QuickHitRecord

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350597297' post='19948'] Nice idea. I'll give it a shot! I'd prefer the focus of the collaboration to be on creativity. It's impossible to really compare the different anamorphics anyway since everybody is in a different place, using a different camera, different taking lens.. etc. Can we edit shots into a clip of max. one minute, or should it be single clips? What is your plan for the final result? Vimeo/Youtube? [/quote] I know what you're saying! I'm hoping that it will be a vehicle for both comparison [i]and[/i] creativity. Rich suggested doing a scripted anamorphic collaboration and I like the idea. This is starting small, but if this goes well and people are interested, perhaps we can try something bigger next time around. A series of clips is great!

[quote name='galenb' timestamp='1350597648' post='19949'] Nice! At first when I read the thread title I thought you where asking for matte box recommendations. ;-) The whole time I was reading I kept thinking, "well this one seem fine to me?" I have to confess that I've never really fully understood the use of matte boxes. I mean, holding filters and blocking light from hitting the lens seem to be the main advantages right? But I can just use screw on filters and use flags to block the light right? I always thought matte boxes where used to hold actual holdout mattes painted on glass. Am I missing something? By the way, you have one of the objects I lust after: SmallHD monitor! Mainly because I love their implementation of focus peaking. Sadly, I won't be getting one till I get a new camera. The GH1 doesn't have the ability to send a signal out the HDMI while shooting. :-( Cheers! [/quote] Thanks, Galen. As someone who shot with Fader NDs for years it took me a while to realize why I needed a matte box on my DSLR. I came across this little clip: [media]http://vimeo.com/26687398[/media] Basically, a fader is made up of a circular polarizer rotated against a linear polarizer so you are always polarizing your subject to some degree, and not necessarily controlling the angle of light that you blocking since most people just screw them on until they are snug and won't fall off. It became evident to me that a lot of my very flat-looking portrait shots looked that way because I had unknowingly polarized out the natural reflection that comes off of human skin. I thought about that, and also the fact that I am shooting through this glass -- it had better be just as high quality as the lenses that I shoot through it. It was a painful but necessary purchase, but now that it's over, I can focus on other things!

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1350596298' post='19946'] nice one man. I'll give you some Iscorama stuff and send over some stuff from when I had an century 1609. I guess when you say 'shade' this is for outdoors and you want a warm look? PS. make sure people give you info about the aperture. It's nice to see how wide you can go with each anamorphic element:) [/quote] Thanks, Rich. I think that a warmer look will go well if we get some fall colors in the shots. And good point about the aperture. I've edited the post.

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]I'd like to propose a collaboration: If forum members (or forum watchers) are able to submit clips shot with ten or more different anamorphic lenses, we'd have the most comprehensive anamorphic shootout on Vimeo. If we are able to put together shots from twenty or more anamorphics, this thing would be a definitive one-stop video for anamorphic footage comparisons [i]anywhere[/i]. To keep things cohesive, we need a common element. Something standardized, readily available around the world (as this is a very international community) and inexpensive:[/background][/size][/font][/color] [center][img]http://www.longislandpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/41GrnPg_1.jpg[/img][/center] So start shooting those Coca-Cola cans! Close ups, wides, dutch angles; portrait shots, action shots, landscape shots; people drinking from it, spitting in it, playing with it, crushing it, recycling it, putting out cigarettes in it -- anything you want. I'll try to include something from every clip that I receive, but please keep it clean (i.e. suitable for work). Some guidelines:[list] [*]Please make sure to use a standard 12 fl ounces/355 ml Coca Cola Classic aluminum can like the one above (or as close to it as you can get) [*]Limit the footage to one minute or less per anamorphic [*]Include original audio (no music, please) [*]No grading [*]White balance for "Shade" (or 7000 Kelvin) [*]Please stretch them to the correct aspect ratio [*]ProRes 422 codec is preferred [/list] So that proper credit can be given, please also note:[list] [*]Your name (or your handle if you'd prefer) & location [*]Camera used [*]Taking lens used (with aperture) [*]Anamorphic lens used [*]Any diopters used [*]Vimeo page (if you'd like me to link to it) [/list] Send me a private message if you have a clip to submit, and I will tell you how best to get it to me. [b]Please submit by 12pm (New York time) on November 1st[/b] so that I can start the edit. This could be a neat little collaboration and I hope that it is, but it's really up to you guys. I hope to get a lot of messages!

