Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: I'm probably foolish for asking this...

Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    149
    - Updating this thread -

    Just received this from Red in regards to my Feature Request: "Thank you for your feedback. Under consideration for the next firmware release."
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    Junior Member Daniel Bichler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Posts
    23
    Why are we only able to set an anamorphic desqueeze of 2X, 1.3X and 1.25X in camera.

    With all these new Full Frame Sensors and the demand of 16:9 / 9:16 / 4:5 content, we have seen a bunch of lens manufacturers offering anamorphic lenses with 1.5x, 1.79x and 1.8x squeeze ratios like:

    - Cooke 1.8x Anamorphic/i Full Frame Plus
    - P&S Technik TECHNOVISION Classic 1.5X
    - Caldwell Chameleon Anamorphic 1:79X

    ARRI ALEXA LF does support.
    Sony VENICE does support.
    Kinefinity MAVO LF does support.
    Panasonic S1H supports.
    Maybe even more?

    We love our Monstro, and wed love to try theses new anamorphic lenses soon, but makes it just too complicated since we are used to REDs simple and efficient workflow!

    The biggest thing we love about RED:
    RED is always a big step ahead of all the other manufacturers, why not in this case?

    Please, please, please give us this option asap!
    RED CF MONSTRO 8K VV
    Zeiss Otus 28, 55, 85

    Website // Facebook // Instagram
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3.   This is the last RED TEAM post in this thread.   #13  
    Fire Chief Jarred Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,190
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Junkersfeld View Post
    From the Cooke Chairman, “If you do the math, to get 2.39:1 desqueezed from a 1.5:1 Full Frame image, you’d have a 1.6x ratio. But to us, that’s not a very interesting anamorphic look. It’s like being half pregnant. The classic oval bokehs are missing.

    “If we did a traditional 2x squeeze, there would be a lot of wasted space and pixels lost in cropping (1.5:1 x 2 = 3:1). So we arrived at 1.8x, which keeps the classic look and oval bokehs. Also, a 2.39:1 image squeezed to 1.8x benefits from covering over 90% of the Full Frame sensor area.”
    1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

    1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Senior Member Tommaso Alvisi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    ITALY
    Posts
    2,180
    Actually 1.5x can be handy when the look needed can't be too extreme, and can be used also on productions where 2x anas would be too much.

    It's also very handy for 16:9 sensors (not applicable to RED) but if a rental house has cameras with 16:9 sensors too and buys 1.5x anas then these would be useable on REDs too...

    ISCORAMAs 1.5x fronts have the most organic rendition imho and on average are measured at around 1.42x usually.

    That's why the absolute best solution would be selectable custom resolutions and custom de-squeeze ratios...

    2nd best would be having at least these 4: 1.33x / 1.5x / 1.8x / 2x

    Thanks Jarred.
    TOMMASO ALVISI | tommasoalvisi.com
    Weapon 6K Carbon Fiber #1605 aka qp
    instagram | twitter
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto & Vancouver
    Posts
    3,740
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarred Land View Post
    1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

    1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.
    Long shot, but any chance for DSMC1 (which might have been the OPs intention)?

    Even though I tend to agree, I also think it'd be a good idea to include 1.5x... (presuming if it's not super difficult, why not?)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarred Land View Post
    1000% agree with Les ( Cooke ) . 1.5x is kinda dumb. It is a little bit like rear anamoprhics... why bother. It is good if you need to "create" resolution, but we don't.

    1.8x is ok though.. and I already have an alpha build for DSMC2 that I am making for RVZ / Cooke. That will roll over into the next big SDK relaease in the spring.
    Never having used a 1.5x front anamorphic lens, I can't comment. However I'd like to be able to shoot that format on my CF Dragon :)
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Senior Member Nick Junkersfeld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN
    Posts
    149
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
    Long shot, but any chance for DSMC1 (which might have been the OPs intention)?

    Even though I tend to agree, I also think it'd be a good idea to include 1.5x... (presuming if it's not super difficult, why not?)

    Yes, I most certainly am requesting these options for DSMC1 cameras - we are in the Dragon forum after all...
    cinematographer/filmmaker
    nickjunkersfeld.com

    Epic-M CF #00288
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts