Hans Punk

Pulling stills from RED footage or any high quality motion camera is getting more common. Especially now Starlets realise they can scrub through video on their ipads and tell the photographer which frame to start Photoshopping....it's Kanye crazy. Of course 'Frame grabbing' won't ever replace proper photography - but it's getting around that this video technology is now capable of print reproduction for stills. ​http://www.red.com/shot-on-red/photography http://filmmakermagazine.com/4154-red-one-camera-used-for-megan-fox-esquire-cover/#.VPW9KvmsV8E For example. if you are a wedding photographer, I'm guessing it will only be a matter of time until the bride and groom expect to be able to choose 'select frames' from video to be printed or available as high resolution. This is already kind of the case, for when a miraculous moment is only captured in video, often that still frame becomes very quickly 'acceptable' for print media. 'Who needs that overpriced jerk?!' - they will say to a stills photographer of 25 years experience, whilst employing a kid with a video camera shooting continuous video at 1/4000th shutter - just in case the bride wants to print the only frame of video where she does not look fat. RE: Brand 'Loyalty' (previous thread mention) - there is no such thing as brand loyalty. This is a tool that marketing people use to make customers feel like it's actually a 'one or the other' or lifestyle 'ownership' choice....it's bullshit cigarette & car marketing strategy from the 1950's. In my opinion the most genius marketing thing that Apple ever did - was to make people forget that they were buying essentially the same soul-crushing enslavement devices that Microsoft or anyone else would ever make. Apple truly knew how to market their brand in the mid - late 90's to appeal and attract loyal and appreciative customers. After all you don't buy a 'computer' from Apple, you buy a 'Mac'. Since modern cinema cameras are literally computers, it's not really surprising that a similar dynamic in brand 'loyalty' discussion is happening all over again. How else are they to shift those units, unless they fuel the fire with incendiary hype and questionable product names? (I'm looking at you RED). Working professionals in TV and Film mostly don't buy into this bullshit, they simply use what works to do the job. If they had a bad experience with a RED camera on a shoot, chance's are they won't forget that in a hurry and would steer clear unless they were force-proven otherwise. If they drop an Alexa in a lake, they make a call to production and a standby camera body is delivered within an hour - nobody cries. This is not the world that cares what the newest sub $3k camera can do in a non-lit vimeo test of your neighbours dog...the blog/forum crowd is a very different demographic, but yet so many people on them seem to be 'experts' these days....too busy comparing stats rather than actually making anything creative outside in the real world.

Tee hee

Site seems to be working, you could always email him direct here: antiochus66@yahoo.co.uk Email:antiochus66@yahoo.co.uk

If shooting a flat picture profile with regular .h264 and in camera sharpening is dialled right down, then yes - it's normal to add sharpening in post. Best results by far are from shooting raw video using Magic Lantern and processing in Resolve...the sharpening/ colour correction and grade results are still incredible, even when the image is upscaled for projection.

Ok - my analogy was a bit of a stretch. I guess I was trying to say that the increasing relience of firmware and sophisticated electronics in modern cameras is an Achilles heel compared to the mechanical reliability of traditional film cameras. modern electronics seem less like they were built to last - not even built to standards they were 10 years ago. I too have a 10 year old Sony cybershot camera and the first 1TB LaCie hard drive...both have outlived equivalent products half their age. My first Arri camera for example was an original 1940 release that throughout the years was only modernised in its lens mount and motor. That camera has worked for almost 70 years so far (with very minimal mechanical matinance needed) and is still going strong...I just don't think we will be saying that of any of today's digital cameras in 2085.

Red (as all modern cinema cameras) are literally computers...pretty obsolete after a few short years and eventually phased out of service by changing OS or no firmware support (Assuming no electronic components die before then). you can now buy a used Arri D-21 for cheaper than a used Red One. The D-21 is the Alexa's father and had a true optical viewfinder (this was pure magic at the time). But now there is hardly any interest in that camera at all. People bang on about film being dead, when in reality digital has a much shorter lifespan in Product iterations. a 100 year old film camera can be made to work like it was new, a 10 year old digital camera is probably going to go 'pop' the next time it is plugged into the mains.

Easy....70mm

The main thing that I miss about shooting film is the cameras...you know, cameras that look like cameras? Built like tanks and would not be obsolete after 3 months. My first ever camera was this Arri 2c - do I miss it? - yes....do I miss hearing £2+ per second being used in 35mm stock and transfer costs?...no. Film is still the daddy for archival (how many hard drives do you know will store your digital negative for 100 years?) Analog LTO tape is still the only excepted medium to archive digital data at anything close to the reliability of what film can provide as a mastering/archival format. Film acquisition has unfortunately become against the 'norm', but there will always be exceptions with notable film-makers and DP's choosing film for productions. Film was never cheap, but it is a shame the decline in format has made stock/processing/transfer costs so out of reach for indie film-makers now, yet a film camera that shot The Shining or Gladiator can be bought for less than a 5DMK3.

Here is confirmation that the Kowa for Bell &Howell (after partial dis-assembly) will fit inside the ORIGINAL FM lens mounting tube ( not the new FM Collar 24 which has a smaller 55mm internal diameter). The aluminium tube pictured is the basic version of the mounting collar that came with the first batch of FM lenses, I cannot 100% confirm if other kowa models such as Kowa 16H/8Z will fit exactly the same, as I do not currently own that lens type, but the dis-assembly process will be identical to my previous video:https://vimeo.com/115331343 If you are a new FM lens customer and do not receive the original/ larger mounting tube and want to mount this kowa type, you could ask Anamorphic Shop for advice...or simply cut the correct sized tube yourself: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2-75-70mm-0-5metre-500mm-Long-T304-Stainless-Steel-Exhaust-Repair-Tube-Pipe/251270459252?_trksid=p2047675.c100005.m1851&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140122125356%26meid%3D256b0a78fb8149c69fcf994f2410a88c%26pid%3D100005%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D280769110571&rt=nc

Depends how extreme the mis-alignment is but it sounds like a fix worth trying is a skew or slant distortion effect in Nuke or After Effects. Use that to counter the skew effect caused in mis-alignment. This will still result in having to punch into the image to hide the edges (but much less extreme), and will be a decent solution to salvage the footage.

