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?