ONE IMPORTANT ISSUE with 2x ANAMORPHIC lenses! Know this before buying one..you're welcome. 

By this you mean the 6:5 crop on a 3:2 sensor right?

@@KevinvanDiest Yes, pretty much. Alexa 35, Venice 1&2, and Red all have a 6:5 cropped mode.

Interesting talk! Okay, but how about the crop then? It's not only cropping out the unnecessary 'wider' part, but you also the top and bottom part compared to OG (total field of view). Don't you mind always only use crops of the total image, the total field of view? Would it be better(more time consuming though) to use OG and then desqueeze in post ( and then crop to get the 2.4:1)? Then you'll have more image.

@@KevinvanDiest Yes, you will miss out on the extra sensor space and resolution which could be useful for reframing in post. It's a trade off with file sizes. Also, if you use crop 6:5, you can access higher frame rates for slow motion than open gate on some of these cameras like the Alexa 35. Another thing to keep in mind is that most anamorphic lenses cannot cover open gate on a lot of sensors, as their image circles are often small, especially Hawk anamorphics amongst others. CineD has a great lens coverage tool to check this. You can also use an expander if you don't mind the loss of light.

True, and good to see you’re aware of it too. Nevertheless for the majority of shooters out there it’s new and becoming more like the standard. Same goes for the Open Gate and the true purpose of it.

@@OliKember understand what you mean. Feels that way. I’m talking about the overal coverage and usage of the image and the characteristics. For example a 35mm anamorphic MADE FOR MFT is the same as a 70mm made for FF ..only when having a crop factor of 1.6x and up makes the part(percentage) that will be cut off higher with the FF than with the MFT. This is what I’m talking about. You maintain more of the total image made by the used lens. Of course I’m not talking and comparing the exact same lens of both the MfT and FF, because that’s obvious that MfT will only show a 2x crop already without even talking about the anamorphic factor and the part that needs to be cut off. So conclusion, a 4:3 FF sensor would be the best..since then you will use most(if not all) the horizontal image(and the lovely character). And of course a 6:5 when going for 1.8x or 2x.

Yes the lenses are nice and it’s like I said a nice showcase/study of the used lense and camera. I’m holding the mic because I wasn’t planing on shooting so had no time left to set up my boom. And holding the mic is better than putting it on to reduce the extreme low tones(average low tones) of my voice ..and indeed it seems like a trend so apparently it’s accepted and therefore for me a perfect solution for this vid. But have to say, having one hand occupied isn’t that convenient 😉

I understand what you’re saying, in your case it’s just your workflow I guess. It is unspoken though..and it’s quite important since it does impact your overall composition. Not to mention the impact on the actual field of view after crop, which will be different from what the lens in fact delivers. Only when using center framing the amount of crop from sides can be less important (for me it would still be important). For me the sensor usage(aspect ratio) is way more important than resolution. Because 6K or 2K doesn’t matter for the total shot, shooting 4K MFT open vs 4K 16:9 results in a totally different shot after cropping to let’s say the cinema 2.39:1. But that’s just what I think. Your workflow can work perfect for you of course😉

@@KevinvanDiest I went from shooting 4k OG MFT to shooting 4k 17:9 on my C70 and my lens acts the same because the sensor height is virtually the same, but you’re telling me the shots will be totally different. The only thing that will change the FOV is sensor height. Anyone shooting 2x and in the market for a camera shouldn’t care about aspect ratio, they should care about physical sensor height.

@@JoshGloverMedia hey man, great hearing it works for you. As long as it suits your workflow and needs right.

True …so using the MFT is a good solution because then you capture the total image offered by the lens. Then in order to get the usual cinema ratio you only need a small crop on the side. Advantage of MFT OG is that no crop on sensor takes place and therefore you fully utilize the anamorphic character like the full barrel distortion. DSLR’s are not even an option for shooting video (not to mention anamorphic), they’re meant for photography

@@KevinvanDiest mft og is nice for things like Vazen mft but for something full frame Blazar Remus, you’d be cropping out all the barreldistortion w that small sensor. I’d recommend Panasonic, z cam, or something that can do a 24mm height sensor capture

@@NYCMDP of course using FF lenses on MFT isn’t ideal, so using anamorphic adapters can be a nice solution. Because the taking lens will properly cover the MFT sensor so you’ll enjoy the full anamorphic character. Remus isn’t ideal, than I’d switch to my S5IIX ..but then again I far as I know the Remus isn’t really full frame in coverage. For that reason I do like the 2x character, but prefer using 1.5-1.6x, nice not too obvious character and getting a nice usable ratio. And if I use 2x I often use it without crops, even though it’s wider than cinema ratio.

