Caleb Genheimer

You should be able to make it work. Same rules apply when selecting taking lenses that don’t vignette though. Get your anamorphic and then figure out the taking lens fov that is compatible. Find out which focal length matches that fov on your sensor size.

They really need to add a GH5s equivalent 4:3 mode to the Pocket

Because the factor (0.64 or 0.71) is not a whole number, you divide on your calculator... pretty darn sure that’s the correct way to do the math, but if I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat my words.

Finally, zombie filmmakers can rejoice! Undead skin tones in stunning 8K H.265!!!!!!!!

In my experience, one can throw math at a forum until the cows come home, but until you actually set up a particular focuser/scope/prime/speedbooster/sensor combination, there’s no real way to know. If the sensor size is that important to you, start there. Get the camera that you want. then get the scope you want, and a focus solution. finally, start auditioning prime lenses until you find something you like. the factors/equivalencies/etc. are ultimately crude ways of approximating the complex physics of the optics. They’re great for making a strong educated guess, but won’t really give you a definitive answer as to the “ultimate” setup. If you want a real scope for s35, just save up and snag a LOMO. Or sell your car and get a Hawk. There really is no quick path to assembling something that will perform exactly like a real cine anamorphic. same goes for s35 cameras. Get a Red, Pretty sure they save stills. The math... 1. look up the sensor dimensions 2. multiply by the focal reducer’s factor 3. Profit

Yes we agree... but the suggested focal lengths are incorrect. I can BARELY use a 37mm natively on my GH5s with my Kowa 16-H (the most forgiving 2X projection lens out there). That means at least a 75mm lens is needed on fullframe, and this is all assuming you are shooting video and cropping off the sides of the 16:9 for a final stretched output ratio of 2.39:1. I’ve shot the Kowa on a full frame canon in stills mode, and to cover the whole sensor I had to use an 85mm. It still had little tiny vignettes in the corners. You probably get around 16 degrees of vertical angle of view, and 38mm degrees of horizontal angle of view. In fullframe non-Anamorphic terms, that’s equivalent to an 85mm in the vertical and a 35mm in the horizontal. You might squeeze a tad more depending on the lens. But single focus adapters, filters and diopters on the front of the scope will all further constrict the vignette. I’ve never heard of anyone using a 40mm on fullframe with projection anamorphics, but if I’m wrong someone should speak up.

Don't confuse focal length with field of view. There is NO advantage/disadvantage on ANY sensor size when it comes to field of view/angle of view (how “wide” of a view you get) through a scope. It will vignette at the EXACT SAME field of view no matter what size sensor you use. The change in useable focal length (in mm) on various sensor sizes in indeed due to “equivalency”, also referrers to as “crop factor.” There is something to be said for larger sensors with regards to depth of field. If you want it shallower, larger sensors will be the ticket.

Extra resolution is helpful when doing any transformation of the image in post. A great example is Anamorphic. I’ve been developing a method for reducing some of the mumps in the middle and extreme compression at the edges of my anamorphic footage, and pushing those pixels around can definitely start to muddy the image. Downscaling 8k to 4K or 2K will also reduce noise by summing the data from multiple photosites. I’ve recently finished a short film, got a DCP authored at 2K, and it looked fantastic in the theater. There’s even 1080p footage in there. You can’t tell. There’s definitely an edge seeing the 4K master file on a good monitor though, and I DID do mild reframing on about a third of the film. Having thrown something up on the “big screen”, I can absolutely see the benefit that “overshooting” (with respect to delivery resolution) would have. That being said, I don’t give a rat’s rear end about Sony cameras. Their look is the most unpleasant thing to look at IMO. Hopefully Panasonic sticks one of these in their mkII FF body, or in a fullframe EVA-2.

I guess I don’t understand this discussion at all. You’re concerned about all this for stills mode on a camera? Just shoot full-frame and crop to 4:3 APS-H in post (if that’s what you want. I don’t get why you want APS-H specifically but whatever.) You have to post-process to de-squeeze anyway. Is it a monitoring issue? If you want to see what you’re shooting de-squeezed, there are plenty of cameras with outputs and external monitors that can hook up. Maths on the GH5 4:3 sensor and Speedboosters: 17.3 X 13mm X0.64= 27X20mm X0.71= 24.3X18.3mm

i feel like there’s an unspoken gentlemans agreement between all the manufacturers to not put dual pixel autofocus in non cinema cameras. Seriously, my NX1 bit the dust this summer, and I’m on to a GH5s, because nobody has DPAF yet, YEARS later. It’s a conspiracy.

