Sean Cunningham

Some really beautiful shots in there. Good job!

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1353027228' post='21726'] This might be just my ignorance but what's wrong with the LA7200? It seems like it would work a lot better then all these goofy projector lenses? [/quote] I agree with you regarding the projector lenses. Dual-focus is a no-go for anything but the most patient of experimental filmmaker. It's for people who want the look more than they desire sanity, if they're actually shooting a film with actors and all kinds of people that are usually, already waiting on camera to be ready without such exotic toys in play. I'm assuming (hoping) the SLR Magic adapter is focus-through as well. Dual-focus is a total deal breaker for me. The problem with the LA7200 that this test already shows this adapter is an improvement on is sharpness at wider apertures without a diopter, and in the case of the LA7200 an even more rare, more expensive diopter than the venerable Tokina. I'm not sure what it's lower threshold is but with my Century I can't be tack sharp at any focusing distance open wider than F2.8 without a diopter (which affects FOV).

I'm impressed by the sharpness of the SLR Magic adapter at F2 and know the Century/Optex can't go there without a diopter. I wonder if this is the lower threshold for this particular adapter or if it could sustain even wider apertures without the need of a diopter. Regardless, I'd be interested. Even though the Tokina is a very, very slight diopter we must contend with an already limited lower threshold at wider focal lengths with M4/3 as it is. I can do 18mm with my setup, and can live with that and make that work but there will always be a part of me that wishes I could go wider, particularly outside. It would be amazing if this adapter could be used on their own super-wide hyperprime. I like Michael Mann and Peter Berg, who often live in the close-up realm for most of a picture. But I also like Sergio Leone and widescreen used for maximum effect, like it was originally designed to do.

[quote name='QuickHitRecord' timestamp='1352726112' post='21507'] And as far as shooting video goes, it seems like it would be near impossible to mount this sucker! [/quote] iPhone anamorphics! :D

I'm sure one of their points was also being able to focus through so that it can be effectively used as a proper filmmaking tool with an AC pulling focus.

Tony Scott style telephoto shots framed as mediums.

Fair warning, there's some lens flaring in here but that wasn't the reason I shot this. Honest ;) http://vimeo.com/52214451 [color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]I was about to pack it in because I just didn't find anything interesting to shoot this night, testing out the Century Precision Optics anamorphic adapter with my F2 Nikkor 24mm taking lens, the widest, fastest prime I currently own. I was looking for suitable "horror movie" settings. Then I heard a noise by the front door.[/background][/size][/font][/color] [color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]Originally I thought it was a bat, since they're all over the Austin area at night. Well, that seemed interesting, though it took me a few moments to decide if getting a rare shot was worth the risk of getting bit and/or dropping my GH2. Just as I worked up the nerve to creep up to where I thought it was at I realized it was a bird.[/background][/size][/font][/color] [color=#71767A][font=sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(244, 245, 247)]No post enhancement besides aspect ratio correction. Shot at F2.8 so I didn't have to also equip the Tokina.[/background][/size][/font][/color]

They say its time has passed but I like the character in my [url="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35f14ais.htm"]Nikkor 35mm f1.4[/url]

You might consider this option, which is available and free for both Windows and Mac. I've used Blackmagic before as well but haven't kept up-to-date on how or if that codec is still a viable choice anymore. [url="http://www.avid.com/US/industries/workflow/DNxHD-Codec"]http://www.avid.com/US/industries/workflow/DNxHD-Codec[/url]

There's a youtube series done by these guys based (now) in Dallas called Film Riot. They do lots of DIY and FX stuff and started fairly regular challenges with their viewers, kinda like this, giving a common element or set of elements and then collecting folks submissions. Surprisingly they get some fairly involved, sometimes unexpectedly decent, narrative submissions. I like where this is going!

It's not uncommon for a DP to do a test shoot with their planned lens package. Even among the same manufacturer, sometimes a particular lens might have a different enough character from others on either side of its range that a judgment call has to be made if they'll stick with it. Lenses can have noticeable contrast differences. Some can exhibit pronounced distortion at edges, under certain stops, compared to another. Bokeh can be really different. You could get slight color casts with certain lenses. What you need is to know all of this up front, or know that you don't have to worry about it. If it's distracting under the test situation it will be distracting in a film. Know what you can live with, what you can correct and what you'll be stuck with before the real work starts.

Good to know, thanks!

http://vimeo.com/50804931 ...nothing epic here, I just decided to cut together the first clips I shot as soon as I got my Century Optics mounted to my GH2. The sun was starting to go down so I thought it'd be a good time to go check out the little nature trail behind where I live. 14-42mm @ 18mm and a couple shots at 42mm, no post sharpening, standard firmware. I was expecting to have to mount the Tokina. I'll have to do additional tests with the 1:1 Ext. Tele mode because the one shot where I test that felt a little soft to me but that might also be the limits of this kit lens (I'm hoping not the Century Optics).

