Leaderboard

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :) At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen. I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question. I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping). The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY? The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground. The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m. Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport. I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again. There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all. The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks). Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

Eagerly awaiting your Pocket Cinema Camera? You already have a micro for thirds camera and some C-mount lenses? Want to know if they will cover the sensor of the Pocket? Lets find out! I hope you will add your results, so we can make this list growing. I will only add lenses to the lists when you have proof, in other words: images. How? Because we know the active sensor area of the BMPCC measures 12,48 x 7,02 mm, it is fairly easy to check if our C-mount lenses will cover the full sensor. Calculate this by taking a picture with a lens on your micro four thirds camera, and crop out the image area of theBMPCC. In Photoshop: Open the image. Go to Edit > Image Size, uncheck resample image. Change Image width to 19 centimeters, press ok Go to Image > Canvas Size, change dimensions to 12,48 x 7,02cm, press OK to crop the image to BMPCC size. Resize to 1920x1080 pixels Post your results! Note: If you shoot on the GH3 or other MFT camera's, the sensor size is 17 x 13mm, so change the width in step 3 to 17 cm! To lazy to do it yourself or you can't work it out? Upload the full resolution files and I'll do it. List terms explained: Yes = covers the full sensor of the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera No = doesn't cover the sensor Needs modification = Doesn't fit on C-mount to M43-adapter without modifications Equivalent = The focal length and depth equivalent on a fullframe camera (5D Mark III for example) Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera Compatibility list Primes Apollo 25mm f/0.85 - Yes = 72mm f/2.4 equivalent [link to proof] Angenieux 10mm f/1.8 Retrofocus (Fixed Focus) - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 10mm f/2 - Yes - Needs modification = 28,8mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [more info] Carl Zeiss Jena Tevidon 35mm f/1.9 - Yes - Needs modification = 101mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Century 9mm f/1.8 - YES (poor quality) [link to proof] Computar 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Computar 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Computar TV Lens 25mm f/1.8 - YES = 72mm f/5,2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 8,5mm f/1.5 - NO [link to proof] Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.8 - YES - Needs modification = 36mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Cosmicar 25mm f/1.8 - YES - 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Ernitec 6.5mm f/1.8 - YES (heavy distortion) [link to proof] Ernitec/Navitar 17mm f/0.95 - YES (v. blurry corners & distortion) [link to proof] Fujinon TV 12.5mm f/1.4 - Yes (blurry corners) - Mod.? (unknown) = 36mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Fujinon TV 16mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Fujinon TV 35mm f/1.7 - YES - Needs modification = 101mm f/4.9 equivalent [link to proof] Leitz Macro Cinegon 10mm f/1.8 - Yes (dark corners) = 28,8mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Kern Switar 10mm f/1.6 - Yes (slight vignette & blurry corners) [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 13mm f/1.8 - Yes = 37,5mm f/5.2 [link to proof] Nikon Cine Nikkor 25mm f/1.8 - Yes = 72mm f/5.2 equivalent [link to proof] Pentax 25mm f/1.4 - YES - 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider 10mm f/1.8 (silver version) - No (almost) [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cinegon 11.5mm f/1.9 - No (almost) = 33mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider-Kreuznach Cine-Xenon 16mm f/2 - Yes = 46mm f/5.8 equivalent [link to proof] [link to proof (2)] Schneider-Kreuznach Xenon 25mm f/0.95 - Yes = 72mm f/2.7 equivalent [link to proof] Schneider Xenoplan 17mm f/1.7 - Yes (blurry corners) - [link to proof] SLR Magic 11mm F1.4 - Yes - [link to proof] (added by EOSHD) Tokina TV Lens 8mm f/1.3 - NO [link to proof] Tokina TV Lens 16mm f/1.6 - NO [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson Cooke Kinic 25mm f/1.3 - Yes = 72mm f/3.7 equivalent [link to proof] Taylor-Hobson 25mm f/1.9 - Yes - 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] Wesley 25mm f/1.4 - YES = 72mm f/4 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 12.5mm f/1.5 - Yes = 36mm f/4.3 equivalent [link to proof] Wollensak Cine Raptar 25mm f/1.9 - Yes = 72mm f/5.6 equivalent [link to proof] $ 25 noname 25mm f/1.2 CCTV - YES = 72mm f/3.5 equivalent [link to proof] Zooms Ernitec 6-12mm f/1.4 - NO [link to proof] Kowa TV Zoom 12.5-75mm f/1.8 - NO [link to proof]