I have a GH5S as of this evening. I’ll shoot some simple clips to show the MAR sensor in 16:9 modes versu in anamorphic mode to see if there is in fact an increase in vertical FOV. I can’t compare it to a GH5, because I don’t have one.

I would pre-order the sh*t outa this, even if the only leaked spec was that the nameplate will say “NX2”.

Hi, all! I recently had a GH5 in hand (since swapped for a GH5s pre-order), but for the week that I had it, I simply could not believe what Panasonic has done with the IBIS/DIS in that camera. It’s incredible! The camera knows that you’re shooting 2X anamorphic, and as long as you tell it which focal length you’re using, the stabilization works flawlessly with anamorphic. This is absolutely no small feat to re-calculate the stabilization algorithms to work with something as atypical as a squeezing lens. I may have to save for a standard GH5 body just to get this feature for my personal use (I need the low light of the GH5s for weddings), it is that good. Tripod mode is even more obscene. It just locks the image. Providing you don’t have any flares dancing in frame, it may as well be a locked off shot on sticks. Is anyone else using the GH5 stabilization with anamorphic? Early on I had actually seen it mentioned that IBIS and anamorphic don’t play well together, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that they actually do. Perhaps the new firmware fixed the incompatibility?

Thank goodness for B&H 30 day returns! I just grabbed a GH5 a couple weeks ago for tax write off, but it looks like I’ll be swapping it out haha.

If Sony whips up a full frame 4K 60p DPAF camera and throws in that electronic ND filter for good measure, I’ll buy it . . . price tag and color science be damned. Barring that, I’m looking for the next MF Fuji to do 4K, or to just bite my tongue and run around with a Canon Cinema camera. (I’m no fan of Canon’s approach to their pricing/lineup/feature set, but a tool is a tool and DPAF is hard to ignore when nobody else has it.) I don’t know why, but I prefer cameras that are a little off to the side of what most people consider the norm. I was a GH2 shooter way back when Canon DSLRs were the flavor of the year, and stuck with that until switching to the NX1, and the other camera I was considering at that juncture was the Fuji. Truth be told, all else being equal, I would argue that Fuji’s color blows everything else out of the water, south of RAW cameras (Arri/Red/Blackmagic). Canon’s colors are okay, but seen so often that the look is worn out. The NX1’s color is decent too, great even once you know how to reign it in, but it tends a bit too punchy and overstated for my tastes. It can have a way of (for lack of a better description), simplifying colors. Red is just red. Green is green. Colors tend to look primary, and complex shades sometimes feel lost or overpowered. For many shoots, this works great and is no issue. Also, it correctly handles skin tones right out of the box. I’m talking video of course, the photo side shooting RAW is very pleasing and malleable in post.

As far as I know, the NX1 is the only camera south of the Canon Cinema line to have dual pixel autofocus. For anyone on a gimbal, this is a gargantuan feature that can’t be overlooked. I pick up other cameras and forget that I have to control focus, simply because I run around with my NX1 on a Ronin every day and never even touch focus. I’ll second that the battery life is very good, and add that powering/charging over USB is extremely handy. Not only can I charge three batteries at a time (internal/grip/external charger), but I can power the camera off of my Ronin M with a simple little jumper cable. The one thing it is not is a low light camera, but then compared to a Sony, most other cameras aren’t. I plan to pick up Luca’s NX-L soon to help with this, and to get that full frame look when called for. Truth be told, I am considering retiring my NX1, and getting another NX1 just because I’ve used this one so much. For the price, it’s an extremely powerful tool that can pull its weight in almost any situation, and having two for multi cam shoots will be useable far into the future, even if I do switch to something else for an A-cam. I’ve been waiting for dual pixel AF to show it’s face on another DSLR in order to switch, but I suspect I may wait a fair while longer still. I know I’ve not been compelled to switch just yet.

Same setup as you. I’d agree that the Rangefinder isn’t currently the best solution, but it was when it came out. I also have a Zeiss C/Y 50mm f1.4 that works decent for a tighter look.

WA adapters rarely work on anamorphic. There might.... MIGHT be a handful of the very big, very expensive ones that would work, but even then they’d only give you 25% wider at best, possibly worse. I’ve asked people much more knowledgeable about the intricacies of optics than I am, that is the feedback I got after lots of questions on different adapters. Another er approach is to ask, what you need that wide of a fov for anyway? Seriously, a 50mm can be wider by pulling back from the subject (and don’t forget the horizontal is 37mm). If you need wider than 37mm for a shot, it’s probably some sort of environmental establishing shot, in which case, you can shoot spherical and either use deep focus or an oval aperture mod on your lens. The Kowas are killer glass, and all they really need is a single focus adapter on front to be truly useable, just like an iscorama. Don’t pick one or the other because it is better/worse. Pick which one you like the look of better. I love my Kowa, but I’d also like to get a Moller, and (maybe some day) a 35mm LOMO square front. As you said, real Cinema lenses are expensive, but you get what you pay for.