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1350589099' post='19941'] Looks fine to me (but I get by without a rig, so my vote doesn't count :-) But the whole rig looks way too front heavy on the tripod... should be balanced much further back IMHO... [/quote] You are right about that. I have some plans for this rig. I'll be flipping the baseplate around and adding a riser and shim so that the swing away base can slide back [i]over top[/i] of the baseplate.

I just picked up the updated Cavision 3x3 matte box to use with my GH2 (website image below; pictured here with a T2i): [img]http://www.cavision.com/pictures/T2i/MB3485&T2IWITHLEDP.JPG[/img] It's a compact, fully-featured swing-away mattebox for about $350 that is compatible with high quality filters that seem to go for 30-40% less than the 4x4 filters. Cavision had to modify their swing away to work with this smaller matte box but it works well. I also ordered the 52mm to 85mm Deep Offset Step-Up Ring (AR85M52), and extra filter trays. Here are some first impressions:[list] [*]Quality is okay but not spectacular. I would never stand on one of these things like they do in some of the tests. It's a bit plasticy -- on par or slightly better than the DMatte. [*]I am concerned about build quality of the hinges that attach the flags to the matte box. They consist of plastic shafts that house long tightening bolts. It feels to me like that kind of plastic that may crack easily with repeated use or age. I have removed them for the time being because they add a lot of bulk. [*]The filter trays that come with the matte box are very lightweight plastic. I am not sure that I'd trust them with my expensive Schneider 3x3 filters (which fit perfectly). However, the extra filter trays that I ordered separately are aluminum and feel much better in my hands. I'll be using them primarily and keeping the plastic holders as backups. [*]The rear rotating stage kept getting stuck the first couple of times that I used it (I think that there was a stubborn ball bearing in there somewhere). But after I broke it in, it works very well and turns pretty smoothly. [*]The swing away is all aluminum and feels well-built. It works well in this setup. The 15mm bracket that hugs the rods sits 2.5" or 3" behind the matte box, meaning that I am attaching my Edelkrone FocusOne Pro follow focus [i]in front[/i] of it. I am very glad that I have this follow focus with this matte box, because with its one point of contact I can slip it onto one of the rods and then slide it underneath the matte box before righting it. [*]With the deep offset ring, this matte box does NOT vignette with my SLR Magic 12mm on my GH2. [*]This whole setup will be greatly improved with a sleeve (i.e. "nuns knickers") to keep it light tight. Cavision is working on one but I may rig together something myself in the meantime. [/list] Though the build quality could be better (especially the flag hinges), this matte box is the perfect size for the GH2 and any other DSLR. I have always felt that 4x4 matte boxes were too big for small cameras. I have assembled my kit to be lightweight and functional with nothing extra, and this matte box fits right in. Here are some snapshots: [font=inherit][size=3][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_40366.jpg[/img][/size][/font] [font=inherit][size=3][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_113892.jpg[/img][/size][/font] [font=inherit][size=3][img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_143404.jpg[/img][/size][/font]

Beautiful footage.

From what I remember, it is installed [i]behind[/i] a cine taking lens (and this is something that needs the touch of a professional, so it can't be easily swapped out like a front adapter). Also, it eats up a lot more light than the front adapters; I seem to remember three stops. Tony will know more.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350560546' post='19900'] very nice footage indeed. did you do much post? [/quote] Moderate grading. The deep sunset shots weren't pushed very much.

