Michael Maier

To me, no.

What are they for?

Yes, they have been discontinued. These are used.

I'm not really crazy about the CoCs for HD function. For that alone I wouldn't pay 3 times more.

I'm just wondering what is the compass and sunset/sunrise thingy for and if the new features (save HD) listed above are really worth 3 times more.

Thanks Chris and Alex.

What is the compass thing with sunset and sunrise for again?

Alex, do you share Chris' opinion about going for the MKII for 1/3 of the price?

Keep in mind I?ve never used either. I'm actually not an AC. But I will shoot a long project using the Mini35 and the director wants very shallow DOF so I think a calculator will surely make my life easier on set.

I found an used MKII for a song and an used MKIII but for 3 times more.

What is the difference between the two versions?

That was what I was thinking. But why would you need a calculator for that? Can't one just look through the viewfinder?

While looking for a DOF calculator I came across this:

http://www.filmtools.com/torimalewh.html

While I know it is not a DOF calculator I?m having a hard time imagining what this is for. It doesn?t seem to be a focal length converter so what exactly is it, and what use does it have? Does anybody he use it or knows somebody who does?

If this is what I?m thinking it may be it seems to me it?s totally useless or at least highly superfluous, reason I think I?m probably wrong. So what?s the deal?

On a final note if you are going to make a movie for HD-DVD or Blu-Ray home theatre distribution then the Varicams ability to shoot at full high definition 60 frames per second can be exploited whereas for film distribution you are limited to the lower resolution of 24 frames per second which is inadequate for a fast paced action movie.

What do you mean? All mainstream fast paced action movies are shot in 24fps.

Stay away from the Flycam. It's a cheap knockoff from South America and I've never heard a good thing about it.

I thought they were in India?

Cheap? Yes, in price it's cheaper than a Glidecam. I bought one of them and it works as well as the Glidecam though. About being a knock off, it's not exactly like the Glidecam. Besides basically all these devices are a knock off of the original Stedicam anyways and the Flycam seems to be as different from the Glidecam as the Glidecam and others are from the original Steadicam.

For the price I thought it was worth a try and I wasn't disapointed.

If you need low cost lenses with modern glass, consider Nikon Nikkors, AIS, MF, F-mount. Even though Nikon has officially gone out of the SLR lens business, you can still pick them up new at camera stores Like B&H and Adorama. You'll have to get the L-plate adapted to Nikon mount. I'd change just one slot to Nikon, another to PL and leave the last one for the Balts. The Nikons pull focus differently than cine lenses and some here will talk them down like they're made of dog-do. Ultimately, your choice will be dictated by money. I have a set of Balts and would be fine with shooting a feature with them. However, I've commited to the Nikons for my Fries GC and am still crossong my fingers on the decision. At some point it is an artistic choice. If you like how they look then how can your choice be wrong?

I think if you need low cost 35mm lenses for motion picture you really can't go wrong with Lomos. They are sharp, can be converted to PL and you wouldn't need to go through the Nikon focus hassle as the Lomos are made for motion picture. A much better option than still lenses IMO and the Lomos are at least as sharp as the Nikons in my experience.

But I would just rent a 24p camera for the shot.

Just talk to the post house you are using and they will tell you the best way to test and to shoot for their transferring process.

Which, according to Joe Dunton, is really an illusion created by contrast. Zeiss lenses transmit more blue light, making them appear a little "colder" and more contrasty. When something goes out of focus you've essentially got less contrast in the "soft" area (dark and light borders get blurred together), making a greater visible difference between the sharp, contrasty areas and the soft, lower-contrast areas. Cookes on the other hand transmit comparatively more red light, making them appear not only warmer in color but also lessening the apparent contrast difference between sharp and soft areas.

Great assessment! Can somebody around here deliver a similar one on Lomo and Nikon glass? You don't see much detail in evaluations when it comes down to the lower end stuff.

Thanks David. It has been an informative discussion.

The Viper, by the way, in 2.35 mode, basically creates an electronic 1.33X squeeze onto the 16x9 recording by the way it remaps the sensor sites on the CCD's.

Is it any better than just cropping the 16:9 frame to 2.35:1?

