kye

If small amounts of barrel distortion are associated with better 3D, does anyone add this in post? In a literal sense, if the wider front element was able to "look around" an object then the edges of what it sees would be further behind an object. I'm pretty sure that's what having a larger aperture is, and why wider apertures have larger bokeh. Ah! These lenses are specified in T-stops and not F-stops, so maybe the Cooke at T2 actually has a larger aperture than the Xeen at F1.9? T-stop is related to exposure value and also takes into account the light losses in the optical path, so maybe the glass has less transmission but the aperture is wider? It's kind of hard to tell from the video as they have different minimum focus distances and slightly different focal lengths, so a direct comparison of the size of the bokeh balls doesn't seem to be available. I've noticed in my lens comparisons that when comparing lenses of similar but not identical focal length (eg, 55 vs 58mm) that the same F-stop consistently gives more 3D pop on the longer lens, because the background is slightly more out of focus.

So, 50mm with a 1.33 factor will have the width of a 37.6mm lens, but on the P4K that becomes a 71mm horizontal FOV?

Video from BM (with lots of low-light shots): Cinematography: Dima Kalenda Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera 6K Blackmagic RAW Constant Bitrate 5:1 ISO 3200 6K (6144 x 3456) 50 fps Atlas Orion Anamorphic T2 32mm @ T4 EF mount The IQ from the taks is really nice, definitely good lenses.

Yep, Xeen doesn't look too bad there! At 1:30 he claims that the larger front element on the Cooke means that the lens "looks around" the model and "It's going to take the background and push it way back and it's going to bring her forward". This is something I've never heard before, does anyone know what he's talking about here?

Not sure. The only thing I'm certain of is that a 50mm anamorphic is wider across the horizontal FOV than a 50mm circular lens would be

Doesn't the math work differently for anamorphic? I thought it was 50mm becomes 100mm, but applying the 1.33 factor that 100mm to the width gives you 75mm. So it's as wide as a 75mm equivalent, but is obviously only as tall as a 100mm. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Of course I am... considering this is the budget lens thread The spherical cine lenses aren't that much cheaper!

Yeah. Of course, at $3250 from B&H, it's a lot cheaper than other offerings!

Of course, if you're willing to go manual, then vintage lenses are the bargain fo the century. Something I'm going to return to in the Soviet lens thread.

IIRC, In Canada they released new drone laws a year or two ago saying that the drone couldn’t be flown within a sizeable distance of significant locations, or any people or animals. Good luck finding a location that isn’t within a km or two of a single other living thing. Most of the Canadian photography youtubers released videos about selling all their drones about a month after that. Drones will become yet another thing that governments and large corporations can routinely use but the general public are effectively blocked from using.

The ARRI Master Anamorphic prime lenses start at USD$50k each, and go up to $65k. This thread is the “too poor to have it all” lens thread!

Current retail is $5750 for the above without power or media.. It looks super-cool but wow you pay for it!

I've seen this pop up in my YT feed a few times now, and this rig that Tom Antos just posted looks pretty sweet... His YT post (yes, these are a thing now) says:

I don't know about you, but I kind of think of a small section of my income as R&D, where learning is the primary objective, rather than getting a monetary or utility return-on-investment. From this perspective, there is little risk with a purchase so low, either you get something useful, or you at least learn something. What's the criteria you're afraid it won't meet? if it's IQ then surely you can find some photos online taken with it?

How can you go wrong for $10?

....and allowed a rare glimpse past the colour science, trendy transitions, and flying gimbal shots to see a coherent story and narrative arc. What a calamity!

Video about 24 and 35mm primes. It's about stills photography, but is about composition, the lenses distortion, and exposure levels so also applies to moving images...

@andrew00 +1 for what @fuzzynormal said about the whole setup. I have GH5 and shoot with three manual lenses (in my case, Laowa 7.5mm f2, Voigtlander 17.5mm and 42.5mm f0.95). I don't mind the MF imperfections, but I also find that the AF kings (canon and Sony) don't AF exactly how I would like and the only way to really control the speed at which things change on a shot to shot basis is MF. A GH5, three vintage manual primes and the two adapters is excellent advice. I'd add to that to consider the Russian lenses as they are much better value-for-money than things like FD or MD glass, or even the Takumars, because all those are much better known. I bought an m42 speed booster for about $150 and as far as I can tell it's great optically, so you don't have to put up the $600+ for a metabones, or even for a viltrox. I'd also suggest that you get Manfrott Xume magnetic filter holders so you can just clip and unclip you ND across your lenses too.

Noam Kroll did a review, and some test footage... https://noamkroll.com/full-sigma-fp-review-4k-raw-video-samples/

Regarding fast lenses for the GH5.. There's the 7.5mm f2 Laowa (15mm f4 FF equivalent) and the 10mm f0.95 Voigtlander (20mm f1.9 FF equivalent) but they're the only two I know of that are "fast" in a DoF sense. If you want fast from an exposure point of view but don't care about DoF then there are probably some other f2.8 lenses around that might suit. Definitely no fast wide zooms though.

Interesting. Do you want the lens to be rectilinear? I'm not familiar with the Samyang you're talking about. If not then there's a world of fisheye lenses out there, although I don't know how wide you can go if you want to fill the frame, as fisheyes tend to show you the complete image circle. Kai W on YouTube posted a video recently that had a 4mm fisheye (IIRC) but it was a circle and if you cropped in then you would be throwing away some width.

I'll have to see if I can dig one out.. I have a huge archive of projects I've shot but not edited yet!

Do you have any before / after Protune shots that include people? It's easy to make Protune look nice on landscapes, just add contrast, saturation, and maybe adjust the WB a bit, but making it look 'right' is a whole other thing!