Sean Cunningham

The term "film" does and has had meaning beyond a direct reference to the physical medium, be it emulsion or print. This isn't new. Not within the actual "film industry" or language itself. If someone said "I 4K'd it" around me that would be an instant red flag for "noob".

    No, no, no.   See, that's part of the problem with mixing exact measurements with this short-hand, stills "measurement" and it's at least partially responsible for some of the bad statements around here re: Metabones Speed Booster.   The GH2 is not 17.3mm, it's 19mm.  The standard M4/3 assumption is based on a standard 4:3 sensor size...for stills.  The GH2 is 19mm across, expanded for its native 16:9 recording when shooting motion pictures.  It is not a 2 CF.  It does not become S35 size with this adapter.  S35 does not (really) become fully FF with this adapter.   These assumptions, aided by this CF nonsense, tends to be so off an obviously FALSE statement like "GH2 and 7D have the same size sensor" is rendered just as valid because it's within or even less than the margin of error for a lot of the silly CF math floating around here, specifically related to this Metabones adapter.   Seriously.   edit: here, perhaps this will help you and others for future reference, to properly visualize the relative sizes of these formats to one another.  Not represented here, but easy enough to imagine, is anamorphic 35mm is recorded to a 21mm width which places it (in squeezed form) ever so slightly wider than the GH2 but still smaller than the 7D's sensor width...  

  Sharpness loss at the edge of frame is mostly a function of the lens itself.  It's only apparent to the smaller sensor after using this adapter because it could never see it before, it only saw the "sweet spot".  In point of fact, sharpness at the edge of frame is better through the adapter on a smaller sensor than the same lens mounted to a FF camera.   Seems lots of people still aren't bothering to really investigate or grok what they've read so that they can add meaningful discussion.   edit: it cracks me up that, even though the adapter IS performing a kind of magick, its critics now feel compelled to criticize the magick itself as if it just weren't miraculous enough for their standards....    "Yeah, you turned water into wine...but you didn't raise anyone from the dead.  Fail.  You suck."

I like the tones in the grade.

  /cheer   This is comforting to hear, someone else with a font fetish.  I can't tell you how many times I've seen someone upload an otherwise well-crafted film only to have some standard MS font for their titles that may or may not be properly antialiased.  I just don't get it.  If someone's gonna go with an OS stock font at least make it Impact, lol, you can still do a lot with that.   There are so many great sites out there and have been since at least the late 1990s with all kinds of great, free fonts in 31^n flavors.  You could spend hours and hours browsing and downloading from just one of the better sites.  "acidcool" used to be my go-to for browsing.   I don't think anyone's ever posted a video here with that default Vegas blue screen and cheesy white font preset like a lot of people still seem to do on youtube.  That's the worst.

I love my Nikkor 35mm f/1.4

I guess I shouldn't be as surprised as I am by the images here but these sorts of visuals, snow and the beach, are so odd to me.  I grew up, mostly, in a coastal city in Texas and we would get serious freezes that could cover everything in ice every once in a decade or so but snow never seemed to stick on the ground.  I never got why that was, why ice but no snow.   If I was to ever walk outside one morning in Corpus Christi and see this it would be really difficult not to have first reactions having something to do with the End of Days, lol.  Cool stuff, and I'm glad it's not the End of Days.

A change to the effective F/stop that would affect the DOF means a physical change to the size of the opening created by the shutter blades.  Nowhere in the documentation does it state or even suggest that this happens.   If you were to take a picture, print it out and hold it up to your face close enough that you couldn't see its edges, that represents pre-Metabones or how your smaller-sensor camera sees the scene depicted in the photograph.  Now, hold the photograph out further, far enough so that you can see all the way to the edges or close.  That represents how your smaller-sensor camera sees the scene depicted in the photograph after installing the Metabones adapter.     No change in DOF.  The optical reduction doesn't alter the FOV of the lens it alters how much of it your sensor can see.  This isn't a wide-angle converter that also makes the image brighter.  The effective T-Stop difference is from the compression of the light meant for a large aperture imaging layer into the space of a smaller one.  Light is additive.   In image processing terms, when you scale an image from 2K to 1K the brightness of the image doesn't change because neighboring pixels from the 2K source are averaged to create a new pixel for the 1K result.  Light doesn't work that way.  Resizing would do something similar to what this adapter does if, instead of averaging, you were scoot neighboring pixels from the 2K source inward such that the 1K final still contained all of the original pixels from the 2K but some of them were now stacked on top of the other and their values were now added to each other rather than averaged.     The Metabones adapter doesn't stack the photons of light on top of each other because it's not limited to the spaces available in a fixed grid like an image but they are hitting the imaging surface much closer together now and so they produce an image that's brighter.   Like how a magnifying glass makes the light passing through it brighter when focused.