Sounds like the work around DV cameras had before 16:9 chips became commonplace, which not always produced better results than just cropping.

I think with the release of more and more single sensor 16:9 HD cameras like the Genesis, RED etc, 1.33x anamorphic lenses will eventually come.

Not with standard 2X anamorphic cine lenses, where you'd be cropping 3.56 horizontally down to 2.35, as opposed to using spherical lenses and cropping 1.78 vertically to get to 2.35.

 

Again, if the end product is for video distribution where you only have two display formats, 4x3 and 16x9, anything 2.35 would require letterboxing anyway. There is no resolution "loss" in letterboxing unless you are trying to enlarge the picture area INSIDE the letterbox to fill something larger.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned doing it with a 1.33x or 1.5x adapter or something. I know for 2x you would still need to crop. But 1.33x would give you a nearly perfect aspect ratio at 2.36:1 and even 1.5x could be used without cropping at 2.66:1. Full Cinemascope :D

Also, any comments on the second paragraph of my prior post?

Panavision Genesis.

Optical loss like having to use the P&S Technic or other methods of putting cine lenses on HD cameras.

Oh, I see what you meant now. Well, in case one would be using a P&S Technic adapter for the 35mm shallow dof and fov anyway with spherical lenses, the anamorphics would at least get them more resolution if the intended aspect ratio was 2.35:1. It wouldn?t look any softer than the P&S with sphericals. Actually, since he wouldn?t need to crop to obtain the 2.35:1. it would probably look sharper than the P&S cropped spherical footage, no?

That of course if 1,33x or 1,5x anamorphic lenses existed or if an anamorphic front adapter was used. 16mm and even 35mm front anamorphic lenses are fairly easy to find in 1,33x and 1,5x and I think would be sharp enough for that application since they resolve 16mm and 35mm.

Well, the older 1.2K DLP Cinema projectors did scope this way, sort of. The DMD chip was nearly square so 1.5X anamorphic lenses were used to project 16x9 material or 1.85 movies, and 1.9X anamorphic lenses were used to project 2.35 movies where the image had a 1.33X squeeze to fill 16x9.

But now with 2K DLP Cinema, the projector lenses are spherical and you just vary the vertical height to change aspect ratios.

In other words, there is no point shooting for a projection format that isn't being used.

Yeah. But in case one really wanted, couldn?t he still take advantage somehow of shooting real anamorphic by not decompressing the image in post and using the same anamorphic front lens he used to shoot for projection? The same lens would then project it in the right aspect ratio.

Just all speculation. Just trying to see if it?s possible to take advantage at all from anamorphic photography in HD.

As you said, if going to film, there would definitely be an advantage because then it could be decompressed by the film projector the same way film originated anamorphic photography is done. But I?m speculating if staying in digital realm.

Well it would still have to be converted to a 2.35 letterboxed image for display, so the end resolution is limited by that. I don't think there would be any resolution improvement over simply letterboxing a spherical 16x9 HD image -- there's no "loss" in letterboxing if the display device isn't enlarging the picture area inside the letterbox to fill a TV screen. The overall screen resolution is the same only that part of the image contains black bars.

Yeah, but for digital projection, unless you enlarge the 2.35 frame to fill the screen it will most likely look too small if the black bars are what touch the upper and lower boards of the screen. For TV/DVD the letterbox would be totally fine since that?s how we watch 2.35 movies on DVD anyway.

Any gains in "oversampling" to create a 2.35 letterboxed HD image by using an anamorphic lens and later resizing would be offset by the optical loss of whatever system you used to get the anamorphic image, versus using the best spherical HD lenses out there.

I kind of lost you here. What optical loss?

The only advantage of using a 1.33X anamorphic lens on a 16x9 HD camera in terms of resolution is if you were going to do a film-out to 35mm anamorphic.

How about if finishing the movie leaving it squeezed and then used the ?same? 1.33x lens to project it in 2.35:1? Would that yield any resolution gains? That?s another option.

Yes, the only reason would be to get the anamorphic lens artifacts and distortions, not for extra resolution, since the final product would have to be letterboxed anyway if wider than 16x9.

