Best APSc camera with 4:3 mode and x2 squeeze

[Timotheus]

7 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

It will vignette at the EXACT SAME field of view no matter what size sensor you use. 

The change in useable focal length (in mm) on various sensor sizes in indeed due to “equivalency”, also referrers to as “crop factor.” 

I think we fully agree ?

And in order to get to that exact same FOV on different sensor sizes, you will need equivalent lenses (50 on FF or 25 on m4/3 = same FOV).

[Caleb Genheimer]

Yes we agree...

but the suggested focal lengths are incorrect. I can BARELY use a 37mm natively on my GH5s with my Kowa 16-H (the most forgiving 2X projection lens out there). That means at least a 75mm lens is needed on fullframe, and this is all assuming you are shooting video and cropping off the sides of the 16:9 for a final stretched output ratio of 2.39:1. I’ve shot the Kowa on a full frame canon in stills mode, and to cover the whole sensor I had to use an 85mm. It still had little tiny vignettes in the corners.

You probably get around 16 degrees of vertical angle of view, and 38mm degrees of horizontal angle of view.

In fullframe non-Anamorphic terms, that’s equivalent to an 85mm in the vertical and a 35mm in the horizontal. You might squeeze a tad more depending on the lens. But single focus adapters, filters and diopters on the front of the scope will all further constrict the vignette. 

I’ve never heard of anyone using a 40mm on fullframe with projection anamorphics, but if I’m wrong someone should speak up.

[heart0less]

On 12/11/2018 at 1:45 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

I’ve never heard of anyone using a 40mm on fullframe with projection anamorphics, but if I’m wrong someone should speak up.

The widest I managed to go on FF with 2x scope is 58 mm. 

Still, it only works in video mode and after cropping out the sides to get 2.39:1 ratio. 

I use ISCO Ultra Star (the red one), Helios 44-4 (with some front elements unscrewed to be able to bring the anamorphic even closer to the glass) and SLR Magic Rangefinder. 

Will post some samples after I successfully rig this up. 

 

[Timotheus]

On 12/11/2018 at 1:45 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

I’ve never heard of anyone using a 40mm on fullframe with projection anamorphics, but if I’m wrong someone should speak up.

On the Anamorphic Shooters group on FB there was a guy that modified the Pentax 40mm 2.8 pancake to be even more flat at the front. He combined that with a Kowa 8z/16h/B&H (one of those) on a Canon 5diii with ML... Crazy bent edges though, so prolly not that useable. If I remember correctly there also wasn't a single focus attached.

[Robinhood]

On 12/9/2018 at 6:35 PM, Timotheus said:

Your question is kind of confusing... I think the age old confusing topic of  'equivalency' might play a part here?

 

1

Yes I totally made that explanation confusing. To clarify. I'm trying to get to the closest digital size as if I were shooting 4 perf 35mm film BECAUSE I know that anamorphic was created for that image size format AND THUS for 35mm lenses with an image circle to cover the size for that film negative. So X0.71 on a m4/3 sensor at 24.3×18.3mm is pretty darn close to that original film size of 23.16×18.16mm (which the cropped from 2.66 to 2.55)
 

On 12/10/2018 at 4:47 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

Don't confuse focal length with field of view. There is NO advantage/disadvantage on ANY sensor size when it comes to field of view/angle of view (how “wide” of a view you get) through a scope. It will vignette at the EXACT SAME field of view no matter what size sensor you use.

The change in useable focal length (in mm) on various sensor sizes in indeed due to “equivalency”, also referrers to as “crop factor.”

3

Caleb, can you please write out/explain the arithmetic for how you derive the mm dimensions? Reason being, I do know of another speed booster which is slightly different at 0.726x and would like to know what size that one would results as in order to compare.
https://photogear.co.nz/zhongyi-lens-turbo-ii-ef-to-m43.html


The confusion has arisen because of the whole FF lenses thing. I don't want/or care about the equivalency FOV of FF format. I care about attain the equivalent FOV for 4 perf cinema at all times as my reference point and thus want to be working in a digital equivalent sensor size through the of the best speedbooster to attain this sensor size (and thus closest FOV)
for me a 50 is a 50 is a 50mm in regards to the characteristics of that focal length. 
I the reason I brought up my FF lenses is simply because I do not want to purchase an entirely new set of s35 or apsC lenses because I've already got a ton of ziess ZF2 prime lenses (which are FF). I simply want to shoot down the center of the barrel of these FF lenses (and thus no maxing out their entire image circle which would introduce vignetting)

So with that, if I was to use my 25mm or 35mm zeiss ZF2 primes as the taking lenses on this smaller m43+ speed booster combo I suspect I would certainly be able to get down to the equivalent FOV of those very same focal lengths of this 4 perf 35mm film format without vignetting????

