Micro35 Footage!

Ryan Hamblin · March 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM

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.

Soeren Mueller · March 18th, 2005, 11:20 AM

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

Daniel Skubal · March 18th, 2005, 12:01 PM

<<<-- 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

Mark Kubat · March 18th, 2005, 04:15 PM

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...

Brian Valente · March 18th, 2005, 06:45 PM

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

Jeremie Galan · March 18th, 2005, 09:04 PM

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

Larry McKee · March 19th, 2005, 12:33 AM

"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.

Matthew Overstreet · March 19th, 2005, 03:54 PM

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

Aaron Shaw · March 19th, 2005, 04:12 PM

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!

Maheel Perera · March 19th, 2005, 08:48 PM

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.

Brian Valente · March 21st, 2005, 12:59 AM

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

Brian Valente · March 21st, 2005, 10:05 AM

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

Aaron Shaw · March 21st, 2005, 10:23 AM

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 :(.

Brian Valente · March 21st, 2005, 11:29 AM

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.

Jon Laing · March 24th, 2005, 02:18 PM

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

March 18th, 2005, 04:15 PM	#49
Mark Kubat Major Player Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 375	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...

March 19th, 2005, 12:33 AM	#52
Larry McKee Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 32	"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. __________________ www.lunaticfringepictures.com

March 24th, 2005, 02:18 PM	#60
Jon Laing Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wall, NJ Posts: 31	I like the footage, however, it seems like its kinda... foggy i guess is the word. is that because of the ground glass? __________________ --Devereaux ]:-( ---> http://geocities.com/anarchist_lb

March 18th, 2005, 10:09 AM	#46
Ryan Hamblin New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10	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.

March 18th, 2005, 11:20 AM	#47
Soeren Mueller Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Düsseldorf, Germany / Denver, CO Posts: 137	Eh.. sorry but since when is the Sony HDV more "forgiving" in low light????! It's not as sensitive in low light!

March 18th, 2005, 12:01 PM	#48
Daniel Skubal Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 71	<<<-- 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

March 18th, 2005, 06:45 PM	#50
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	Century doesn't make one - at least not for the DVX

March 18th, 2005, 09:04 PM	#51
Jeremie Galan New Boot Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 11	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

March 19th, 2005, 03:54 PM	#53
Matthew Overstreet Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Whitman, Massachusetts Posts: 168	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

March 19th, 2005, 04:12 PM	#54
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	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!

March 19th, 2005, 08:48 PM	#55
Maheel Perera Regular Crew Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Sri Lanka Posts: 128	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.

March 21st, 2005, 12:59 AM	#56
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	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

March 21st, 2005, 10:05 AM	#57
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	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

March 21st, 2005, 10:23 AM	#58
Aaron Shaw Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 587	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 :(.

March 21st, 2005, 11:29 AM	#59
Brian Valente Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Hollywood, CA Posts: 293	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.