How about if using a 1.33x(in case a sharp enough lens at that ratio existed)? With that ratio, nothing would need to be cropped to obtain a 2.35 aspect ratio.

Would it somehow enhance the resolution? Let?s say a 1.33x on a Varicam or F900.

Just wondering if it would be the same as with film.

I did this once, put an anamorphic cine lens on a Varicam by using the P&S Pro-35 adaptor. You just have to deal with the fact that you will have a 2X squeezed image onto a 16x9 (1.78 : 1) sensor and what to do with that in post. Unsqueezed, you'd have a 3.56 : 1 letterboxed image. Or you can frame for cropping the sides back down to something more reasonable like 2.35 : 1 (you could basically use the standard 4x3 crop marks in the 16x9 viewfinder as a guide.)

Wouldn't cropping the 3.56 to 2.35 yield the same results as just cropping the 16:9 frame to 2.35? I mean you lose resolution on both right? If you had a 1.33x anamorphic then there could maybe be an advantage.

But what is it people are finding to be a problem with the newer Arris and Cookes? The flange thickness? Otherwise I can't see what wouldn't fit.

Not sure I quite understand what's wrong. I mean a PL mount is a PL mount. What's different on the newer lenses? The lens flanges are thicker or what?

So that tells me that they either used a filter or adjusted the color-temperature in post. Just like with any other film or video cameras as well...

With all the comments about being fine but not special plus the one above makes me think what special are people expecting? For me it's enough to get what any other film or video camera (high end video I hope you meant or your remark is really off) do but for much cheaper. Rent an Arri 435 plus lenses and all things needed and factor in the 35mm stock. Now rent a RED, which will sure be much cheaper than the Arri to rent, plus lenses and all needed things. Storage will be a fraction of the 35mm stock, no lab fees etc. The whole thing will be a fraction of 35mm. Now you may be saying, that was always the case with digital. Well, yeah, the difference is that now we are talking 4k with a Super35 sensor. Before film always had the excuse of being sharper, having the shorter DOF etc. Now it no longer has those advantages. The gap is closing and no matter what bigots say that?s a fact. The question now will be, is the cost of X times more of a 35mm package worth it? Nothing to do with being special. You know, RED is just a camera, just a tool. Nothing made by aliens from another dimension with advanced technology. The only people seeing it like this are the unfounded critics. The only people acting as if RED must be better than 35mm of it has failed are the bigots. I see it as a camera that will produce great quality only available right now if you pay a whole lot more. Even if you factor in the 4k post process which even if expensive, will sure not be more than 35mm and will just get cheaper.

That?s all there is to it and quite enough for me.

One thing is for sure, the P+S is way better built and will last much longer than the M2. The P+S is built like a thank! A real piece of professional gear. I wouldn't say the same about the M2. The P+S has the image upright and also is much easier to adjust and get to work. The M2 needs to be opened and adjusted and there's a lot of messing around with screws, the ground glass etc. When you get the M2 and any time you change lens mounts with the M2 you need to go through the whole nightmare of adjusting FFD again, take screws off, open box, mess with ground glass, put screws back on, close box, test, if not sharp yet, take screws off, open box, mess with ground glass, you get the point. Even to change the battery you need to unscrew 2 screws to open the lid. Really counter productive. The P+S has interchangeable mount that are a snap in, no messing around like with the M2.

About the image quality is up for judgment and a matter of opinion really. In my opinion the M2 doesn't even beat some of the other lower priced adapters. I don't like it's bokeh also. Frankly, if you are considering the M2 I would take a look at the SGpro. The image is still upside down, but it makes great images, much sharper than the M2 and a very nice bokeh. Also you never have to open the unit to mess with adjusting the ground glass, not even when you change mounts. The mounts are truly interchangeable, much like the P+S. The M2 is no longer the only alternative to the P+S. Actually I think The M2 is starting to fall behind after other adapters hit the market. There are many options now. Check them and decide what best serves you.

If possible, try to go for a PL or OCT-19 mount instead of a still lens mount.

Hey Stephen, do you mind commenting on my post? Because this last week we watched some 35mm footage we shot a couple of weeks back on a Kinor using Lomo primes and they were as sharp as one may want, unless filming some micro surgical subject.