Furthermore, I would NOT use a s16mm projector lens as my anamorphic 2x front element since this is a smaller image format as well. I would use a 2x 35mm projector lens instead OR even a lomo square front, or something else for that matter (any other x2 recommendations are appreciated)

So yeah... not avoiding smaller format projector scope lenses as well as avoiding the utilization of the larger image circle available in the FF lenses in order to meet in the middle of my desired shooting format size as it was intended for but just through the use of these different tools (m43 sensor / speedbooster combo / 35mm 2x scope element)

Will it work??
 

[Caleb Genheimer]

In my experience, one can throw math at a forum until the cows come home, but until you actually set up a particular focuser/scope/prime/speedbooster/sensor combination, there’s no real way to know. 

If the sensor size is that important to you, start there. Get the camera that you want.

then get the scope you want, and a focus solution.

finally, start auditioning prime lenses until you find something you like.

the factors/equivalencies/etc. are ultimately crude ways of approximating the complex physics of the optics. They’re great for making a strong educated guess, but won’t really give you a definitive answer as to the “ultimate” setup. 

If you want a real scope for s35, just save up and snag a LOMO. Or sell your car and get a Hawk. There really is no quick path to assembling something that will perform exactly like a real cine anamorphic.

same goes for s35 cameras. Get a Red, Pretty sure they save stills.

The math...

1. look up the sensor dimensions 

2. multiply by the focal reducer’s factor

3. Profit

[tweak]

On 12/14/2018 at 9:24 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

In my experience, one can throw math at a forum until the cows come home, but until you actually set up a particular focuser/scope/prime/speedbooster/sensor combination, there’s no real way to know. 

If the sensor size is that important to you, start there. Get the camera that you want.

then get the scope you want, and a focus solution.

finally, start auditioning prime lenses until you find something you like.

the factors/equivalencies/etc. are ultimately crude ways of approximating the complex physics of the optics. They’re great for making a strong educated guess, but won’t really give you a definitive answer as to the “ultimate” setup. 

If you want a real scope for s35, just save up and snag a LOMO. Or sell your car and get a Hawk. There really is no quick path to assembling something that will perform exactly like a real cine anamorphic.

same goes for s35 cameras. Get a Red, Pretty sure they save stills.

The math...

1. look up the sensor dimensions 

2. multiply by the focal reducer’s factor

3. Profit

Yep. Good advice. Too many factors to know without actually testing. I've had the most unlikely combos be the best performers and their usually far from the fastest primes. 

[Robinhood]

On 12/13/2018 at 5:24 PM, Caleb Genheimer said:

The math...

1. look up the sensor dimensions 

2. multiply by the focal reducer’s factor

 

ummm.... is your math calculations correct? I'm trying for the life of me to replicate your figures for the maths on the GH5 4:3 sensor and Speedboosters:

17.3 X 13mm

X0.64= 27X20mm

X0.71= 24.3X18.3mm

- For the Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64x  wouldn't it be both width (17.3) and height (13) multiplied by 1.64?  So instead it would come out as...
https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT6
X0.64= 28.37X21.32mm

- Same goes for the ULTRA 0.71x
https://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPEF-m43-BT5
X0.71= 29.58X22.23mm

- And the Zhong Yi Mitakon Lens Turbo Adapter Mark II .726x
https://zyoptics.net/product/mitakon-lens-turbo-adapters-mark-ii-for-m43-mount-camera/
X0.726= 29.85X22.44mm

Correct?... Or am I missing something here. How did you come out with X0.64= 27X20mm and X0.71= 24.3X18.3mm???

For the sake of comparison if choosing an APS-C or APS-H camera and using a speed booster with FF lenses... The sensor sizes would calculate from the Fuji X-T3 starting at 23.5mm×15.6mm (APS-C) to what??
- Using the Zhong Yi Mitakon Lens Turbo Adapter Mark II at 0.73x magnification (36mm FF width multiplied by .73 and 24mm FF height multiplied by .73) OR no??
https://zyoptics.net/product/lens-turbo-adapters-mark-ii-for-fuji-mount-camera/

X0.73= 26.28X17.52mm 

- And for an APS-H camera like the Sigma Quattro H at 26.7×17.9mm itwould become... ehhh idk?!... this can't be the right math i'm using because these sensor sizes numbers are coming out smaller than a boosted m43 sensors...  I don't know how to derive these figures!!!

