypothesizing. This means that it is important to start with a reasonably wide-shooting anamorphic for the front optic, and add a rear from a shorter scope to reduce to the desired squeeze ratio and achieve an increase in taking lens angle of view. I’m *almost* tempted to snag the rear group out of my 16-H to see if I can’t make a killer wide 1.5X or even 1.33X. Again, I now have a bunch of bigger 35mm projection scopes, many almost the same size, so armed with this knowledge, the best path to good results is probably using those fronts with 16mm anamorphic rear elements. They’ll be way smaller than the fronts, but it is probably where some of the rarer anamorphics get their design from, like the Möller 30. I suppose 16mm fronts with 8mm/Baby rears is not entirely out of the question either.

I’m really digging good handheld work lately. I shot weddings nonstop for the last 7 years on gimbals, and they just don’t look cinematic to me, even though I’m a seasoned operator. I’m heavily considering a 1-Axis Letus Helix just for keeping good horizon with heavier setups. Full-on 3-Axis gimbals for big rigs are prohibitively expensive and need major ancillary support equipment, but a single roll axis could keep the rig to a handheld/shoulderable size while providing some stabilization to the critical axis. There is also no replacing a good shot on sticks. Gimbals, just like autofocus and other advanced camera technologies, do allow you to get quality results with less effort. But the effort itself is part of the process that forces a certain pace and approach to shooting. Sure, with a gimbal you can quickly achieve any camera angle, any camera movement, instantaneously. But that doesn’t force you to stop and think through the motivation for the movement and angle. You can, but you don’t have to. As soon as the schedule on set is rushed, you stop thinking and just shoot. I prefer tripod these days, sometimes slider for a bit of movement. If I do use the gimbal, it is only when I want a specific shot from a piece of gear that I don’t have on hand (dolly or jib for example), and in that case, I’m trying to precisely mimic only what that piece of gear would do with the gimbal, nothing fancy.

Yeah! Although they’re shorter than original... not necessarily smaller or lighter:

Try this on for size. I guess I need 114mm diopters now, because the 95mm ones vignette:

First off, YES. This disrupts aspects of the market wonderfully... not that all cameras should be just like BM cams, but the major players have been holding back on good, easy-to-use RAW. This lights a fire that has needed lighting for some time. And it adds more Resolve users, which is great for that platform. If you haven’t switched to Davinci yet, what are you even doing? Second though, I still prefer my P4K. I’m planning on adding one of the new positive locking mount Metabones, which effectively makes it a fullframe camera with a real cine mount once I bolt the booster to the camera cage. And even with $700 for the fancy-pants booster, it’s still cheaper than the new P6K. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1492783-REG/metabones_mbspef_m43_bta_t_cine_speed_booster.html I don’t think I really need 6K... not in 2019. I shot a great short film last year on GH5S that just did very well at LA Shorts Fest, and that was a 2K DCP that looked fantastic. More often than not, I’m looking for ways to soften even the 4K stuff anyway, and my (very good) Kowa 16-H resolves about 4K max at shallow apertures unless it’s very stopped down. Black ProMist, Glimmer Glass and Smoque are all higher on my to-do list than 6K. Probably top of the list though is a full-frame mirrorless that can take the Kipon Baveyes MF adapter and shoot good 4K footage with good dynamic range. I’m after some tasty Alexa 65/IMAX/Ultra Panavision vibes. My hopes are on the S1H or the Sigma.

Yup. No guarantees. There are some guidelines for good luck though: Stick to prime lenses. Pancakes are your friend. Get clamps designed specifically for your scope. Get a good variable diopter as it will last you over many different scopes. The widest 2X scope I’m aware of is the Kowa 16-H/8Z/Bell and Howell/Elmoscope (many versions of the same lens), and best it can do on full frame is 56mm, and that’s only if you’re planning on cropping it to 2.35:1. They fetch a pretty penny though because of their wide angle status, so if you’re on a budget, you should accept that you’ll probably be using longer focal lengths than this, closer to 75mm or even 85mm. With your budget I would say get a Rapido FVD-16A and then use the leftovers on a scope. Finally, get some clamps for the scope.

