A Y

The DPR review video of the SL2 is shot with a Summilux-C 29mm T1.4. The image is gorgeous: clean but not harsh. Too bad the lens is only .... $41k! ?

I'm curious if anyone has been cross-cutting Nikon footage shot in flat profile and Panasonic Cine-D footage. I've been using the D500, D810, and G85, and will soon add a D850 to the mix, and while the Nikons are relatively easy to match (they're not identical despite using the same manual WB and profile settings), I've had a really hard time getting the G85 footage to match. The G85 is nice because it's small and can be flown easily on a gimbal, but still has great image quality.

Thank you! I found some other 4k clips in the footage thread, and indeed editing 4k isn't a problem for the Mini, at least for simple stuff.

Does anyone know of any sample footage SOOC from the GX80 that I can download? I'd like to see if my computer can handle editing 4k files. It's a 2012 Mac Mini with a 2.3GHz 4-core i7 and the built-in video on that CPU in case anyone is using a similar configuration to edit 4k already. Thanks!

Thanks. Do you have anything covering the glass elements on the anamorphic lens, or are they just bare inside the flight case?

Andy, I have one of your Technoir mounts, and it's great! I wonder how you transport your anamorphic setup to a site. Do you align the lens and mount it in the Technoir indoors before you leave, or do you align it on-site? It can be difficult to setup in bright sunlight, but mounted in the Tecnoir holder, I'm not sure how you transport it while keeping the ends covered up to keep the glass elements from getting dirty.

I took some pictures of the Tecnoir holder and Schneider anamorphic lens with various taking lenses while out and about playing with it.  On a Sony NEX-5N, f/1.8 at 50mm will vignette, as does f/2 on the Helios 44-2.  I'll post the stills from the shoot later.   Another interesting thing is that shot in stills mode at 4:3, the unsqueeze ratio I have to use is 1.5, while it's 2x in 16:9 movie mode.   Canon EF 200/2.8 (works, but focusing is very, very finicky due to shallow DoF)   Canon FD 50/1.8.  Works great, but vignettes wide open.   Helios 44-2.  Works great, nice flares, but vignettes wide open.   Tamron FD 135/2.5.  Works great, too.

I'm curious if you think Canon's APS-C cameras also share that quality? I've never used any of their DSLRs that could shoot movies.

I love JJ Abrams's Star Trek.  I have no idea how Avatar could have won anything that year compared to Star Trek.   Anyway, in the making-of feature on the BD, it's also revealed that he is personally shaking the camera in every shot.  Apparently, only he can shake the camera in the right way, and the CGI guys had a tough time trying to replicate it too.   I'm looking forward to lightsabers casting crazy anamorphic flares in a couple of years!

The Justin Timberlake B&W Bud Light commercial looks like it's anamorphic based on the oval bokeh and the big horizontal flare in the beginning:   [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0R3-_5xnQo[/video]

You turn the round knob in front.  There was a discussion about this lens a while ago with bigger pictures of it, too: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1352-schneider-kreuznach-anamorphic-projector-lens/

For me, the most awe-inspiring sequence starts around 8:14.  Apparently, no expense was spared in this production as they used a Doggicam Super Slide to shoot that shot (and lots of others), and the DP's promised a BTS video of that sequence.   Also, interesting in that sequence is that you can easily see softness in the lens off-center (look at the skater's feet as he comes off the shelf thing around 8:35).   The director says that they used Hawk anamorphics in the NoFilmSchool article, but the DP says they used Kowas.  I wonder if they used both or there was a miscommunication.

Did anyone else see this recently?  Red Bull sponsored a short film on 4 skateboarders that's shot in anamorphic on various cameras, including Phantoms.  It's really cool that anamorphic is used on action/sports stuff since we don't see that kind of use very often (or even at all?).   Some technical details:    http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/red-bull-perspective-skateboard-film-anamorphic-red-epic-phantom-flex/   [video]https://vimeo.com/60119125[/video]   From the comments:   [quote] Thanks Jon! We shot with two epics and one phantom flex, all were outfitted with Kowa anamorphics.  We shot everything 5k anamorphic so you can actually see a 4k version (titled original) on redbull's youtube page. One Epic was always at 24 fps, the other jumped around from 24 to 72. If we had enough light we would tend to shoot around 500 fps on the flex. I'm not sure what redcode we used. In the end it was all raw for the best color session. [/quote]

Use a sparse disk.  Because of the way FCPX gloms things together, sparse disks are the best way of keeping all your projects separate, and easily transportable (or deletable in your case).   Chris Fenwick explains how in a video in this blog post: http://chrisfenwick.com/home/2013/2/19/tutorial-fcpx-and-sparse-disks.html

Re. your company's name, did you know there is an audio electronics company named Schiit? :)

It does read very broadly.  What can be infringed  and sued over are the claims in the patents.  For example, claim 1 of patent 8,174,560 describes a portable video camera that can compress 2K-resolution and higher RAWs by at least 6:1.  If you have a portable video camera that does 5:1 RAW compression, or perhaps a video camera that's not portable or perhaps a video camera that does SD or something else that doesn't fit all of the specifications in the claim, then you haven't infringed.   Claim 2 covers a color version of claim 1.  More claims talk about where the storage may be (inside and outside the camera), and then more variations on a theme.  It looks like they cover non-portable cameras too.  

