Anamorphic Adapter VS. Micro 35/Guerilla 35 Setup

[cough drop]

Hey everyone,

In a few months my friend and I are going to be shooting a cross country narrative feature. I'll be doing the shooting, and would like to make the film look as close to film as possible. Hopefully someone here can lend some advice. Any help at all would be amazing. Here are my questions?

1. How do the two systems compare (Anamorphic vs. Mini 35). From what I can tell the anamorphic is just one lens, whereas the Mini 35 lets you use actual 35 mm film lenses. Is this correct?

2. Can you use filters and/or matt boxes with with either of these systems?

3. Can the mini 35 system be used on a glidecam type device, or is it just way to heavy?

4. We are looking to rent our equipment in either Los Angeles or Baltimore. If anyone has used a good reliable rental house in either of these towns could you please let me know?

That's about it I guess. I hope that you are having a really cool day.

[HorseFilms]

They're for two different uses. The anamorphic lens is designed to give you true 16:9 recording capabilities. The Mini35 is designed so that you can use 35mm lenses (and therefore get that great 35mm depth of field). It's apples and oranges, really.

[thisiswells]

1) The anamorphic lens by nature has deep focus. 35mm lenses can have shallow focus. 35mm lenses will attach onto the Micro35, as it's just an adapter to use other lenses on the dvx.

2) Yes, both. Options are fairly limited with the anamorphic due to its' "square" front hood. Only Chrosziel makes a sturdy matte box that will work and it's very expensive. Another company makes a fabric anamorphic mattebox that is much cheaper, although it has had mixed reviews. Nearly any mattebox could be used on lenses with a "round" hood along with the appropriate adapter. You may need a different adapter for each lens with most brands. Vocas has an innovative way to use many different lenses without purchasing additional adapters and while using the same matte box. That's one of the reason I bought a Vocas matte box.

3) That would depend on the weight the device can handle. My experience with Steadicam has been with a rented SK2 for a three week feature shoot. I'm not an expert, but a guy here named pookie has posted lots of detailed info about steadicam and weight protocal. Rule of thumb he says is if your rig is 12 pounds then you need an arm that can handle 20, other you'll struggle endlessly. Draw your own conclusions, or even better, just post a question about weight in the hardware forum. He'll be glad to help out, I'm sure. The real concern with 35mm lenses on a Steadicam is being able to pull focus with them, a process which requires a wireless follow focus, a wireless video tap, and an assistant very much experienced in pulling focus from a video monitor. Ultimately it seems proportionally a very expensive endevour. Not to discourage anyone from trying it, but I don't expect to see very impressive shallow focus steadicam shots with a micro35/magiqcam system because folks will not have a way to pull focus on the lens.

4) Never lived in either place. If you ever come to Texas.. Keep "GEAR-Austin" in mind. :thumbsup:

I am having a really cool day. It feels awesome outside.
I'm going by-by now! Later Gater!

[Barry_Green]

The anamorphic is for getting more resolution in 16x9 mode. It has nothing to do with getting a more filmlike look.

The mini35 is for shooting with shallower depth of field, which can make for more filmlike footage.

Either is going to make it more difficult to work with the camera. The anamorphic requires significant attention be paid to focus, and -- well, heck, so does the mini35/micro35/g35.

Filters and matteboxes are a little more problematic with either. With screw-in filters you could use them with the mini35/micro35/g35 by attaching the filters to the still-camera or cine lens you're using. For matteboxes, there's really only one that works with the anamorphic, and that one requires you to modify your anamorphic adapter. With the G35/mini35/micro35, a mattebox is going to make for an astoundingly front-heavy camera.

For glidecam, I think it would be impossible to balance the camera with a mini35 and a lens on the end of it. Maybe it could be done, but it's going to be heavy, extremely front-heavy-biased, and probably not very practical. A real, genuine, vest-mounted steadicam could probably work, but you'll have to figure out how to balance the front-to-rear weight distribution. And then, you'll be dealing with extremely shallow depth of field, which can make it very hard to get properly-focused shots when on the move.