This last weekend I shot some footage at a local import tuner car show. Because I haven't got my lens splint yet I went with the 14-42mm kit as my taking lens. I have a nice set of Nikkors adapted to my GH2 but walking around in a crowded place with that much weight stressing the camera body didn't seem like a good idea. All but maybe two shots were at 18mm and roughly F4 which meant I didn't need to attach my Tokina. It's also worth noting I haven't enhanced the footage and this was with currently un-hacked firmware. The very slight softness and chromatic aberration at the edges of frame actually looks quite nice to me. In many ways the results remind me of Panavision films from the '70s and '80s (ie. John Carpenter). [media]http://vimeo.com/50594617[/media] ...I love, love, love this lens.

Century Optics is easily adapted to Nikkor lenses. I get none with my 24mm Nikkor on the GH2 (With the GH2's kit 14-42mm I've been able to open it up to ~18mm without vignetting).

What stop were you at? How much was your DOF? Seems like a good move being able to market yourself bringing something extra. Most industrial shooters (that I've seen) tend to be very conventional.

Sorry guys, I've been moving and out of town and all sorts of stuff distracting me and haven't been here in a while. I agree it's more a LCE technique but I attribute that to using it with a small filter size (set by the blur filter applied to the layer doing the enhancement). Larger filters brings out more of a broad enhancement that achieves a pseudo-HDR look with single images. It's essentially the same methodology used in a very specific way. I think the LCE is more of a secondary effect for people trying to create the pseudo-HDR look where in my case it's the primary focus and broader tone enhancement is, more than gravy, but still very minimal. I made the connection to Tone Mapping myself, and perhaps in error, after picking up a book on HDR photography and reading their chapter on achieving an HDR look with a single exposure. The above images were created with four layers in AfterEffects. Three of them are duplicates of the comp and the fourth is my grain layer. I chose to render out a loopable clip of my hero grain settings because that ended up being faster than computing the grain filter every frame. YMMV. The top copy of the comp contains my chroma filtering and the chroma portion of my color correction. Depending on the footage I'll either do a horizontally bound blur of only a few pixels or median filter which smooths the chroma sub-sampling in any non-raw footage. With the 7D footage I found that I got the best results by actually doing a median filter. This filtering also took care of the moire and noise that was most evident in the fine, blonde hair of our lead actress. The blending mode for this layer is COLOR. The next layer down is where the LCE/TM techniques were used, on a luma-only copy of the comp. This layer is essentially comp'd with itself internally using a gaussian blur technique like was outlined above. The method I went was based on a technique I found for building a high-pass filter in AfterEffects since there wasn't just a drag and drop version of the filter like in Photoshop. The blending mode for this layer is OVERLAY. The next layer down is just a luma-only copy of the comp. The effect of these three together is all the contrast enhancement happens where our eye actually picks up on detail and edges, in the luma content. The net result is contrast and details are enhanced without muddying or adversely altering colors and potentially stronger manipulation of colors. The film grain layer I've used on top or below the color layer, with a blending mode of ADD, SCREEN and OVERLAY. You get subtle variations in the final look based on your grain source so I don't think there's a "right" answer here it all depends on the look you're going for. In the case above I used OVERLAY. I wanted most of the grain to be visible in the mid tones. This helped to dither the sub-sampled, filtered chroma and make it feel as organic as possible.

[quote author=yellow link=topic=920.msg6700#msg6700 date=1341126681] ... Also the great work done by Lowry Digital, now Reliance Mediaworks on movies like Zodiac http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/April2007/Zodiac/page1.php & BB http://www.moviemaker.com/producing/article/lowry_digital_the_curious_case_of_benjamin_button_brad_pitt_20090203/ processing the Thomson Viper source files. ... [/quote] Oh, and this is an especially revealing bit of info.  Here is one of the single best examples on how technique in-camera and technique in-post has [i]radical[/i] implications on the end result of a film.  Here are two films that look like [i]films[/i], shot on a Viper.  Clearly, David Fincher has a more masterful grasp of how to use digital imaging tools than Michael Mann had during a similar period, a director (whose films I've loved even longer than Fincher's) who used the same camera to shoot [b][i]Collateral[/i][/b] and [b][i]Miami Vice[/i][/b], two movies obviously shot on some form of video device.

That's awesome, thanks for posting the links to the Boyle podcasts! The thing I really like about a lot of these techniques is the use of the image and information in the image to enhance itself rather than deforming its values based on a static "handle" or "dial", affecting the image in a broad way.  It seems counter-intuitive to me to follow the practically universal advice that electronic sharpening should be turned down or off in-camera, down or off in-monitor/projection but then okay to apply these same techniques with their same limitations and artifacts through slower software applications.  Image-based techniques actually take more horsepower but the proof is in the pudding...or rather, absence of easily spotted artifacts.

