Sean Cunningham

  But are they as good at what they are as the Helios is prior to DSO?  I have the Nikkor 24mm f/2 and for its time it was the fastest lens in that size made by Nikon until recently.  The going rate for 20+year old copies like I have is over $300 used and it's not as good at being a 24mm as the Helios is at being a 58mm, putting aside the DSO process.  I used to really like it, until I got my F.Zuiko 50mm and had to cut close-ups shot on that lens with wider shots on the Nikkor, revealing just how bland it is if I'm not shooting anamorphic.   I was just thinking pragmatically, given the image quality of the Sigma zoom (though knowing all that plastic makes for a crap time of it) and placing more of an emphasis on matching coating and color to the FF58, since bokeh isn't going to be nearly as relevant on a wide.  Definitely not ideal I'm just anticipating a $1000-2000 donor otherwise.   Absolutely stunning stills you posted, btw.

This technique is a kind of stop motion called pixilation.  You don't see a lot of it nowadays but it was a popular experimental technique in the '80s.  According to the wiki it's a visual effect that goes back at least as far as 1908.  The first time I'd ever heard the term used was Mike Jitlov's love letter to animation and effects in his The Wizard of Speed and Time.

  And 82mm in cinema terms.     I'm looking forward to something from them in the wide end too but there's just not really anything that's a wide equivalent (below 35mm) to the Helios to use as a base lens that has its unique qualities of ubiquitousness, cheapness, quality and quantity.     edit: I wonder if it would eventually be doable that DSO take orders with donor lenses sent in to be either rebuilt or re-coated to match the FF.  Somewhere I saw a video of this Samyang 8mm fisheye that, on the BMPCC, only looks like an ultra-wide and would be an ~16mm in cinema terms and that's nicely wide.   edit2: how about a DSO edition Sigma 18-35mm for a speed-boosted 25-50mm cinema FOV covering the majority of shooting focals for narrative, using the FF58/Trump58 for close-up and compressed beauty wides and mediums and then just wanting, but not necessarily needing, an ultrawide.  Donor lenses sent in, of course.

Pro colorists are going to want to work log, generally speaking, if you're working with log origination.

Far be it from me to stand in the way of wasted cycles.  I mean, if it makes sense to your aunt.  

  I read another post somewhere from a GH2 owner, hoping for the same thing.  All it needs is a little over spec for the GH3 at least.

Glad you worked that out.

  That's a problem between the keyboard and the chair.  There are a lot of people who have it in their heads that film is somehow low contrast.  As a medium.  They obviously haven't ever really worked with it but go look at discussions, especially early discussions regarding the Magic Lantern RAW phenomenon.  

There are low contrast negatives but you're mixing that up with viewing a log space representation in the digital realm without lut and that's never supposed to be viewed or presented.  A lut is applied in the DI.  In the old school days we would create our own viewing lut based on a match-clip.  We would do our thing and then apply an inverse of the viewing lut, called a "reverse out" to put everything back into its original LOG representation for output scanning.   But the shooting negative, barring an extreme treatment, has the most influence on the look of the footage prior to grading/correction.  You can just let Film Convert be your look, going for a "one-light" look or you can then grade, in which case you now have the equivalent of your "answer print" interpositive which is no longer a necessary optical step unless you insist on a photochemical finish.  In most cases, this is what the audience is seeing.     It's been years now since I've seen a current release on a release print.     EDIT:   A ) Film negative is scanned into a datacine, etc. B ) A lut is applied to the 10bit log scan data to put it into a meaningful linear display for human consumption and review, with reasonable high, low and mid point in preparation for grading C ) This digital interpositive is then graded   ...Film Convert is an analog to step B.  It transforms the DSLR footage into as close as it can get to what you get with step B based on matching a calibrated representation of reference values having passed through steps A and B.  Release printing or what positive printing does has no relevance what so ever.   Anymore, most audiences never see much of anything that's more stepped on than step C because this would be the source for generating a DCP.  Filmmakers are even skipping ever looking at the result of a print struck from a scanned out internegative because step C is the film as far as they're concerned.