Hey Andrew clearly this bothers you the he thing is you are making statements based not upon facts not assumptions. We don't know the full story here but I can tell you this if the presenter of a show I was working on (allegedly) punched a producer the show would be most likely suspended until this was sorted out. Love him or loathe him he is the show. He is what you see, a loutish, arrogant loudmouth. That's why he is so polarising. I personally grew tired of him a couple of decades ago but my post here is not about my personal feelings towards Mr. Clarkson. He does what he does very well indeed. There clearly is more to this than we have been told but hypothetically if Clarkson punched this producer unprovoked just because there was no catering that is beyond acceptable behaviour. He should be fired. If it was the other way round and producer punched Clarkson would the show be suspended like this? Would the producer still have a job a half million petition to bring him back? If there was a fight between them behind closed doors then maybe, just maybe they could sort it out between them. But in the public? It becomes something more...this is public behaviour. If Clarkson did punch him then it's assault pure and simple. Do we just ignore it and give out the message this is ok to do? No we do not. Last time I checked punching someone was still illegal. Yes, it's a massively successful show and brings in huge amounts of money. I think what the BBC have done is show balls! The cynical amongst us would have expected the Beeb to not want to lose their cash cow and sweep it under the carpet, pay off producer and carry on like nothing happened for danger of losing said cash cow. The BBC have to be beyond reproach. It's part of their remit. They are not a broadcaster like all the others. If they want to do away with the licence fee and make it a commercial station like all the rest then they could get away with the aforementioned cynical behaviour. They are the BBC. They cannot. They have a really bad stigma these days about very serious past incidents that they ignored. We all know what those are. They HAVE to be seen to not protect their stars and brush stuff under the carpet. No company should but especially the BBC given what's happened the past two years or so. so there are my thoughts. if you miss the show watch the movie version. It's more believable. "fast and the furious"

SAMPLES ! Sony A7 + Novoflex adapter ring + Nikon 50mm E Serie f1.8 + Redstan clamp + Bolex System Moler 16/32/1.5X anamorphic lens More samples and larger on my Flick'r : http://www.flickr.com/photos/43243778@N04/sets/72157638698522816/

Hi guys, We just shot this video with the BMCC, Metabones Speedbooster, Nikon Lenses and Iscorama 54MC. RAW files were developped in After Effects CS6 (with Camera Raw) to Prores444 2400/1350. Color grading was done in AE. Please let us know what you think, we'd love to get some feedback. Cheers, Mihnea

lesson learned....     not one person dealing with this issue seems to have contributed positively at all to this forum.  Just come here to take take take.  either selling or buying, they bring NOTHING to the forum.  Personally I think there should be a stop to all this posting of ebay listings, personal sales, etc.  at least topics of this nature should be only postable and visible by regulars.     Also, someone please close the ebay listings topic.  this has to be the most ridiculous idea ever.  Share your findings with the world, kill any chance of you or anyone else savvy to anamorphics getting a bargain because everyone and their grandma can come in and see a run down of anamorphics worth bidding on.  If it were a secret topic to regulars I'd understand, but literally, I'd say that topic alone is contributing 50% towards the current silly inflation of anything with a squeeze ratio! 

I'm not offended by your post, but I do find it a load of tub thumping nonsense. 1) If a lead star on a production punched a producer, there would be consequences, even if it were Tom Cruise. 2) You seem to conveniently paper over the fact that he was caught saying nigger on camera and also called an asian guy a "slant'. Two of numerous offences that went unpunished and led to his final warning. If you want to move into this sort of editorial you need to put down both sides of the story, especially when your followers are not all UK based. This isn't bending over to political correctness, it is very lightly punishing someone for a constant stream of problems. Most other presenters would have been kicked in to touch long ago. You cannot let someone go unpunished, time and again, just because he is a creative asset and pulls in big bucks. I don't mind Clarkson, he can be funny, entertaining, no nonsense and clearly knows his cars. But that isn't a green light to do absolutely anything.

This is the best new camera of 2010!

I am upgrading some members to moderator status. If they choose to exercise their newfound abilities, this upgrade comes with the ability to delete and lock posts as well as the all powerful, all conquering ability to ban members who misbehave!   Thanks for their positive contributions to life here at EOSHD I am promoting RichG101, mtheory and jonpais to moderator status for the main forum and all sub-sections.   It carries no extra work or obligations - exercising their privileges will be entirely at the discretion of the moderator. I'll continue as the main admin. But I think having extra eyes and ears plus a few more trusted people with the ability to clean up posts and ban members will help me a lot.   Also since they expressed an interest, JohnBarlow will moderate the Anamorphic forum and Andy Lee will get his own sticky thread on lenses and lighting which may build into it's own forum section if it is successful.   I'll create the moderator privileges later in the week. Any objections or any opt outs please have your say on this thread!

