Bioskop.Inc

This & only this makes sense!

2.76:1 is the Ultra Panavision 70 and/or MGM Camera 65 widescreen aspect ratio (65mm film used & a 70mm print projected) - 35mm prints were 2.55:1. Normal Hollywood Cinemascope is either 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 - you pick. 2K cinemascope is 2048 x 858 (2.39:1) - so you can produce Cinema 2k resolution cinemascope with that combo. No idea how to do this in Premiere - can you do a custom timeline?

Damn, I've been thinking of going the opposite way, but the 2 ai-s lenses I do have are very nice - so I think different, not better.

Out of focus areas are a dream with the Meyer's, so for morph they are ideal - round/oval bokeh all the way! And its tiny!

Well its a lot smaller than the 135mm, that's for sure. I really use it for photography & haven't really gone morph with it much. Just looking at it now, the coating is a faint purple. I just bunged on my Kowa B&H & shone the iPhone light at it - it does flare, but not crazy mad stuff (you get the 2 horizontal, which looked a bit muted colour-wise - green & gold). The good thing is that it has loads of markings in ft, due to the long focus through, so it matches up to the markings on the Kowa B&H really well - no guess work or struggling to get perfect focus. I really like the lens & am not that crazy about flares anymore (unless they are internal) - what you will get is really nice bokeh & a lovely vintage creamy image. Hope that helps?

All the Meyer-Optik lenses produce great round/soap bokeh - the Troplan is the king. Its a bit like the Helios 40-2 is the king of swirly bokeh for the Russain lenses, but the Helios 44-2 also produces swirly bokeh. I got some really good soapy Bokeh from the Lydith 30mm f3.5 recently & the Orestor 100mm f2.8 is an amazing lens - the 135mm Orestor is known as the Bokeh Monster!

Yep, those Impulz LUTs sure look good! However, I'm not a sharpness freak, so I take all talk of that with a huge grain of salt - just does nothing for me, a bit like 8bit 4K. Really liked VisionColor for their Canon Picture Profiles - still use them for stills, as they are just the best. So no surprise that their LUTs are amazing. I only bought FilmConvert because at the time FCPX had no way of loading in LUTs. I think the mistake most people make with FC is leaving the sliders at 100% & the grain for Web upload has to be 150% or over for it to actually show up in any meaningful way (best grain out there, as kidz has said). And Ed was a life saver recommending the ARRI profiles, as the BM ones just annoyed me no end.

I really do hope you're right, since most of us won't be seeing this projected from a film negative - can't name a cinema anywhere near me that still does this, maybe in London. The only thing I would worry about, is how the film transfers to digital - I've seen too many films transfered to digital (Blu-Ray being the biggest culprit) where the original has been destroyed by a very poor scanning process (mostly in terms of how it renders the grain).

Man this is awesome! I saw Ben Hur, in all its eye squinting 2.76:1 glory, a while back. Would be a real shame if this wasn't available to watch properly!

I've been singing the 54s praises for ages now & I got the impression people thought I was nuts - I'll be having the last laugh now! Brand new, they cost £1602.79 (incl. VAT) in 2006 - which is what you pay nowadays.

Lovely, now I understand. So is this why they say these attachments cut a 1/3 f stop of light (or there abouts) or is this more to do with the light passing through more glass? And I suppose this also might explain a little about why the 36 appears to be sharper than the larger Iscoramas, but in reality it is forcing a higher F Stop which is sharper by default. So a 85mm f1.5 lens with an Iscorama 54 is spot on as a match. And in turn, does this explain why the 54 takes on more of the original characteristics of its taking lens than say the 36?

Well Tito, regardless of whether you were shooting at f1.2 or 2.4 (did expect it to be brighter, so that explains it), it still looked nice. Would be interesting to hear from Brian about how you calculate the math to work out if you're doing yourself out of a stop or two of light. So are you settled with the Rectilux as the best option for the Dual Focus anamorphic attachments?