Please help.
And any links/recommendations to focal reducers for an FF canon 'EF' to Fuji X mount adaptor... in the best quality for the various reducer size options, do let me know!
 

[Caleb Genheimer]

Because the factor (0.64 or 0.71) is not a whole number, you divide on your calculator... pretty darn sure that’s the correct way to do the math, but if I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat my words. 

[Robinhood]

On 1/22/2019 at 2:28 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

Because the factor (0.64 or 0.71) is not a whole number, you divide on your calculator... pretty darn sure that’s the correct way to do the math, but if I’m wrong I’ll gladly eat my words. 

Alrighty here we go!! thank you

The be-all-to-end-all-grand-daddy question: does anyone know of a speed booster (or simply a focal reducer) at 0.85x??? If so which is the best one for quality?? Or I could also ask, which is the best speedbooster marked as 0.726x, 0.71x or 0.64x  but in all actuality has a true measurement of about a 0.85x focal reduction???

My plan: find a .85x speed booster that is Canon EF to Fuji X -- so I can use my large collection of full-frame EF lenses on a Fuji X-T3
Alternate plan: wait to see if the New Sigma FF Foveon camera actually has a video mode + an aspH or s35 sensor crop mode for both stills and video... not holding my breath (doesn't the Sony A9 have this though? Meh... I'm a Fuji or Sigma lover

----------------------------------------------------------
My calculations for reference of when attempting to get a digital sensor equivalent as close to 4 perf super 35 cinema as possible on an slr:
Original 4 perf=
23.16 x 18.16mm
Current 4 perf=
24.89 x 18.66mm
RED Helium=
29.90 mm x 15.77mm

Comparison:
M43
17.3 x 13mm          (not wide enough / not tall enough)
ApsC
23.5 x 15.6mm      (wide enough / not tall enough)
ApsH
26.6 x 17.9             (too wide / not tall enough)

SENSOR AS IS:
ApsC 23.5 x 15.6mm    (NO: wide as film but not as digital / not as tall as film or digital after crop)
ApsH 26.6 x 17.9          (YES: between width of film and digital / BUT not tall as film YET tall as digital after crop)

WITH SPEED BOOSTER:
Original 4 perf = 23.16 x 18.16mm
Current 4 perf = 24.89 x 18.66mm
RED Helium = 29.90 mm x 15.77mm

- X0.85
M43= 20.35 x 15.29mm         (NO)
ApsC= 27.64 x 18.35mm        (YES: between width of film and digital  / tall enough for film and digital after crop) CLOSEST EQUIVALENT~ THE WINNER!!!!
ApsH= 31.29 x 21.05mm       (NO: wider then film and digital / too tall for film and digital)

- X0.75
M43= 23.06 x 17.33mm         (NO: not as wide as film or digital / not tall enough for film but taller than digital
ApsC= 31.33 x 20.8mm          (NO: too wide for film and digital / too tall for film and digital
ApsH= 35.46 x 23.86              (NO: too wide for film and digital / too tall for film and digital

- x0.726
M43= 23.83 x 17.9mm            (YES: wide enough for film BUT not digital / NOT tall as film YET tall as digital after crop)
ApsC= 32.36 x 21.48mm       (NO: too wide for film and digital / too tall for film and digital)
ApsH= 36.63 x 24.65              (NO)

- x0.71
M43= 24.36 x 18.30mm        (YES: wide enough for film but not digital /  tall as film and digital after crop)
ApsC= 33.09 x 21.9mm         (NO: too wide for film and digital / too tall for film and digital)
ApsH= 37.46 x 25.21mm      (NO)

- X0.64
M43= 27.03 x 20.31mm       (YES: between width of film and digital / tall enough for film and digital after crop) The closest 'smaller sensor size' equivalent
ApsC= 36.71 x 24.37mm      (NO)
ApsH= 41.56 x 27.96mm      (NO)

 

[Julien416]

What you're asking simply doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a x0.85 speedbooster.

You want super 35 4 perf size? Get a x0.71 speedbooster and a m43 sensor, end of story. For info, on the Alexa in 4/3 mode, the sensor is actually a little smaller than a speedbooster m43 (23.76x17.83mm) and no one ever noticed the difference with s35 4 perfs. I use it all the time (the Alexa that is) and even crop in it when necessary... And no one ever complained either... I also own a speedboosted gh5s and anamorphic glass and couldn't be happier. 

[Robinhood]

4 hours ago, Julien416 said:

What you're asking simply doesn't exist. There's no such thing as a x0.85 speedbooster.

