Sean Cunningham

In the Tim Burton tradition, here's some Halloween fun at Christmas time...   [url="http://vimeo.com/55190441"]http://vimeo.com/55190441[/url]   Stuff used:  GH2 + Century Optics + Nikkor 24mm F2 + FilmConvert

You can go 18mm without vignetting on the GH2 with a Century Optics converter.  The Tokina achromat that fits this is still rare but available.  I could be wrong but my understanding is it should be possible to get a little wider with the LA7200, it's just the diopter issue as you're exploring.

If you don't need, or don't want, or can't use a full-on baseplate and rod support there's also the VELBON SPT-1 which I read about on these forums.  I've also seen examples of it adapted for use with one of the smaller, DSLR-specific support rails options, for use with follow-focus but still without the bulk of a full baseplate...   [img]http://www.velbon.biz/_src/sc1187/SPT-1.jpg[/img]

I did this for all of the titles in SICK BOY.  Because I was doing experiments with levels of grain and making the 7D footage feel analog without going full-on Planet Terror I wanted the titles to have a legitimate optical house feel, not like something straight out of a DVE which has all the fit and finish of porno production.  What I used as my model was the opening title sequence for The Exorcist.   I do all my finishing in AfterEffects.  You can likely do this in Premiere too but with such a transparent method of going between the two I opt for the better control, better rendering and full suite of motion-graphics, color correction and plug-ins for VFX in AE.   I added some organic looking, subtle motion to my titles by parenting the text clips to two NULL layers.  One of the null layers used a noise expression in just the Y-translate domain.  Very small +/- up-down moves of no more than a pixel or two.  Most values will be less than a pixel but you can make these values bigger or smaller depending on the effect you're going for.  Likewise, there are several different types of noise built into AE for expressions.  I suggest you try a few because they'll give you slighting different results and by applying these animation effects to NULL layers and then parenting your image layers you can try out several types quickly to see what you like and what's appropriate (or compound multiple noise passes!).   The second NULL layer I applied smooth wiggle noise to just the X-translate domain.  Smooth, slightly bigger moves than my jitter, but only side-to-side.  This gives the feel of "gate weave".  For an even more organic look you can parent this NULL to a third NULL with smooth, side-to-side wiggle motion at a frequency of at least 1/2 or 2X that of the first.  The sum of these motions adds a little "chaos" to the mix and even more organic feel *.     * - I used this technique, mixing three SIN waves of different frequencies and amplitudes, to create the smoothly organic, but random looking, traffic paths and bobble while hovering for the flying traffic in the Fifth Element.

  It's quite impressive.  It was their use of the chip charts to match looks that sold me on giving it a look-see and not just dismiss it as yet another bit of LUT snake oil.   I remembered reading about Kubrick being an absolute fanatic about every single shot, every single element, in 2001 being slated with a chip chart for QC at the lab, because processing would vary day-to-day but also because the film itself would color-shift over the course of production and this would need to be compensated for since two pieces of film shot maybe a year apart might need to be layered together.   This kind of color matching is like what's been used in high-end visual effects facilities to match digital elements to known and quantifiable film types.  It's not arbitrary and it's not futile or pointless.  This is the visual equivalent to harmonizing audio or perhaps tuning your guitar to a standard.   edit: here's my first project using FilmConvert   [url="http://vimeo.com/55190441"]http://vimeo.com/55190441[/url]

  Gonna take a guess what you're asking.  "Burnet Rhoades" is an online handle I started using some years ago, pretty sure with AIM.  I've never been one to tolerate a login with a string of numbers after my name or initials.  Just won't do it.  My login at various studios has always been "pockets" since an old roommate hung that nickname on me back in the early 90s and this is what I'm fairly well known as within the VFX industry (and will answer to it in conversation as readily as I do "sean") but for larger, public networks this handle is often taken.   The first script that my brother Tim wrote features a pair of modern day outlaw cowboy brothers, Lamar and Burnet.  They're named after well known roads here in Austin and would be a wink to any local.  I don't remember if he originally spelled their last name as "rhodes" or "rhoads" or "rhoades" but I started using the later because I figured it was the most unusual.   I'm a creature of habit so pretty much anything new where a handle is available it's the one I use.  I also use it to try and avoid confusion with the creator of the Friday the 13th franchise, Sean S. Cunningham.

