Is NAB 2018 cancelled?

Run&Gun said:
I read an article a few years ago and it had a good example of why scenics look so good when shot in anamorphic, using 2x anamorphic as the example. It was something to the effect of shooting normal spherical you may shoot with a 25mm to be able to get the shot you want, but in 2x anamorphic you would shoot with a 50mm. So the vertical FoV is that of the 50mm, but horizontally it's the same as the 25mm so it's still a wide shot, but everything feels closer because you're shooting with a longer focal length lens.
Click to expand...

I believe this particular aspect would be precisely the same if you cropped spherical to 2.40:1. I feel bad smashing people's bubbles, but which would you rather have?

I am 75% inclined to denounce anamorphic as bikeshedding, but I am 25% inclined to say, hey, enjoy your little joys. Here are legitimate distinctions of anamorphic:

- oval bokeh
- horizontal lens flare
- barrel distortion (I thought it was a bug, but now I hear it's a feature)
- when desqueezed, the optical size of anamorphic 35mm happened to be almost precisely the same as full-frame 35 (https://www.combatentropy.com/frames). So you get the same depth of field, for better or worse.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I know of several major announcements that will be made at NAB which will be of great interest to people at DVXuser. Don't give up on early April just yet.
Click to expand...

You said the same exact thing last year and it was a pretty weak NAB, haha.

But my standards are high and expectations unrealistic, so disregard moi.
 
I want to see better external recorder options, as in, smaller/lighter form factors with smaller screens, and screenless options for tighter, lighter weight mounting or wiring to a pouch or pocket to keep camera weight down, and support all newest formats/raw/etc.
 
Mitch Gross said:
I know of several major announcements that will be made at NAB which will be of great interest to people at DVXuser. Don't give up on early April just yet.
Click to expand...

Sounds great. Unless you're teasing for the fun of it and all those awesome April news come on April 1st, of course. XD
 
combatentropy said:
I believe this particular aspect would be precisely the same if you cropped spherical to 2.40:1. I feel bad smashing people's bubbles, but which would you rather have?

I am 75% inclined to denounce anamorphic as bikeshedding, but I am 25% inclined to say, hey, enjoy your little joys. Here are legitimate distinctions of anamorphic:

- oval bokeh
- horizontal lens flare
- barrel distortion (I thought it was a bug, but now I hear it's a feature)
- when desqueezed, the optical size of anamorphic 35mm happened to be almost precisely the same as full-frame 35 (https://www.combatentropy.com/frames). So you get the same depth of field, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

But cropping in post isn't the same thing as shooting with a specific focal length lens, not to mention you're then throwing away vertical resolution(which is more important).
 
combatentropy said:
...I am 75% inclined to denounce anamorphic as bikeshedding...

- oval bokeh
- horizontal lens flare
- barrel distortion (I thought it was a bug, but now I hear it's a feature)...
Click to expand...

This ^^^^^ times a hundred. I watched a movie, "People You May Know" last night that appeared to have been shot anamorphic and the entire effect was completely distracting and obnoxious. In some lockoffs, you could somehow see the oval bokeh shifting and jittering and in some shots, it appeared that the aspect ratio of the image was slightly changing. Anamorphic, for most films, shown in the most common situations, is a hipster affect that can subtract from the viewing experience. Not sure if you can see it in the trailer but if you watch the film, this low budget indie comedy was so NOT a film to mess with anamorphic. Probably a tremendous amount of time, extra money and effort to shoot and compose in anamorphic and the end result looks awful. If you're David Lean and Freddie Moore or even Cameron and have the audience, vision and exhibition model where anamorphic makes sense, go for it. If you are an indie filmmaker and your film will be seen on smartphones and TVs, please don't bother. If you don't do anamorphic for a story motivated reason and do it right, it just makes you look like an amateur. To be fair, I don't blame the DP, Brian Burgoyne, who has shot other work I liked, this was a directorial choice and a bad one at that.

 
Last edited:
I didn't mean to get us that sidetracked. But now having read here and on the web current anamorphic enthusiasts thinking, I find out that an invention that was made as a technical compromise to compete with television, which now has a superior technical solution, somehow got to become an artistic choice. Reading about it is quite humorous because other than the aspect ratio, the reasons for using it are expressed in nebulous jargon as in Roger Deakins saying he shot “Prisoners” in 1:85 because “it just felt right.”. Well, you can't argue with that.

Now, back to NAB. Here's hoping for some exciting announcements.
 
Camera-wise, I'm in a pretty good place so I'm not all that excited about NAB from that perspective (though a 4k BMD pocket would be amazing). I'm really happy with my C200, as I would be with an FS7, EVA1 etc etc. It's the other areas of filmmaking that I'd love to see the price performance ratio to improve like cameras already have. Top on my list would be cinema lenses...
 