Here’s the B&L front, Meopta rear. A bit of a quicker looser test, but it was easy to see that it resolves really well, even out into the corners. It ends up at 1.5X, and this is with a Tamron SP 24mm all at f2.8. Again, the 95mm +1 diopter vignettes when it is in front, so if I want to use this B&L seriously, I would need to get something like a 114mm diopter. Seems like the primary (source locked) flares in anamorphic lenses come from the rear element, as that’s the straw gold flare from the Meopta. The B&L flares blue, so that’s also still there from the front group. I think actually really like the contrasting flares: I’m at the point now where I’m waiting until next week when a couple more lenses arrive to disassemble. Got a 16mm B&L that looks to be of similar era (silver) to the ones I already have, and a big ‘ol Möller 63/2X. If anyone has lenses with only one good element, or other frustrating damage, I’d consider giving you a little cash for them depending on the condition... or just big unwieldy scopes that you don’t use. The only scopes I’ve ruled out are the Russian NAP stuff. They don’t play nice with others. I’m going to do my best to analyze all my results and share them here for everyone, so any help or insights would be very welcome. I think the most exciting aspect of it to me is the potential to not only come up with attractively specced unique scopes, but to also breathe life and a second chance into otherwise bulky/impractical lenses. The B&L in original form is bigger than my head!

It really seems like pairing groups from two scopes of a similar physical size is pretty much a wash. I suspect that the scope I am utilizing for a front (B&L) may even be for 70mm projection as it is a monster... and the rears therefore I’ve been pairing with it are for regular 35mm projection. I have a cheap 16mm projection B&L on the way to test this theory, and see if I get similar results pairing it with a 35mm projection scope.

The front variable diopters are just a positive and negative element with a helicoil as far as I know. The issue with kitbashing one from off the shelf diopters and/or producing one on the cheap is similar to the issues with doing things like speed boosters/focal reducers on the cheap. It’s a recipe for bad chromatic aberration if all elements in the design aren’t optimized and well coated. The FVD-16A and recent FVD-35A are examples of more mass-produced options (versus Rectilux super small batch)... and I’d say SLR Magic’s Rangefinder is about as cheaply as you’d make one and still have it work decently. Even the FVD-35A is a steal at $1K when you consider that the rear element is 95mm diameter, and the front is even bigger. Good diopters that size aren’t cheap to begin with. Incidently, I was hoping the NAP-3 would prove useful, as they’re cheap as dirt and available everywhere, but they’re the optics that rendered the aforementioned poor results. I have a couple B&L scopes that work nice (but balsam separation inevitably claims those for the grave), a Meopta Anagon, and obviously the NAP. I might try separating the B&L scope optics and re-cementing them with modern adhesive for some additional experimentation.

