PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

A forum to share ideas and opinions on the equipment and technical aspects of film, video and AV making.
Post Reply
Pqtrick
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Warwickshire

PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

Post by Pqtrick »

I'm not clear whether my earlier post was uploaded correctly.

I have just purchased a SIRIU 35mm ANAMORPHIC lens for use with my GH-4. I have some issues with it. My camera is up to spec with the firmware but the squeezed image just does not appear to be correct to me. I can de-squeeze it in FCP X or Da Vinci 17 but the resulting image does not conform to a 'widescreen' image. It can be stretched manually, but it becomes distorted.

Anyone with any experience with this lens on this type of camera?
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

Post by Dave Watterson »

Surely one of our experts knows about this sort of issue?
Pqtrick
Posts: 145
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:14 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Re: PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

Post by Pqtrick »

Thanks Dave for your prompt.

I had in the meantime contacted the supplier in Germany. I didn't expect a prompt or any reply. They were most helpful and I have a solution.
It 'works' - if that's the correct word - OK now. The Panasonic Lumix GH-4 has an Anamorphic setting. It needs explains in detail about how to use it. To get the real 2.39:1 widescreen or cinemascope you don't use it!

There are a lot of Geeks on line demonstrating but....! I might geeky-fy myself and post one!

Bon Voyage, if you have not left, otherwise Bon retour!
Pq
User avatar
Dave Watterson
Posts: 1872
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:11 pm
Location: Bath, England
Contact:

Re: PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

Post by Dave Watterson »

It is bon sejour I think! We are in mid festival...

Glad you found a solution.
tom hardwick
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:59 am

Re: PANASONIC LUMIX GH 4

Post by tom hardwick »

I'm tempted to ask why go to all the bother of using an anamorphic, Pq? OK, it does give a certain 'look' to images, especially those that contain point sources of light, but on the other hand it does introduce its own selection of compromises, some of which degrade the image technically.

Why not simply mask down your MFT image and keep it as clean as possible? You'll still be working with a good surface area of sensor yet have none of the optical and (as you've found) post processing disadvantages.
Post Reply