Would love to know more about anarmorphic lenses and your workflow when using them! Thanks again for this, I love watching your original take and opinions from experience in your videos (:
Those anamorphic lenses are kinda cool. I already have the Pictor Zooms (white ones, waited for a sale), but trying to think if there's any way to incorporate some anamorphic shots into a primarily non-anamorphic project. Probably won't bother, but something to think about for the future... if I ever get around to doing some real filmmaking.
Smallrig cage with a cheap Smallrig rails - the baseplate is from the Smallrig shoulder rig setup, so it slides easily onto the shoulder rig, a manfrotto tripod, or a Ronin gimbal. The follow focus was given to me by the son of a DP after he died, so unfortunately I don’t know what the make or model is, but it has a great story!
Hey great vid, I was considering some of those lenses recently. I have two questions for you. 1. I don't think the DZOs work with the 6k pro, only the 6k and 6k G2 because of the internal NDs? And for anamorphic in general, I am getting the impression you need to frame your shots much closer to dead center rather than to the edges because of increasing distortion? And for a future vid Id like to know your thoughts on the Venus Optics Laowa Nanomorph S35 lenses. I know those will work with the 6k pro. Thanks!
Hey Doug! Thanks for your message, no problem let me answer these... 1. Hmm, I haven't heard that. This was all shot on the DZOFILM lenses, so for certain the 20-55mm and the 50-125mm does work on the BMPCC6k Pro with the ND filters. 2. It depends, there's not a lot of "fish eye like" distortion on the sides, so framing to the edges is fine - it is good discipline however to shoot subjects just off centre when shooting anamorphic, which you will commonly find in blockbusters 3. No problem, I'll look into it
Sorry if this is a dumb question but I've only just started researching a step up from my current gear. You mentioned something to look out for related to the large filter thread size and something you couldn't find to fit. I couldn't quite catch what it was that you said couldn't fit? Wanted to research to see if it was relevant to me but I can't do that until I figure out what you are talking about lol.
Yes, I was talking about the large filter thread on the DZOFILM lenses. If you want to put on a black pro mist, or any other filters, you have to buy the most expensive ones. It is an 86mm and some filters you can’t buy that high, so you will have to buy a step up ring as well. That’s what the video was referring to
When television came out, film needed a way of visually differentiating itself from tv shows. This led to the transition from the square image to the wider format of "widescreen" movies. There were multiple ways of achieving this look, but baring in mind that they were shooting on film, to shoot on wide pieces of film would be more costly than the square. So they invented “anamorphic”, meaning a lens which captures a wide image that is compressed into the 4:3 piece of film, to then be stretched in post so it can become “widescreen”. That way, you save money on the film stock. With digital, it’s a lot simpler and we don’t need anamorphic lenses to achieve widescreen, we can crop it in post or in camera - but the anamorphic look has become synonymous with cinema and now it’s imperfections, like the stretched lens flares, are a staple look of science fiction. So when to use anamorphic - it’s really an opportunity to, like it was originally intended, to create an experience different from the home viewing experience. So if you want to make something like a short to submit to film festivals and have it screened on the big screen, anamorphic would be appropriate. It’s less appropriate on a corporate video.
Yes absolutely, if you check out my channel there’s another video on lenses. This video is a follow up to the previous one, so explores more expensive lenses. Check it out: ua-cam.com/video/_2AKMsgjw2M/v-deo.html
Thank you! A v mount battery which is attached to a V mount clamp or a v mount belt, then I run a long cable to it. So either attaching the battery to a tripod or attaching it to a belt then running a long cable to the camera
Hello sir I bought black magic 6k G2 recently but I am confusing to buy cine lens for 6k G2. I don't have enough money for buy 3 or 4 lenses. So i kindly request you to suggest me one budget and standard lens for my 6k G2. I am from India.
So you can’t bring the subject too close to the lens. For instance, I was shooting close ups of hands and details on a book and it didn’t take much until I couldn’t get it in focus.
