richg101

canon 7d sensor (aps-c) is pretty close to s35.  about 2mm difference if that.  

    with a bit of sharpening the image will be usable if the full frame is needed.  just like the 5dmk3.  it would be nice if the full frame image were as sharp as the 4k clip, but due to whatever downscaling canon use, I think it's impossible.   s35 will appear a bit sharper in this test due to everything being so much closer due to the crop ('near'apsc (s35) vs apsh (4k).  I imagine if you cropped each so the frame covers the same area of the image the 4k will look sharper.  

  nah.  I did do a rescore of sunshine which got a bit of interest on youtube and was used in a short film a few years ago.  the original music was by john murphy and underworld.   mine was like a homage to the film and it's original score.  simplistic, but i am quite proud of the track:) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6lRfku_cjQ   nex5n is quite good.  not as sharp as gh2, but imo better than the rest (and very cheap at the moment too).  the f1.4 rollei zeisses are things of kings.  and command king's price tags.  definitely on my list of purchases.  35, 50 and 85mm all f1.4 would be a lovely setup!  f2.8 is normally fast enough for me.   main reason for the russian lenses for me is the large number of aperture blades which produce perfect circular (or oval for anamorphic) background blur.

rollei zeiss (series 1) have a nice family and share very similar colour and contrast. I currently use the 35mmf2.8, 50mmf1.8, 85mmf2.8, and 135mmf4 on aps-c sensor. an with the iscorama. I currently looking at making the switch to the helios, mir and jupiter combo myself due to the extra stop available on the jupiter versus the 85mmf2.8 using the gh2 you could instead go:- 25mmf2.8, 35mmf2.8, 50mmf1.8 and 85mmf2.8 and get a nice working matched set. unfortunately the 25mm is very expensive and in demand. the rest are easy to source. very clinical and sharp. and on the gh2 I imagine this will be more obvious.

wow.  the initial wide shots are superbly sharp.  really like the location.  superb

  s35 crop mode appears to be true 1080p with no downscaling.  1Dx wont do this.    5k is still cheap if you factor in that most buyers of this will do so with intention of making use of it as a still cam too.   I've seen plenty of good stuff shot on the fs100 and fs700 with their 'crappy' 4.2.0 in camera recording 

the 12k price tag is null and void. since you are also getting an industry standard $8k stills camera for free within the 12K price. so your remaining $4k buys you the best performing high iso 1080p 4.2.0 money can buy. and that's not counting the 4k and c-log.

shouldnt cause focus problems.  and hopefully shouldnt vignette either.  

http://www.texasmediasystems.com/PDFs/eos1dc-im-en.pdf    

nice idea.  you mean set to auto iso and adjust the aperture slowly so the iso compensates?  Shame, I just got rid of an unused fluid aperture zuiko 50mm 1.4 which would have been ideal for this

im done with this hilarious thread.  im not arrogant.   just believe in what I say because it's based on my own experiences.  it's not about me.  i came here offering advice based on my experience, and if you all rewind you will see I originally stated my points were 'IMO'.   go whack a 12mm lens on an la7200 if it makes you happy.   go tell kids to do the same.      im sorry if you got offended by my comment about your video.  you have taken it the wrong way.  my point was that in broad daylight, shot at f8 or probably smaller aperture, any lens will be sharp.  the video of the car is sharp, but at f8 it would still be sharp even with a plastic lens.  I never once questioned the artistic or technical ability of the footage, just that it is not a viable example of a lens wider than 35mm (equivalent! for the umteenth time!!!!!!!, do none of you get this?)  and used where selective focus (at wider apertures) is an important aspect.     cheers for the over the top retaliation by searching out my own stuff and slagging it off.  It's sad you misunderstood my point and took it so personally you felt the need to try and get one over on me by attacking my stuff.

