15 replies to this topic

[robtilbury]

Hey guys,

Im on a serious hunt for any of the Iscorama's (1.5x) (36/42/54)

if you have anything or know of anything, please email me at

robtilbury@live.com.au

thanks very much
Rob.

[fugue_state1]

Well, there's a 36 on ebay, but the bidding starts at just shy of $5,000.  So....

[robtilbury]

yea, saw that one... bit ridiculous if you ask me.

[fugue_state1]

A few weeks ago, he was starting bidding at $10,000.  No joke.  Needless to say, there were no bidders.

[EOSHD]

Keep the faith in eBay. Saw two go for under $2000 a few weeks ago.

[robtilbury]

want.isco.so.bad

[QuickHitRecord]

I feel like there is some interesting psychology surrounding "Iscorama Fever".

I should mention that I went to school for graphic design and have worked in multimedia for more than five years now. Obsessing over images is my whole life, so I like think that I have a trained eye. But in many cases, I cannot tell the difference between the Iscorama footage and regular spherical footage.

There. I said it.

But I can't believe that I am the only one who feels this way. Sometimes I wonder if this is a modern example of The Emporer's New Clothes. The funny thing is that I can't help but get excited every time I see one of these lenses on eBay. In fact, whenever there is a new Iscorama listing, I am powerless to stop myself as I autopilot over to Vimeo and watch as many Iscorama videos as I can. For some reason, a part of me desperately wants to fall in love with this lens -- and then drop the equivalent of a couple paychecks to have one. Maybe it's the sleek design, or the idea of owning something coveted so much by others. Maybe it's a magical spell cast by Redstan to sell more adapters.

But even though EVERY Iscorama-shot video is showered in praise by commenters, I just can't get on board. The Iscoramas are missing that plethora of softness, that interest-rich distortion, that melting/cascading/swirling bokeh that I have found on so many of my ever-expanding collection of non-Iscorama lenses. I have found that these characteristics are so understated in the Iscorama lenses that often they are barely noticeable. And so I never bid, and the world just keeps on turning.

[richg101]

as I see it the only selling point is the sharpness matched with the focus system.  if sankors/eikis had the same focus system I doubt there would be so much obsession with the iscos.  If you were shooting a proper movie you would use (hired) panavision lenses.  It's nuts these people paying more than 500 for a isco that is very unlikely to see any use within a real production.  all they will do is create test footage and then get bored and sell it.  the bubble will burst soon enough.  my 20gbp century anamorphic + diopter with enough light to allow the taking lens to be set at f8 allows more than enough sharpness for 1080p.  f5.6 is sharp enough for 720p and f2.8 is fine for when you need the speed and can handle a bit of softness.

[QuickHitRecord]

Amen.

all they will do is create test footage and then get bored and sell it.

You know, you're right. Almost everything on Vimeo that makes use of an Iscorama is a test. There are very, very few films that have actually been made with this adapter. I have never seen one in person or held one of these lenses in my hands but everything that I have read indicates that the focus ring has too much throw to be able to properly rack focus, so you're pretty much stuck with non-focussing shots -- which are achievable (with a lot more character, in my opinion) with almost any other anamorphic lens out there.

I think that it is lost on many people that anamorphic shooting by it's own nature is an image-destructive process. If they want clean and sharp, they should stick with spherical and just crop (and there are workarounds to get some flares in the shot as well). Personally, I like a bit of a soft image (and there is a big difference between soft and out of focus). Anyone who is old enough to have a bank account probably grew up watching 35mm film, and these lenses are the best way that I know of to knock down the clinical sharpness of digital video and emulate that look. EXCEPT for Iscorama (again, in my opinion).

[fugue_state1]

I think that it is lost on many people that anamorphic shooting by it's own nature is an image-destructive process.

Anamorphic is destructive in the way that 24fps is destructive.  It's a stylized version of reality that has less information than what our eyes normally perceive, yet we interpret it as being more "cinematic." 

The Iscorama is not better than other forms of anamorphic, but it is much easier to use, which is probably why it is in such demand.  It certainly produces a superior look to the Century and Panasonic shoot-through filters (they can't really be called lenses). 