But isn’t that a crop on the sensor? It doesn’t have a 6:5 sensor right?

@@KevinvanDiest indeed, it's a crop on a 3:2 sensor. But it uses the full vertical of the sensor and that way, you don't have to crop in post.

@@basilbst that’s nice ..still losing a bit of the total focal length though

@@KevinvanDiest As far as I know, I don't think there are any cameras with native 6:5 sensors. That would be amazing if there is one, as that would be the perfect sensor for 2x anamorphic lenses. I made an anamorphic deep dive video on my channel where I compare 3 different lenses with different desqueeze ratios, and how the final image looks when used on different sensor crops from the Red Komodo.

@@DynamicPhil84 nope indeed, that’s why I’m such a fan of using the mft sensor. Can use 1.6x anamorphic open gate with no crops ..and 2x will be on the edge.

Yes totally agree, I’d advice you to use 1.6x at max. That’s already quite extreme with a 16:9 sensor/recording.

@@KevinvanDiest agreed for those who use 16:9 but 3:2 and 4:3 can get away with the wider anamorphics.

@@EmberSkyMedia yeah but have you used 1.6x on 3:2 sensor already? That’s already quite max ratio I’d say😉

@@KevinvanDiest no i have not as I'm using MFT with Open Gate is 4:3 at the moment.

@@EmberSkyMedia in that case, keep going strong..you got the perfect sensor for this. Using 1.6x is easy without any crop ..even 1.8x can be used without any crop. Enjoy!

This is indeed an issue (for me too) but apparently that’s not shared with everyone. Lots are filming quite some moving shots with (strong) anamorphic lenses..something I always avoid due to those ‘laughing mirror’ effects. Therefore I stand for only static (or very slow moving) shots. Thx for the input, that is indeed another unspoken issue😉

Haha the barrel distortion and weird funkiness on the edges is by far my favorite thing about anamorphics. I can see why this could affect some viewers, but you forget that like 80% of the movies you watch all have this and not many people are barfing and getting nauseous from all the normal camera moves unless its meant to. The level of distortion wanted is often the choice and opinion of the DP and directors when looking for a certain stylistic look, but is definitely present on the most common ones like the Panavision C and the Hawks.

@@owenjenkinsofficial Thanks for your input, definitely got a point. About the 80% ..well like I said, a lot cuts off the sides (where the distortion is the strongest). This is noticeable when seeing a very strong (2.0x) anamorphic character with almost no barrel (so that's the part that's been cut off) ..besides the ratio is also not the typical 2.0 ratio. Also the type and strength of the barrel of course depends on the used lens. The pincushion is awefull, but I love the barrel (used it for my vids too). It's of course a matter of preference and taste ..for me a too strong barrel kinda relate me to the fisheye effect which I don't like. Also proper use of anamorphic barrel x focal length x subject is key ..used properly it's great, if not than it could seriously have a negative impact in the overall shot and feeling. Especially when panning a lot, which makes the distortion even more noticeable...it think panning shots are better with spherical lenses (and fast readout sensors of course ;) )Thanks again Owen, input is always welcome.

Yeah and you should! (Being a sound guy) Normally using a boom but honestly didn’t had the time so just held it this way …better sound than putting it on me (clearer sound)

Yeah you should man😜

@@KevinvanDiest what length? 35 or 24? Any change for discount😄

@@2004Ches depends on sensor …and I’m not selling them so you can try get a discount😀

@@KevinvanDiest 🙋‍♂Lumix s5 full frame

@@2004Ches okay that rocks! I’d say a 50mm or 75mm anamorphic..or you like wide shots, then the 35mm will be nice