in that light, set at f8 (or more closed down which i imagine it was) id cover a soligor/century in vaseline and still get it the same sharpness. i've got this sharper at f8-f11 from 300mm focus distance on a 28mm lens on the century. show me something with some selective focus. some talking heads? that footage is ok, but it wont cut it anywhere other than a vimeo test shoot. set it to f2.8-f4 and come back with something. anyway, 25mm on gh2 is within my criteria so again you are yet to prove me wrong. 25mm equates to roughly 35mm on aps-c. seems like mr rhodes wants to prove me wrong for some reason. I'd like him to prove me wrong with his footage but this wont happen

yes

  nailed it.     I almost died as the first shot black bars (which are not pure black) were animated to flow and direct the frame to the top.  sublime how that worked out.   my only crit would be that I'd like a short cut, which is more selective of the shots and lasts about 2.5mins.  I got what I wanted from it in that time.  also, use a single frame more regularly too, with the animated black bars:)     top work!

anyway.  my point was to make people aware that choosing a taking lens so wide it cannot be used with 'la7200/optex/century +tokina achromat' combo is a bad mistake.  My other comments were to fortify this.      it's been blown out of all proportions now.  IMO, in anamorphic terms, 35mm is a wide angle, 50mm is normal, 85mm is long.  simple. 

ps.  this was a 28mm on a century + tokina on aps-c.  aperture was opened up to f2.8.  literally no natural light.  iso was about 1600 so blacker were horrid hence the crushing.   vimeo.com/52579247   no vignette, but it's pushing it.  without tokina it wouldnt have been half as sharp.

thats a gh2 so in effect your 28mm turns to a 37.24mm lens when compared to an aps-c sensor camera (this is what I am using as my benchmark. nice footage too. but you got the upper hand by using a bolex, when the brunt of my argument is in regard to the la7200 and similar. your little bolex is not so dependent on diopters either so is not really a good example. I would still say I would certainly not consider the image quality worthy of use on a low budget production as a replacement for a set of good normal primes which could be bought for the same money. I don't think the sharpness would stand up when projected. Just to point out I am not trying to be-little or have a go at anyones work. My main reason for joining this discussion was to try and make a point against all these people who are forever trying to change the rules of physics and causing confusion to people who might be looking for information. My demands are high and maybe I am in the minority, but just because a lens doesnt vignette doesnt mean it is creating good quality images. a 25mm on the gh2 is a good match for a 35mm on a nikon/sony aps-c. So any examples where a gh2 is used will need to be shot using a taking lens wider than 25mm before i consider it proof that using wide angle lenses and losing ability to use the affordable tokina 72mm is a worthwhile setup. I'll also need to see footage which has been shot at f4 or wider to f2.8 ideally. width is only useful if it is of a high enough quality IMO. if you cant use the tokina +.4 on the la7200 and your desiered taking lens, it is not worth spending the £700+ the la7200 commands because though it is anamorphic, it dont look good enough for anything except toying around.

    what you disregard is that when he talks of wide lenses, the 35mm anamorphic is considered wide.  with a 2x squeeze he is effectively getting 17.5mm wides.  35mm is wide.  not one of the true anamorphic shots in the McTiernan documentary is shot with a wider lens than 35mm from what I can see.     I challenge anyone to provide a sample of good quality footage they have shot using any anamorphic lens available on any large sensor camera (m4/3'rd and up) using a lens wider than the equivalent of a 35mm on aps-c.  When I say good quality footage, I mean footage that exhibits image sharpness up close and at distance with distortion and CA levels which warrant the use of a setup that will require a diopter set costing £350.   I'm not saying you can't shoot with wider than 35mm (or equivalent), but what I am saying is that the results wont be worth the outlay you'll have to put down to make it work.  and even then it wont be usable for anything other than random footage.        @ ZMU   re. your comment:- My favourite combo: Kenko +.3/7200/Voigtlander 17.5mm f.95 [other fav combo: Kenko +.3/7200/Olympus 14-35mm F2 [crops around 20mm] cam: GH2/AF102   please post up some samples.  if they prove me wrong i will shut up:)