[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1350529179' post='19883'] footage is nice. the design of the lens is classic the back cylindrical convex optic is about 5mm to small. so you get smearing,ghosting and a little double imaging . if it had of been a little bigger it would be a beast simply relationship between focal length of taking lens and importantly massive size difference between 2 optics coupled with focal length of iscomorphot i suppose it is a question of finding the perfect taking lens. i have had some and they where in pretty poor shape it is quite a complex lens amazing for it's time really. it was designed for bolex reg 8 so amazing it does that well. i gave up on them because i could not find a perfect one and i did not want another dumb 6 month repair job. [/quote] You are right about finding the right taking lens. So far, I like it best with my Nikkor 85mm Non-Ai f/1.8. Second place goes to the Helios 44 (with which I shot the video above). And I really do not like this lens with my Nikkor 50mm AI-S f/1.8. The edges are soft and there seems to be even more ghosting.

This is a new benchmark. I think that we're only 18 to 24 months away from ALL new professional cameras offering 4K. At this rate, I'll be surprised if it's not in the next iPhone.

Looking forward to the 25th!

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350492944' post='19861'] I don't see much reason to hate it :) Which Iscomorphit is it? 8/1,5x or 8/2x? I'm waiting for my 8/2x to arrive. My first reasonably small anamorphic.. Curious how it will work out. [/quote] It's the 8/1.5x, like this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_27471.jpg[/img] Isco couldn't let things be too simple, so their Iscomorphot 8/2x and 16/2x are a completely different series that looks like this: [img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/7307238896_31593601c5_z.jpg[/img] I believe that both of those are dual focusing. I have seen some wonderful footage from the 8/2x.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1350488234' post='19852'] Let the chastising begin, lol. [/quote] What do you think this is, Personal-View? ;-) Thanks for the workflow. I have Premiere on my work machine so I'll give it a shot.

I can't decide whether I love this lens or hate it. It is very easy to use with rack-focusing and no need for diopters (focuses as close as 1' or so) but there is often ghosting if I shoot faster than f/4 or sometimes f/5.6. But at those apertures, it acts like a shallow DOF amplifier. Still, I do lose the light. Here it is coupled with my Helios 44: [media]http://vimeo.com/51600001[/media]

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1350440923' post='19835'] I would love to know more about this shooting style with anamorphic in mind. Whats the benefit from just shooting with OCT-18 over just adding black bars? Resolution? Since Im still in the process on getting started I would love to hear more info on this subject if anyone can tip more or lead me to some really good articles on it. [/quote] Take a look, this is a good place to start: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide"]http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide[/url] But be warned, it's an addiction.

Here is a composite of the Quicktime screen grabs for the time being: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_471134.png[/img] It looked different in Photoshop. The FCP side actually looked cleaner. After the new file was created for posting here, I'm back with an image that reinforces my initial observation. I am sure that someone more knowledgeable than I can shed some light on this.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350422595' post='19825'] Squeeze factor changing because of the focus distance? That sounds quite inconvenient... Is it possible at all? If I squeeze the still to 3,55:1 (16:9 x2) it looks more natural. [/quote] I don't understand the optics behind it, but that's how it appears to be. At least in my experience with my OCT-18 set.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1350424361' post='19826'] Hi Even though you feel the settings shown provide good results, the settings don't make sense with regard to luma range and matrix. It's AVCHD off a GH2 so BT709 is the matrix and GH2 encodes into 16 - 235 luma 16 - 240 chroma so limited range not full range. QT Player screen shots are not really reliable, QT auto scales the levels and upsamples to 4:2:2 and then converts to an RGB screen grab, so don't think the screen grabs are reliable. Also the method of providing grabs is so painful, is it not possible to just provide a zip download and better still the sample GH2 clip you're testing then others can actually make a comparison if anyone is interested. :-) [/quote] Good points. What is a better way to go about posting accurate screen grabs?

