richg101

overlay a fine 4k grain. gives vimeo something to bite into and it sees the grain as detail that needs to stay.

i'm not aware of media technology. is this type of card faster than a sanny extreme pro 95mb/s?

already working on one. but mine has a 2.20:1 aspect ratio, and a imaging area width of 65mm - 10mm wider than system65 mine is only full hd. but the aesthetic kicks resolution in the balls.

full frame lenses, cropped by a aps-c or m4/3 sensor will deliver far greater image quality over the entire frame than a lens specifically designed for the smaller sensors. this is one of the advantages of using a smaller sensor. for the same reason i've had to resort to using hasslebald and shcneider medium format lenses on the A7R (full frame sensor) since i find very few full frame lenses can deliver right to the edge when open any more than f8. using my 80mm planar hassleblad lens at f2.8 on the a7r is sharper at the edges than my 85mm sonnar (full frame lens) is at f8!

Go get yourself a stiff drink mate - you sound like you need one!

I haven't bothered reading the review, -I didn't feel the need after watching the movie and to me it really shows how the camera is delivering a moving still photograph. In this piece you have created a really interesting look - one that I'd love to see more often. The posing with living movement is lovely. It would work incredibly for artistic life photography, dynamically lit. Looped as a digital artwork. Or an artwork that captures a subtle movement like that from trees blowing in the wind in a beautifully composed landscape shot.

if they take a similar 36x24 8k sensor as used in the d800 and a7r and do a lovely downscale to 4k. give us S-Log as 4;2;2 xavc at sub 200mbs, straight to card this will indeed be exciting. However, i see the pricing as being a rental only option for all except those looking to make purchases to offset their earnings to lower their tax brackets.

hdmi output is not clean. its a 1080p signal, but you have overlays over your image meaning external recorders cannot be used.

plugging in a screen to the hdmi port will disable the lcd and send the signal to your external screen. as said the ev1s will also allow you to use the 5n without the screen.

it does make me chuckle when big companies try and capitalise on a current fad without really understanding why the fad actually became so. They've done what BMW did with the MINI. Take the essence of something great then remove all of the qualities that made the original great in the first place. Just how purists laugh at 'New MINI' owners driving around in their oversized Fisher Price car, The guys with the humble Sankors, Kowas etc and Helios 44's will laugh at the guys running around with these nasties on the front of their L lenses trying to get the look and feel of a lomo for a movie about a financial services corporation or tacky wedding.

the GH3 doesnt need fucking hacking! - its great the way it is. If you can't get good things from it you need to find a new hobby!

hehe. I was just going to chip in and vouch for Tito - not that he really needs it here. I have experience with the Century lens he is selling and have to say it is an incredible lens. About 5x better than the normal ones. 3 optic design. produces real ovals (if 1.33x, but more pronounced than the modern 'copies'). on a side note, @ Julian, if you purchase tito's lens, it's indeed a wild number! One of the earlier ones. When you get it feel free to send it over for a update to current standards - Tito never took me up on the offer, but you being in the Eu, shipping means it's not as much of a heart ache. infact, it tito wants to send it over to me en route I'll give it a going over and stick a nice shiny brass badge on there too:)

Stunning indeed. The things of dreams

The little beast certainly delivers in sharpness and in character terms. flares are lovely. It's not just the fact that they tend to vignette on full frame with anything but the longest lenses, but what a lot of people forget to factor in is light loss of these little anamorphics. They simply cannot transfer enough light. try a 85mm lens on aps-c or 135 on full frame and you'll notice the actual exposure on the sensor doesnt change when you open up the aperture wider than f5.6. granted the depth of field changes, but the actual light trnasmission cannot accommodate the amount of light required at the bigger apertures. Though if you have the light available this isnt an issue. - however for the costs of the xtra lighting the iscorama could have been bought..

I'm impressed too. there appears to be a funny thing happening on the blown sun spot on the black magic? - it's gone red. I assume the redraw is subjected to no sharpening, while the blackmagic uhd pro res is sharpened in camera in some way? the black magic seems to ping a little more on the very fine details. conversation about resolution aside, it would only be the wider sensor area of the epic at 5k mode that would tempt me away from the black magic. Can you buy 20 or so black magics for the same price as one epic?

Your solution looks better than i expected, but I think the resolution loss due to the wide angle adaptor you are using is rendering the concept not a viable option IMO. You have a raw enabled 5dmk3 there and the lens solution is not feeding the camera with resolution it should be getting. a jupiter 85mm f2 and a £150 sankor 2x will deliver 3 times the resolution, even with the huge amounts of cropping you'll need to do on the 3.55:1 aspect ratio in order to obtain the 2.35 you're currently looking for. to give you an idea of what i am talking about.. This video was shot on the Sony NEX5n. avchd, with 24mbs and a mushy 1080p mode which is less than half the detail of 5dmk3 hacked for raw. This video i feel highlights exactly the resolution gain you get from using a 1.5x anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor. if i had cropped away 1/3rd of the image from the top and bottom rather than downscaling the 2552 x 1080 workflow to 1920x 800 (approx) the resolution would have really fallen down. Granted the iscorama is a £2000 investment, but damn does it make the most of the limited resolution the camera captures! - i've enabled downloads should you wish to see the video in a better light without vimeo compression.

