GH4 Having a lot of fun prepping my GH4 for an anamorphic shoot

the Kowa Bell & Howell is even bigger. I can use a 25mm with that. they usually sell on ebay for about $550 to $750.
 
Batutta said:
I like the look of the Rangefinder much more. The breathing is very subtle and sharpness slightly better. The breathing on the first clips is too much, and very odd in the way it expands and stretches at the edges. I'd use it as a disorienting effect but for regular footage I think it would be distracting.
Click to expand...

I just watched Royal Tenenbaums in theaters last night, and the breathing was pretty similar to what's shown in Zak's clips. Admittedly, there are only a few rack focuses in the film, so you only notice it a couple of times. (If anyone is curious, the best example of breathing is during a flashback shot to Gweneth Paltrow's character learning how to chop wood.)

edit-- I was wrong. I found the clip and the breathing is a different type. It's the first shot of the flashback about halfway through the clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=18&v=eQPOqG0E37o
 
Last edited:
Drew Ott said:
I just watched Royal Tenenbaums in theaters last night, and the breathing was pretty similar to what's shown in Zak's clips. Admittedly, there are only a few rack focuses in the film, so you only notice it a couple of times. (If anyone is curious, the best example of breathing is during a flashback shot to Gweneth Paltrow's character learning how to chop wood.)
Click to expand...

It's similar but the stretching is much more pronounced in Zak's clips. It looks more like a dolly/zoom effect like in Jaws or Vertigo.
 
you want to see an example of some crazy breathing on an anamorphic focus pull, check out 1:24 on this clip from Parker. this is a modern Vantage Hawk V-lite 1.33x anamorphic lens.

 
Yeah, but, I don't know why anyone would want that, especially when you clearly have a better option. Older c-style anamorphic lenses only stretch vertically when breathing, which is much less objectionable that the horizontal stretch going on.
 
sure, i'm not defending the breathing. :) but I also know that the horizontal stretch can be countered in post in a matter of seconds. Just like keyframing out an unwanted camera movement. I'm going to do an objective side by side test for sharpness between the Rectilux and the SLR Magic. But i already know who the winner is there. especially at larger apertures. the SLR Magic, in my opinion, isn't useable below a T/4 as it introduces chromatic aberration, softness and blooming. But what do you expect from optics that they will be able to sell for as little as $299?
 
forgive the alignment/skew issues because i did this really fast. have to get back to writing. but here I sat in front of both the Rectilux and the Rangefinder. for both, I sat as close as they would allow in terms of close focus ability. the Rangerfinder, you'll see, is a little more limited. I had to scoot back another foot and a half to two feet. I'd say they Rectilux is a bit sharper but they're close enough that I wouldn't make a decision based on that. The Rangefinder is adding warmth to the image and if you look at the top of my hair, you can see evidence of blooming or chromatic aberration or something -- the color of my hair is bleeding into the color of the wall behind me. This was shot at a T/2.8 and much of this clears up when you get to a T/5.6 or smaller. The Rangefinder also adds blue haze/flares, if you look at the light coming over my shoulder. I quite like that about it.

All that being said, we're talking about a Rectilux that costs $1300 and a Rangefinder that will have a $600 and $300 version available. The optics in the Rectilux are superior in most categories. While the Rangefinder leads in breathing control and the pleasant blue flares and haze.

I'm certain The Rangefinder is going to be a big hit, as it should be. SLR Magic have outdone themselves in designing a low cost, lightweight, and simple to use solution for both anamorphic shooters as well as people who want manual focus control over their fully automatic lenses. I'm happy to own one and will definitely use it from time to time. But in situations, like making a feature film, I need the go with the option that provides the fewest shooting restrictions.

S4RrdN4.jpg


ohj0yrB.jpg
 
Well I guess you gotta pick your compromise. The rectilux does look sharper in those stills. Didn't in the videos, although the actor is closer in the top pic.
 
I played around with keyframing the breathing out by manipulating the horizontal scaling. It's probably best to leave some of it intact, but you can definitely adjust it to taste.

 
Thanks for sharing Zak and best of luck on your next feature. Really looking to how this stacks up. I still have my iscorama, but may be rendered useless in the market place because of this. But I really like the small compactness of the Rangefinder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top