Actually, most DPs will likely tell you they prefer scope.  It's some directors don't care and the DP is accommodating to their indifference.  Lots of producers don't care and pressure production to go with whatever is cheapest.  Lots of visual effects professionals prefer not to work with it because it's not quite as straight forward as spherical, though that's more of an anachronistic problem these days with how fast computers are and how much better the software is with tracking and match-moving.  Still, they bitch, the producer just hears "more expensive" and pressures the director and DP to shoot spherical.     There are reasons for mixing (in the case of Batman they also mixed in 65mm at the beginning) but most of them are related to technical issues or money.  Technical issues can always be overcome by either money or effort.  Back in the 70s and 80s things weren't as flexible so almost any time you saw an "optical" or "process shot" or just "visual effects shot" and it wasn't in a movie that Douglas Trumbull was involved with you were seeing a mixture of scope and spherical if scope was being used for principal photography.   It's never because going non-scope is "better".   The best you can do is make a case for "more appropriate for a given application".   edit: also, Panavision solved anamorphic mumps a long time ago with their lenses.

It'll work as wide as 18mm with the Century and open up to F2.8 before needing a diopter for sharpening.

That was so full of WIN.

This is true no matter the camera. The focal length is the focal length. 40mm for a Panavision lens denotes its vertical equivalent (horizontally being half this since anamorphic) and the actual FOV captured is then determined by the crop aperture size of the motion picture camera. If I'm reading your comment correctly you might be under the impression that movies are shot "full frame" and they're not, for reasons I outlined earlier. Not since sometime in the 1960s and even then it was only some.

Beauty

I'm using the POS kit 14-42mm in those vids but, regardless, 18mm is the limits of what I can do with the Century Optics adapter before vignetting. I'd need an anamorphic with a much larger rear optic to be able to go wider.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1353737494' post='22227']i was referring to the century anamorphic,... altho i'm pretty sure i'll find projects that it'll suit better than the older anamorphics i have.Burnet, isnt the GH2 about a x2 crop? that would make a 20mm look 40ish wouldnt it?[/quote]It's not quite, but you have to also consider that shooting in Panavision, or any modern movie camera, is shooting with a crop factor as well. The last movie shot in VistaVision, 8-perf 35mm, or "full frame" like the size of the 5D, etc. was sometime in the early 1960s, where the film ran through the camera horizontally like an SLR. ILM resurrected this mode of moving picture photography in the 1970s for shooting visual effects plates, sometimes utilizing specially modified SLRs due to their smaller size and the diminished availability of existing VistaVision cameras.35mm movies are shot 4-perf (sometimes 2-perf) with the film running vertically through the camera. It's a crop format, a bit bigger than M4/3 but not anywhere close to full frame. Maybe it's enough to make that kind of difference though and the distortion is that non-linear.[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/13968/50b0f74c5c30f_sensors_003_BMDcontext.png[/img][b]edit[/b]: this is why when you see something shot on the 5D, regardless of its image processing shortcomings, you're still experiencing something very different. Different than what you experience in a movie shot with 35mm movie film. It's more than just shallow DOF. You're seeing an image captured in a way that hasn't been done for movies in a long time. It's both quantifiable and intangible at the same time, as big as the difference between anamorphic and non-anamorphic motion pictures. It's different.

I'm still shocked the 20mm and my zoom at 18mm don't feel nearly as wide as a Wes Anderson movie. I read on a Criterion review site a reference to 40mm (20mm wide of course for Panavision) but have a hard time believing that number is anything but pulled from a blogger's butt.

There was scoffing at "wider" over in the SLR Magic thread but I think that's mostly from second-guessing the small digits and not based on actual experience with anamorphic on M4/3. The numbers I'd like to see viable sound ridiculous from a traditional 35mm perspective and like they'd be full of distortion or like one of those skater "death" lenses but that isn't the case. At least not with the most common 1.33X anamorphic adapters and the M4/3. http://vimeo.com/50804931 http://vimeo.com/50594617 ...I shot both of these with an effective 18mm taking lens, the widest I can use without vignetting on my Century Optics, and it has neither extreme distortion or obscene, fisheye FOV. It feels pretty good actually. But, I like being able to go "too far" and dial back so I'm inclined to want to see what a 14mm or even 12mm option would actually look like, if an adapter existed that could handle a taking lens this wide, [i]not someone pre-judging based on numbers and and a guess[/i]. Qualitatively your results should be based on the quality of your adapters. This may be where I give a naive guess but I'm willing to bet it's no worse than what's incurred with a diopter, which is yet another lens in front of the anamorphic. I'm just not confident the same care and craftsmanship goes into wide-angle adapters as what you find with diopters, given the later is designed expressly for detail and the former is not.

Yes, I too don't understand the complaints over form factor. Form factor for motion picture cameras aren't exactly Apple level and once one is all crazy rigged up you're seeing and dealing more with the rig than you are the actual camera. None of the existing designs are fully-functional for generally more than one mode of use (if that) out-of-the-box. The BMCC is really no worse off for movie making than a DSLR and likely as easily useful and adaptable for stills, if not moreso. I'm betting you hand a BMCC to a Canon shooter and they'll be productive faster than if you were to hand them a Nikon, or Sony. Or virtually any camera designed by video engineers, who's suck at designing UIs is only bested by those who designed pre-Android and IOS cell phones.

