Hans Punk

@Julian Great vid Ah yes, my mistake...looks like 50D is still the best crop sensor choice for the money. (£200-250 in a recent BIN ebay search) If 4k is not a deal breaker, and you would not mind a fairly clunky workflow...it seems like a no brainer, you get sooo much bang for your buck.

Before I upgraded to 5D3, I had a 7D. I removed the mirror and mounted a PL converted OCT-18 Lomo Squarefront. That was necessary to allow that larger lens to seat further into the camera body. I believe Tito on this forum did the same to his 550d for his Lomo foton + square front. If you can pick up a decently priced 550d or 7D, this is something that may be worth doing (depending on lens type you plan on using) - or just have a s35 raw camera that plays nice with more lenses. The 550d/7D has lower resolutions than 5D3 when running ML raw, but can still produce great results for a low price. Again, if it's for short-form projects and experiments it is really great - if you need a camera that you can roll for a long time or has embedded audio in a small video file, not so much. Current specs on ML enabled cameras can be found in the ML forum: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum

Many Canon DSLR's running ML raw video can shoot 4:3 aspect, the 5D3 can shoot the highest resolutions of 1600x1200 pixels in this specific aspect (continuously)....or higher resolutions in shorter 'bursts' - until the buffer/card tends to choke and stops the recording. Still very pleasing results, as the Uncompressed 14bit raw with it's large dynamic range of the image more than make up for the 'lower' resolution compared to other modern cameras that support 4:3. The colour rendition has yet to still be beaten IMHO...I don't personally care for higher resolution if the dynamic range or 'look' is not there. Full frame Anamorphic is an incredible look, ML raw is still the cheapest way of getting this at a high quality with a tonne of latitude to grade with. 5D3 not the most friendly of cams in terms of workflow, but perfect for short-form projects or when you don't mind considering your camera as a traditional film camera (i.e being selective in shooting to conserve stock) Here is a couple random Vimeo finds, there are plenty out there to look at:

sure would!

Zebra ring was from part of an old m42 extension tube that was repurposed to make the focus ring on the CineVision easier to rotate once in its custom made mounting collar. These smaller 8mm scopes pose a few mounting issues sometimes, but nothing that a bit of igininuaty or Redstan could remedy. Not tried Sankyoscope, but Yashica looks the closest to the CineVision in terms of design and size, so I'd expect that to deliver similar results but I have a hunch that the CineVision types have higher grade optics.

Nice one! Totally agree about stopping down Anamorphic to get anything properly sharp with a manageable DOF. Because it is effectively a variable diopter, the defocus effects are going to be plenty when stopped down to f4 - f5.6. It's fun to open up wide to get the dreamy look, but when you actually need to shoot anything remotely narrative in nature and follow and actor or action, that razor thin focus plain quickly becomes ridiculous. I think all the footage I've seen so far is from GH4...pretty please could someone post full frame footage, preferably 4:3 1600x1200 5D3 ML Raw? Just would like to see what may be lurking on the extreme edges, and if all major artifacts are indeed cleared up at f4 - f5.6. Nice to see a logical & versatile design that can also be easily used for spherical lenses. That makes it well worth the money from what I can see so far.

Yes, the CineVision 8mm is a pretty wonderful lens. Mine is not branded 'Petit' though...but it is the same tiny size. I've only ever seen the 2x versions appear on ebay once every year or so, the 1.5x model seems to be even more scarce. Below is old and boring video from mushy h264 from 7D, would really shine on a GH4 methinks. Far right of this pic, shows how tiny it is

I'd be extra careful to get the full information on the regulations for Drone use and possession in your country. Even if you have full permissions of local police or government for a specific use (commercial for the city), in certain areas the military can arrest you for just having possession. I've heard a few horror stories recently where drone equipt camera teams have had their equipment seized and impounded in Egypt, apparently after being previously assured that permission had been granted. This admittadly has been non-native crews, so hopefully you will have a much better chance of finding out the precise rules and regulations in your country...hopefully they don't apply to you. I would like to be told that this is wrong, and would be interested to find out what advice you can get from your authorities. You should be able to access the definitive rules and regulations that apply to you.

https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/uk/products/davinciresolve

The guy in that video is a total Legend!