​Not without partial disassembly (removing focus ring) - the Kowa would sit in this adapter in the same way as the Ultra-star...front half being out of the clamp, rear part being in the clamp. The only difference is that the kowa's focus ring needs to be first removed to get the front diameter down to 70mm.

​Meccano actually Yes, the 1.75x inflight is a beauty to behold, but alas too big to fit inside the FM lens.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/prototype-lens-support-for-8Z-AND-16H-KOWA-anamorphic-lens-by-redstan-superb-/331458150519?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276 http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/suberb-prototype-lens-support-for-kowa-bell-howell-anamorphic-lens-by-redstan-/331458016613?&_trksid=p2056016.l4276

​Another fellow Bristolian eh!? Cinelux + FM lens on 5D3 I've personally found that an 85 &100mm taking lens works well. I use the Olympus OM 85mm f/2 and the 100mm f2.8. I shoot using Magic Lantern raw on my 5D3, using the 4:3 aspect - this seems to get the best 'center cut' area from the cinelux and avoids the edge warp that the lens seems to have. Shooting full frame and at wide apertures with the FM lens attached is not totally it's happy place. You will need to stop the taking lens down to f/4 to get things sharp and not glowing on high contrast edges/ highlights. f/2 -2.8 can work well for dreamy ultra shallow depth of field looks, but the realistic widest shooting aperture I would recommend on the FM lens that has manageable depth of field to pull focus on moving objects is f/4. This may sound fairly boring - but the bokeh is still pretty wild, as the diopter focus method of the FM lens boosts the bokeh anyway.

​Yeah try the Cinelux first and see how you get on with it - the FM was made for that lens first and foremost. The fact that you can install your own smaller diameter lenses into the mounting tube is a bonus, but you would be hard pressed to find a lens as sharp as the Cinelux IMHO (and I've compared it to 2 immaculate Kowa B&H lenses sitting on my desk). Yes, it's all about the bokeh...but if you wanted to make the cinelux's flare much more pronounced and interesting, rear mount a cheap (non MC) 72mm UV filter to the back of it like I demonstrated here previously:

​Very nice

Yes...and that looks like the same seller I bought 2 from. He must have a warehouse full of em.

​ ​You will need to stop down - f/4 is generally where things get clean, especially when on full frame. Still loads of bokeh at f/4 IMHO, and about the right depth of field on 85mm + x2 anamorphic for plenty of selective focus.

Focus gear update! RafCamera has just confirmed to me that he will from now on supply his FM focus gear with the internal diameter bored out by an additional 0.1mm This will allow the gear to be fitted on and off much more smoothly - without it being such a super tight fit. It seems that my initial measurements were correct, but did not fully take into account the friction caused by the knurled aluminium finish on the FM body. Gear available here: http://rafcamera.com/en/accessories/ff-gears/gear-fm-lens-88-107-32mm

​Sounds like the wrong holes. take your thumb and finger and pinch the back lip of the FM lens opening and twist counter-clockwise. It sounds like the helicoid is wound closed (normal for shipping). When the lens turns it will extend to reveal the 4 hex screws that you use to clamp onto the cinelux body or mounting tube.

If John delivers on all promises (which I genuinely hope he does) - I'll be willing to buy...and that is coming from a happy FM lens owner. I don't want to be forced into that blue or gold anodized finish though...looks too much like a sex toy with those knobbly bits (not that I would know). Combined with a name that sounds like 'Rectum Lumps' you start to see my (admittedly shallow) judgment on products that are announced and hyped early on, yet not fully proven and tested. If the Rectilux deliver good on full frame, and if they perform well in the promised iscorama comparison test ...sign me up.

​Cosimo did a nice job by drilling the mounting tube - then inserting nylon screws to make it a clamp smaller anamorphics (again, info is in this thread a few pages back). I however can pack my Kowa B&H into the tube (after taking kowa's focus ring off) and simply tape it in centered to the FM mounting tube. I'll probably make a video on how that is done soon, as the principle is the same for any smaller anamorphic lens that people may want to use within the FM lens.

​The FM lens clamps itself to the cinelux type lenses via tiny grub screws - then the rear of the cinelux body is clamped to the large ring clamp. When not using a Cinelux - the tube acts as a proxy cinelux, allowing an alternative (smaller) anamorphic lens to take it's place. Here is a reminder of how it all fits together...imagine the cinelux is a hollow aluminium tube with a smaller anamorphic lens inside - then it should make sense: https://vimeo.com/105787520

​Not great to be honest - as the edelkrone only clamps to one 15mm rod, so the heavy torque of the FM focus helicoid tends to push the alignment off unless the Edelkrone is seriously cranked down on it's locking lever. A follow focus with regular duel rod clamp would work better - i'll dig out my other FF to give that a try soon. When not using a follow focus, having a solid chunky focus gear feels better in the hand anyway - allows smoother pulls and further range, having that larger diameter.

So I've received my RafCamera gear that I commissioned for my FM lens and I'm glad to report it fits perfectly. http://rafcamera.com/en/accessories/ff-gears/gear-fm-lens-88-107-32mm It is VERY tight fit to put on (which is good) - so if you buy one, be prepared to expect that. More pictures of it setup on my 5DmkIII https://www.flickr.com/photos/129041403@N06/sets/72157650417068585/