[Erik Olson]

First things first: there is a Mini35 and Micro35 - two DOF adapters that work differently with wildly disparate pricepoints. Both require that you provide your own still or cinema lenses in front of the ground glass.

If you plan to work with one of the aforementioned DOF converters, you will not use the Panasonic anamorphic converter with it. Utilizing a DOF converter will bring more of a feature film feel to your compositions, even when using shorter prime photographic lenses (55mm and wider) with it.

If you want widescreen footage, I would personally recommend SQUEEZE MODE for use in a 16:9 (1.77 AR) timeline because focusing is somewhat less of an issue (of vital importance to run and gun documentary work) and many indicate that they cannot discern the additional 20 - 25% of resolution you achieve when shooting true anamorphic.

This is not the only way to achieve the widescreen display, others will surely recommend looking at shooting 4:3 with markers or a 16:9 matte taped-off for cropping in post. Because we're in a transitional time for aspect ratios, many shows still shoot safe for 4:3 within a 16:9 imager or vice-versa, shooting 16:9 but framing for 4:3 exhibition. It is a mess, though eventually all content will lens in 16:9.

Either way, you're loosing some horizontal resolution compared to:

The anamorphic adapter, which has been covered here ad nauseum. Do a search for in-depth information on using it properly. Effectively, it optically squeezes a 16:9 (1.77:1 AR) image onto the stock DVX100a 4:3 imager. The imager uses nearly all of its available pixels because you are shooting in normal mode with the lens itself doing the reduction.

We shot two documentaries in 30p SQUEEZE and had no problems whatever. The footage looks great within the 16:9 timeline. If we were lensing the same shows now, we would use a combination of Micro35 for interviews and stock lens in SQUEEZE mode for field work. Naturally, there are a dozen ways to work with the new gear that's out there.

e

[cough drop]

Wow, thanks for the replys everyone. I really appreciate it. I'm sure I'll think of a million new questions as the shoot gets closer, but I'll start off with these three.

1. Is the only anamorphic adapter available Panasonic's AG-LA7200G-AS?

2. Barry, you mentioned that there is only one matte box available that works with the anamorphic. Is that the Chrosziel mentioned by THISISWELLS? Regardless, if you by chance know the specific name and/or model number I would really appreciate it.

3. Do filters attach directly to the lens of the anamorphic adapter, or do they attach to the matte box?

Thanks in advance for any advice any of you may have. This is a really neato forum. I can definitely see myself getting addicted to dvxuser.com.

[thisiswells]

1. Is the only anamorphic adapter available Panasonic's AG-LA7200G-AS?

AFAIK. The latest update from the 2.5yearsrunning Century Optics version is that it
will never be available for sale considering the high cost of making them.



2. Barry, you mentioned that there is only one matte box available that works with the anamorphic. Is that the Chrosziel mentioned by THISISWELLS? Regardless, if you by chance know the specific name and/or model number I would really appreciate it.
41153PK


3. Do filters attach directly to the lens of the anamorphic adapter, or do they attach to the matte box?
I don't believe you can use "screw-in" type filters with the anamorphic because filters are round and the anamorphic lens has a square hood. You could experiment with placing filters on the DVX 72mm threads, then connect the adapter onto the threads. While technicaly the pieces would fit together the result would be distorted images. Another "ghetto" option would be to attach 4x4 square filters onto the outside facing part of the anamorphic lens with some tape.. However, I personally wouldn't want to risk a $200+ filter taped onto a camera, but maybe that's just me. There was a guy on here who did that with an amber filter for his music video and it looked really cool.. But, fragile to say the least. Sorry for the speal.. It's a summary of available ways to attach filters which is I think the information you were looking for. If not, sorry for the speal.


Thanks in advance for any advice any of you may have. This is a really neato forum. I can definitely see myself getting addicted to dvxuser.com.
Me too!

[Erik Olson]

The Cavision 4x4 and 4x5.65 matteboxes are compatible with the Panasonic anamorphic adapter as well. Whether you choose the Chrosziel or Cavision, you'll need to modify the back to marry up with the front of the anamorphic adapter.

