BrooklynDan

Wonderful information! Do you happen to have any additional pictures of the lenses, or any trade materials? Possibly a good guess as to where the lenses wound up?

Newsflash: Almost every large company is run like this. Once a company achieves a certain scale, old school management principles come into play. A strict hierarchy is established and innovative minds tend to get pushed to the bottom. Companies are run by MBAs, not by camera nerds. Small start-ups can run a bit leaner and display truly innovative and disruptive behavior. But that only lasts until it's sold off or becomes a key player in the industry. Then the dogs start chewing at each other. About Black Magic, I appreciate the image quality on both the Pocket 6k and the Ursa Mini. But the so-called "industrial design" is pretty atrocious and the build quality still leaves a lot to be desired. They would do well to charge a few thousand more and equip their camera with fully aluminum bodies, so that they stand up better to on-set use. And the Pocket has the worst form factor of any camera on the planet. No amount of cages, rigs or battery plates can turn it into a functional piece of cinema equipment. It's like a camera designed by an ancient Egyptian who'd only seen a camera in hieroglyphs.

I do not understand why people are so enamored of the mirrorless form factor. It is an option, but is it the ideal shape for a cinema camera? No. Wouldn't you rather have a camera shaped like a proper camera, at least one that is longer than it is wide? I've been working in rental houses for years, and when it comes to ACs and camera operators, speed and reliability is key An Alexa Mini or a Venice works beautifully with every imaginable accessory. You can rig it up with a Preston, Cine Tape, Teradek, multiple on board monitors and the matte box of your choice without breaking a sweat. There's ample room on the camera body and lots of options for power outputs. Do people rig up A7s and GH5s and 5Ds like that? Yes. But it's a struggle and you wind up fighting against the thing. It's not designed to be used like that. It's designed to be held up to your eye so that you can snap a picture. No amount of Log profiles or Raw outputs will change that.

The GFX 100 is not a cinema camera. It is a mirrorless stills camera with video capabilities. Which is fine for one-man-bands or C-camera use on a set. But it's not a cinema camera like a C300 or FS7. The form factor is different. It's not suitable for use by a camera crew with remote follow focus, wireless video, on-board monitors, etc.

A medium format video camera from Fuji would shut the game down. Even though, it would be a pretty impractical format with limited lens choice compared to Super 35 or full frame, cinematographers think with their hearts as well as their brains, and getting the opportunity to shoot on a nearly IMAX-sized sensor would override a lot of other considerations. Do it, Fuji. DO IT.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

The new Caldwell Chameleon anamorphics also use a similar design with counter-rotating cylinders controlling the squeeze ratio, albeit at a much higher price tag. This design was also used in the series one Todd-AOs way back in the 70s (see Max Max, The Getaway, Logan's Run). This is IMHO, the best design ever developed for anamorphic lenses. Without the anastigmatic group, the breathing and mumping is a bit much. The variable diopter design solves the squeeze issues, but the breathing is still there and it works very poorly for wide angle lenses. I've handled a variety of wide angle anamorphics from Lomo, Hawk, Technovision, Cineovision and JDC and they all had massive front elements, awkward mechanics, and severe barrel distortion. The Gottschalk design allows you to build a lens wider than 40mm while maintaining reasonable size and weight and a standard front diameter. Panavision has a 20mm that's barely larger than a Cooke S4. And the vertical breathing and crisp blue flaring is to die for. I'm really excited for these Xelmus lenses and I hope that they flesh out the rest of the set. 35mm up to 180mm would make these a standard on many sets.

I think that people get too wrapped up in the fact that the equipment is cheap and they forget that everything else is still the same price. I went to film school and while the career opportunities afterwards left something to be desired, it allowed me to produce work of a far higher production value than I could on my own. I had access to a soundstage, a wide variety of lighting equipment, screening facilities, mixing facilities, production insurance and because my school also had music, art, theater, and acting programs, a steady supply of people who could act in my films, help me build sets and compose my soundtracks. Interacting with other artists from a bunch of different disciplines is crucial to one's artistic growth. It is also important to recognize that breadth of knowledge does not equal depth. Yeah, YouTube might have a million tutorials on everything, but it doesn't compare to a seasoned professional talking to you in person and showing you what's what. Teachers don't just relay information, they organize it and put it in context so that it makes sense. I took four years of cinema studies classes with some of the best instructors on the planet, and no amount of individual study could've rivaled the quality of education. The only big issue with film school is the debt. And yes, it's a pain in the ass. Choose wisely and don't go to USC if you can't afford it.

Bingo. With modern computerized design and high quality materials, building a sharp, functional lens is easy. Building one that has charm, character and panache is a whole different story. BTW, if you are looking for a successor to the Iscorama, the new Aivascope 1.5x seems like it fits the bill. Single focus mechanism and 50mm coverage on full frame.

It looks like an SLR Magic 1.33x adaptor welded to the front. Needless to say, it will probably suck. No one will ever make a decent anamorphic prime lens for under a few thousand dollars, let alone one that competes with professional PL mount glass. The laws of physics are immutable.

I'm specifically talking about anamorphic lenses. They are a special category and are exceedingly difficult to make with any quality under a certain price point. For $3k and change you can have a feature quality piece of glass, like a Compact prime, or a badly distorted SLR magic prime or some frankenlens that only works with one focal length. P+s Technik changes you $15k for replica Kowas that breath and distort almost as much as the real thing. The laws of physics are a bitch. Regardless, where there is a will, there is a way. So you might as provide an Academy-spec sensor area at the minimum (full frame obviously encompasses this), and desqueeze options for common ratios, as well as frame lines. Vazen is dropping a 40mm 1.8x prime for MFT mount for $3K. If it was Super 35, PL mount and 2x squeeze, it might be three times as expensive.