Hey guys, I've written a really simple command line app for Mac that will resample GH4 footage from 4K 4:2:0 to 2K 4:4:4 using pixel summing. This will give you real 10 bit data in the luminance channel, so it's not just doing a brute-force bump from 8 bits to 10 bits. There actually is some interesting pixel finagling going on here: http://www.mediafire.com/download/f7h950spj5hrn9f/gh444.dmg There's no GUI, so you'll need to run it from the terminal. Do this by copying the app into the directory that contains the GH4 MOV files and using the following command in a terminal: ./gh444 INPUTFILE.MOV Make sure you cd to the current directory first if necessary. You can do this by typing "cd" into the terminal, add a space, and then drag the folder containing the MOV files into the terminal window. It will automatically add the path to the cd command. It'll look like this: cd /path/to/gh4/files The app will spit numbered DPX frames out in a folder named "dpx_out." I'd love for you guys to give it a try and see if you find it useful!

I think we should be happy that 'the masses' are still buying Canon because it is 'the brand to get'. We, as enthusiasts and some even professionals, earn their living with shooting video's. I'm so happy that 80% of video shooters still shoot 720p on their Canon 7D / 5D. Why? Because my GH3 looks amazing compared to it. And my clients go 'ooeh' and 'aah' when they see my footage. Of course it is composition, grading, talent, etc. But the camera is also important. So I say, stop spreading the word about Canon camera's being shitty. You gain nothing from it, but you take the edge, of us video makers who spent lots of time selecting the best gear carefully, away. Buy Canon folks! Great reliable gear! Never had any problems with them! Furthermore, even though your articule is spot on Andrew, it accomplishes nothing. It's like asking Sony why they don't release a Mac Pro competitor for less money. Clearly there is no interest from Canon in this market. But also, they will still sell the most camera's for years and years to come. And you should buy a Canon, because they are great!

I've been playing with the GH4 for a while now. I'll share my video's here. Shot a lot more material, still have to edit/upload it. Will do so in the following days. Go over to Vimeo/YouTube for all the details in the lenses/profiles/settings used. You can download 4K files or high bitrate on Vimeo. Cinema 4K mode - sunset and lowlight. The 14mm makes razorsharp 4K images. Also used a cheap 200mm f/3.5 Vivitar lens. Hard to get the focus exactly right and maybe not really suitable for 4K. For the video on Vimeo I used pretty high iso values. Shots with the birds are 3200 for example. 96 fps slomo test: with shallow dof shots it is pretty sharp. I have some slomo sufing shots as well, the resolution looks less good with very detailed scenes. Short test shot at ISO6400 in C4K. Anamorphic test with Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 and Petit Cinevision 1.5x

Check EOSHD 5am GMT Friday 7th

  I enjoyed Phil when he was genuinely putting out useful regular posts. Super 35mm adapters, DSLRs, all workarounds he endorsed. Built his name on DSLRs in fact, wouldn't have a well known blog without them. Now all I see is extreme self love and a formidable self obsession. Pics of Bloom on a plane. Pics of his cats. Instagram self portraits. Fooling about at NAB, Looping Vine videos. Posing here, posing there, posing doing this, posing doing that. It's enough to make you go insane. HAD ENOUGH   The cult of personality has overtaken the filmmaker for me. Hate all the moral posturing too. Philip uses the moral high ground and his sense of humour as defence mechanisms against those he doesn't agree with. His ego HATES any form of criticism however constructive. Sad really, as in doing so one is left with just Bloomies and groupies around you. Say you don't like so many ads on his blog and you are met with standard response THIS BLOG COSTS SO MUCH TO RUN, and he tries to claim the high ground. I know how much blogs cost to run. Very little. In the past I did EOSHD one-handed on a shoestring for years. So make no mistake, the blog is to promote Philip Bloom. It is not only a selfless act of sharing he makes it out to be.   Met Phil quite a few times, each time has been odd. Charming and coldly indifferent at the same time. At Photokina, he belittled me and basically humiliated me in front of two strangers in the name of humour knowing it was inappropriate in the circumstances - very barbed passive aggressive exchanges disguised as humour, really uncomfortable to be subjected to. On other occasions he was fine. I think he has issues.

The official EOSHD discussion thread for all things lens related!