The AdobeRGB version looks more contrasty to me, but you can also use a histogram to see the actual differences.     In case you're wondering, I'm using a browser plug-in written by a friend to show the histogram.  It works on almost every website except for Facebook, I think. Get it here for Chrome: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-histogram/kgefpfienchbbehcjnmbmogdigoedhaj

Roger Cicala does still photo resolution tests on the Speed Booster.  You can see how it improves resolution in the center, as well as the SB's intentional sweetening of bokeh wide open with a bit of uncorrected spherical aberration.   http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic   He's going to also try it out on a Canon 50/1.0 just to see what happens, even though the adapter is not designed to work with lenses faster than f/1.2.

According to Metabones, the maximum aperture of the lens being adapted, mostly due to space constraints, is f/1.2, resulting in approximately f/0.9.  Roger Cicala over at Lens Rentals is going to try a Canon 50/1.0 on it just to see what happens.     http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/01/metabones-magic   The Speed Booster white paper talks about the Kubrick NASA/Zeiss f/0.7 lens, BTW, which used a focal reducer as well.

Apparently, it vignettes when used on at least two longer lenses:   http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3369560   Everyone publicly so far has been testing it with shorter lenses.  I wonder if the vignetting is caused by any kind of telephoto lens, or just those of a particular design.

Brian Caldwell talks more and answers some questions about the Speed Booster here:   http://nikongear.com/live/index.php?/topic/47313-speed-up-your-lens/page__st__60#entry378097   Look for the "brianc1959" username.

There are distortion and MTF simulations in the whitepaper.   The designer writes on Lloyd Chambers's [url=http://diglloyd.com/blog/2013/20130114_6-Metabones-Speed-Booster-Caldwell.html]site[/url] that the MFT version has an "entirely separate" design, and that they decided to go for quality instead of cost savings:   [quote]We designed an entirely separate optical system for micro 4/3. However, the magnification is the same as the NEX version: 0.7x. In order to get a significantly smaller magnification while maintaining excellent image quality we would have had to get much closer to the image plane with our optics. Unfortunately, the m4/3 cameras don't allow this.    The good news is that the performance of our 0.7x optics for micro 4/3 is really good, and I expect that some pixel peepers will prefer it over the NEX version. If you look at the MTF curves in the white paper you can see that the m4/3 version gives higher performance in the corners than the NEX version. We could have saved a lot of money by re-using the NEX optical cell for the upcoming m4/3 Speed Booster, but we decided to maximize image quality instead.[/quote]

Also, after some cyber-stalking :ph34r: , the designer talked about this design on DPReview a while ago:   http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2733577#forum-post-42427797   [quote]   Designing focal reducers to fit 35mm SLR lenses onto mirrorless Sony NEX and m4/3 cameras is most definitely feasible. The design isn't easy because there is very little room to work with, but if the magnification is restricted to 0.7x it can work surprisingly well at large apertures. Prepare yourself for optics as fast as f/0.90 by attaching a 0.7x (more accurately, 0.707x) reducer to an f/1.2 (more accurately, f/1.2599) SLR lens. And the reducer actually improves the MTF of the lens its attached to since it de-magnifies the aberrations.   Expect some interesting news later this Fall. [/quote]   He says that 0.71x/1-stop is what they can do given the physical space limitations.  The whitepaper also says that they could design something that will take faster lenses than f/1.2, but that the lens element closest to the front would be impractically huge in order to receive the light rays for big apertures.

+1 on reading the whitepaper: http://www.metabones.com/images/metabones/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf    There are all sorts of other really interesting benefits of using the adapter, including helping alleviate the wide-angle lens problem (eg. magenta corners on Sony NEX-7).   Also, just from reading the whitepaper, I don't think there is going to be a 0.5/2-stop version for MFT because they give examples in there for MFT using the 0.71x/1-stop reduction.   There's also an interesting discussion of Kubrick's use of the Zeiss/NASA 50/0.7 for Barry Lyndon, which had an integrated focal reducer in it.

it appears that your MBP has Thunderbolt, so you could get an external PCIe Thunderbolt chassis and put an Nvidia GPU in there.   Check out the video in this article: http://www.pixelworkshop.com/2012/05/02/slot-card-racing-mac-pro-gpu-speed-tests/