You want super 35 4 perf size? Get a x0.71 speedbooster and a m43 sensor, end of story. For info, on the Alexa in 4/3 mode, the sensor is actually a little smaller than a speedbooster m43 (23.76x17.83mm) and no one ever noticed the difference with s35 4 perfs. I use it all the time (the Alexa that is) and even crop in it when necessary... And no one ever complained either... I also own a speedboosted gh5s and anamorphic glass and couldn't be happier. 

Yeah... I just really do not like Panasonic-- forgetting the whole anamorphic 4:3 mode options such (we are in the ana thread), I just think the colors, skins tones, higher MP, and the larger native sensor size to start from is great with either a Sigma or Fuji.
Lamely, the Sigma foveons don't have video modes (absurd!) but crossing fingers that this will change with their FF coming out this year. Plus... it won't have that ridiculous SA mount (which any third party still has yet to make an EF to SA adapter for!) thus making it useless. Thank goodness for the L Mount alliance.

Now I know I could get a sony A9 or a7sii and such which does have a s35 crop mode on these FF cams.. this is the great feature and ideal feature but the inflated cost and lack of color personality in the sony's don't make them all too attractive for me. 
For curiosity of comparison-- does anyone know the actual dimensions of the sensor size these sony's become when in s35 mode??  I always wonder if they are just using the euphemism of 's35' but that it's actually cropping further to a smaller apsC or H mode?? Please confirm
The only other FF cam with this s35 crop feature was the Canon 1DC -- which I loved, but at this point it is only 8 bit and works off the sparsely used codec of Motionjpegs

Where I got the whole 0.85x  focal reducer is from the Aputure LensRegain
https://www.aputure.com/products/DEC-LensRegain?variant=22741298630
It states .75x but from review tests it is actually confirmed to create a .85x


*****However: this adaptor is made for Canon EF to 'MFT' mount cameras.... so the gh5 in other words. Though if this .85x crop were to be applied on an apsC camera like a Fuji it would result in that sensor size I desire.

So coming full circle now....  do any of these adapters: Metabones, Viltrox, Mitakon Zhongyi, K&F Concept, FOTOMIX Fringer, Kipon Baveyes, or Fotodiox... have a different crop factor (more crop) then what the given model claims???

Lastly, wouldn't it be just epic to have an adaptor like this here (with nifty a 35mm switch on the side).. this would be so great to put on an X or L mount cam. I could try double adapting???  this EF to fuji G mount-- onto a G to X mount? Don't know much about these methods though
https://www.fotodioxpro.com/products/eos-gfx-pro-fusion

Fun Times 

[Julien416]

I am sorry to break it to you, but what you're looking for already exists. It's called a GH5 or a GH5s. Those colors that you don't like can be tweaked with luts and color grading. Instead of losing your time trying to find something that doesn't exists, you better buy what's available. By the way, you're forgetting the Z cam E2 that looks pretty cool. It also has a M43 sensor with an anamorphic mode.

By the way, I've bought my fair share of those focal reducer, and honestly the only ones that really impressed me are the original speed boosters, the other ones are either too flimsy to attach a 2kgs anamorphic lens, or simply optically inferior.  

[Robinhood]

52 minutes ago, Julien416 said:

I am sorry to break it to you, but what you're looking for already exists. It's called a GH5 or a GH5s. Those colors that you don't like can be tweaked with luts and color grading. Instead of losing your time trying to find something that doesn't exists, you better buy what's available. By the way, you're forgetting the Z cam E2 that looks pretty cool. It also has a M43 sensor with an anamorphic mode.

By the way, I've bought my fair share of those focal reducer, and honestly the only ones that really impressed me are the original speed boosters, the other ones are either too flimsy to attach a 2kgs anamorphic lens, or simply optically inferior.  

Hmm Metabones it is then.  Strange though -- they have canon FD to Fuji X... which is worthless, and yet (speedbooster or not) don't have a single 'EF' to Fuji X adaptor
ughh...

I'm patient to wait. Maybe the Panasonic FF cams will have a aspH or s35 crop mode for stills and video to be an alternative to the Sony's that do so... but ehhh, I truly then rather really be patient and wait to save up for a medium format Fuji and use my FF lenses on it with that fotodiox adaptor switched to 35mm mode. Or to save half the money, I'll wait and see if the Sigma FF will have a crop mode to compete. Either way-- it's looking like the fuji X-T3 is out as an option without there being such a speedbooster I'm referring too. So again: that leaves, Sigma FF, Fuji medium format + 35mm adaptor, or too just settle on a FF Sony/Panasonic or m43 GH5

Yup... all will be clear by midway through the year on the new models coming out. Gee I do wish Fuji would surprise us with a premium apsH model... ohh the wonder it could be  

BTW... has anyone found a Speedbooster of any degree for EF to Fuji X??? I have not...