I posted these images to a topic in the anamorphic forum, since it's an additional example of adding grain in post to enhance DSLR video but perhaps even more important is I did not apply any form of traditional sharpening kernal to achieve the improvements in clarity you see here for this Canon 7D footage. Here are some examples from my most recent project, showing 7D before and after (de-moire, mild tone-mapping for sharpening, simulated high-speed grain from AE, MagicBullet grading)... [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/2nsxv1g.png[/img] [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/2d9p91x.png[/img] [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/2jexyqb.png[/img] [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/dm9snt.png[/img] [IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/z8ffp.png[/img] [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/33u75he.png[/img] ...top two scenes were shot with the kit zoom (car interior with the camera mounted via StickyPod) and the bottom CU was shot with the f1.2 85mm L which is an amazing, amazing lens. Anyway, as I said, I used a tone-mapping technique on the luminance channel only.  You'll see that I wasn't pushing the technique so far as to go for its pseudo-HDR look.  This method not only provides sharpening with a much higher threshold for false-edging than traditional sharpening but by processing the chroma separately and then re-combining it with the luminance channel I'm able to also do chroma-smoothing/de-moire.

Adding at least subtle grain, post color-correction, is just a nice sweetening step regardless of anamorphic or not.  It helps with banding and gives the image some texture that makes it feel less clinical and antiseptic.  AfterEffects has a pretty decent grain generator with several film stocks replicated.  Compositing mode can also influence the look greatly independent of the actual smoothness coarseness of the grain and whether you're working in linear space, etc.  I tend to use OVERLAY but there are cases where ADD or SCREEN can work too.  Applying grain through a keyer is also sometimes preferable (for instance, on the House episode shot on a 5D they only applied grain to the highs and mids and not the shadows). Target resolution grain applied to lower-resolution, blow-up imagery is a trick I got taught way back on True Lies.  It works really well when applied with some finesse. [b]EDIT[/b]: here are some examples from my most recent project, showing 7D before and after (de-moire, mild tone-mapping for sharpening, simulated high-speed grain from AE, MagicBullet grading)... [IMG]http://i47.tinypic.com/2nsxv1g.png[/img] [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/2d9p91x.png[/img] [IMG]http://i49.tinypic.com/2jexyqb.png[/img] [IMG]http://i50.tinypic.com/dm9snt.png[/img] [IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/z8ffp.png[/img] [IMG]http://i45.tinypic.com/33u75he.png[/img] ...top two scenes were shot with the kit zoom (car interior with the camera mounted via StickyPod) and the bottom CU was shot with the f1.2 85mm L which is an amazing, amazing lens.

Pretty sure the edge performance has to do with not using an achromat like the Tokina.  Redstan in the UK still has some NOS, not terribly expensive and I think I got mine delivered in about two weeks.

Standard sharpening routines tend to introduce as many artifacts as benefits (or more).  You might try, instead, using mild tone-mapping techniques on just the luminance channel of your footage and then re-combine a filtered chroma pass.  This offers a far superior end result (it also takes care of the moire inherent in Canon footage). Breaking the image apart like this also allows for potentially deeper color grading of 8-bit, sub-sampled source footage, letting you push it a little bit further than you otherwise could treating the imagery as a whole.

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=795.msg5741#msg5741 date=1338379624] Does the use of 2x epics in 3d mode equate to wider fov? [/quote] No.  I'm pretty sure the slight extra image at the periphery of each eye is ideally masked in projection because the lack of image overlap affects your perception of depth in that area.  The right and left edges of frame are rather critical to resolving depth properly without miscues or a headache.

Unless you see an oval bokeh I'd expect they framed for 2.35:1 on the S35 sensor the same way you get 2.35:1 with an S35 (spherical) film camera...you just crop.    S35 is a crop format, designed to release in 1.33:1, 1.5:1, 1.6:1, 1.77:1, 1.85:1, 2.2:1 or 2.35:1 either by hard masking or by using a ground glass with reference lines and cropping in post.  It's the King of Compromise. 70mm (65mm is the taking format) is/was standard for high quality, non-anamorphic release prints of 35mm films.  This is how folks saw films like Blade Runner "in 70mm" even though it originated as anamorphic 35mm.  The larger area allows a non-anamorphic release print to achieve or surpass the sharpness of a standard anamorphic release release print, especially if the film originated in anamorphic 35mm.  Originating as anamorphic 35mm and then releasing in non-anamorphic 35mm is basically like taking a big dump on your film.  Hell, originating as non-anamorphic 35mm and then making release prints in non-anamorphic 35mm is like taking a big dump on your film.