A cannot speak on whether the popular Formatt system works with the adapter or standard rails - I think Barry S has one though?

e

[cough drop]

Wow! Thanks for the quick replys. This is super cool like my grandpa.

Anyway, two more quick question...

1. Overlandfilms and Barry both mentioned something about the need to modify the anamorphic adapter to work with the matte box. What exactly does the modification entail?

2. Basically, I may be able to afford the anamorphic adapter, but I'll probably end up renting the matte box. If I do modify the anamorphic adapter, will it be usable for the marjority of the time when I do not have the matte box?

Thanks in advance everyone!

[Erik Olson]

*EDIT*

On the Cavision 4x4 hardshade mattebox, you have to remove the clamp-on adapter to match up with the front of the Panasonic adapter. On the adapter itself, you have to remove (cut) the front of the shade to shorten it.

Here's the link to the thread I was looking for! (http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/showthread.php?t=23612&page=2&pp=10&highlight=cavision)

:engel017:

e

[cough drop]

Thanks for the replys guys. That's a real bummer that it seems like you have to modify the anamorphic adapter to work with any of the available matte boxes.

The problem is that I'm definitely going to have to use a polarizing filter for my shoot (several shots will be through the windshield of a car). I'm just curious, has anyone else figured out a way to attach a filter to the anamorphic adapter itself without using a matte box? Any ideas, no matter how wacky, would be much appreciated!

Happy Friday!

[Neil Rowe]

you could always use a 6x6 matebox. and not modify the ana adaptor

[cough drop]

Thanks for the reply iamloser.

Is there a specific 6X6 adapter that will attach to the anamorphic adapter?

Thanks in advance,
Tanner

[Gordon JL]

Since the 16:9 adapters add more resolution, and the micro 35 / others may even take away sharpness, is it possible to combine both the adapters? That way, you not only get the depth of field look of film, but also more sharpness.

I believe I've read somewhere that the anamorphic adapter may actually deepen the depth of field. Wouldn't this actually work against the utility of the cinema lens, and counter-act it, if both were to be used?

I've read somewhere that the film November, which for me shows great potential in the DVX, actually neither uses the 16:9 adapter, or the mini 35 adapter. This is suprising, especially taking into consideration that the main drawback from the 16:9 adapter is that it simply is harder to use (the only drawback I know of); why then was this not used in the film? It's also surprising that the acclaimed mini 35 / micro 35 / etc. adapters were not used either (unless the cinematographer felt she preferred deeper depth of field shots; but, even then, there should be SOME cases where she wanted a nice shallow depth of field). The mini 35 may not have been released at the time; but if it were, would Nancy have considered using it? And the 16:9 adapter I believe WAS out though. So this leads me to believe there are some drawbacks from both of these systems that I'm unaware of...

[yellowdog]

just my opinion here, but every time I have read someone wanting a 16 x 9 adapter, they end up either (a) breaking it. Or (b) can't get it focused properly.Which is why I prefer squeeze mode.Not worth the hassle either way.If you are renting and desperately want 16 x 9, why not rent the HVX when it comes out.You said you are filming in a few months,It should be out by then no?

[Spartacus]

Just for the glidecam issue:
the midrange V series could handle the weight, their best low end model, the 4000pro full-rig only handles up to 4,5 kilos...
front heaviness can always be handled when mounting the cam on the sled, with an adaptor you maybe have to customize the mount a little though...
if you really gonna use a mini35 device with a stabilizing system you really should consider using a remote follow focus with an experienced focus puller or trying to keep your object always at the same distance (some use a simple rope to do the trick...)

- Chris

EDIT: since you didn´t state what camera you´ll be using, just take a XL2 and get widescreen without the hazzle hehehe...
And don´t flame me guys, this is the cinematography section here xxx

[Noel Evans]

just my opinion here, but every time I have read someone wanting a 16 x 9 adapter, they end up either (a) breaking it. Or (b) can't get it focused properly.Which is why I prefer squeeze mode.Not worth the hassle either way

Having used the ana adapter I would say its well and truly worth the hassle. A little time and practice ... and reading barry's book take all the sting out of focusing with the ana lense. After awhile, it takes little longer than standard methods to get a CORRECT focus.