there are some physical constraints.. firstly, a 0.7x focal reducer is about as thick as can be fitted into the space between a e mount and ef mount lens. the greater the focal reduction, the thicker the optics become. it's also harder to obtain good results from greater levels of focal reduction in limited space. also, a 0.5x focal reducer on aps-c will need lenses designed for image planes bigger than 36x24mm full frame. metabones have just released special adaptors for use on the black magic pocket with stronger focal reduction, but this was only possible due to the smaller sensor of the pocket. the same level of reduction would be very hard to deliver high quality when coupled to a bigger image plane. if anything you should see the m4/3 situation as the optimal use of focal reducers since it crops away the edges of the image that a aps-c sensor would normally capture. Aps-c with a 0.7x reduction is as close to full frame fov as you'll ever need. but the true full frame aesthetic will never be attained without a full frame sensor. -On paper the way a full frame sensor resolves depth of field and fov using a 50mm f2 lens is the same as an aps-c sensor and the same lens with speed booster. However the intricate steps between in focus and out of focus subject matter is resolved differently and the full frame setup will have a more defined 3d 'pop'. a set of olympus OM lenses can be had at f2 apertures right down to 21mm if budget can meet their costly but deserved market value.

You deleted your poor example I see? and changed your username? Come on man, why are you here other than to try and play devils advocate? Your discussion was moot over at the cinematogray.com forums. If you're going to come onto a forum signing up specifically to try and belittle enthusiasts of anamorphics at least have something to back up your bold statements. Until we see you provide a direct comparison of your solution versus a well arranged anamorphic solution such as those i have mentioned, your debate is moot.

come on guys. the image below is shot with what looks like a lens that is twice the focal length. obviously the framework on that derelict pier is going to ping more on the image below - it fills twice the amount of imaging area!. and the image on the bottom appears to me to have seen less subtle sharpening in post. Finally, depending on the lens and the light source the edges of the framework are going to bleed differently due to the contrast differences between sky and framework. Those grabs are less than worthless in the debate

Out of curiosity i searched for some test footage of the cinemorph in partnership wit ha wide angle adaptor just to check to see if I was maybe being a bit harsh on the setup you propose. This video seems to back up what I mean :- http://youtube.com/watch?v=fbiNdfHTtfU Yes, the defocus distortion is there like anamorphic - almost, but damn it looks forced. Even at 1080p you can see how both the cinemorph and the wide angle adaptor are degrading the image quality to the point where discussion about resolution are null and void. Now, maybe you have a higher quality wide angle adaptor and a better taking lens combination than what this test was shot on, but if we now go to something shot on a 5dmk3, helios 44 and iscorama 36 you will see a stark difference in the overall image - expose differences aside, even in then sun, the setup in the link above will never, and i mean never compete in resolution, cinematic aesthetic , or in overall beauty terms.

David Mullen will have been talking about 2x anamorphic since this is the normality in motion picture work he is involved in- in which case their 3.55:1 ratios resulting from a 16:9 sensor and 2x anamorphic will need cropping off the sides to obtain 2.35:1, and therefore the sensor area is removed in the same way you are doing, only from the sides instead of the top and bottom. but with a 1.33x or 1.5x anamorphic you're not needing to crop any or very much at all from the sides. - way less than the 1/3rd of the sensor you are throwing away. Only once you have used an Iscorama and an 85mm on a full frame sensor will you be able to consider what we are telling you. Until then you simply will not be able to comprehend. Anyway, my primary point is that you will never be able to match the aesthetic of a 85mm and anamorphic on full frame simply by using a wider lens and cropping. depth of field is ultimately determined by sensor area. and the lack of need for such harsh cropping when using a 1.5x anamorphic means more sensor area is seen by the viewer. It's the aesthetic that your setup will be missing - you won't notice it's missing since you haven't used an iscorama/85mm on your camera.

I disagree. anamorphic still allows attainment of greater resolutions, even if the exported piece is 1080p. you're using all of your sensors real estate and if your timeline is 1080x 2550 you're then applying your post workflow to a lot more pixels - sharpening processes benefit most from this. then the downsizing of 800x 1920 during export then squeezes all of that additional real estate into a smaller area. rather than binning 1/3rd of it. Cinemorph fronts impart incredible amounts of light loss to obtain the oval distortion. and also impact on the overall image sharpness due to hindering the front light gathering surface of your lens. Additionally the flares look stuck on. And we have not even started talking about the fact that in order for you to get the same fov I can from a 85mm f2, you need a 50mm f1.2 to match the depth of field/field of view ratio without an anamorphic, and even then the look of your cropped image will look like it was captured with a sensor 1/3rd the size of the material shot using the longer lens, the larger imaging area and the anamorphic lens.

The BM pocket aint consumer level. It's nearly impossible to use for anything pro, let alone for consumer use... The average consumer doesnt spend £300-£400 on media to get an hours worth of recording time, a decent evf, rigging, and lenses to fulfil consumer purposes. The gh4 will deliver everything a consumer needs while also servicing the enthusiast, professional and semi pro sectors.

It's funny. i was discussing this in a round about way with a colleague earlier on. The downscaled 1080p from this is going to be rather tasty indeed