  Sorry, my rant is my reaction to what I recognize as pollution that creeps into so many discussions where one member is trying to understand why they might be getting a particular result, or trying to figure out how to get a particular result, or wondering why their gear might work in a particular way or not work in a way that they expect.     So often another member will decide to not contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way by offering that "story" or "acting" or all the other various aspects of filmmaking are really more important that worrying about fiddly technical aspects of shooting.  Ironic since they went through the trouble of setting up an account on a site that's very clear from the front page what it's focus is.  Andrew doesn't pull a bait-and-switch with some hippy-dippy method actor's smoking lounge up front only to find out it's all nerd shit once you're roped into joining.  Not to mention, one would assume they've bought a camera and found this place based on a recommendation from another enthusiast or through their own searching for information on how to work that thing in their hands, either at all, better or just to see what other people are doing with that thing they have, since humans like every decision they make to be validated by others.   Anyway, I have my theories why these people feel compelled to be disruptive but I'd rather talk about cameras and cinematography here and not my unqualified opinions as a psychologist.   What's worse, in a way, are the folks that now creep in to poo-poo on test videos posted by people, either trying new filters, patches, lenses, stops, whatever.  Somehow this non-narrative work offends their sensibilities I guess.  My only point is, there's a lot of new cool news, gear, etc. coming out and it would be a real shame if the trend towards fewer and fewer new posts with video links in them continues for fear of "boring" people.   And, Rich, this isn't directed at the talented guys uploading non test type work or the guys uploading test type work, just in case it seems like that.  Producing narrative type work is far too involved for anyone to be contributing that on a regular basis.  I get that and I know you get that.  There seems to be an an awful lot of people who haven't done it that don't understand what it takes and therefore it's easy for them to say this or that about how little of it there is posted here.  It's pretty amazing that the filmmaker behind the GH2 + LOMO feature has given the forum so much attention recently.   Taking the story in for a narrative work is ultimately the most important thing, true.  But tensions would be less likely to flare up if we always keep the context of their appearance here in mind.  They're being posted to a technical/artistic forum specializing in digital cinematography in general with highly focused sub-cliques for specific cameras and lenses.  Odds are the poster is going to be the fellow who shot whatever is featured in the video and may or may not be the writer/director.  The only reasonable expectation someone should have by doing this is a hopefully intelligent discussion of the technical and artistic aspects of the piece being viewed.     Expression of how well or not so well other aspects of the piece work for any particular viewer shouldn't be discouraged.  However, it would be completely inappropriate in this forum to suggest that any other aspect of filmmaking or the filmmaking process take precedence over the discussion of technical and artistic methods used for the purposes of creating or enhancing the photography of, whatever.  Or to suggest that improvements in any of the other disciplines necessary to make a narrative (or otherwise) piece can or should excuse poor execution of its photography.     edit: I posted this to a thread of its own instead of going off (again) in someone else's thread as a reaction to follow-up posts they might be getting from other members and further derailing their topic, which I know I'm guilty of and really, really hate myself for sometimes.

The focal length is not really reduced.  The f-stop is not altered.  You're confusing yourself.

