Is the la7200 ani adaptor worth it?

sideside

sideside

Member
I shoot everything in 16:9 or 2.39, so I'm thinking of picking up the ag-la7200G Anamorphic adapter.

Can someone who has experience tell me what kind of quality difference it makes?

I know it should effectively give you quite a few extra lines of V resolution, but from the videos I've seen on the web It's hard to tell. the DVX stock really does do a excellent job of "up-sampling" if you can call it that.

Could anyone help me out with there experience?

TIA
 
You probably won't see much difference until you're looking at a gigantic screen, and even then the cropped/upsampled footage will probably be just as acceptable to the untrained eye.

Shooting with the DVX, anamorphic is a pain in the ass too. Loss of light, some zoom range, the ability to easily focus by eye, and the ability to see an unsqueezed image in camera.

I used it for one shoot, and now it collects dust in my closet, although I've recently considered sticking it to my 7D to get true cinemascope. Once again, it will probably prove to be not worth the effort.
 
I don't understand cropping for anamorphic...it seems kind of ridiculous to me. What's wrong with 16:9? Especially when cropping isn't giving you a wider angle of view.
 
Thanks a lot teresofblood that's exactly what I was looking for :D

as for shooting cinemascope, it's all a matter of ratio, it has nothing to do with angle of view. 5:4 has it's purpose, as does 4:3 16:9 and 2.4:1 etc..
 
Pardon me, but it IS about the angle of view. Nobody shot in anything other than 4:3 until the theaters started losing out to TV, so they needed a gimmick to get butts in the seats. 3D and anamorphic widescreen were but two of the techs they tried, and anamorphic won that round.

Frankly, I find "cheating" in anamorphic to be more trouble than its worth, and a gimmick people do to try to make their film feel more "epic" instead of actually spending time on the script to make sure its good...'cause, you know, script writing is "boring" compared to shooting.
 
subtleinspiration said:
Pardon me, but it IS about the angle of view. Nobody shot in anything other than 4:3 until the theaters started losing out to TV, so they needed a gimmick to get butts in the seats. 3D and anamorphic widescreen were but two of the techs they tried, and anamorphic won that round.

Frankly, I find "cheating" in anamorphic to be more trouble than its worth, and a gimmick people do to try to make their film feel more "epic" instead of actually spending time on the script to make sure its good...'cause, you know, script writing is "boring" compared to shooting.
Click to expand...

I'd humbly submit, crap is crap and quality is quality doesn't matter what size, to try and find a correlation between the too is ludicrous.

with that being said, If you have ever looked in the mirror you will notice you have two eyes, and they see in a aspect ratio somewhere around 2.5. I thoroughly enjoy shooting and watching somewhere around that mark, but whatever floats your boat.
 
I don't believe that shooting and cropping as an afterthought is the way to go, but if you have your monitors marked for scope and you frame your shots for scope, despite the loss in resolution, you can achieve the desired affect. I DO believe that if you decide to go scope willy nilly, you'll end up with some seriously cramped shots, with a limited perspective.

If you are cropping to scope, you probably want a bigger monitor. Since you'll be framing wider, it'll help to see your shots on a larger screen than a 3" LCD.
 
sideside said:
I'd humbly submit, crap is crap and quality is quality doesn't matter what size, to try and find a correlation between the too is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

And the way most people do anamorphic (in indie film at least) is crap because they're blowing up the image and cropping it instead of properly shooting with anamorphic lenses. And why do they do this 99.9% of the time? To make it seem more like a movvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiieeeeeeee!

You know what will make your movie seem more like a movie? Put some thought into your goddamn script!

That's all I'm trying to say.
 
TeresofBlood said:
I don't believe that shooting and cropping as an afterthought is the way to go, but if you have your monitors marked for scope and you frame your shots for scope, despite the loss in resolution, you can achieve the desired affect.
Click to expand...

yup, cropping after is useless.

I made a translucent plastic overlay that clips right into my LCD, so i can see the whole shot, BUT have 2.4 marker lines. its an absolute MUST.

I have even taken apart the EVF in an attempt to do the same for it. but so far unsuccessfully.

*as a side note its great that you have some breathing room if you get a bump in a pan that you didn't notice till post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top