I have a very hard time processing the phrase "super 35 is industry standard"... It absolutely isn't. Have you even heard of "cinemascope"? 50 years ago, people such as yourself today thought it was the future. It died in the 70s. Cinemascope and super 35 are basically the same thing, the difference being, what you know as super 35 today has nothing to do with actual super 35. Cinemascope were anamorphic lenses used with 35mm film cameras modified for the only purpose of using less film stock. Those modified cameras shot in the "Super 35" format, and the lenses made it possible to shrink the film space used per image even more. It is not industry standard, it never was, just like today, it was a way to save money. 2.35:1 ratios and above aren't a clever artistic statement, they are a means to an end. Seeing those horrible, immense horizontal pillars on your footage should be a clear sign that you're not shooting industry standard. If it were the case, the pillars wouldn't be there. Nobody has a TV 3 times as wide as it is tall, and they never will. It is an inconvenient format, purpose-built to save money or compensate for lagging technology, just like cinemascope was. Let's not repeat history with this nonsense.
@@corryraymondfilms Hey, what's a UA-cam comment section without a proper drunkard rant? It's nice to be acknowledged. Thanks for that. I still think Super 35 is a marketing-driven upsell of a discounted technology, but maybe we'll built wider TVs in the future.
Dude, check in on yourself. I said super 35 is AN industry standard. As in it’s a common format. That’s it. It’s not a marketing push, super 35 sensors are cheaper and the lenses are cheaper too. You can also get great zoom lenses at a good price to cover super 35. It’s the same in digital as it was celluloid. Then you’re ranting at me because I shot in 2:39:1 aspect ratio. I happen to like it and my audience isn’t watching my content on television- these are extracts from shorts I have had screened at film festivals, some of these are Oscar and BAFTAs qualifying shorts. My intention is for them to be displayed on the big screen, not on tv. And funnily enough, if you do shoot at a cropped 2:39:1 on BRAW, it is cheaper because you save card space, which is the other reason why I did it. 🙄
@@corryraymondfilms I thought I did check myself. I freely admit it was a rant, and I'll add that parts of it were unbecoming of me. Super 35 is cheaper, yes, but it is also a way to put a 6K label on a camera with a sensor that doesn't exactly shoot 6K; hence marketing. Setting aside anamorphic lenses (which are still shunned by pretty much every distributor or outlet), most distributed content with 2.39ish ratios (anything wider than 2:1 really) isn't native but rather matted. I guess our main point of disagreement is about the definition of "industry". I've worked in film and tv for over 20 years, so what I think of as "industry" is mostly about financing/selling content. A lot of that money comes with strings attached, delivery format being a big one. Mattes were preferred to 3-perforation (native Super) 35mm film for the same reason, and framing is often skewed to conform to 1.777:1 or 1.85:1 to this day. Producers need to keep their options open in the edit. Distributors, streaming and even broadcast are huge parts of financing, and completion bonds and insurance depend upon at the very least letters of intent from these sources. I understand your audience/distribution is different, I got my start in this business by producing online content for media conglomerates that didn't know how to deal with this back in the mid-2000s. I used anamorphic lenses on 4:3 DV cams back then, and had to stop because those formats didn't cut it for multiplatform use. So that's all I have to say. Be well, keep on doing what you're doing and don't listen to old f"ks like me. This business changes constantly, albeit slower than expected, but I'm not the harbinger of anything. Although, the last 20 years have been tough on the big-screen, financing-wise.