Y'all know what Darias Khondji and Dean Cundey, Kovaks, Carpenter, Storaro, Toland, Conrad Hall, Harris Savides and pretty much anyone you can think of and dozens you can't, guys who shoot great looking stuff on purpose, not by accident, not because they got lucky but by design and through their own effort and expertise, either for the selfish benefit of the image itself or in service to the story, you know what they did so that they could do that stuff when it count, when they were getting paid to do what they did, when dozens if not hundreds of people were depending on them, waiting on them, when possibly millions of dollars were on the line or potentially rendered forfeit, you know what they were doing so that they could do what they did?   They were shooting tests.   Every camera.  Every lens.  Thoroughly.  They didn't waste other people's times learning what they could and couldn't do under a variety of common or unique circumstances on-the-clock.  They're smart enough to realize the occasional "happy accident" of a flare or focus pull or color combination or Golden Triangle configuration that just happend to occur at just the right time such that a most amazingly emotional chord is struck when the image is viewed by most humans is great but discovering that that last take, the one where the set/car/character/town is destroyed by fire, the giant monster is blown up, the command shuttle breaks apart the rented helicopter is finally, perfectly aligned with the setting sun to create a perfect silhouette through rippling heat refraction in some exotic locale on their last day of access or visa or the last raw nerve of some local potentate or executive producer isn't wasted because they didn't know WTF they were doing and just hoping for the best.     They weren't satisfied knowing the stuff they were using was expensive, or from a well known pedigree, or supposedly crafted by Santa Claus's most talented, clever elves, or promised in some way to never fuck up, under any circumstance, with any other combination of previous, contemporary or future widgets made by Satan Claus or the Easter Bunny or Baby Jesus.  They had to know.  So they could do it.  On purpose.  On demand.  Repeatedly.    They shot tests.   What they likely didn't do, for all sorts of reasons, is share these tests with the world, in a public venue, so that others at, below or above their stature and experience could comment on, learn from, share, ridicule or improve upon.  (this last bit was my maybe cryptic way of saying we should be lucky we're in a community where ideas and techniques are shared openly and not hoarded.  I'm not saying "stop posting tests" and non-narrative videos)   edit: TLDR version -- y'all stop marginalizing folks posting test videos because that's how you familiarize yourself with your gear enough to be useful to yourself and anyone else.  It's what the  name brand pros do so snarky comments about yet-another-boring-test-video are really just ignorant.

Form factor shouldn't be an issue for professional shooters.  Once it's in a cage and/or baseplate, mini-HD monitor or eyepiece, battery pack, follow-focus, mattebox, etc. you're interacting and seeing the kit, not the camera.  These components all function basically the same whether you're using a DSLR or a BMCC or C300, etc. and end up being in basically the same place relative to the final central mass of the big mess stationed atop the tripod.   The form factor argument on this or any camera has always cracked me up because any camera kitted out for production is an ergonomically challenged beast that's very unfriendly to those not completely initiated.  About the only thing I've ever seen that remotely looked comfortable to use would be some of the compact Arri or Aatons designed for lightweight shoulder work.  And see, that's the thing, pros are often having to rely on completely different cameras for different styles of shooting coming from a 35mm motion picture world.  All of these newer, compact digital solutions are far more flexible, requiring only rigging re-configurations for different styles of shooting.     edit: and yeah, many users don't need RAW just like most don't need 4K.  They want it.  A lot aren't going to be prepared for the increase in complexity and demands either decision puts on their post.  

1D/5D FF = 36mm 1DC 4K = 28.45mm Super 35mm = 24.89 Anamorphic 35mm = 21mm GH2 = 19mm   Metabones Speed Booster = .71 reduction   1/.71 x 19mm = 26.76mm   CF doesn't translate forward up the post production stream.  It's a terrible measurement, on par with asbergers video engineers saddling us for decades with their stupid diagonal measurement for screens and sensors.

  If the ratio is the same as the current model, like they've said it is, it will actually be markedly bigger than S35 and closer to 1DC shooting 4K or the RED Epic 5K aperture.  Folks need to stop handicapping themselves with this "crop factor" business...it's quaint and all, like weight given in "stone" or velocity in "furlongs per fortnight" but it's sloppy math.     That's one aspect of the still photography world that should stay out of motion pictures, even if a lot of us are using stills cameras with dreams of the silver screen.  In motion pictures we deal in precise aperture measurements.

The brightening is an effect of the Speed Booster that happens after the DOF is set by the lens.  Brighter or darker doesn't affect DOF when the physical stop of the lens remains constant.  Similarly you don't affect any change in DOF one iota raising or lowering your ISO sensitivity.  The Metabones adapter does not alter the physical stop of the lens so there is no reason for any expectation of any change in DOF.

Another one that just doesn't get it.

There's further information on these various processes with lots of official literature at the Widescreen Museum.  IMDB is definitely not to be used as a primary source for information, I was just being lazy.   But official projected aspect ratios, at least their original intentions, seem to tap out at 2.76:1 and I was surprised to find out that even the roadshow, 3-screen Cinerama wasn't actually as wide as I always thought it was (not to mention discovering that these large-format anamorphic lenses were generally in a pedestrian 1.25x-1.33x squeeze ratio).   This of course doesn't account for individual discrepancies that creep in due to operator or process.  I remember loads of debates regarding the original widescreen releases for virtually all of the Leone westerns when they came out on laserdisc and in some cases extra cropping (to an already hard-masked acquisition format) would invariably seem to be coming from somewhere.   edit: EIGHT crewmembers were needed to move those cameras!