I made it through last year without buying a new camera. And honestly I didn't make any huge purchases in '17, at all. Added a prime to my set that I was missing/needed. Added some more lights and added a new wireless hop(my current hop is in the band that got auctioned off and I had concerns about frequencies not being issued to me in venues that frequency coordinate, like the NFL). I definitely don't "need" anything and would like to get several more years out of my current camera line-up that has been paid off for years. I will be replacing more of my wireless this year, moving to the newer wide-band units and I am interested in a lot of the newer LED units, like the LiteGear LiteTile's that allow you to make large, soft sources with minimal storage and transportation space.
 
God, I really wish they would make the Fujinon MK's in EF or PL mount. I'd actually prefer EF, but I heard Fuji probably won't do it because they are bitter rivals to Canon in ENG. So please, make it in PL mount and many people will buy it. Actually matching sized cinema zooms at 2 lbs? That's insane, but E-Mount? Such a waste.
 
gene_can_sing said:
God, I really wish they would make the Fujinon MK's in EF or PL mount. I'd actually prefer EF, but I heard Fuji probably won't do it because they are bitter rivals to Canon in ENG. So please, make it in PL mount and many people will buy it. Actually matching sized cinema zooms at 2 lbs? That's insane, but E-Mount? Such a waste.
Click to expand...

It's not technically possible without re-designing the back of the lens optically which would drive up the cost, size and weight, that has helped make them so popular.
 
A mirrorless mount (as in: a mount with a short focal flange distance) softens the restrictions for the optical design. Fujinon took advantage of this. And they made them in E mount because there are several very successful cameras using E mount.
 
E mount and X were smart moves. They should introduce a more expensive version for EF, but one that doesn't veer all of the way into Cabrio prices. I think if they were able to replicate the same focal lengths and features as the XKs into something perhaps a bit larger and heavier for perhaps $5,500.00, they would sell. A surprising amount of people hate the Canon CNE Servo zooms because "they aren't proper cinema lenses with hard stops!" So Fuji, make a lens line for those people who want better than still lenses, won't buy a CNE Servo and won't pony up for the Cabrios or Premieres. There are a lot of Canon and EVA 1/Varicam shooters with EF who would buy.
 
Run&Gun said:
It's not technically possible without re-designing the back of the lens optically which would drive up the cost, size and weight, that has helped make them so popular.
Click to expand...

Even if it costs an extra two thousand and went up 1 lb, people would still buy it like crazy. I think it has more to do with Fuji not wanting to make because of their rivalry with Canon and also it would probably cannibalize sales of their other lenses. I used them on a shoot recently and they're so nice, just a shame it's in E-Mount. Another manufacturer should step in, make it and reap the rewards.
 
puredrifting said:
E mount and X were smart moves. They should introduce a more expensive version for EF, but one that doesn't veer all of the way into Cabrio prices. I think if they were able to replicate the same focal lengths and features as the XKs into something perhaps a bit larger and heavier for perhaps $5,500.00, they would sell. A surprising amount of people hate the Canon CNE Servo zooms because "they aren't proper cinema lenses with hard stops!" So Fuji, make a lens line for those people who want better than still lenses, won't buy a CNE Servo and won't pony up for the Cabrios or Premieres. There are a lot of Canon and EVA 1/Varicam shooters with EF who would buy.
Click to expand...

Well, not ALL of the Cine Servo lenses are without hard stops... ; )

*EDIT*
I don't know where my head was... Actually all(both) of the Cine Servo's have hard stops. The COMPACT Servo's are the one's that do not have hard stops.
 
Last edited:
gene_can_sing said:
Even if it costs an extra two thousand and went up 1 lb, people would still buy it like crazy. I think it has more to do with Fuji not wanting to make because of their rivalry with Canon and also it would probably cannibalize sales of their other lenses. I used them on a shoot recently and they're so nice, just a shame it's in E-Mount. Another manufacturer should step in, make it and reap the rewards.
Click to expand...

A lot of people would love to be able to get these lenses in an EF mount, but the chances of hitting the lottery are probably just as good. I don't know what you're shooting on, but Duclos makes a conversion kit for them that allows them to work on an FZ mount(F5/55)(it was actually pretty much a de facto collaboration between Fuji N.A. and Duclos). That doesn't help PL or Canon-only shooters, but it's something.
 
Sttratos said:
That's your problem right there. The problem is not anamorphic. It's just a tool as any other. It doesn't fit any and every type of show.
Click to expand...

Yep. Like so many other things, they need to be in the right hands and have the right story and subject matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top