One chapter at a time, I'm translating to english my graduation work which is 90% focused on anamorphics. I hope it brings some light onto common questions as well as works as a good follow-up read after the original EOSHD Anamorphic's Shooter Guide. I'll keep updating the links to each chapter on this post, please feel free to comment and correct me along the way. There are 22 chapters/topics and roughly a hundred pages. WHO AM I AND WHAT IS THIS ABOUT? http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7166 INTRODUCTIONhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7174 LENS RESEARCHhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7195 a ) FOCUS THROUGH (1.33x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7204b ) ISCORAMAS (1.5x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7225c ) DOUBLE FOCUS (2x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7235d ) CINE LENSES (2x)http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7260e ) DAMAGE AND SERVICINGhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7278f ) DIOPTERS AND CLOSE UPShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7282g ) LENS-YCLOPEDIAhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7280h ) FAKING THE LOOKhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7283 MAGICLANTERN RAWhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7304 a ) CUSTOM CROPMARKShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7305 ZONA SSPhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7310 a ) LOMO: EPISODE 01http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7311b ) ISCORAMAS: EPISODE 02http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7317 THE PROCESShttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7318 a ) CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7319b ) ON SET PREVIEW http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7320c ) WORKFLOW CONCLUSIONBIBLIOGRAPHY

That video is brilliant!

Have a great one, and cheers to my EOSHD friends wherever you are

https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa3tmrtw8d3stn6/Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 9.43.18 PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/6v9z5z6eim4kc88/Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 9.42.56 PM.png?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/9rcnqo8etwrcwfh/Screen Shot 2014-12-22 at 9.43.27 PM.png?dl=0 Screenshots and the video should be live below shortly.

Here's my video to share. Had some trouble nailing focus shooting T2.8 on some crap BMPC LCD screen, but here you go! EXPERIENCE I enjoyed using this. This is a final production prototype that I am testing. What makes it great is that the setup was really light, pretty well-built, and the learning curve is pretty easy. It can resolve sharp images, especially with the achromats. On the small LCD of the pocket camera though, getting focus can be a crapshoot. Focus peaking does not always work and I had to guess a lot. I did have to tell Ying to slow down a couple times because there was no way I could pull focus, especially on a fairly fast aperture of T2.8 and pretty much 100mm equivalent lens. Really should have a large monitor. But then it's not really a run and gun lens like I was using here though. I don't feel like anamorphic in general is normally for documentary style work. Neither is the pocket camera. Hope this helps you. Erik

I had been a projectionist for a long time (now this profession has died), and from 2000 on I had also been a digital projectionist. Until 2011, when automation finally killed the job, I used to compare my own stuff to the DCPs, side by side on the big screens, in the last two years also as DCPs, when easyDCP and openDCP became available. The largest screen was 78 feet x 32 feet (that's for scope, for 16:9 the width then was 58 feet). First thing I noticed is that resolution doesn't influence sharpness to the expected degree. And it also doesn't influence subjective quality very much. In fact, an upscaled SD DVD ( anamorph pixels with scope-crop, really the worst way to treat a video) could be shown to a big audience, and (back then) nobody complained, the class-A hardware scalers made it look good. I know this is hard to believe, but we once had a festival with student films, ranging from DVD, BD to genuine DCP (a Red!), and the one best looking was a masterfully graded HVX200 short, played from SD DVD. On the other hand, there was a way to know instantaneously what was film and what was video: Colors. I know this comparison is only 8-bit, but I have to find a way to describe aesthetic subtleties here. With a camera like the GH2 ("Musgo"), for example, one would be well advised to fill the frame with detail, textures (resolution, that's the GH2s strength) and not with skies and other big areas of glorious colors. Right now we grade for 8-bit, so 12-bit raw is *just* a bigger palette for grading. Color depth seems to add a new dimension to our video. It's fun to tear the, er, bloom off the images and to dive through the colors. Would it stand against an Alexa? I can't tell, really, but I'm convinced it would do better than many others. I can't wait to see a DCP with the 12-bit preserved in my old cinema.

More samples : :)

My latest short film!!! "The Quiet Escape." Shot on the Samsung NX1 with 35mm Nikon AIS f2 lens and Leica R 100mm lens - one shot. Used Filmconvert and Gorilla Grain to treat it in Davinci Resolve. Came out so nicely. THANK YOU EOSHD and Andrew Reid for this camera!! Minus 5 contrast Minus 3 saturation Minus 12 (all the way) sharpness Before Gamma DR existed. The olden days.