I always thought that you were meant to get your footage to a neutral point (adjusting exposure & getting rid of any colour cast etc...) & then add a LUT for quick'n'easy colouring. But i suppose with all these different types of Log footage, it has become just too time consuming to do things manually & LUTs have given people a quick way to skip some important steps. I'm only using FilmConvert, as I like what it does to the footage (highlights etc...) & not always what it does colour-wise, so I find myself combining different layers in order to get the right colour space. Everyone takes a different approach, I suppose.

The best low light camera on a restricted budget? - Is the one you can afford, pure & simple. (800 euros was the amount mentioned) There is no best, just buy something, shoot loads with it so that you can learn its strengths & weaknesses. As far as the OP is concerned, all concert, theatre & ballet venues have lights, to varying degrees - never heard of a pitch black event, never. If you've been hired by someone to shoot an event, then you'll have full access to the stage etc... So you'll be able to shape the light (whatever the brightness/quality) to your advantage & you have to learn to be adaptable! The first gig I was hired to shoot was in a pub, with very few lights & the band were squeezed into a very tight space. I told them that video would be out, but could take some photos - they understood & were amazed at the pictires that i gave them. The last gig I filmed, the lights were too bright!!!!!! Had my ND filter on the whole time & I still had to stop down. If you just want to shoot things for fun, then you're screwed really - bands, venues etc... don't want anyone filming, taking pictures on big equipment (they hire people for that). If this is you, buy something small & compact or just use your phone.

Man, if the film is anything like the trailer...classic! Oh, I see you...that's my real problem! We need a sticky on this forum, so we can 4chan-ise.....

One day I hope it'll be possible to throw up via the internet, so that I can properly express my Distain & Disgust towards certain people. Until then, I'll call them as I see them!

Man...Loved the B-Movie vibe, really good! (Ignore the crazy guy, cause he's crazy!)

Better contrast than other Anamorphic lenses?

Lots of trial & error - you could also try ProRes LT.

You'll get better results if you export the master file from FCPX & then upload to Vimeo in ProRes Proxy, not H264.

Questions arise all the time in respect to Anamorphic Lenses & in the spirit of adding to people's learning curve, I thought the following might be useful/interesting to some or all. Found this forum topic ages ago on Cinematography.com & the opening post is extremely useful for anyone interested in Anamorphic lenses - its gives both advice for shooting & general info on highend lenses: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=4690 And this Vimeo clip was posted on BMCuser the other day & is probably one of the most useful tests I've seen in a long while - its a pretty honest test of some very desired lenses (watch out for the Todd-AO lenses, from the 1950s I think - hmmmm!):

That's good to know, as insurance companies can be a real PITA about paying up! That's not bad at all, price-wise & considering I don't have that much high value equipment anymore - it should be cheaper. cheers guys

I've no experience with a stylus, but the era of the Mouse is dead for me. I've been using the Magic Trackpad for over a year now & it has revolutionised the way I can communicate with my computer - its fully customisable. But a stylus would be a really useful addition thing to have for editing, so you could properly isolate a particular object in order to use a mask more accurately etc... Obviously, they already exist (Intious 5 etc...), but in conjunction with a touch screen, such as an ipad, that you could link to your computer properly would be amazing. I'm stuck in a Mac rut & I really hope that Apple will see the future sooner rather than later - I really would like to see a properly spec'd Mac Mini server model interacting with a larger screened iPad. Its a real shame when you can see the future & the companies just want to hold you back. It's like fast, cheap Broadband in the UK - they could do it without ripping people off, but the monopoly of companies won't allow it!

Thanks for the Photoguard recommendation. I've got my stuff on Home Insurance - not really happy with this option going forward. But the other important aspect of insurance, if you're filming in public places, is to get Public Liability. In this day & age, if someone gets hurt by you or your kit, you will be liable - i'm really careful, but nothing's 100%. Cheers - good topic

These cameras are obviously aimed at TV companies, Porn, Whatever etc... - something any Idiot, Runner or Researcher can use without really knowing too much about filming, a real plug'n'play. It's yet another upgrade to the very popular (back in the day) Z1 type camera - good if you need an all-in-one small camera that gives you broadcast quality picture & sound. People don't get why companies make these things, but they are so popular in the TV world & beyond - they get the job done and sell like hot cakes, a simple, no brainer.