Looking great so far. Full frame @ f1.4 with Kowa B+H inside Rectilux would be a definitive test to see.

I'd say that if you are after a classic Western look then composition that is framed to make the most of your aspect ratio is the way to go - i.e if spherical lensed footage is cropped to scope, make that frame aspect work for your story and shot compositions, don't just letterbox in post thinking it will make your footage look like a 'movie'- this is lazy. If you shoot actual scope/Anamorphic, use it to enhance the wider 'scale' that can be achieved. Western films of the past used camera movement sparingly - as the effort needed to shift huge blimpped Mitchell's around a backlot or location was quite considerable. This therefore imparted more static, composed and thoughtful placement of camera and action - this is probably the easiest aesthetic to match the 'traditional' Western style. A basic dolly and sturdy tripod would be enough to emulate most of the camera moves in many classic Western movies - add a simple jib into the mix, you have everything covered. Unless you riding on horseback for a POV shot - handheld is generally a no no, but there are exceptions to this rule sometimes. Watch Some classic Sergio Leone movies, see how effective framing can be when using the wider aspect...how it can be used to work as a composition tool to help a narrative. Notice how engaging the shots are - even when the camera is relatively static. Use extreme closeups very carefully - classically for when a 'stand off' stare down happens of some impactful reaction shot is needed. In the old days, closeups like that were used for impact - as the rest of the movie would be medium wide for almost all other action. as for lenses, older generally better to get a genuine softer or older look (canon FD's are great) - but to honest nowadays any half decent camera and Resolve can do wonders to get footage looking how you would want.

If you pay the fee to upgrade your Vimeo membership to a Plus or Pro account, you can upload your videos in higher resolution and then make 1080p the default HD stream for playback (rather than 720p). Also if you enable downloads to your videos, people can download and view your 'native' resolution of your uploaded file. ...or just upload your highest resolution file to YouTube and let the viewer (or their bandwidth) decide what quality to choose for playback, it allegedly supports up to 8k now.

I've personally found the best way to test a cameras ability to cut with other model types is as follows: Human subject, well lit, talking or turning towards/away from key light shot simultaneously on A and B camera. Place B camera where it would be placed for coverage - i.e not right next to A camera. conform images to match as much in the grade as possible. cut simultaneously shot footage into a sequence that approximates what an editing pace would be for a dialogue scene. switch lighting conditions to test image latitude and repeat process. Ideally switching cameras to alternating angles. This is always what it boils down to IMHO, not comparing apples to oranges with chart test or ISO noise stress tests. The human face is the best camera test chart known to man, especially when lit in dynamic ways. its about how feasible it is to get a matched pair (or close enough) out of A&B cameras in the grade.

Impressive stuff...especially seeing as you taught yourself Blender as you went! That slomo shot of her vaulting over the car towards camera is awesome, straight out of a Luc Besson film.

Yes, Redstan clamp that would fit this particular iscomorphot would almost definitely have a 52mm rear thread - so a 52-49mm step down ring for the helios 44 is correct. Most older M42 mount lenses pair very nicely with your iscomorphot 16/2x - if you find a taking lens with amber/gold coatings (non-MC) then all of your flares will match better. It's not essential, but is a really nice look - especially with the Helios Zebra model. Here are some very boring examples from my old Canon 7D (when Magic Lantern Raw firmware was in it's infancy) using a Pentagon 135mm taking lens wide open at f2.8. Mostly shot at minimum focus (no diopters)....make sure you check videos in HD to see the sharpness. I don't have any good footage online of the iscomorphot on the Helios 44, but that sure is a winning taking lens from my experience (especially for your smaller sensor, with or without speedbooster).

