OTHER: Live Cover - "Have You Forgotten" - Lumix S5 - Anamorphic Sankor 16C

[tommetass]

Since my last post garnered so much "lovely discussions" for having the audio "out of sync", shaky cam (shot by a 12 year old, someone said), and that they hated the 4:3 ratio, I bring you everything that the last video was not.

One take, live recording (audio in sync), anamorphic wide screen and let's not forget that the camera was on a tripod.

Hope you like it!

(I suck at EQ and mastering, so all the squeaks of the guitar are still there)

Shot on the trusty Lumix S5 in 4:3 mode to squeeze it in post.
Taking lens: Canon FD 50mm (it's just a little bit too wide). Should get a 55mm.
Sankor 16C Anamorphic Projection Lens.
Audio recorded with the Zoom H5.

Very simple lighting setup: used one daylight COB LED light with a softbox and honeycomb pattern to light my back, and a simple daylight LED pointed at the roof for some bouncy fill.
Since I also used the living room lamps, I set the White Balance to 4600 to make tone down the yellow tone from the lamps just a tad.

Edited and color graded in Premiere Pro.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I don't like the profile angle.
Can't see the hands on the guitar.
The shot is too wide with too much clutter.
And I don't care for the hot spot on the back of the neck, or the reflection in the window.

But the music is good and I don't mind the squeaks.

BTW, what do you think you gain by shooting anamorphic?

 

[tommetass]

I don't like the profile angle.
Can't see the hands on the guitar.
The shot is too wide with too much clutter.
And I don't care for the hot spot on the back of the neck, or the reflection in the window.

But the music is good and I don't mind the squeaks.

BTW, what do you think you gain by shooting anamorphic?

That's ok, Doug!
But thanks for the comment. The hot spot was a little too hot, I can agree there. This was a one take thing, and since I don't have a huge monitor to look at, it was a challenge to get everything right straight away.

Using an anamorphic projection lens here was a just a funny response to my last video on youtube (not posted here on DVXuser), where I said anamorphic projection lenses are not worth the workaround. I actually don't like working with those projection lenses, so I rarely use it. But I also thought it was funny to post it here since some of you disliked the 4:3 ratio of my last video here on DVXuser.

But if I'm being honest, I absolutely love anamorphic lenses, and really like the Blazar Remus set. I like the distortion on the edges, and the imperfect image quality. So If I could get a hold of a Remus Blazar lens I would probably slap that thing on and let it stay there. (Of course it would depend on what I'm shooting)

 

[Doug Jensen]

I assume you know you can shoot widescreen without the hassle of anamorphic.

I just don't see the appeal or benefits of shooting anamorphic for digital cinematography, and I doubt most people could tell the difference in a side-by-side test. I think the emperor has no clothes.

 

[NorBro]

I think anamorphic is only unique when it's with the best lenses available and when you take advantage of shallow DOF to amplify that bokeh and distortion/streaks (if that's what one likes).

I don't have a trained eye for spotting anamorphic qualities, but I don't know if it's doing much above; it looks like a regular wide shot that could have had letterbox applied in post (like what 99% of the world does).

A very wide angle lens up close would provide a more interesting POV [with that surrreal look].

Something like a Sigma 14mm on a full-frame looks so crazy when you get close to the subject.

 

[tommetass]

I think anamorphic is only unique when it's with the best lenses available and when you take advantage of shallow DOF to amplify that bokeh and distortion/streaks (if that's what one likes).

I don't have a trained eye for spotting anamorphic qualities, but I don't know if it's doing much above; it looks like a regular wide shot that could have had letterbox applied in post (like what 99% of the world does).

A very wide angle lens up close would provide a more interesting POV [with that surrreal look].

Something like a Sigma 14mm on a full-frame looks so crazy when you get close to the subject.

It is definitely not the same. You dont get the same FOV with that focal length. And with the projection lenses you get a lot of special and imperfect characteristics, which i happen to like.

And i also have to disagree with that being what most people do (slapping some letterboxes on), especially now that anamorphics are so cheap compared to before.

 

[NorBro]

It is definitely not the same. You dont get the same FOV with that focal length. And with the projection lenses you get a lot of special and imperfect characteristics, which i happen to like.

And i also have to disagree with that being what most people do (slapping some letterboxes on), especially now that anamorphics are so cheap compared to before.

What's not the same? [Asking so I know what you mean.]

Of course FOVs vary so that's given...and my example of the 14mm f/1.8 would be day-and-night (not just FOV but everything) compared to the above, so that's obviously not the same either...

As far as letterbox, it's not even an opinion at this point; >99% of the world's content that has bars has a letterbox in post.

Absolutely no one is going to be bothering with fake anamorphic lenses besides a few here and there using them as a gimmick (like 4:3, like 35mm adapters, like black and white, like film grain, etc etc).

 

[Doug Jensen]

Anamorphic does virtually nothing to enhance the viewing experience, and I still contend most professionals (let alone civilians) couldn't identify the use of anamorphics in a blind test. Lighting, composition, aspect ratio, DoF, grading, etc. make up 99.9% of the look. I've never heard anyone say, "OMG, look at that distortion down in the corner of the frame and those lovely light flares, this anamoprhic lens really enhannces the story telling." 90% of anamoprhics is just a buzzword for the hipsters and wannabes who don't actually make a living from their work.

The video above is a perfect example of how the use of anamorphics brought absolutely nothing to the table. It could have been shot with almost any camera and lens combination from the last 15 years.