Here’s a Frankensteined scope that works out to 1.33X squeeze. I’m actually able to go as wide as 17mm on M4/3: Alright, so I have seen some other people doing this with success and wanted to start a topic on it. Basically what I’ve found is that you can combine a front from one scope with the rear of another, and some combinations will be sharp, others will not be compatible. Regardless, the compatible setups will only be sharp when set to infinity, and the distance between the two groups determines both focus and compression ratio. Once again, it is important to note the infinity-only nature of doing this. You cannot close focus a mismatched pair of anamorphic groups. However, focusing via front diopters or variable diopters is still fair game. This means that, assuming the same front group, a rear group that hits infinity with the groups close to each other will have a mild compression, whereas a different rear group might hit infinity when further from the front group, which yields a stronger compression ratio. With the front and rear the same distance apart as in the original front scope, the compression is the same as the original (usually 2X), but in that case, you may as well use the scope with its original rear group as that’s its intended specification. The other changing factor is maximum useable angle of view. It really is exactly like looking through a tube or tunnel. A front with a certain diameter supports wider angle of view if it is closer to the rear group, and the useable angle of view decreases as the groupings get farther apart. This creates an inverse relationship between wide angle of view and compression ratio (assuming the “constant” is the front group and the “variable” is various rear groups.) This means that long scopes which have limited angle of view in their stock configuration can be modified with new rear optical groups to increase their angle of view, at a cost of compression ratio. Basically, you can turn a 2X scope into a wider 1.5X or 1.33X scope. I’m still a 2X fanboy, but the limitation is usually wide angle compatibility. A great 1.33X that truly goes wide could allow me to have a wide angle in my anamorphic arsenal. It may be deceiving, but for reference, the +2 diopter in my example video puts the focus at around 12 inches. That’s how close I was to the subject matter, and I was still wide enough to capture a full human face. That’s pretty crazy for any anamorphic! I’ve only disassembled four scopes so far, but I have more on the way to further my testing. I have some more theories, but feel that I need to test more before I can be certain that my theories are accurate. Theory 1: Some rear groups just seem to play nice, and others just seem to not work. I’m not sure why at this point, and I’m no optics expert, but one rear group that I have seems to work with all the front groups, another is ok stopped down, and yet another is garbage out towards the edges. Theory 2: The distance between the front and rear groups may correlate (but not replicate) to the length of the scope that the rear group is sourced from. This may eventually aid in predicting the squeeze ratio and angle of view of a combination of scopes, where the front group has already been tested. For example, if a front/rear combo hits 1.33X, but I want to achieve 1.5X, I should source a new rear from a scope that is slightly longer than the scope that the 1.33X originally sourced its rear from. Again, more testing needed. Theory 3: You can’t use closeup diopter elements or variable diopters in between the front and rear groups to simply bring them closer and reduce vignetting/squeeze. It partially works in center frame, but introduces nasty distorted blur everywhere else. Naturally, I’m no expert, but it was something I was curious about, so I tried it. Has anyone else had good luck with combining scope elements? I’d like to discuss it a bit and see what others experiences are.

Yeah I’m hoping that steadycross makes a beefy version of their stabilizer that doesn’t have any 3D printed parts. That has much more natural movement to my eyes. I also wish someone would make a hollow/pass through gimbal like the Sachtler Trinity... but just as a single axis for roll/horizon stabilization. Kinda like a small fig rig, but the whole ring is a motor.

I’ve lately found that I prefer a hefty rig, to be perfectly honest. Handheld shots with a heavy camera turn out fantastic! Even on sticks or a slider, it still forces me to approach shooting differently, because I can’t just fling the camera around haphazardly shooting whatever is my fancy. Again the 16-H etc. have their place.... I’m never throwing a 35-NAP on the ‘ol gimbal and running around like some sort of Instagram influencer. That’s what the Kowa excelled at. But getting gimbals to look cinematic is exceedingly difficult. I’m much preferring handheld shots.

I’ve said it a few times already: BlackMagic should just do a $3K fullframe version of the Pocket4K and call it a day. Maybe add dual pixel AF. Electronic ND would be nice, but I’ve heard bad things about color shift on Sony’s internal one. (Apparently Panavision has an awesome one as a matte box filter.) I love that the Pocket is rigable/configurable. I actually prefer it over the Ursas which to me seem to have an awkward form factor.

I would assume any new EVA would be L-Mount.

...This was all I was suggesting. Sounds like you’ve fleshed things out quite a bit further than I initially assumed. Count me 100% in. Pocket 4K about to be unstoppable with this add-on. It’s ridiculous in the best possible way.

Yeah, if I snag a full frame camera, I sure as heck want to be able to use the Kipon Baveyes MF adapter. No dice on that with EF/PL mounts. Mirrorless camera’s should not have mounts from mirrored standards, that’s just wasteful.