  it's a bias I have come to based on personal experiences.  My reference to Panavision just became moot on paper since you found some specialist lens they offer, but in the real world, just because they offer a few specialist wider lenses doesnt mean someone with an LA7200 or Century (which are limited as they are) should go to lengths to achieve non standard wides which lack usability and cost the earth to undertake due to needing diopters costing £350+.  If someone is considering spending £350 on a single diopter specifically for an la7200 or century they must be mad because the obvious step would be to just get an Iscorama which is sharp out of the box.   105mm diopters are very specialist with limited userbase meaning they dont come up preowned on ebay very often, and dont sell for much when they do.  so you lose lots of money when that huge diopter is no longer needed when you realise the only option is to upgrade the anamorphic part.     The fact remains that if a taking lens choice disallows you use of a tokina +0.4 within the combo, the extra width is moot due to the fact that in order to clean up the ghastly edges and CA you need to invest in a bigger diopter (and you cannot get +0.4 diopters in 105mm)   in another topic it was brought up that a +0.4 diopter on a -0.4 anamorphic (such as the la7200 or century) bring the lens back to 0 - hence why you can still acheive infinity focus when using a tokina with the century or la7200.  i am not aware of the specific reasons why the tokina improves these anamorphics in this way but I cant stress enough how important it is that the use of the tokina is factored in when deciding on taking lens width.

don't let smaller size dictate your diopter options. a 72mm diameter wont vignette on any usable focal length. if it vignettes with a 72mm diopter it means you are using too wider taking lens and likely will be full of CA and edge softness anyway. a nice rule I feel should be made testament when using any anamorphic adaptor (based on the fact that panavision offer 35mm widest option (designed for 4 perf 35mm film). If panavision and users of panavision dont feel the need for wider than 35mm on anamorphic then why would anyone else?:- s35 or aps-c:- no wider than 35mm taking lens m4/3:- no wider than 25mm taking lens (providing similar field of view to a 35mm lens used with s35 sensors) s16mm:- no wider than 16mm taking lens (as above) if making decisions like using a 12mm taking lens are dictating your diopter choice your priorities are wrong. Just because people dont see vignette when using a gh2 with a 20mm pancake doesnt mean the images are lacking in other nasties like CA and horrible soft edges. Id rather use a longer taking lens, get less edge distortion/CA and be able to use magic diopters like the +0.4 than use a wider taking lens and have to invest £350 in a century diopter of 105mm. just my take. re. attaching diopters. buy some panels of balsa wood, 10mm thick (easy to cut with a scalpel), cut a 72mm hole in it so the tokina sits in snug (use the outside edge of the tokina as your stencil). cut the balsa wood so it is the same size as the front of the la7200. glue some neodymium magnets or velcro to the balsa wood and the la7200. remove the diopter and then stain the balsa wood with a wood stain that dries hard - so it absorbs into the wood and wen dry adds strength. in order to ensure you get as little possible vignette you want the diopter to be as close to the front element of the la7200 as possible

It's not true. the iscos are really worth $4k IMO. because it allows self shooters the opportunity to shoot anamorphic in near the same quality as what the current pros use. They say invest in glass rather than a regular camera upgrade. Hire a pro camera when you need it, make do with a dslr when it's not for a specific job that needs more. I see fools walking around family attractions taking mindless snaps of their family with grey canon glass and know they paid more for it than I paid for my iscorama. And i know their photos never benefit from the added expense their grey glass cost. I couldnt afford to pay $4k for an iscorama. I bought a faulty one with separation and have had it fixed. I got it cheap. but the lens i own is worth 4k - even if i only paid a quarter of that! + a bit on repair costs. I do feel the price some people are paying for the moller 8mm anamorphics is a little silly. No more than 2yrs ago they were going for £400-500. I like the look people are getting from them, but from the uploaded footage I have seen I cant see them being much use on a production which has the aspirations of being screened on something bigger than a pc monitor. I'm yet to see any footage from one that truly blows me away. the image looks lovely, but sharpness is important, and shows big time when projected. I have had one of my pieces screened publicly and was amazed how an 8ft screen watched from 8 ft away shows up lack of sharpness (even when the projector wasnt very high definition). re. local availability. I bet it is hard to track down stuff like this in hawaii! Being in the uk I think we have the upper hand when it comes to finding treasures yet to be put up on ebay. just 2mins walk from my house there is a little camera shop which regularly has sankors and eikis for £100 displayed in the windows. seem to be ten a penny here in Bristol!

