What about attaching a DVX100 anamorphic adaptor to the DVX lens, and then fitting the micro35 to the anamorphic adaptor? Would that work? I guess there might be complications, but would it be easy to workaround?

On another note, I found some anamorphic lenses that fit to an OCT-19 mount, I guess those would be good to use. However, they seemed to cost a lot of money, so I don't know.

Matthew Overstreet

well actually with the oct-19 mount the anamorphics you will be using on that will not give you the proper squeeze ratio you need to handle it in post.

the way the adapter is currently designed It is no possible to use the pana ana with it.

Thanks for the information. Now--I'm wondering, if you can't use a pana anamorphic adaptor, How does a normal film production do it? Do you think there are 35mm lenses that have anamorphic adaptors that fit them? Sorry if that is a stupid question, but I'm not too familiar with cine lenses and all that.

Matthew Overstreet

35mm format anamorphic
 

-I have seen anamorphic adaptors online for SLR lenses. Unfortunately, I can't remember where.

-A really expensive option would be to buy anamorphic cine lenses.

- In theory, the anamorphic adaptor for the GL-1 would work if you could figure out how to mount it on to the SLR lens.

-I'm sure Century optics would make you one if they don't already. Although, it may not work for all SLR lenses.

Amazing! i'm sold!
 

Wow, great stuff, Larry - I'm sold on the micro 35... I'm not seeing any ground glass, etc. and I believe the results will be even better using Sony HDV, which is much more forgiving in low light and has higher resolution...

Incredible. Really gives you something you can't get with mini-dv otherwise...

Great stuff - thanks for posting!

Mark

The problem is the squeeze ratio if you will on a cine anamorphic is not what is suitable to get the proper looking footage on a DV camera, so new ana's will have to be developed for this system.

Eh.. sorry but since when is the Sony HDV more "forgiving" in low light????! It's not as sensitive in low light!

<<<-- Originally posted by Soeren Mueller : Eh.. sorry but since when is the Sony HDV more "forgiving" in low light????! It's not as sensitive in low light! -->>>

It makes it look nicer though. You don't get that blotchy grain like you do with most dv cams

oh yeah, it's waaay better in low light...
 

Hey look, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest here - I own a DVX 100, okay?

I've rented the FX1 and the Z1 - forget the specs. When you shoot under low light conditions with the Sony, you don't get any noise pixels. Just pools of black. It's amazing in low light - it's crazy how good results you get at the 0db setting - a real clean picture...

While I think there's tremendous potential for using the micro 35 with Panny SD, I think the potential is even greater with Sony HDV...

I only wish 24p on DVX100A shot as well under low light as the FX1 does...

Century doesn't make one - at least not for the DVX

i dunno if its the lights, but those footages looks really dark too me.

is it a f stop probs, or is it only a light on stage "willing" ?

thx

"i dunno if its the lights, but those footages looks really dark too me."


Yes, it is supposed to be dark. Clip 18 takes place in a coroner's lab in the middle of the night with the lights out. The other clip takes place at the same time in his lonely office. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

What if I use a 35mm camera lens that has a 72mm thread on the front? Couldn't I use an anamorphic adaptor designed for a video camera that has some sort of step up ring? Would that work?

Matthew Overstreet

That would be an interesting test to run. I'm not sure if it would or wouldn't. My initial thought would be that it wouldn't though. Anamorphic lenses are heavily system dependent. I don't think the distance between the anamorphic lens and the focal plane of a 35mm lens is the same as an anamorphic lens and a video camera.

As for an adapter: yeah, I have one in the works. We'll see how that turns out!

I very much like to see how the Micro 35 perform with Sony HDV cams. The HDV poses a real challenge because of the higher resolution.

You know, I've been looking into those lomo lenses, and there are many that come with an ana adapter. I have no idea of the ratio, but I suspect it's cinescope. At any rate, they appear to have both front and back adapters for these lenses. They look to be around $300 or so

Also FYI here's an informative article on cine anamorphic lenses, in case you want some more food for thought:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/lofiversion/index.php?t4690.html

Brian, there are indeed LOMO rear anamorphics! I'm not sure how much they cost but they tend to have two problems:

1) The compression is 2x. With film this yields a 2.39 aspect ratio. With a 4:3 CCD it yields a 2.66 aspect ratio. Considerably wider than scope.

2) They double the focal length of your lens

It would be an interesting experiment to try these out though! I'd love to get my hands on one but they seem to be rare :(.

Yes - I looked at the lens selection at rafcamera.com, and indeed you have both front and rear ana adapters.

The post I just put up on the cinematography.com anamorphic FAQ has some good insight into the Lomo ana lenses, including the square vs. round formats. It looks to be an important read if anyone is looking to pick up one of these.

I like the footage, however, it seems like its kinda... foggy i guess is the word. is that because of the ground glass?