[webrunner5]

All the Sony FF cameras have the crop mode which ends up a 1.5 crop, just like their APSC cameras are. That way you can use the E mount lenses on the FF stuff which are called FE lenses. And that works out to be pretty close to s35.

And Real Cine cameras are All over the place in what they call s35 if you look at the graph below. So digital cameras wise anything goes for s35. The Canon C100, C300, C500 which by the way all use the same sensor, is one of the Few cameras that are really the old film dimensions in the modern era.

[CfFilmmaker]

Have to add this here because I think there's some confusion on crop factors, lens focal lengths and 4:3 shooting modes. 

First misconception I see is that "not having a 4:3 shooting mode means you are loosing resolution if you shoot 16:9 because you crop it later". You aren't, in fact. If you do the pixel math you'll find that either way, you are cropping the same amount to reach your desired aspect ratio, the only difference is one is being cropped by the camera to create the 4:3 and the other you are cropping in post. Though the BMPCC 4k doesn't yet have a 4:3 mode, you can still use 4:3 guides to help you see what you need to keep in frame ensuring you don't crop things incorrectly in post. In fact I'd say shooting in 16:9 is awesome because you can reframe things horizontaly if you need to. If you have an external monitor that can do 2x desqueeze (like this one here for $110 http://www.cinemartin.com/monitors/7inch/loyal/lt/)  that's even better to use with those guides.

Second misconception is that "anamorphic on full frame is worse compared to anamorphic on a crop sensor because you can't use wider lenses thus limiting your field of view". Your field of view on any given anamorphic is set based on the lens you choose. I'll give an example:

The Kowa 8z clears full frame 2.4:1 with a 50mm lens. That same Kowa on a m43 sensor can be used with a 25mm lens. If you take into account the sensor's 2x crop factor, it has an equivalent field of view (assuming no speed booster is used). This means that the only difference between anamorphic on full frame and on crop sensors is what taking lenses you have or are willing to buy for the anamorphic. Some of the best 50mm 85mm, and 100mm vintage lenses can be had for less than $60, so this wouldn't be a barrier to me. Since the camera body is the most expensive part of the process, start there and you can get the rest to work with it. 

One final thing to add is a note on the nature of anamorphic footage and their added field of view. Tito Ferradans mentioned this once on a forum and it blew my mind! Anamorphic lenses squeeze vertical information into a smaller area that then gets decompressed later. This means that if you are shooting on a 2x anamorphic, your horizontal field of view is going to be 2x as much as a normal lens that focal length. To use my earlier example, a 2x Kowa 8z with a 50mm taking lens on a full frame actually has a horizontal field of view equal to a 25mm lens! Kind or crazy. So don't flip out if your anamorphic requires an 85mm lens to clear vignetting, you actually can see a lot more than you think.

Hope this helps anyone who's trying to make a decision on what to get! Anamorphic lenses are about feeling more than they are logic. It's not logical to carry around a train of lenses, diopters, filters and single focus modules along with all the other film gear we use. There are so many modern lenses and cameras that you can point, shoot and get great results. Anamorphic is a decision to do something the hard way because of how it feels, both to us, and if we do it right, to our audience. 

[Ishak Sahertian]

1 hour ago, CfFilmmaker said:

First misconception I see is that "not having a 4:3 shooting mode means you are loosing resolution if you shoot 16:9 because you crop it later". You aren't, in fact. If you do the pixel math you'll find that either way, you are cropping the same amount to reach your desired aspect ratio, the only difference is one is being cropped by the camera to create the 4:3 and the other you are cropping in post.

But if you use the GH5/5S you do lose resolution if you shoot 16:9 and crop in post, also the 4:3 anamorphic modes on the GH4/5/5S have a taller pixelheight  than the 16:9 mode

  

[CfFilmmaker]

31 minutes ago, Ishak Sahertian said:

But if you use the GH5/5S you do lose resolution if you shoot 16:9 and crop in post, also the 4:3 anamorphic modes on the GH4/5/5S have a taller pixelheight  than the 16:9 mode

  

Only on the gh5 does it increase the resolution to my knowledge. Good point, I was thinking gh4s to bmcc 4k. 

[Ishak Sahertian]

I have the GH4 and GH5S, they both capture 3328x2496 pixels in the 4:3 mode. If I crop the 4K 16:9 file(3840x2160pixels) to a 4:3 ratio I end up with 2880x2160. 

 

[slutsteg]

Anything new on small mirrorless and anamorphic or is only panasonic has this future or maybe sigma....?