Something I have been wondering recently.  It seems everyone with a dslr that happens to use movie mode now and again is suddenly labeling themselves as cinematographers.     I remember a day when if someone told me they were a director of photography or a cinematographer, they would have shot something real.  Back in the days of playing with Sony Handycams, - which at that point they were in the same price bracket as a dslr, The people making short films, and skate videos with them would have never considered themselves 'cinematographers'.  Does a dslr with a 50mm f1.8 and the resultant shallow dof warrant the camera owner to label themselves as a cinematographer?     I guess it is an attempt to make people take them more seriously?  I'd be happy undertaking 'camera operator' role in my own, or a friends film, and would be happy to shape the visuals in my own style, but would be worried about advertising myself as a cinematographer who is given artistic license to drastically shape the visual aspect of a proper production.  I consider myself artistic and have an eye for beauty, and trust my artistic decisions for my own scripts but would not yet label myself a cinematographer.      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematographer://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinematographer   Reading this initial description on wikipedia, I would certainly not agree that any more than 1% of the dslr showreels you see posted on forums, with the label 'cinematography portfolio' shows the ability of someone I would want to employ to undertake the role of shaping the visual aspect of any film I wanted to produce.   The dop's shooting stuff like Poirot were creating cinematic stuff for tv but even they probably didnt refer to themselves as cinematographers.  but more DOP's.  So why are 19yr olds labeling themselves as cinematographers?  in the same bracket as men we see with A.S.C and B.S.C after their names?  just seems mad to me!

most people go mac because they think it makes them more creative and professional - I love seeing these idiots flaunting thier apple macbook pro's on the train. though not worth 4 times what an equivalent windows based machine costs, an apple is better overall. the hackintosh idea brings the benefits of the apple workflow, to a pricepoint the same as a windows pc. The 'Hassle' isnt really hassle, but more effort. The argument is that Apple is losing it's edge due to a change in direction and windowns is improving meaning the apple benefits are getting smaller. I still prefer my hackintosh than any other pc. It runs smoother and with less hassle than any pc I have ever owned, from custom builds to off the shelf dells etc

Im on a hackintosh.  I mirror all what Andrew has said.  im running an i7 2600 overclocked to 3.8ghz, 16gb of 1600mhz ram, ssd, and a cuda nvida gtx 460 card - the cheapest one which worked with apple.  running on Lion.    a mate of mine configured it.  superb machine.  lightening fast.     a few funny things I have found with mine:-   1. Parts of OSX seem to be defaulted to some type of arabic text - which I am unable to work out why.  This is not affecting workflow but is a bit annoying.  - certain windows such as the cd burner window has all text in arabic.  most things are not affected though.   2. The internal sound on the motherboard is twitchy - definitely use an uprated soundcard.  using the inbuilt sound on mine means that if you import some audio into premiere and play it back you lose audio on youtube / vimeo due to some conflict somewhere, and you need to reset the machine in order to get audio back.  again, not that bad really.     3. When using some of the usb 2/3 ports on some occasions and with certain hard drives, the machine tries to boot from the portable usb hard drive.  as a result, when you shut down to restart after disconnecting the usb hd, the system changes the boot setting to ram speed of 1300mhz.  If this happens I just need to restart and go into the boot menu and reload the optimised user setting we saved originally so the system is set up to run the ram at the correct 1600mhz.     As far as everything else is concerned, I am over the moon.  cost under £900 including Lion and a genuine apple keyboard

  it's all for nothing comparing the 1dx with the c300.  the thread is about the best full frame.  in which case, the 1dx is indeed one of the best.  Everyone and their grandma knows the c300 and gh2 will be sharper than the 1dx.   even a 1dc wont be a step up if full frame coverage in video mode is required because the full frame mode on the 1dc is the same as the video capture on the 1dx.  only when in s35 crop or aps-h 4k mode is the 1dc any better.   From what I see, the 1DX is marginally better than the 5dmk3.  Nothing else is comparable.  d800 had the edge with clean hdmi, but it is known that canon will release clean hdmi on it's 5dmk3 soon.   Nikon is for still photographers.  And unless they wake up soon they wont have any video market share.