I would second figuring out how to hijack the wireless protocol of Tilta’s Nucleus line of motors... wireless LiDAR focus of manual lenses has been implemented on high end equipment already, but down in the Tilta price bracket, there’s nothing. Bonus is, Tilta has quality small and large motors on the same protocol, so two birds with one stone. Autofocus 2X anamorphic anyone? My variable diopter wants this quite badly. Regardless, get it out there, and I’ll pick up the AF lens version as I have both a P4K and a GH5S that would definitely benefit. I would imagine that setting tracking points would be very welcome... perhaps first defining the sensor size and focal length (for angle of view), and then having a movable focus box? It might also be useful to be able to define an offset value, say, in the instance a big long lens is obstructing the view of the LiDAR, and it needs to be mounted further forward on the rig. We have 4K, RAW is spreading like wildfire, Dual ISO sensors are becoming more common, all new cameras have pretty good dynamic range. Even wireless monitors are way down thanks to SmallHD and Teradek. Good, naturalistic video AF is really the last bastion of untamed camera tech. Canon has undeniably proven that it is technologically possible, but it hasn’t really permeated the rest of the market in a timely fashion... and while there are benefits to this with AF lenses, as Canon has proved, the benefit of a focus motor is that it universally implements the same automatic focus system on any theoretical camera, past or future, and the owner can know the piece of gear well and work with it reliably, potentially over several years of body and lens upgrades.

I’ve been sold now on Blackmagic’s new RAW since updating firmware on my Pocket 4K. It’s Just. So. Good. Smoother to edit than h.264 if I’m honest. I’m not sure how ProRes RAW intends to survive. It has a huge legacy behind it, but banking on that would ignore an industry that is not precious with such notions. Atoms external recording has always been an odd duck in my mind. Either you’re on a shoot that can afford a true cinema camera, or you’re not. Why spend thousands on a monitor to “sort of” turn your hybrid camera into a slightly better version of itself just doesn’t make sense. I also simply refuse to be saddled to a monitor for recording purposes. It essentially gets added to the price of the camera, IMO, and makes upgrading down the road extra painful. With available drive tech, NONE of this faffing about should be at all necessary. Between Blackmagic and Sigma, it looks like there might finally be other companies willing to call these bluffs. Sony and Panny are now so concerned with their 1V1 cat-and-mouse, that they’re CLEARLY pulling punches in case they need them later. If they keep it up, a third party is going to catch them out. Blackmagic has a 4K Raw-To-SSD dual native ISO camera for essentially $1K. The Sigma fp looks like it MIGHT be a similar thing, but fullframe (probably with a price bump to match)... Sony and Panny need to pull their heads out of the sand and let out all the stops, or risk being overtaken by fresh blood. The Nikon could absolutely kill if it recorded Raw internally in some form. Fullframe 4K Raw is obviously well within the technical abilities of a sub-$4K camera body, and I think that’s the looming frustration over all of these cameras. Nobody wants to be first for fear of immediately being one-upped. My money would be on Panasonic’s S1H as most likely contender, but the Sigma might firm up some hefty specs and take everyone by surprise. I was hoping on ZCam, but good gravy those price tags go WAY too high for what they are IMO. Blackmagic SHOULD slap a hefty heatsink into a fullframe “BlackMagic FannypackCinemaCamera4K,” sell it for $2300, and take home everyone’s money... or join L-mount alliance with an olive branch of the BMRAW codec in-camera for all involved. Panny X BMRAW would likely cripple Sony, Nikon, Atmos and ProRes Raw in one fell swoop... leaving only Canon limping along on its dual pixel autofocus. Come on everyone else! If Samsung could match Canon’s AF tech several years ago, y’all can surely do it by 2020.

Any good findings messing about, @leslie?