That used to be the case.  This is a DI solution where shooting film, scanning the negative and then grading it most definitely has a look for DCP release which is now more common than release prints.  But release stocks are meant to be as neutral and fine grain as possible, generally speaking.  There are low contrast shooting stocks but you'll need to provide reference for low contrast release stocks.  They tend to be what they are with the option of going higher contrast (at greater expense).     Various labs have their own optional processes to manipulate contrast.  This is where skip-bleach and silver retention come into play and whether you do it to the shooting negative or to release prints, and generally only select release prints since it's so expensive.  Even Fincher couldn't get a blank check to do ENR to all of his release prints.   http://www.theasc.com/magazine/nov98/soupdujour/pg1.htm

It boggles my mind when I read people criticize him for his meticulous style and production design.  Calling it too "precious".  I look forward to every one of them.  He must be amazing to work with given the collection of notorious egos who make repeat appearances in his films.  They know they're going to be in something special.     I was disappointed that I never got to meet him when I worked on The Life Aquatic.

Depends on how you look at the numbers. I'm sure there are folks out there interested in shooting motion pictures with their DSLR because they saw someone made famous in the DSLR revolution and they're wanting to emulate that person's style and aesthetic. I think it's safe to say there are far more people shooting on DSLRs who are inspired by and emulating, instead, the likes of Zsigmond, Kovaks, Savides, Carpenter, Cundey, Deakins, Cronenweth, etc. So why whiplash through the math (especially using wives tales and rules-of-thumb) when the lowest common denominator here is they don't shoot "full frame"? The Game , for instance, featured close-ups shot on a 75mm and pretty much everything else on a 27mm. What these focal lengths look like on a "full frame" camera doesn't matter to anyone who isn't holding one since that film, like most films, wasn't shot on one. It's not something someone shooting on any non-FF camera needs to even consider if what they're interested in is what lenses would they need to shoot with similar framing. It would be like translating from Spanish to French by way of Japanese.

It will be interesting to see if the progression goes 1.33:1 -> 1.85:1 -> 2.35:1 or if the later two are swapped.  I guess it depends on what he's trying to say.

Not sure what you mean by "rebellion" but the film is reportedly shot in three different aspect ratios, each for a different time period: 1.33:1, 1.85:1 and 2.35:1   Looks marvelous.

  Drives me batty.  The 36mm format is an anomaly, not a standard.  Use of "crop factors" relative to this format in a discussion of a motion picture camera or motion picture shooting should require some form of penance, or contribution to the swear jar.   In motion picture terms, given this is a motion picture camera, the SpeedBooster makes this an effective 25-50mm zoom.  And fast as hell.  That's badass.

Sigma is parfocal based on reports online, at the blackmagic forums and elsewhere.

ITT, folks who need ND.

You might want to contact Kholi, here or over at P-V.  The BMD cameras have specific IR-cut requirements and it reacts with fairly extreme differences in neutrality and color cast depending on the manufacturer.   He just posted today about potentially replacing his Tiffen WW with Schneider Platinum.  I've seen another test that showed Formatt had a BMD friendly IR line.  

I stopped reading his posts, because they were gibberish.  But odds are he's not on-topic, on point, addressing the facts of the situation either or offering any real information to counter anything that I've actually said.  Because he can't, any more than than the projector optics guy.  And so what do you do when you can't actually argue based on facts?  There you go.

