redimp

Having wider FOV is nice, but a lot of times f 2.8 is just too slow, like when I'm shooting indoors.

I'm trying to choose taking lens for my Isco S8 and bmmcc, and have the two that I cannot choose between, wanted to get some opinions. One is a 28 f2.8 lens, the other one is 32 f1.4 lens. I shot a little comparison video, 28 is on top, 32 on the bottom. In the beginning of the video the shots are done at f2.8 at both lens, then there's a part where the top part is missing, that's because that footage was shot at f1.4, and the 28mm lens can't do that =) I am slightly biased, since I know which brands they both are, so I bought one lens, because I really thought it's gonna work, and just happend to have the other one. The weird aperture shape on the 32 will probably be replaced with a fixed oval one, if I decide to give this lens a go. I will put a white text below this line, so you can select is and see the brands if you'd like: 28 mm is C/Y Zeiss Distagon, 32 mm is Yashinon DX that I harvested from a half frame Yashica camera, hence the aperture shape. Thoughts?

Oh gosh, that is an amazing video. Thank you.

Currently I'm trying to understand how to proceed with my gear, what to buy, what to let go and what to keep, and what "look" do I want to achieve. Of course anyone's desired look depends on what they're shooting, but I think everyone has their "holy grail" type of look, the one that they dream about, that they think about when going to sleep. I've hear people saying that they've got into shooting anamorphic, or even shooting in general after seeing a scene, or a movie, that they were really touched or moved by. And as I'm trying to visualize that look that I want to achieve (not saying that I can, it's more like a dream look for me), I think of scenes from The Grand Budapest Hotel, or The Royal Tennenbaums, or Interstellar. Hateful Eight is probably the best thing I've ever seen, aesthetically. All of them are featuring great, amazing anamorphic aesthetics, that are probably the reason why I'm into shooting those lousy videos of mine. So I'm very curious, what is your dream look when it goes to anamorphics? What scenes give you the shivers?

There are a couple of night scenes in the end of the video. It's ok-ish, considering that it's a phone. People in russian social network public were thinking it's NAP soviet anamorphic projection lens. Smearing is kinda obvious faulty thing but the distortion is something I looooove.

Yes, you got it right. Funny enough, nobody else noticed the rolling shutter and auto WB shift that iPhone does from time to time, or the autofocus micro adjustments. Tito, you are the king of the world.

I know these topics are stupid for the most part, but I have brought back a little video back from my India trip and posted it on one of the local anamorphic-related recourses, and people were calling various setups in various price ranges, so I though – why don't I post it here and see what thoughts you guys have. Basically I have two anamorphic setups, one of them is much, much more expensive then the other one, and I am just looking to see if it was really worth investing into it. So what do you guys say, what do you think this was shot on and with?

I am getting a bunch of questions about this recently and am planning to make a video guide about the mod. Will psot it here for sure.

Looks like I was deceived by the scale on it. Why is there a scale then?

Never saw single focus attachments from Century. Bump.

I have a bunch of these (NAP lenses) and front elements are big. So it might vignette if you use normal lens on FF, and might be OK if you use longer ones, but it depends on the lens and your crop factor.

I have JUST finally make it work. Thank you, I appreciate your help, if it was not for you I would think my camera is broken.

I think Resolve is not what is making image like that. Here is one frame from a sequence, opened in Photoshop and saved, no changes done to it, just desqueeze. Look at the saturation. On the camera's display it sure did look OK, flat, not saturated, well exposed. Can this be a problem with the camera or something? ProRes HQ works fine.

So we have access to these two devices and want to shoot a music video with them. We need to somehow match the image from two. Our BMPCC setup has a 2x anamorphic lens on top of 28 2.8 Zeiss taking lens. iPhone is a 6S plus with moondog 1.33x lens. iPhone is there for slomo shots and maybe 1-2 regular framerate shots that would require stabilization that we would not be able to achieve with bigger BMPCC rig. We are gonna shoot raw on the BMPCC, and always aim for f2.8 to get the aesthetics that we want. How do we match iPhone shots as close to BMPCC's flat profile as much as possible? What app should we use? We definitely need an aperture control to match that to BMPCC, horizontal crop marks (because we are gonna do an acknowledged stupid thing and crop iPhone video to 2.76:1) and ability to control slomo framerate. Any other tips about shooting like this would be highly appreciated.

Hey, thanks for your reply. I'm using Davinci Resolve Lite. I guess I have to go look for some tutorials and articles about that. Any good read you can think of? Thanks!

So I was shooting ProResHQ all the time with the flat Film setting on a BMPCC. Yesterday I've tried RAW, and with the same Film setting it provides much more saturated and contrasty results. Is that the way it's supposed to work? Thanks

I am struggling with pre-production montage (storyboard) of a scene where a human is running with a hunting dog. I have major problems mixing slow motion shots, general normal speed shots and close ups. The scene is a pretty long one (30 sec), and I have no idea of how to storyboard it without overwhelming and boring viewer. Any good examples of how it was done?

I love the way the scene with pets looks.

People tend to say that anamorphic adapters "work better with older, simpler glass". I have never understood why, but noticed that my zoom lens produce much worse image then primes. Some say that simple optic schemes work better. Vintage glass has a bunch of character and is usually cheaper then new autofocus glass, I guess these are couple of many reasons why people love it that much. Using autofocus for video that is not blogging is kinda of a no-no, unless it serves a specific reason, and it's very hard to control, so you can rarely find somebody using autofocus for video work. One of the popular choices for Canon is Helios 44-2, 58mil f2 soviet glass, but since you're on Nikon you'd have to use trickier mounting options to get it to work (adapters with lenses inside to get infinity) so I'm not sure it's OK to recommend it to you. Please note that I am an anamorphic noob too and this is just the info I've read on a bunch of forums, but mostly this one, so it can only be a starting point for your further research.

Thrilled with a quality of the videos I shot today with the 6 plus and looking to buy this lens. Paying with PayPal.

Please let us know what they reply.

thanks, Andrew, but I am using a fixed focus anamorphic and when I set rangefinder to MFD and my taking lens closer then infinity, the image is not sharp. So my only option is diopters. But you are saying that vignetting apart there should be no problem using diopters with rangefinder? thanks

So is there a way to use diopters to decrease MFD of single-focus attachments? I am using rangefinder and am wondering if i can go below the factory setting by attaching an 82mm diopter in front of it. I am looking to do those eyes-take-whole-frame shots, with 3,55 ratio I need to be around 20 or 25 cm away to pull it off. Considering Rangefinder is a diopter too, what diopter strenght do I need to make it focus that close? I am assuming I'd be able to fine-tune the focus too with focusing the rangefinder with diopter attached.

I think I saw Rich mentioned that since this adapter was designed for specific glass he cannot foresee results with other lenses.

If you try it I'd love to know your results, thinking about the same thing too. There's a wide/macro attachment from vivitar too, looks tempting but I am afraid the quality would be reduced quite a bit.