Ah Tito, professional as always. I’ll be unfriendly. I’ve had a good (and open) back and forth with Anamorphic store about exactly what their stuff entails, because at one point I was at least curious. It’s certifiably cheap junk (excepting the scopes I guess). Half of it is 3D printed or plastic, and I feel like their single focus is such bad optical quality that I can see it in the pictures of the lens. But slapping that on is no excuse to upcharge the scope. Every single one I have obtained so far has been under $200 US on eBay and in good condition. I’m probably biased because I’ve been at this a long time, but IMO Redstan is still unrivaled when it comes to clamps. Rapido does some very good stuff as well, and obviously Rectilux is king of diopters. As for mounting, I’ve kinda been looking for an excuse to mess about with a 19mm rod setup anyway. And as big as these are, they’re still a far cry smaller than the prism anamorphic Ultra Panavision 70 lenses ? I feel like big heavy cameras actually move differently, and that it is something noticeable. If I need to run around with a gimbal like the millennial that I am, I’ll always have my 16-H. I am thinking just snagging one Isco might complete a sufficient collection for now. I’d really like a Möller 63/2X, but the only one out there right now IMO is way overpriced, even for what it is. Naturally, getting into anything non -2X (various inflights etc) even if they are bigger gets monetarily impractical. I too purchased the NAP to rip apart and experiment with. Has anyone tried a negative diopter between front and rear anamorphic elements to bring them closer together? I understand that the closer they are, the lesser the squeeze ratio, but I would think it might also reduce vignetting and increase angle of view.

So, I’ve gone a bit mad lately and snatched up some rather large chunks of glass and metal off of eBay. The transgressions are as follows thusfar: One Bosch and Lomb Cinemascope Adapter I. One Bosch and Lomb Cinemascope Adapter II. Two 35-NAP-2. One Meopta Anagon. One Kowa Prominar. To varying degrees, I don’t think these big scopes warrant as much negative stigma as they are given. Excepting the substantial size and weight, at least one has nearly as wide a field of view as my much lauded Kowa 16-H, and without the pronounced edge compression that the Kowa exhibits. It was always my assumption that the big 35mm scopes were written off due to extremely long field of view restrictions, but that is simply not universally the case. Even the most restrictive so far is not much worse off than say, a Sankor or equivalent 16-S/16-D. I daresay color me intrigued. I’ll definitely be collecting a few more to mess about with. I can’t help but feel that the impact of shooting through such large glass is quite unmistakable, whatever the drawbacks. While best with long taking lenses, the larger Bausch and Lomb’s rear element is no less than 95mm, and the front is 102mm... a true behemoth. I’m not here to sing praises of such scopes through rose colored glasses, but I wouldn’t mind some honest discussion with others regarding our experiences with large scope adapters. Some that I have yet to try but am intrigued by: Rectimascop (Rathenower) (80/2 and 64/2) Hypergonar (Series C and HiFi2) Kollmorgen KA298 Isco Grottington KA298 (different coating?) Isco Kiptar 2X Schneider Kreuznach WA Cinelux Isco Grottington Cinelux MC 2X Moller 63/2X Isco Ultra Anamorphic MC 2X I would expect anything Isco or Schneider to have a fairly modern look with good anti-reflective coatings, etc, and some of the others to perhaps have more character. One thing I am wary of is that some of these lenses look eerily similar to each other. I wonder if several are the same base optics, with each company putting their spin on the coatings and feature set, perhaps with a QC differentiation as well. Do you have any large 35mm projection scopes? What is your experience? I’m definitely interested in some field of view assessments, as well as your overall impression of a lens, from flares to sharpness and distortion. I’m going to try and share some of my findings soon too, but I am first working on a support/mount rig system for larger lenses so I can test them beyond hand holding them in front of a camera. Is there a big scope that you love the image of, but is just too unwieldy? One that seems underrated or overlooked? One maybe I should acquire to compare to those I already have? Let’s discuss.