  It's because a majority of the cameras this thing will be used for shoot 16:9.  It would be foolish to design an optic that worked great with a hack on one manufacturer's camera that allowed 4:3 shooting.  Productions shot on RED or higher end cameras with true variable aspect ratio functionality are going to be shooting on Panavision or Hawk or Cooke or Zeiss anamorphics, or one of the $40,000 sets of Kowas out there for sale or rent.  Maybe the odd fellow here or there will have a consumer/prosumer adapter and be experimenting.  Without excluding them, these aren't the target consumers.   1.33x compression ratio, while not the most optically interesting, is the one that makes the most sense for the cameras in use today, at the enthusiast and prosumer level, creating a 2.36:1 final aspect ratio paired with the most common taking aspect ratio.  This is not a ratio without significance or parity in cinema terms either given that squeeze ratio is determined based on the taking format and final projection ratio.  Hawk has a 1.33x line of lenses that serve a purpose.  Large format anamorphics, what few there were, had ratios even smaller, like 1.25x because they were already starting with a wide format (2.2:1 65/70mm).     Forcing the end user to crop is not a viable solution.  Forcing an unusually wide aspect ratio is not a viable solution.  Ridiculous-wide will work great for some people with no commercial or customer-oriented expectations or purchasing considerations.  Wider than standard scope aspect ratio will alienate any new adapter from buyers that want to be more than Vimeo superstars.   That's not favoritism or love for SLR Magic, as I've been accused, or love of 1.33x adapters, like some other schmoe has said.  That's common sense and logic.  That's being able to observe what is available and understanding what is acceptable.     But cmon Tony don't compare Moller with SLR Magic ( http://www.moeller-wedel.com/company/history.html ) That is just not fair   :)     He can make that comparison because he doesn't actually grok how these things are used (and I doubt he cares anyhow) but is instead myopically fixated on precious glass for its own sake.  Dual-focus + telephoto-specific (in the modern application) is useless unless you're the kind of filmmaker that gets off on hipster, self-induced dogma of shooting with a limited cinematic vocabulary and grammar.  People who don't know what they don't know can say all day long that "anamorphic is best with long lenses" or "focus pulling is lazy".  They simply can't appreciate the ridiculousness of these statements.     It wouldn't matter the specs on this system.  The clamp cobbler is so corrupt now in his distaste for this and anything from this company and anything from that country that, beyond dithering out his ass, he's now pro Letus and pro 135-format sensor shooting for anamorphics.  So long as it's convenient at least.

The Letus is totally underwhelming so far.  It looks like an engineer's step up compared to the LA7200, which makes sense why certain "fans" have emerged.  It has no personality in the tests so far.  Perhaps they can breath some life back into it or, yeah, you'd be better off cropping and using an oval iris hack with a streak filter versus...this.

  He's got his re-housing of projector optics for rubes scheme to deal with.

Actually no, you got almost everything wrong about what I said or did or me in yet another racist rant, polluting any thread mentioning that company or China or whatever, dropped to ad hominem and didn't even answer my question or interpret that right. Also, the subject at hand has nothing to do with the Tokina, which does nothing to enhance or re-introduce oval bokeh to the 1.33x adapters. It's not strong enough. So here again, you're knee jerking over the wrong thing. Doublet design doesn't do it. Multi-coating doesn't do it. Magnification strength does it. Thanks for the history lesson though. I lectured nobody. I took credit for nothing. It was the guys at Riot Unit that have been the one and only source of this information anywhere (that I've seen) with their published stills showing pronounced oval bokeh with a Century Optics thanks to a +2 Hoya (non-doublet), no Tokina used. Doublet design is best, of course, but that's not the aspect that restores/enhances the oval bokeh on these 1.33x adapter and it's not what lets them work with longer lenses at larger apertures. Strength is the factor here. I didn't take credit for the technique or the original idea to try it. I've been making a point to mention it because it's something not mentioned here before, not in Andrew's guide, not as part of the rhetoric surrounding these adapters. It's significant because it answers the common complaint against them that they aren't anamorphic enough in their bokeh. Pardon me for living, sir but you're wrong about the facts or my intentions. Apology accepted.

That Sony sensor with its electric, ENG looking highlights (like all their sensors) keeps the GH3 from being a relevant contender in my book on any level being discussed here.

ROFL