 

[tommetass]

What's not the same? [Asking so I know what you mean.]

Of course FOVs vary so that's given...and my example of the 14mm f/1.8 would be day-and-night (not just FOV but everything) compared to the above, so that's obviously not the same either...

As far as letterbox, it's not even an opinion at this point; >99% of the world's content that has bars has a letterbox in post.

Absolutely no one is going to be bothering with fake anamorphic lenses besides a few here and there using them as a gimmick (like 4:3, like 35mm adapters, like black and white, like film grain, etc etc)...

FOV's vary, yes, but anamorphic lenses distort the image with the oval shaped glass in a way that spherical lenses don't.

So especially with projection lenses that has a taking lens, you get both the characteristics of (in my case) the old Canon FD lens, with the specific projection lens. So you would get a different image with the Iscorama than with the Sankor.

I particularly like the distortion in the edges and the blurriness there.
Let's not forget the oval shaped bokeh and the lens flares.

I'm not able to describe it better than that I'm afraid.

But are you saying anamorphic is a gimmick? And 4:3?

Are you being rude to me since I happened to have posted videos with those things here these last days. I genuinely don't understand.
I love 4:3. It reminds me of when I shot with the DVX100.
And to me it's more anout different styles for different purposes.

 

[NorBro]

Out of all the feedback you've received the last few days and the others you called rude, I think I've been the most mellow, lol.

Yes, I think they are gimmicks but not because of your posts, and calling them that doesn't always apply a negative connotation.

Regarding the lens, maybe I'd see more of a difference in a different shot, IDK.

 

[tommetass]

Out of all the feedback you've received the last few days and the others you called rude, I think I've been the most mellow, lol.

Yes, I think they are gimmicks but not because of your posts, and calling them that doesn't always apply a negative connotation.

Regarding the lens, maybe I'd see more of a difference in a different shot, IDK.

So I didn't mean to call you rude. I said I didn't understand if you were trying to be rude. Or I didn't really understand why you brought it up.

Maybe I'm just touchy because arguing with Doug Jensen seems very pointless. We have extremely different opinions. So even though I think he's been pretty argumentative (for lack of a better term) and relatively negative, it seems like pissing in head-wind (as we say in Norway).

But I am here to learn, so it's been good to receive so much feedback.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Maybe I'm just touchy because arguing with Doug Jensen seems very pointless. We have extremely different opinions. So even though I think he's been pretty argumentative (for lack of a better term) and relatively negative, it seems like pissing in head-wind (as we say in Norway).

Obviously you started the thread because you wanted some kind of feedback or discussion. If you don't want a discussion, then start a blog. Yes, I speak my mind and people can take that however they want. I am not one to sugarcoat my opinions and I stand by what I have said like and don't like about both of your videos. I don't purposely mean to be rude or insulting with any of my posts even though some snowflakes might take it that way. Maybe I grew up in a different era when directors, producers, clients, and teachers, were not afraid to rip people a new asshole when it was appropriate. Personally, I've always appreciated that kind of honest feedback and never needed it (or expected it) to be sugarcoated. I have certainly not ripped you a new one in this case. I think I've been respectful and chosen my words carefully.

BTW, I think you have weathered my comments well and I would not classify you as a snowflake, so don't start down that path now. My comments are only pointless if you don't care what other people, who may have more experience than you, think. You don't have to agree with me, but to call feed back you don't agree with "pointless" is a little juvenile. I would call it "debating" anyway, not arguing. And if you can't put up arguments to counter my opinions, that's on you.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.

 

[tommetass]

Obviously you started the thread because you wanted some kind of feedback or discussion. If you don't want a discussion, then start a blog. Yes, I speak my mind and people can take that however they want. I am not one to sugarcoat my opinions and I stand by what I have said like and don't like about both of your videos. I don't purposely mean to be rude or insulting with any of my posts even though some snowflakes might take it that way. Maybe I grew up in a different era when directors, producers, clients, and teachers, were not afraid to rip people a new asshole when it was appropriate. Personally, I've always appreciated that kind of honest feedback and never needed it (or expected it) to be sugarcoated. I have certainly not ripped you a new one in this case. I think I've been respectful and chosen my words carefully.

BTW, I think you have weathered my comments well and I would not classify you as a snowflake, so don't start down that path now. My comments are only pointless if you don't care what other people, who may have more experience than you, think. You don't have to agree with me, but to call feed back you don't agree with "pointless" is a little juvenile. I would call it "debating" anyway, not arguing. And if you can't put up arguments to counter my opinions, that's on you.

As they say, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it.

Doug, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking about you.

No, on a more serious note. I can take your negative criticism with no issues. Does that mean that you're not bent a bit more on the negative-criticism-side than most here? For sure it doesn't. I've been on this forum and other forums for almost 20 years, so I've seen most of what the internet has to offer regarding discussions. But you are correct, you have not ripped me a new one indeed. (And I have to be honest, I don't think I would have liked that coming from you)

And just to clear things up: I didn't call the feedback I didn't agree with pointless. I said that arguing with you seemed pointless. Not the feedback itself. You seem very stubborn. Like you wouldn't change your mind regarding your opinion (and that would probably describe most of us here). So I hear what you're saying, but I'm not gonna argue with your opinions.

I'm just putting it out there that it is in fact possible to be encouraging with constructive criticism, even without sugarcoating it.

 

[Doug Jensen]

All good points!