first, forgive me. I really did stf, and it seems that everyone is pretty much over the whole anamorphic adapter discussion. I've also ready the anamorphic info in Barry's book. I have a fairly particular situation, though, and I wanted to see what the forum would recommend:
I'm doing a four-day shoot on the road. Most of the footage will be shot in a minivan or an RV -- very close quarters - and I know I'm going to need a wider image than the DVX's stock lens. If I didn't need the wider field of view, I would just shoot squeeze and be done with it. However, I definitely need wider.
So, my choices are the century optics .6 wide (generally acknowledged to be a great wide angle lens; adds about 40% to the field of view), and the panasonic anamorphic adapter (adds about 33% to the field of view; regarded as a great preserver of pixels and royal PITA with roughly equal frequency). For my purposes, the price difference is not a significant consideration.
The shoot will primarily be improvised material, which suggests run & gun, which says go century wide. But I can't quite get myself to accept the idea of shooting squeeze with a wide angle lens instead of getting my wide and keeping my pixels by shooting anamorphic. Plus, while the performances will be improvised, I'm a tripod kind of guy. There won't be much if any handheld shooting.
I'm fully ready to admit, though, that I'll be pushing my skills, time, and attention to the limits just to get the shoot done, so if the anamorphic is going to be that much of a headache/time killer, etc., I'll try to get over my pixel fetish.
Advice?
I'm doing a four-day shoot on the road. Most of the footage will be shot in a minivan or an RV -- very close quarters - and I know I'm going to need a wider image than the DVX's stock lens. If I didn't need the wider field of view, I would just shoot squeeze and be done with it. However, I definitely need wider.
So, my choices are the century optics .6 wide (generally acknowledged to be a great wide angle lens; adds about 40% to the field of view), and the panasonic anamorphic adapter (adds about 33% to the field of view; regarded as a great preserver of pixels and royal PITA with roughly equal frequency). For my purposes, the price difference is not a significant consideration.
The shoot will primarily be improvised material, which suggests run & gun, which says go century wide. But I can't quite get myself to accept the idea of shooting squeeze with a wide angle lens instead of getting my wide and keeping my pixels by shooting anamorphic. Plus, while the performances will be improvised, I'm a tripod kind of guy. There won't be much if any handheld shooting.
I'm fully ready to admit, though, that I'll be pushing my skills, time, and attention to the limits just to get the shoot done, so if the anamorphic is going to be that much of a headache/time killer, etc., I'll try to get over my pixel fetish.
Advice?