My crusade against color banding on the GH2 continues. The Flowmotion hack (v2.02) minimizes banding as well or better than any hack I have tried, but I still get unusable shots from time to time. Today, I used FCP7's log and transfer to import a single clip with banding issues. Then I used 5DtoRGB to process the same problem clip and exported every possible combination to see if there was a magical setting that would stop color banding altogether. There isn't. But somewhat unsurprisingly, ProRes 4444 / Full Range / ITU-R BT.601 seems to be a significant improvement. Here are the settings: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_2014.png[/img] Andrew has posted about using these settings (or with ProRes 422 at least) to preserve color information, but it seems to have an effect on banding as well. To see for yourself, you can go to my photo album on this site ( [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/album/15-5dtorgb-vs-gh2-banding-problem/"]http://www.eoshd.com...anding-problem/[/url] ) and download the screen grabs. For best results, I recommend viewing them in rapid succession in a program like Preview like this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_497834.png[/img] The only downsides are that the files are about twice as large as good old ProRes 422, and it takes MUCH longer than FCP7's log and transfer window.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350414925' post='19818'] The aspect ration in the still with Lily & Niklas seems a bit off though? [/quote] Andrew's not kidding about the breathing. I literally think you're getting a different stretch factor at each focal extreme (like 2x on one end and maybe 1.75x at the other). If I ever take one of these things into a production environment, I'll tape a step ring to the slate for reference so that I can adjust each shot.

I'd love to have the opportunity to shoot with OCT-19s. But since I don't see that happening in the near future, the OCT-18s are optically identical for less than half the price.

Funny stuff, Rich. We need more of this understated humor on the internet.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350304843' post='19777'] i'll definitely put some footage up,.. gonna take a bit more over the next couple of days. here's a still for the time being though, straight out of the Nikon v1 with its 2.7 crop. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/21346/507bfa33f40e1_anamorphicslippers.jpg[/img] observations so far: - this particular kowa doesnt seem to be a x2. unsqueezing the still i unsqueezed about 1/3 before it started looking relatively normal, which surprised me as i thought i had quite a ways to go before it started looking right. what does that equate to? x1.5? - i did the same thing in sony vegas, a par of 2 made it look fat. a par of 1.75, less fat but still clearly fat. par of 1.5 looked about right..... but i think it can be refined a bit more. i need to film something i can compare infront of me when unsqueezing. or am i calculating wrong? - the lens is really clean as in it doesnt seem to impart too much of its own character apart from the squeeze. - with a 50mm takumar f1.4 it didnt really flare. might have to try it on my jupiter 9. - its a dual focus of course, but it doesnt seem as hard to do as some of the horror stories i've read online. what i found the easiest was to get in position, focus the taking lens, focus the kowa, then move back or forth till everything was good. this lens being so tiny is probably what made it seem not so bad. - the rear thread is about 28mm, making it a couple of mm's larger than a C-mount. i got in touch with a guy who reckons he can fashion some attaching adapter with a regular filter size for it,... i'm thinking about it. what little footage i took today, i quite like the look of. wasnt expecting it to be less than a x2. i've mostly been watching x2 anamorphics on vimeo and youtube as i figured anything else would be way over my budget. luckily it works well on the nikon v1's teeny sensor. m4/3s, i'm guessing it'll vignette as much as any other c-mount lens. [/quote] This looks more like a 1.33x. But if you shoot something that is perfectly round like a step up ring, you'll be able to unstretch the object precisely and know exactly what the stretch factor is. I'd recommend starting a new thread for this lens. I don't think that it has ever been discussed here.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350274831' post='19771'] i just took delivery of this lil' darlin': [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/21346/507b8b90cb9dd_DSC_0962.jpg[/img] its a kowa prominar anamorphic-8, and that's an AA battery. the rear thread is just a tiny bit bigger than a C-mount. I've got a nikon v1 so i'll take that out to play with this afternoon. i've got no way to mount/attach so guess i'll have to handhold it for a quick test. my first proper anamorphic, apart from a massive nikon projector lens i picked up to play with last week, but so far its nice and sharp and focuses to under 5ft. or atleast the focus ring turns to waaay after the 5ft marker. cant wait to head out this afternoon :D [/quote] Please share your test footage. I am very curious about this lens.