One of the more underrated and nicest 'organic' lenses, especially for crop frame cameras. very sharp, lovely golden flare. this Isco type has a min focus of around 1m. Closer focus can be made by fixing diopters to the front. This lens does not have a front filter thread, so I've found that tightly wrapping a step ring to the front with electrical tape can allow for common diopters to be attached and detached easily by screwing into the step ring's filter thread. Or even better solution is to get a proper front filter clamp from Redstan. As for 'cheap' clamp? - you can find them online, but the Redstan clamps are well worth the money. The others are made from cheap and nasty materials with metal clamp screws that will mark and scratch your Isco every time you tighten. the Redstan clamps use nylon screws that do not damage your lens when clamped. As for suitable taking lens? - on S35 I've used f2 58mm Helios 44 and on Full frame, 85mm Olympus OM f2 or Jupiter-9 85mm f2 gave me the best results by far...very sharp and filmic images, even wide open. On GH4 I'd personally recommend a Helios 44 on speedbooster as taking lens, if you get an older 'zebra' Helios 44 with golden coatings - the flares will match beautifully in your taking and your Isco anamorphot. In short, this lens is great - and well worth saving for proper rear clamp from Redstan and experimenting with vintage lenses to get the nicest look from it IMO.

Rangefinder will work on any lens, anamorphic or spherical. Looks like it's all aboard the morphic single focus bandwagon express! Price sounds good providing the optic quality is there (have doubts, yet would love to be proved wrong)...after all, all that these single focus adapters are - are variable diopters focused by a helicoid, not the Manhattan project like some would want you to believe.

Beautiful!

​It depends on what you want or expect an anamorphic lens to do for your images. Many users here appreciate the funky artefacts and distortions that anamorphic can impart onto an image as an intended aesthetic choice. Others seem to prefer the 'cleaner' looking image with minimal or no flares, simply wanting to use anamophic to deliver a wider horizontal FOV. A lot of terms are subjective here, and are a matter of aesthetic choice but if you are after a 'filmic' or 'organic' look that can also deliver sharp results on your GH4, Bioskop's got it bang on by recommending 'Sankor/Singer 16D or one of the Kowa's 8Z / 16H / Bell&Howell' - I'd also add iscomorphot 16/2x to what you could be able to grab for around $300 these days. All these lenses are ideal starting lenses. If you simply want to shoot anamorphic to obtain a wider horizontal FOV and dislike the optical characteristics that anamorphic introduces - just buy a wider lens shoot spherical. The larger coloured lenses taken from 35mm projectors can be great for some, but are too bulky and heavy with poor minimum focusing most of the time IMO. They do however deliver incredibly sharp images as the optics were made with the intention of projection as 'lossless' as possible. The gold Cinelux range of lenses would also be in your budget but are terrible to adjust focus with - you need to turn a screw or a knob multiple turns to rack the lens forward and back. It is not impossible to shoot with these, but it is not the friendliest lens type to have as an introduction to anamorphic. Once you work out a decent mounting solution for your camera, you have already spent a lot more money on just getting the oversized thing up and running. The aesthetic these lenses deliver varies slightly - but they tend to fall towards 'clinical' or 'boring' to some, as they do not tend to flare very much, or have a lower contrast look, due to the thicker multi-coated optics that they have. The holy grail is still the iscorama, as it is single focus, very sharp at wide apertures and has modest (but enough) flare and optical character of anamorphic to please most.​More character can be milked from it due to being able to work so well at wide apertures - this is when many taking lenses start to get interesting, therefore the look can be unparalleled, especially on full frame.

Surprised to see a fair bit of CA on the high contrast edges on a modern lens...image looks very boring IMHO.

Shogun does De-squeeze now kids:

62mm

I'll think about that when I'm in my studio hanging out with my cat. ;)