I’m going to say it again, check in on yourself. This UA-cam channel gets a lot of comments and I sit and read all of them. Most ask for instructional advice, many however want to pick up on the odd detail and rant about it. An industry standard means the industry uses it. I have the American Cinematographer Manual on my desk and there’s chapters upon chapters titled “Super 35”, so you can’t argue with me about this. I actually know everything you’re talking about perfs, but think about the context: I’m not going to go into these details for an instructional UA-cam video which is ultimately a piece of entertainment for people wanting to get into cinematography. These discussions are ultimately you trying to let me know that you worked in the industry for 20 years. Great. We don’t disagree with anything, I’m reading a transcript of you using this opportunity to get validation that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for the insulting remarks about my work along the way. Personally, I take deep care and attention to my work and it’s very important to me, so if you insult my work I will defend it. Check in on yourself next time before you rant about another man’s work, you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick
Used a Pictor Zoom 14-30mm for a shoot in Amsterdam a couple of months ago with my 6K Pro, loved it!
Great informational video, Corry! Love how you put this together
I am impressed by the quality these lenses are providing along with Blackmagic pocket 6K Pro. Just wow!
What a quality!!!
Would love to know more about anarmorphic lenses and your workflow when using them! Thanks again for this, I love watching your original take and opinions from experience in your videos (:
I’ll do a video on that no problem!
Amother stonkingly awesome video. Definitely gping cone lenses this year. Just need a 1000 paper rounds to afford them 😩
Those anamorphic lenses are kinda cool. I already have the Pictor Zooms (white ones, waited for a sale), but trying to think if there's any way to incorporate some anamorphic shots into a primarily non-anamorphic project. Probably won't bother, but something to think about for the future... if I ever get around to doing some real filmmaking.
Great video mate!
Thank you!
Walpole Park been going there for over 60 years. Nicely presented and edited.
This is terrific info. Essentially, you just sold every lens in your piece :-)
thanks bro both lenes are fire i have a xeen rn
Would love to have the link to the lenses
Can you put the information of the equipment you have for this camera? Really appreciate it!
If you could only choose 2 leneses, which focal lengths would you get for corporate work & interviews on the 6k pro?
What mount do you use to connect the two?
Nice thank you but OMG the price tags on these
nice rig! what follow focus is that?
Taking the pictor against vespid in the same 35mm for example, how many difference do you see in terms of quality???
Please could you send me a link to buy Len's for my 6k Blackmagic pro
great vid, thx for sharing. what baseplate with rails setup and follow focus are represented here?
Smallrig cage with a cheap Smallrig rails - the baseplate is from the Smallrig shoulder rig setup, so it slides easily onto the shoulder rig, a manfrotto tripod, or a Ronin gimbal. The follow focus was given to me by the son of a DP after he died, so unfortunately I don’t know what the make or model is, but it has a great story!
Thanks for sharing this! So for an indoor < 10 ft two person interview filming, would a 20-55mm Pictor be suitable with the 6K Pro??
Hi! Yes it’s definitely suitable, the 20mm is as wide as you would want to go and the 55 makes for a good mid-CU
Hey great vid, I was considering some of those lenses recently. I have two questions for you. 1. I don't think the DZOs work with the 6k pro, only the 6k and 6k G2 because of the internal NDs? And for anamorphic in general, I am getting the impression you need to frame your shots much closer to dead center rather than to the edges because of increasing distortion? And for a future vid Id like to know your thoughts on the Venus Optics Laowa Nanomorph S35 lenses. I know those will work with the 6k pro. Thanks!
Hey Doug! Thanks for your message, no problem let me answer these...
1. Hmm, I haven't heard that. This was all shot on the DZOFILM lenses, so for certain the 20-55mm and the 50-125mm does work on the BMPCC6k Pro with the ND filters.
2. It depends, there's not a lot of "fish eye like" distortion on the sides, so framing to the edges is fine - it is good discipline however to shoot subjects just off centre when shooting anamorphic, which you will commonly find in blockbusters
3. No problem, I'll look into it
If you do the 2x desqueeze in the 6kpro how does it look?
It’s too much. There is 1.33x squeeze as well and that’s a bit better
Great video do you have links to filters you use for zoom ? Can you use them filters for Sirui anamorphic lens ?
They’re the close up macro adapters here:
82mm Close-up Filter Kit,Fotover... www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07GW7TC9V?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
And yes you can use them on any lens!