Somehow I already hit my quota for "likes" but I so like the above two posts.   Anyhoo, yeah, those couple shots won't be hard to correct so that nobody ever knows in the final.  If/when you go back to the issue remember the fact of it only being a few shots is critical to whittling down the source and isolating possible variables involved.  Was it only shots using a certain lens(es)?  Were they all from a specific camera?  Were adapters ever swapped between cameras?   That last question, it may or may not be related, but over in the discussions regarding that new Metabones "Speed Booster" a fairly serious looking stills photographer puts it through its paces in spite of having a standing policy that he not review adapters.  He has a section in his article where he describes as little as 20micron discrepancies between how an adapter sits relative to the surface of the imaging sensor and possible adverse effects on the optical characteristics of the final image.  Tolerances for keeping the sensor and the lens mount co-planar are very high but adapter manufacturers can't be as exact because they would need pre-existing knowledge of a specific camera's alignment set by the manufacturer.  If I recall, from the article, wider angle lenses produce increasingly pronounced effects at the edge of frame.   Could be totally unrelated but I'd never read that before, that sensor alignment wasn't specific to a model but the individual camera.

It may be a little early but I think it was lafilm poo-poo'ing the very notion of non-professional cameras and solutions by smaller filmmakers making any sort of impact at Sundance or the Academy or other such hoity-toity institutions that only allow the right kind of people with the right kind of equipment to play their reindeer games.   LOL

  The DOF is determined by the f/stop.  These characteristics are set prior to passing through the Metabones adapter.  The effective reduction in focal length is an optical reduction of an image with its characteristics already set.  This is pretty clear from their documentation and the observed and measured results of the device.  Then, either through design or as a byproduct of this optical reduction, so that the larger image can be seen by the smaller sensor, you get an optical "gain up".   Though the mechanics are different the net effect of this device is similar to what you get with a Redrock M2 or one of the other 35mm lens adapters for video cameras.  There's no spinning "ground glass" here and you gain a stop rather than lose one.   The T-stop of a lens measures the light performance after the lens, what's there for the exposure but DOF and F-stop must be managed by the operator independent of this.  I think you have your mechanics backwards and imagining mechanical functions that aren't there.  It's simplicity seems to be causing all kinds of confusion.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/technical   Yes, most of the time you'll get a response that satisfies you but never be afraid to look for second opinions or confirmation of anything that doesn't quite sound right  ;)

  What's really sad is that even though multiple independent reviewers are confirming the accuracy of the claims that Metabones has made for this device there will still be skeptics polluting every single topic here and elsewhere with their claims that this device, as described, is impossible.  Impossible due to the laws of physics or, my favorite, nothing a professional would consider using anyhow.  

  I can't say for sure, but perhaps it would be better to think of, and refer to, this adapter's "speed boosting" as effectively increasing the T-Stop of the lens, rather than F-Stop, which might be partly responsible for some of the confusion surrounding this thing (that doesn't seem to be going away no matter how much new information comes out daily).     Perhaps it's naive but the fact of this device delivering a brighter, concentrated image shouldn't seem that difficult to wrap your mind around if you've ever killed ants or burned wood with the power of sunlight that's miraculously not even close to doing the same thing to your skin at that very moment.  Normal sunlight can be concentrated through summed reflection off of metal, without passing through a glass lens, to cut through steel.   I think it's the skeptics that need some physics lessons here, in some cases.

This guy just doesn't get it.

  Well I'm glad (and I too love Tony's responses).  I must apologize for my own rant there in your thread it's just become so frustrating and not specific to this forum at all.  I think the only reason the signal:noise on personal-view is only slightly higher than your average forum anywhere is the often humorless moderation that can happen in any topic that stays on the first page any length of time.   I got Andrew's guide before actually purchasing an anamorphic (and his GH2 guide before purchasing that) and am glad that I did.  Based on it and the information gleaned from the forum I made sure I'd still be able to locate a Tokina doublet and ordered one from Redstan before picking out my Century Optics adapter on ebay.    Admittedly that frame of Dekkard from Blade Runner labeled 2.66:1 gave me pause as well but once I saw that example in the context of the guide it seemed clearer to me what he was doing there.