[robtilbury]

^^Right on the money. I'm not some obsessive camera test freak! (i dont hate on them anyway). Everyone has different perceptions of what looks nice and what doesn't. The average joe wouldn't know the difference between a 50L cropped to 2.35:1 and a Isco in its natural habitat but i guess thats the game we all play in.

I realize the cost of them right now is just ridiculous, hence why i haven't picked one up yet. Like Fugue_state1 said, the only reason (well the main reason) they are so popular is the ease of use, focusing is ten fold easier with the Isco's. Also, in my personal opinion anything wider than 1.5x squeeze is a bit crazy, especially for internet playback.. projection is a different story.

I personally love the 'look' that the adaptors produce infront of a full frame chip, once again personal taste.

I can promise you all you will love what i do with it when i get my mitts on one

[tony wilson]

iscorama is special it was designed in the very late 1950s and was better than anything in hollywood at the time.

single point focus
ability to shoot sharp at f1.8..even today that is superb
stupid compact size
hollywood runs on corruption just like the city of london and wall st that is why it never took off on movies.
20th century frog had the market until the late 60s when panavision took over.
isco where happy with the home movie and stills adapter market
lomo has sexy cinematic softness,hypergonar amazing flares,kowa sharpness.
iscorama is just sublime ease of use with superb near modern hollywood level picture quality not bad for something knocked up in 1958

[QuickHitRecord]

Tony, would you mind telling me what your background is in? You have a lot of great insight and everytime you post I know that I am going to learn something.

lomo has sexy cinematic softness,hypergonar amazing flares,kowa sharpness.
iscorama is just sublime ease of use with superb near modern hollywood level picture quality not bad for something knocked up in 1958

The images produced by Lomo and Hypergonar both really speak to me a lot more than Iscorama. I guess it's easy to tell what I am not so keen on.

I will soon have an Iscomorphot to play with. It delivers the distorted filmic image that I like so much, focuses to under one meter without diopters, and is also rack-focusable. So the best of both worlds perhaps!

[tony wilson]

i made super 8 home movies using all this old junk that is today anamorphotic treasure then got a job in a film studios then in camera rental.
jdc,panavision and some work for technovision the 3 most important anamorphic motion picture lens rental companies of the last 40 years.
tested gear for many mega movies even prepped vittorio storaro's precious anamorphics.
cleaned robert altmans lovely angenieux zoom his lens not his dick : )
check out his zoom technique


got kicked off the set of full metal jacket cos kubrick thought i was an assassin.
worked on lot's of bbc shit crap.

[QuickHitRecord]

That's quite a list of credentials. It is great to have such a seasoned veteran in our midst. I could be wrong but I don't think that too many of us have rubbed shoulders with greats such as Kubrick.

Having worked with so many anamorphic lenses (8mm, 16mm and 35mm from the sound of it), which have been your favorites? I know that you've spoken highly of the Baby Hypergonar and Iscorama...

[tony wilson]

a lot of the hollywood rental lens us,uk and italian they saw flare as an error as zeiss do today that is why super multicoating was so popular.this was understandable as film is such a beautiful medium you naturally got a unique analogue separation from the actuality.
that is why all the alexa ass holes shine lights into modern lens on commercials cos they want a filmic flare anything to create a distance from digical sterility.
the old panavision c lens where great from the late 60s

but the idiots upgraded them and took some of the magic out of them.
all the movie stuff is big and heavy that is why this super 8 and 16mm stuff is so compact and interesting.
the moller 1.5s could of been made off planet it is that good superb craftsmanship but double system focus.
and the usual iscorama,kowa 8z
i have some faulty old hypergonar glass full of errors that i am cutting down to remove flaws slightly radioactive like a lot of vintage lens.
keeping my fingers crossed that it will be good.
will eventually have maybe 12-20 odd to make and sell into a super compact sharp system.the problem is when you polish or cut these optics you change the focal length and compression ratio.they will go from quite thick to thin optics it will not be iscorama but will destroy lens like optex and panasonic in sharpness.
and should be a lot easier to use than normal dual system trying for a kowa,century,panasonic hybrid.
sharpness with min optical error but it is tough i have polished some lens so much that nothing remains but 1960s radioactive dust : (
followed by a henri chretien groan from beyond the grave