@@corryraymondfilms thnk u
Can u please send me a link of the lenses thx
Silly question, can these be used with blackmagic 6K as well as 6k pro?
No worries, yes they can be used
Sorry if this is a dumb question but I've only just started researching a step up from my current gear. You mentioned something to look out for related to the large filter thread size and something you couldn't find to fit. I couldn't quite catch what it was that you said couldn't fit? Wanted to research to see if it was relevant to me but I can't do that until I figure out what you are talking about lol.
Yes, I was talking about the large filter thread on the DZOFILM lenses. If you want to put on a black pro mist, or any other filters, you have to buy the most expensive ones. It is an 86mm and some filters you can’t buy that high, so you will have to buy a step up ring as well. That’s what the video was referring to
when do we use anamorphic.. I want to get it but not sure about it.
When television came out, film needed a way of visually differentiating itself from tv shows. This led to the transition from the square image to the wider format of "widescreen" movies. There were multiple ways of achieving this look, but baring in mind that they were shooting on film, to shoot on wide pieces of film would be more costly than the square. So they invented “anamorphic”, meaning a lens which captures a wide image that is compressed into the 4:3 piece of film, to then be stretched in post so it can become “widescreen”. That way, you save money on the film stock. With digital, it’s a lot simpler and we don’t need anamorphic lenses to achieve widescreen, we can crop it in post or in camera - but the anamorphic look has become synonymous with cinema and now it’s imperfections, like the stretched lens flares, are a staple look of science fiction. So when to use anamorphic - it’s really an opportunity to, like it was originally intended, to create an experience different from the home viewing experience. So if you want to make something like a short to submit to film festivals and have it screened on the big screen, anamorphic would be appropriate. It’s less appropriate on a corporate video.
@@corryraymondfilms wow thank you for that explanation.. honestly that helps clear up a ton.
what SD card did u use?
I use a Sandisk Extreme Pro 256gb C-Fast Card
Those leses are really expensive. Is there lenses cine for bmpcc6k good and more affordable?
Yes absolutely, if you check out my channel there’s another video on lenses. This video is a follow up to the previous one, so explores more expensive lenses. Check it out: ua-cam.com/video/_2AKMsgjw2M/v-deo.html
Your BMPCC rig looks very minimal (in a great way). What's your battery solution for your camera?
Thank you! A v mount battery which is attached to a V mount clamp or a v mount belt, then I run a long cable to it. So either attaching the battery to a tripod or attaching it to a belt then running a long cable to the camera
Hello sir
I bought black magic 6k G2 recently but I am confusing to buy cine lens for 6k G2. I don't have enough money for buy 3 or 4 lenses. So i kindly request you to suggest me one budget and standard lens for my 6k G2. I am from India.
Hi- just the 18-35mm sigma lens - all you need
@@corryraymondfilmsI have sigma lens Sony zve10, it can be used in bmpc6K?
Damn, 3 grand US, I don't want to know what the mid range price ones are.
Dam lens's are so expensive:
And what do you mean by. DOESN’T HAVE A VERY CLOSE RANGE ? 🤔
So you can’t bring the subject too close to the lens. For instance, I was shooting close ups of hands and details on a book and it didn’t take much until I couldn’t get it in focus.
Every time I skipped ahead 15 or 30 seconds to see the lens or footage it would just be your face and hands again talking at the camera
You’re welcome
I have a very hard time processing the phrase "super 35 is industry standard"... It absolutely isn't. Have you even heard of "cinemascope"? 50 years ago, people such as yourself today thought it was the future. It died in the 70s. Cinemascope and super 35 are basically the same thing, the difference being, what you know as super 35 today has nothing to do with actual super 35. Cinemascope were anamorphic lenses used with 35mm film cameras modified for the only purpose of using less film stock. Those modified cameras shot in the "Super 35" format, and the lenses made it possible to shrink the film space used per image even more. It is not industry standard, it never was, just like today, it was a way to save money. 2.35:1 ratios and above aren't a clever artistic statement, they are a means to an end. Seeing those horrible, immense horizontal pillars on your footage should be a clear sign that you're not shooting industry standard. If it were the case, the pillars wouldn't be there. Nobody has a TV 3 times as wide as it is tall, and they never will. It is an inconvenient format, purpose-built to save money or compensate for lagging technology, just like cinemascope was. Let's not repeat history with this nonsense.