ITT lots of assumptions

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353280140' post='21909'] Actually is out of patent now, I am told. [/quote] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/13968/50a97ac24a62d_YESSSS.gif[/img]

After further consideration, Andrew, even if this were a one off, 25mm hyperprime + anamorphic, single-focus system I'd be keen to buy it. In fact I'd pre-order one immediately based on this video and faith in the quality of SLR Magic lenses. I could use my Century for wider, mostly out-door (and thus stopped down) establishing shots as well as on longer, CU/ECU lenses where diopters aren't potentially disruptive. This would likely be my go-to lens that would also be easier to deal with for an AC. I look forward to seeing how this project progresses.

[quote name='Bioskop.Inc' timestamp='1353184331' post='21865'] So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go? [/quote] Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic.

[quote name='Stunko' timestamp='1353096133' post='21795'] Not quite sure why indie shooters are still using these anamorphic lenses? When professional film cameras are using non-anamorphics and just crop for Scope. And good luck finding a DCI-class digital cinema projector w. an anamorphic lens attachment. They also just crop. In fact, I had no idea that anamorphic lenses were still being made, with new models coming out now. Amazing. [/quote] Couldn't just let this go...I tried, just can't. Spherical 35mm (non-anamorphic) became more prevalent than anamorphic for two reasons: laziness and cost. Period. Super-35mm produces inferior release prints (not that that matters now) as an acquisition format. It's cheaper and arguably slightly easier to manipulate in post production, optically and digitally. Slightly. That slight edge in post throughput has been shrinking all the time and by now would be negligible. The math is a little easier with camera tracking and match-moving, in a digital FX environment. Realistically though, even before the age of digital FX these kind of special shots were more often acquired with an 8-perf 35mm system (VistaVision...the difference between VV and normal movie film is like the difference between shooting with a GH2 or 7D sized sensor and that of a 5D). You cannot recreate the composition of an anamorphic scene by cropping to the scope aspect ratio. Anamorphic photography captures a scene with entirely different spatial characteristics, within the 2.35:1 (or wider) two dimensional space, compared with standard, spherical photography. It's not just about flares and oval bokeh. Those are the cherries on top, not the main course. And none of this has anything really to do with projection. I don't understand why you'd even bring that up, other than you likely don't understand how any of this works. Movies have been acquired anamorphic and released flat for years (70mm release prints of Blade Runner anyone?) and spherical/non-anamorphic acquisition have come to theaters as anamorphic release prints. Oddly enough, the earliest digital projectors in theaters were 4:3 systems with anamorphic lenses, due to resolution limitations. Nowadays there's no need with 4K systems being very common, if not the most common. Acquisition and projection have always been two different issues with different concerns. The move away from anamorphic acquisition was one motivated by cost, without concern for the aesthetic ramifications. Thankfully some filmmakers refused to drink the corporate kool-aid.

[quote name='matray' timestamp='1353172311' post='21851'] I agree with that. 12mm F1.6 or F2.0 24mm F2.0 75mm F2.0 Single focus Bottom line is price range :) and diopter ! 1000$ each ? [/quote] Yes, if they worked like this I'd be there with bells on for $1K each, single focus, fast and with a really wide option.

[quote name='Kandre' timestamp='1353169409' post='21847'] I can't understand. [/quote] Fixed that for you.

I'd only be interested in a closed system if multiple lens+anamorphic combos were offered. Being constricted by a single focal (well, two if used with a GH2) would be as much of a deal breaker as dual-focus. For instance, if they offered a 25mm setup, like being demonstrated in their video, I'd get that if they also offered something in the 12-14mm range. Then anything where I needed more than the 25mm with the ex.tele converter on I could grab my Century + 105mm Nikkor or something like that. Something perfect for me, assuming a closed system with fast prime mated to anamorphic, would actually be three models, with a focal length falling somewhere in these ranges: 1) 11-18mm 2) 24-28mm 3) 75-85mm ...perfect would be models based on their 12mm and 25mm hyperprimes as well as an 85mm in the same ballpark for speed. These would be magnificent compromises that didn't feel like compromises. One model with one focal, not interested. Not unless it's a super-wide. That'd be useful to me.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353034256' post='21738'] We don't want focus through like LA7200, that doesn't work at fast apertures or with a shallow depth of field. We need the Iscorama style focussing method of prime at infinity and one focus barrel, no breathing. Agree dual focussing is a deal breaker (for me at least) and have made that clear to SLR Magic. I want them to package this as one lens with the prime and anamorphic focussing as one unit. Focus more important than having it as a stand-alone adapter in my view. Have a Kowa for that and don't use it because of the dual focussing. [/quote] Is the patent still in a stranglehold on the Iscorama though? That'd be great if it functioned like you're saying but I hadn't even considered it because of the patent.