richg101

Please post up an example of your own which shows 'good' skin tones. I seen no green cast here, or nothing that wasn't there in real life.

9 days straight? Not enough time. You prove my point. A guy who spends 9 days on something and decides to disregard it because he can't get good results. There are so many people with this mentality. they go straight for s-log or another picture profile without understanding how to get the best from them. other than subjectivity, please tell me what's wrong with the colours here? I see nothing wrong with them at all, and I did little to the picture in post

There's no way to get anything wrong IMO. if youre outdoors shoot with the correct wb for the setting. or better - go AWB - awb is surprisingly trustworthy in natural light. I trust it better than my own judgement in fact. if youre in mixed lighting indoors - tungsten, led's and a bit of light coming through the windows from outdoors, choose the wb setting which best suits - somewhere in the middle of them all, or the setting for which ever light source is the most important to be 'correct'.. again, AWB is often the most effective system for these problem spaces. Dont touch your r, g or b curves at all. just adjust the curves for the R+G+B until you have a smooth gradient from highlights to blacks and everything in between. 8 bit only seems to break up for me when I need to hit a single channel a lot more than another. if Wb is set correctly very rare does it take much more than a tiny tweek to one channel for me to see stuff I like. This said, I dont bother with log myself since my a7s needs an inch worth of ND's to bring the native 3200iso down to a manageable base! however if i was in a situation where I wanted to keep cloud formations unclipped i'd nd up and go s-log, with the correct wb setting for the scene.

Shoot log with your wb set up correctly and you dont need to do any grading at all! - just use your curves/levels to get to the contrast level which leaves the highlights unclipped, themids natural and the shadows not crushed. then boost saturation if required.

The canon has better colours argument is a myth. It's simply that people haven't become accustomed to how to set their sony cameras up properly. If i take an auto white balance picture as a jpeg out of the A7R and compare it to a jpeg from a 5dmk3 the 5d looks nicer. But if i process the image, the a7r image smokes the 5dmk3 image. With careful adjustment of the wb - temperature + the cyan/magenta etc adjustment a sony can be made to look like a canon and vice versa.

Here are some images showing my quickly put together test. literally ripped apart a m58 helicoid so it would slide over the original male thread of the original focus part. The front element was fitted into the helicoid. i'd meant to make it so the front element didnt rotate but in the process of reworking the helicoid I damaged it and therefore the front element rotates as you focus. No big deal, but it is actually possible to do this mod and have the element non rotating. As you can see in the pics the front part of the helicoid with the front element seated in place now unscrews. I actually used a rubber o ring cut to the right length which i squished around the front element. this naturally pushes it centre and is tight enough to hold the element in the front part. two shots are show. wide open at f2 on a 58mm lens on aps-c. (3:2). one at infinity, one at around 3 feet. rack from inf to 3ft is around 3/4 of a turn! Closing to f2.8 sharpens stuff up drastically. as does using on a smaller sensor - 4:3 4k mode on gh4 would be ideal for this lens flares are wonderful by the way! NB. this method of modifying the B+H was showed to me by the good man Nick (QuickHitRecord), who was actually going to be manufacturing focus units for the B+H design and made the concept public on this forum long ago. It was unfortunate Nick never got this to the manufacturing stage but i feel he deserves a pat on the back for making this public. Hopefully some other people can make a working unit like this one.

Gonna dig mine out and take some pics:)

you only need about 15mm of travel. i recon a m58 helicoid will work. TBH i cant even remember which unit i used, i just ripped it apart to get it to do what i wanted. mine wasnt the right size so i had to modify/step down. just measure the body with the front element housing removed and select a helicoid that will slip over that. if needs be you can pack it with pvc tape for a tight fit.

selecting a suitable helicoid (you can get various units with various diameters and focus throws on ebay) is a great start. grab one that will allow you to fit the front element into it, - maybe with some step rings + nd filter rings with the glass removed to mount the glass. then attach it to the front of the b+h. I successfully did this and its a great mod. i get focus from inf to around 3ft in around 90degres. its nt a razor sharp lens, but almost gives full coverage wit ha 58mm on aps-c. a 58mm and a gh2/3/4 will deliver great things. lovely flare and character.

I'd be very wary of disregarding the Iscorama purely based on recent products. So far I've not yet seen a single result from the new units that come close to the Iscorama for overall compactness, optical quality, character, etc on a full frame sensor. A pre 36 rama and a single coated 50mm lens on full frame is a wonder and delivers the widest proper anamorphic option available, and also the sharpest and most refined.

if the 1dc had an e mount and an evf it would be top of my priorities now both the price of the camera, and the media has come down drastically. All that useless mirror space eats up valuable lens compatibility. And now I've got used to the evf on the sony cams I'd never leave them.

Politics aside, this is great news. not just for anamorphic, but for just about any lens. I have some monoblocks for 70mm projection I'm gonna try one of these on. (hopefully it's good on a kowa b+h + fast 50-85mm prime. Now, if they made a premium model with the focus mechanism internal with no rotating front.... Andrew... Please put this up against the Iscorama in a high speed full frame shootout!

hahahahahaha. great article. That box is superb

Magical. It's the 40mm and 50mm lenses giving similar fov's to what we'd need a 16mm or 18mm to achieve on an normal alexa that give those expansive wides such a powerful look. wide, but not with the distortion of a super wide. That first shot looks like it's beinf projected on a curved screen. it wraps around! resolution looks amazing. if anything i'd like to see some film grain overlay on that just to take the edge off. almost too clean for the theme of the movie.