Kowa B&H/16-H is the closest you're going to get. I can do 37mm on s35 with a Rangefinder (assuming 2.40:1 final ratio). That's darn close to 50mm equivalent. Remember, that's the vertical FOV. The horizontal is closer to 30 or 35mm equivalent. Or you buy these: http://www.fdtimes.com/2017/08/24/scorpio-full-frame-anamorphic-2x-lenses/

I almost wonder if Dolby has some sort of automated way to downconvert an Atmos mix and export it for standard theater presentation. It would be a hassle to essentially mix a film twice, so they might just do it that way. Stuff that stands out clear and distinct due to the Atmos systems extra speakers might muddy in that type of conversion process, or loudness of certain things might shift. I have only been to one Atmos film (Beauty and the Beast), but it thoroughly blew my mind from an audio perspective. It's loud, sure, but the system is tuned excellently so that it isn't harsh. If I closed my eyes, there was a live orchestra in a pit down below the screen. Seriously. It was epic. Who the heck would care about sound at a Disney princess movie? This guy. This guy cares now. The music was incredible.

I went to it at a good local theater chain and found the audio presentation to be fine. Has anyone caught it in an Atmos theater? I've seen a few reviews mention that it's a great mix in Atmos and to skip out of 3D and opt for Atmos instead. Perhaps the Atmos mix got tons of attention and the regular mix got thrown together? Its no revolution in motion picture sound, but I didn't find it getting in the way of anything. The score had some good moments, but overall was adequately unremarkable. Although it's stacked up against the score from the original which is an all-time great.

IMO the plot was just a backdrop on which to hang some deeper thematic elements, but I guess this is a film where your mileage may vary. I certainly found some interesting stuff to chew on. The journey of emotional development that Ryan Gosling's character is taken through seems pretty nuanced. I found myself drawn into his shoes, the shoes of a self-aware replicant. It's a genius twist on the ambiguity of the original. Deckard may or may not be a replicant, but in the end, he decides that it doesn't matter one way or another. The line between replicant and human has disappeared, and not only does he not care which he is, he considers himself better off not knowing. (That's my take, anyway.) In 2049, Gosling's character finds this same line disappearing as well, but from a completely different perspective. Even knowing exactly what he is, the lines blur and the box that he defines himself by slowly crumbles. In many ways, he's an ancillary character. Ok, sure, he's the titular Bladerunner. But the film turns on its head any notion of him being uniquely tied into the greater story beyond that role. He's not even the offspring of Rachel in the end. Gosling's character is learning the core trait of humanity: compassion. Selfless love. With that as the central journey of the film, it suddenly makes sense that he cannot be anyone spectacular. He sought out and helped Deckard for at least partly selfish reasons. Only after the knowledge that he was in fact just another replicant among countless replicants could he willingly undertake a selfless compassionate act. Who cares that Deckard is in the film at all? That there is a child? That there might be a war? That's the backdrop. The set dressing. The cinematography. They use exposition to move this along, because it's not the crux of the story. They could be Teletubbies for all the heart of the story cares (although Deakins+Teletubbies would be rather disconcerting). But what do I know? Anywho. That's why I like it. I can understand it's not for everyone (goodness knows I think Arrival was a finely polished piece of mediocrity).

I actually appreciated that they didn't slavishly recreate the original film's style. It would have been the lesser film no matter what, but making it look exactly like the original would have robbed it of its own merit. I actually loved the story, and Gosling IMO completely sold it. It's very subtle at times, but he is learning what real love is. You're shown rather than told, which I very much approve of. The majority of the exposition has to do with the plot. To get the emotional arc, you have to dig in a bit and experience the film from the perspective of K as a replicant. I still prefer the original, but 2049 managed to be its own thing, while simultaneously fitting with the original and (most critically) not ruining the original.

I use zeiss c/y glass (50 and 85 f1.4) and the 16-50S. All these lenses are beastly good on NX1. I want to get the NX-L, but there seem to be some folks saying that C/Y glass isn't compatible with the booster. That's the only thing this camera could possibly need: a way to get that fullframe look when desired.