Jon, I have looked at the clips again, and I don't see anything you could call "foggy". Can you help me understand what you are seeing?

<<<-- Originally posted by Larry McKee : Jon, I have looked at the clips again, and I don't see anything you could call "foggy". Can you help me understand what you are seeing? -->>>

Hey Larry!

I think it's the wmv compression. It puts a slight blur on the footage. In comparisson to the horse footage, this is a bit fuzzier, but I blame that on the wmv.

<<<-- Originally posted by Larry McKee : Jon, I have looked at the clips again, and I don't see anything you could call "foggy". Can you help me understand what you are seeing? -->>>

I mostly notice it in the background, where it looks like it should be black, its more of a dark grey.

The clips i notice this most in are clips: 13, 18, and 24. It looks almost like a contrast problem. Am I the only one that's seeing this?

yeah, that's a wmv thing. It really sucks out contrast

"I mostly notice it in the background, where it looks like it should be black, its more of a dark grey."

OK, that's easy. We used a medium/dark gray portrait background to hide the tattoo art on the walls.

That's what I see when I'm looking at the online clip: a dark grey cloth in the background, slightly out of focus.

(Jeez, Larry, couldn't you have at least flipped on the Duveteen toggle on the DVX!?)

To me the images appear a little soft. I think to really be able to tell how the micro35 performs, we would need to see uncompressed footage in average lighting where the camera performs a slow even (non-jerky) pan. I realize a lot of people are highly impressed by the horse footage, but I believe any system has its inherent strengths and weaknesses. The horse footage is exploiting the strengths of this system.

This is not a put down of the system in any way. I am just stating that I think if people think they are going to build one of these and every shot is going to produce an image that looks like the horses, they are going to be dissapointed. Every tool has its limitations.

I could be wrong, but it is impossible to tell because of the extreme delay in releasing the guides. I'm beginning to believe perhaps there is some sort of technical problem with the system. Otherwise, it is just paper and a sticker (most of us don't care about the sticker). It appears the latest gg batch is bad, which makes me believe it is difficult to build one of these on our own. If James is having quality control problems with his own components, it makes me less secure in the belief that I can build a micro35 that produces useful results in most situations. He's been working on this for years. I'm all thumbs. If he can't get it right after all this time, I'm probably screwed when I try.

I hope I am wrong. I guess we'll find out when the guides ship.

John

Morale is low and the troops are restless. I've got a huge shoot coming up in two weeks (maybe 3, depending on the extra's schedules), but it's going to be huge and I would LOVE to get the micro35 up and running for it. James would have to REALLY hustle to get out the guides though... I'd really need to get it by friday at the latest I think, if I were going to do this. :( :( :( Project delayssss

<<<-- Originally posted by Daniel Skubal : Morale is low and the troops are restless. I've got a huge shoot coming up in two weeks (maybe 3, depending on the extra's schedules), but it's going to be huge and I would LOVE to get the micro35 up and running for it. James would have to REALLY hustle to get out the guides though... I'd really need to get it by friday at the latest I think, if I were going to do this. :( :( :( Project delayssss -->>>

Yes, sorry for the pessimism. Hopefully the guides will ship soon. Good luck on your shoot. If you end up getting the guide, you might be the first person to build one of these yourself and perform useful filming. Your feedback would be much appreciated.

Yeah, I'll take lots of pictures and post lots of demos. I think that will ultimately sell the product. Seeing someone else build one and footage from it.

just as john said, everything has its ups and downs. and when it comes to these devices for this super low price range, expect a flaw here or there but nothing thats going to make your 45$ not well spent. if the micro35 can accept lenses with smaller aperatures and still be able to capture the image, thats a huge selling point for me. i can only use 1 lens on the mini35 i built (50mm f1.4) because the vingetting on the other lenses are so bad... maybe its just the ghetto rig im rolling with, but it seems to work. also the achromat that he's made is also well worth the money since people are paying around 700$ for an achromatic diopter and he figured out a way to make them for like10$ or something like that.

on another note, it may have been better to let the pre-paying of the guide hold off until everything was/is concrete. i think/hope everyones patience will pay off in the end.

thats just my .02cents... not trying to start a squabble.

Larry - I understand you shot all this in 4:3 for a variety of reasons, but hypothetically if you had to shoot 16:9 how would you have approached it? Would you have used the micro35?

I actually edited a scene from the Ancient (not one with the adapter), but I think there wouldn't have been a difference other than a mask from vignetting. I hope they convert to 24p once the video is finished.

so no anamorphic?

Brian, I guess it depends on where the project would be viewed. If it was for direct to DVD, I would probably just do the mask thing. But honestly, I have never been asked to shoot anything anamorphic. So it really hasn't ever been an issue.

I wouldn't have expected someone to ask you to shoot anamorphic - it was more about 16:9. for my projects I am more thinking of going to film, so it becomes more of a consideration. I can always mask, but of course that drops a lot of available resolution