​You're seeing the L lenses. Probably the least filmic lenses available. I imagine if there were some cookes on there the image would look less digital. Camera tech no longer matters. it's the lenses that make the difference IMO.

great article Andrew! and a great camera with it.

i hope drones get banned altogether. will save us seeing any more tacky wannabe aerial footage.

​ I think it's the robotic quality of the motion (or lack of motion) - exactly how most cgi misses the point since it's often created by people who have little to no experience with physics and the laws of physics. the lack of limitation within a digital world means the people responsible for having to produce realistic cg means incorrect levels of physical constraint are included in the brief. IS is a new thing - in film terms (regarding miniature mechanical IS- in lens, moving sensor etc) . the fact that it's not within an Arri 435, an IMAX camera, Mitchell cameras, Panavision Panaflex's, AATONS, Alexa, F65, Red Epic. or in any of the flagship film making lenses used in Hollywood from day one. From day one (lets say 60 years ago) the lack of IS (as it is currently implemented in consumer cameras and lenses) has meant film makers have not had it imparting its look onto the picture. Since we're way past the golden age of cinema - it is going down hill on the whole. The golden era of hollywood started and died pretty much in unison with when John McTiernan started and stopped making films. There are some film makers still doing it right, Nolan, Tarrantino, etc but the new kids are coming and making films without doing their homework or paying their dues to the glory days. Who knows, if commercial cinema continues the way it's going IS will be commonplace in 50 years. But I know when I'm sat in my deathbed and kids are wondering why films like the Hateful Eight look so much better than the shite we'll be seeing in 50 years only a few remaining humans will know about what kept us in the real world. Physical objects, with weight and value. I know I'm mad and old fashioned in my views. But I'm pretty sure Tarrantino would agree if he had the time and desire to talk on forums:)

​I agree. But for the purpose of this discussion, I felt it's a point worth making. I get the impression most seem to think IBIS is the answer to lack of equioment and/or skills. Big sensors are associated with big productions. The look gives a feeling of heavy cameras and equipment that require heavy grip and skills in operating such equipment. Since we have over 50 years of film making history to look back on, it's carved a consensus and an association. You watch big budget westerns and you can see the weight of the equipment in the movement (and/or lack of movement in the camera work). I felt Chris Nolan's decision to hand hold the IMAX cameras when shooting Interstellar ultimately went towards undermining the look of imax. The shots were clearly required for the film, but the look could have been achieved with a smaller camera. The look of IMAX is not just the frame, but the huge film mags, huge cranes, etc that are usually part of the parcel. It's the same type of thing with people who have been sitting waiting for the a7smk2 in the hope of ibis to somehow add a magical usability to the camera. I remember watching Andrew Reids test of the oly OM-d with the ibis and thionking it looked cool, but also looked strange and jarring in the way the camera was impacting on movement. It didnlt look like the movies.

IBIS and In Lens Stabilisation are not for cinematic film making. they always exhibit a camcorder look - ALWAYS!. For stills it's great, but for video, if you can;t hold a camera steady you need to rework your handling technique. Add weight to your camera and build up your guns.

it's likely to be rental only, or for those who usually buy gear with intention of renting it out when not in use or who buy near the end of the financial year to offset their profits for tax reasons. Multiple thousands unfortunately, however being something that will couple with 35mm and longer lenses on full frame, or 25mm on s35mm, or 15mm on gh4 in 4k, with only the need for one anamorph, i imagine it will be taken on board by a lot of the rental outlets. - some of which have already confirmed they would like to stock multiple units. as a result, it'll rail mount onto almost any camera and turn 16:9 into 2.66 without needing to crop. and with a rear element of 62mm diameter it should give you an idea of the light transmission the beast will allow. Also being a unit not costing the rental houses 10's of thousands the rental price will be within easy reach of anyone serous enough to shoot proper anamorphic within a production environment.

here it is being used on aps-c and a ff58 with 1.5x oval. Very lomo-esq! the CA and softness i can live with. PS. this was decoated so flares up in a crazy way!

yep. completely different animal to the smaller unit you have. 3 elements instead of 2. focus adjustment. definitely happier on bigger sensors than the Century DS-1609, still limited, but has amazing flares since the element faces are enormous and its got that panavision style blue coating. funny thing is, the focus adjustment is handy for close up stuff, but if you set it to 5meters it'll happily get to infinity without the need to adjust both lenses. With the advent of the gh4 with its tiny sensor I think more people should be looking back at the century lenses - they are great when used on smaller sensors!, and go very wide

​ TBH I think both the rectilux and the fm deliver all that's needed in this market. 2x anamorphics are plentiful - kowa b+h and rectilux appears to be delivering good stuff on 25mm/35mm and 50mm on gh4 which equates to a 50mm/85mm and 135mm on 4perf s35. However I'd almost certainly need 25mm f0.95. 35mm f1.2 and 50mmf2 if I wanted to get anywhere near what a typical panavision set look like on s35 4 perf. Even then, the b+h will never allow users to get that 35mm 2x + s35mm 4 perf 'wide combination' - the expansive anamorphic wide setup. I'm currently developing a large 1.5x anamorphic lens with a spherical focusing section. Main criteria is to deliver onto red weapon vista vision sensor with a 35mm taking lens. this will match the fov and dof of a fast 2x anamorphic 35mm lens on 4 perf s35mm, Being 1.5x it'll be more compact and way sharper than typical fast 2x anamorphs. however the price point is gonna be rather high.