“Super 35 is AN industry standard” Thanks for the rant though on your misunderstanding
@@corryraymondfilms Hey, what's a UA-cam comment section without a proper drunkard rant? It's nice to be acknowledged. Thanks for that. I still think Super 35 is a marketing-driven upsell of a discounted technology, but maybe we'll built wider TVs in the future.
Dude, check in on yourself. I said super 35 is AN industry standard. As in it’s a common format. That’s it. It’s not a marketing push, super 35 sensors are cheaper and the lenses are cheaper too.
You can also get great zoom lenses at a good price to cover super 35. It’s the same in digital as it was celluloid.
Then you’re ranting at me because I shot in 2:39:1 aspect ratio. I happen to like it and my audience isn’t watching my content on television- these are extracts from shorts I have had screened at film festivals, some of these are Oscar and BAFTAs qualifying shorts. My intention is for them to be displayed on the big screen, not on tv.
And funnily enough, if you do shoot at a cropped 2:39:1 on BRAW, it is cheaper because you save card space, which is the other reason why I did it. 🙄
@@corryraymondfilms I thought I did check myself. I freely admit it was a rant, and I'll add that parts of it were unbecoming of me.
Super 35 is cheaper, yes, but it is also a way to put a 6K label on a camera with a sensor that doesn't exactly shoot 6K; hence marketing.
Setting aside anamorphic lenses (which are still shunned by pretty much every distributor or outlet), most distributed content with 2.39ish ratios (anything wider than 2:1 really) isn't native but rather matted.
I guess our main point of disagreement is about the definition of "industry". I've worked in film and tv for over 20 years, so what I think of as "industry" is mostly about financing/selling content. A lot of that money comes with strings attached, delivery format being a big one. Mattes were preferred to 3-perforation (native Super) 35mm film for the same reason, and framing is often skewed to conform to 1.777:1 or 1.85:1 to this day. Producers need to keep their options open in the edit. Distributors, streaming and even broadcast are huge parts of financing, and completion bonds and insurance depend upon at the very least letters of intent from these sources.
I understand your audience/distribution is different, I got my start in this business by producing online content for media conglomerates that didn't know how to deal with this back in the mid-2000s. I used anamorphic lenses on 4:3 DV cams back then, and had to stop because those formats didn't cut it for multiplatform use. So that's all I have to say.
Be well, keep on doing what you're doing and don't listen to old f"ks like me. This business changes constantly, albeit slower than expected, but I'm not the harbinger of anything. Although, the last 20 years have been tough on the big-screen, financing-wise.
I’m going to say it again, check in on yourself. This UA-cam channel gets a lot of comments and I sit and read all of them. Most ask for instructional advice, many however want to pick up on the odd detail and rant about it. An industry standard means the industry uses it. I have the American Cinematographer Manual on my desk and there’s chapters upon chapters titled “Super 35”, so you can’t argue with me about this. I actually know everything you’re talking about perfs, but think about the context: I’m not going to go into these details for an instructional UA-cam video which is ultimately a piece of entertainment for people wanting to get into cinematography.
These discussions are ultimately you trying to let me know that you worked in the industry for 20 years. Great. We don’t disagree with anything, I’m reading a transcript of you using this opportunity to get validation that you know what you’re talking about. Thanks for the insulting remarks about my work along the way. Personally, I take deep care and attention to my work and it’s very important to me, so if you insult my work I will defend it. Check in on yourself next time before you rant about another man’s work, you might have gotten the wrong end of the stick