Tito Ferradans

Hey Dude! Regarding your first question, no, that is NOT the FF equivalent, but the cropped lens. You can use the calculator and most of your issues can be sorted out! www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go It doesn't have specs for the GH5 yet, but I'm sure you can work it out based on the GH4. Zooms are not ideal for many reasons, especially because of the design, which favors vignetting from the adapters. Good luck!

Thank you! :D

That I know. Double focus.

Hey Mike, Thank you! :D The Kiptar is too big for me now. I never had one and I don't fancy it too much. But there's definitely someone in this forum that has one and loves it.

Here's what I got from using the Anamorphot 2X on the 5D3 - http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8331

Hey Sean, do you still have any of those?

We have the same saying in Brazil! :D Yeah, in the case of ML, cropping goes smoother on the card. I was thinking and maybe I didn't express myself quite right at the start. I started this rant because of the amount of messages I get from people saying "My camera doesn't have a 4:3 mode, so I'm not able to use 2x stretch lenses" and stuff like that. I don't know what leads them to think that.

THIS guy! :P

now THIS is more like the arguments I was looking for. When it comes to the GH4 (and 5 - as well as any Canon shooting ML RAW) I know they have increased sensor height when shooting 4:3, but most people requesting the feature just seem to neglect that. I didn't mention before, but this thread is a case study for an upcoming episode. I want to make people realize that "just" a 4:3 crop is no big deal. :P

Ok, I get it that you take advantage of all the pixels in 4:3, but if you have no EXTRA pixels is there really an advantage? You get bigger files, but, are they big enough to impact your workflow? I don't mean that for high-end cameras, like RED or Alexa, because these will indeed clog your edit, but for DSLRs and mirrorless cameras the difference is pretty small. It's just like filming 4k for outputing 1080p. You get a lot of room to play with reframing. So, if anything, shooting 16:9 would give you an edge because you can reframe your shots in post. Also, cropping the sides is not really hard in any editing software, and framing on set isn't hard either since most cameras have guide frames and you can enable a 4:3 guide in order to see what's "in your shot". For monitoring, it takes 5 minutes to make an accurate cutout of a 2.4:1 frame (I've done it many times for directors who couldn't understand a 3.56:1 frame. So, if we're not really getting any EXTRA data, just "making less leftovers", is it really a problem? With a 16:9 readout, you can use any anamorphic. With a 4:3, you can only use 1.78x compression or stronger.

I wanted to understand why is everyone so obsessed with 4:3. Is it because there's more height pixels, or because of the aspect ratio itself?

I like the social quirkiness of this test! And mind power desqueezing is already enabled for me. I don't have a monitor for 90% of my shots. The best I have is 4:3 frame guides when using 2x scopes. :P

Thanks Timotheus! I'm happy to hear! Yeah, I thought about that, but if I didn't test it on full frame, people would be asking about that. And to figure out APS-C, you can disregard most of the edges anyway and visualize with... *the power of your mind!*. hahahahaha. Just kidding on that last bit, but I think it's easier to estimate APS-C performance from full frame footage than the other way around. What do you think?

The review details it. 1.2m

Thanks, guys! Lots of people weren't fans of Image Quality, according to the comments on the review. I think it would be better on a smaller sensor.

And here's the review -

I'm posting a full review on Sunday! :D

Heeey everyone! As a way to say "Thank you!" for helping me get to the 3000 subscribers, this week I put up a CineMorph filter giveaway along with the review. Yep, FREE GEAR. You can find the rules and reviews at the blog! http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=13998 And, if you're looking for much higher chances of winning, join me on Patreon! Besides the better odds, you'll be helping the channel to grow better and faster. :) http://www.patreon.com/anamorphic Thank you!

Both for $500? If so, then I'm in. The best I can pay for one of these is $300. I already have the Foton and the Anamorphic block.

THIS IS SO GOOD!

Yeah, but not if you're selling them for $500.

shot by Matt Leaf, using a Kowa 16-H, rangefiinder and russian primes on a RED camera. Matt has been putting his Kowa to use in various music videos here in Vancouver - BC. Here again, Kowa B&H and Elmo II with Rectilux, russian primes and 5D3 shooting RAW + BMPCC.

I'll come back when I find words to describe my reaction to this. For now, I'll stick with "mindblown and mesmerized". How strong was the diopter you were using? Just triple checking, it was diopters AND macro rings? How are you doing this crazy light that moves so smoothly with such beautiful hues and shapes? Damn, I need an episode on this.

I second that!

Thanks Cary! I'm working on something similar. In the meantime, I continue with the weekly episodes. :D