You can rent glass, you know? I know places where you can get a set of Lomos for $500 for the weekend. For a specific project, it can be doable. Also adaptors. The new Aivascope is looking scrumptous. Anamorphic and auto focus in the same sentence is decades away. It's hard to put into words how hard it is to grind bent glass, but that's the reason it's so expensive. Also, auto focus and cinema do not belong in the same sentence. No serious film crew uses auto focus. It's an amateur tool that works ok for documentaries. But if you're shooting actors and needs graceful, predictable transitions, turn the damn focus ring. Makes no sense to demand manual control of every other parameter, but then leave your sharpness to a dumb computer.

I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc. I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera. In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:

Looks pretty sharp. Apparently, it was optimized for full frame sensors, so it can handle M4/3 no sweat. The built-in focus gear, close focus and non-rotating front makes it more practical than the Iscorama ever was. Looks like a win!

I kind of wish that Panasonic would've let go of the mirrorless form factor for this camera. Strictly speaking, there is no good reason to give a purpose-built video camera a mirrorless-style body. It does not really fit with the way people operate cinema cameras. As a hybrid between still and video, OK. But for a dedicated cinema camera, I would've much preferred a LS300/VG900 camcorder-style body. It would make it much easier to accommodate the inevitable PL mount adaptors and pro battery plates. Also, XLR inputs and audio controls.

I hope they enable 4:3 format video from the entire sensor. That would really fulfill the promise of having medium format for video. MF was always square (6x6) or squarish (645, 6x7). IMAX is 1.43:1. Not saying that wide format 65mm isn't amazing, but I want that vertical height as well.

It's the very first anamorphic lens attachment ever built for cinematography. Before this, there was Henri Chretien's original optic. It is obviously double-focus only, as a variable diopter on top would need to be massive. Maybe one of these new wireless units from PD Movie could be calibrated to synchronize the focus movement with a prime lens. I do believe that this worked down to 40mm on standard 35mm. It was used with original Baltars from B&L.

Another 2.5mm in vertical sensor height. 18mm = full anamorphic aperture. Also SDI output for monitoring. HDMI is not a pro connection. NOT. A. PRO. CONNECTION.

The blue part looks like a simple Double Gauss prime lens. Maybe Zeiss or Kinoptik. The grey tabs on top and bottom are probably the focusing levers. I can't guess from this schematic how the taking lens and anamorphic lens was synchronized, but if the helicals are cut right, a bridge between the focusing tabs might be able to pull off dual focus in one movement. This is a Totalvision adapter (circa France 1960) that's similar in design and construction: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Totalvision-Anamorphic-Cine-Lens-made-in-france-/113426233375 It was used with a set of four Speed Panchro primes from 40mm to 100mm mechanically linked to the adapter via the focusing lever. I'm guessing that your Moller works similarly. Either way, let's see a lens test!

It was almost certainly used with either Cooke Speed Panchro or Kinoptik taking lenses. Probably 40,50,75 and 100mm. All the early European 'Scope (Dyaliscope, Totalvision, CinePanoramic) systems used either one or the other. It's most likely pretty sharp since the glass is so big. Would love to see a test, both at infinity and close focus.

It must be said that video amplifies the difference between formats far more than in stills. Once you add camera movement and focus pulling, the advantages of a larger sensor become crystal clear. Watch any film shot on Alexa 65. There's more gentle falloff, less distortion in wide shots, crisper more intimate close-ups, more apparent depth and more detail but without clinical sharpness.

I simply do not understand the nostalgia here. I shot my senior thesis project on an FS100 and while I got some decent images out of it thanks to the skill of my DP, it always looked very videoish to me. The highlights burned horribly, the colors were oversaturated, and even if you shot it flat, you could never quite bring it back to the way you want it in post. Also, the form factor and ergonomics were some of the worst I have ever seen, the placement of the LCD screen on top was ludicrous, and the lack of NDs (thankfully rectified in the FS700) made screw-ons or matteboxes a necessity, which is difficult on a zero-budget. It was Sony's first go at making a prosumer large-sensor camera (after the F3 which came out at the same time), and their lack of common sense and feel for camera design just wasn't there, despite their long history in making video equipment. My C100 mk. I(same era, same price-range) eats it for lunch in every possible way. Image quality, roll-off, NDs, hand-holdable ergonomics, etc.

Panasonic needs to put a full frame sensor into the Varicam in order to stay competitive in the digital cinema space. The Varicam was a bit late to the party, but managed to build a following thanks to its picture quality and dual ISO capability. But today, I was playing with a Sony Venice at work, and once you go FF, you don't go back. The look is intoxicating. Plus having the ability to use anamorphic lenses all the way to the edges of the image circle. I don't know whether they still step into the full frame mirrorless space, but if they can partner with Fuji and apply GH5 tech to the medium format GFX and have clean, jello-free 10-bit 4K, it would be a game-changer.

Even if it does make it to market, it is the worst-designed camera body I've ever seen. It makes the original Red One (a clunky, heavy, loaf-shaped turd with non-sensical UI) look like a masterpiece of industrial design. Holy fuck, who puts a screen on top? Where am I supposed to attach a handle?

I heart my C100 mk 1. Still the most cinematic image you can get for the money. Dslrs and Mirrorless cameras just don't have the same level of richness and depth to the colors.