Jump to content

danreddingvideo

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About danreddingvideo

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

danreddingvideo's Achievements

New member

New member (1/5)

2

Reputation

  1. Just brought this lens which was listed as M42... It isn't and I don't know what this is. Can somebody help me out. Thanks
  2. Thanks for the very comprehensive answer!! I'm shooting on a GH4, but with the speed booster, so I think I'm cropping at 1.7 ish... I'm also in anamorphic 4:3 mode, so not sure if that effects things too? I've attached some images of the Helios 44-2... Does the 1st two digits of the serial number reflect the date? That a good one you reckon? I'll look into all the lenses you mention! The lighting advise is VERY useful too..
  3. Ah, thanks! Good to know, and another lens to consider. I was in need of justification to spend my not very hard earned money.... I shall go back to scouring ebay in the quest for another lens to try. I'll look up the Nikon,,, might be a good shout as hopefully there's a better Nikon to Canon adapter than the M42 ones, which seem a bit loose...
  4. I don't know the classic anamorphic streaky look. The Helios is great with the Kowa and the Jupiter 85mm is a perfect addition (they are very prone to flares). If you choose a modern multicoated lens there is much less flare. The thing is though that anamorphics were not invented to produce flares or oval bokeh. They determine the composition and you can shoot with longer lens and get more shallow depth. It is a matter of the subject if you go the anamorphic route or not. But nowadays nearly everything is shot/cropped in 2.40. Not sure if even L. Trier does it now instead of his dogmas (didn't he say they are obsolete?) So I just meant the cliche' long anamorphic flares, by "the streaky look".... Well, personally, I think the real thing looks a million times better than the short cropped digital thing, but maybe I'm just a bit keen as it's all new to me.... I guess it's obvious that the characteristics of the taking lens will show through in the work, but I just wondered how much and how different they are. I'll buy a jupiter 9 and do a comparison... If nothing else, the different focal lengths would be handy.
  5. I'm shooting on a Kowa 8Z and am currently using a Helios 44-2 58 F2 as a taking lens. I've found it surprisingly hard to get flares that resemble the classic anamorphic streaky look.. I've only really taken it out on one shoot, but I've had a play around with is quite a bit and a mate mentioned that the taking lenses will (obviously) influence the shot looks, but I wondered if changing the taking lens would change the flare characteristics substantially? Like I say, I've only taken it out once and I was pointing it right into the light most of the time (video below), although obviously not on the silly grade time lapses. I've been hunting around on ebay and am considering the following, but can anyone tell me how much difference they're going to make, or show me some footage from a similar set-up? I'm not unhappy with the Helios, and perhaps it's not flaring because of LED lights in squares, instead of one focussed light source... Potential Lenses: Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4 Jupiter 9 85 F2 Carl Zeiss Jenna 80 F2.8 Reckon these are worth the investment, or will it make no difference?
  6. Just made this little video.. Some of the first stuff I've shot anamorphic after buying a Kowa 8Z. Pretty terrible test, as I got out of bed too late and lost the sunlight, so it turned into a very low light test.
  7. Hi Mat Would you consider selling the animorphic lens seperately. I'd be very interested in buying it. Thanks. Dan
×
×
  • Create New...