PREFACE: I have been doing some testing with this lens for a while now, but lately I have been swamped with work. Also, there has been some sadness surrounding the girl who appears in the demo video (and several other anamorphic tests of mine), so anamorphic shooting has been on the back burner for a while now. But I'm seeing now that someone else has had the same idea, and is trying to make an unrealistic profit from it. And so I feel that I must post this write up, because this isn't a $1400 lens. The search for the perfect anamorphic lens is over (at least for me). Some months ago, I saw a post here from a member named frerichs. He claimed to have purchased a Bell & Howell 2x 16mm Anamorphic Projection lens (not the excellent Kowa model) for cheap and discovered that it was single focus, like the coveted Iscorama. I was skeptical, but since they can often be had for between $75 and $150 on eBay, I bought one to try out for myself. At first glance this lens does not look like a winner. It has neither the steam punk appeal of the Lomo square fronts, nor the timeless curves of the Iscorama. The impossibly long and narrow build of the lens suggests that this would never be viable match for anything but the longest taking lenses. And yet it works. The front element is a -7 diopter that focuses the other two elements in the housing as the head is turned, similar to the Iscorama. Unlike the Iscorama, the lens takes about five full rotations to go from infinity to close focus, which is limiting for practical use. But I have been working with a CNC machinist to resolve this, and I now have a prototype that allows me to do a full range rack focus in a one and a half turns: (Want to do this yourself? Ask a machinist to design a new front housing with a "multi-start thread" that will house the front diopter and screw directly onto the existing thread on the tube; this could also conceivably be done for Iscoramas to the same effect). We have also added a standard 58mm threading for easier filter mounting, and I've since installed a custom seamless ultra-wide delrin focus gear to add just a little torque for even easier focusing (not pictured). The Bell & Howell projection lenses that originally shipped with this lens were f/1.2 and f/1.4, so it is designed to be sharp at faster apertures -- and I find that it is. Perhaps not razor sharp, but as sharp as I'd ever want an anamorphic lens to be. And once you've removed the two limiting screws from the "head" of the lens, you can focus as close as two feet without diopters. Too much closer than that and the head will screw right off, but it's just as easy to screw right back on. Flaring is nice: The lens is not without its drawbacks. For one, it focuses to about 40 feet, not true infinity. That's not an issue for me, but it might be for some shooters. It's all-metal construction makes it a bit heavy which combined with its length will benefit from a lens support (which eliminates the shake that appears in my rack focus test). It vignettes when paired with wider lenses, so it is a better fit for smaller sensor cameras or Canon DSLRs with Magic Lantern raw crop mode enabled. For instance, I can shoot 1600x1200 with a Pentax Takumar 105mm f2.8 lens on my 5D Mark III and I don't see any vignetting before f/8. I also tested it with a Nikkor 50mm f1.8 AI-S on my GH2, and it was vignette-free so long as I cropped my 2x image down to 1.5x. So how does the footage look? Here's something that I shot with it: I am excited to add a sharp, easily rack-focusable, short minimum-focusing anamorphic to my arsenal. It won't be the right lens for every anamorphic user, especially those who want to be able to shoot as wide as possible, but for the price, it could make single-focus anamorphics more accessible to those who have not had a chance to work with them yet. Happy shooting!

I would like to give my platform to up and coming musicians around the world to showcase their music through my cinematography to an audience of around 250,000 people per month. This is the EOSHD Music Challenge. Readers act as DJ - they can pick music from up and coming singers and bands, with suggestions that might suit the mood of my cinematography and future camera tests. Cinematic music is really important to me but I haven't been satisfied with The Music Bed or similar resources so far. How does the challenge work? 1. Suggest a band or musician on this thread. They have to be up and coming not signed to a major label or already huge. 2. I investigate and do the contacting of those which I like and credit you for the find! 3. If they agree to let me use their music, they will find a new audience through my blog and hopefully sell some tracks on iTunes from a link on EOSHD. You will be designated as the discoverer of talent and winner of the challenge. 4. You can have fun with this challenge and play DJ - use your taste to select the right standard of music to fit EOSHD and in turn you might discover new music yourself which you really enjoy listening to. 5. My cinematography at EOSHD is purely an artistic endeavour and experimental, non commercial and does not make any money but for all videos featuring unsigned acts I will consider enabling the Vimeo Tip Jar and sharing the proceeds with the musician 50:50! This is a new idea and it will start off as a trial. If it works then great! If not then we will swap things around until it does, because I am determined to find new music and up and coming artists. Good soundtracks are really important for filmmakers and I believe in finding new talent. Perhaps you know some artists yourself? Perhaps you are one?

Weird. Not a single word about Clarkson's behaviour or responsibility ? It's everyone else's fault according to you ? Never mind him being drunk while at work and hitting a superior, right ? I only see 1 person doing any moral posturing here. Defending alcohol abuse in the workplace and physical violence. And if you're going to get upset with every person disagreeing with you, maybe you simply shouldn't allow comments. That'll save you the trouble of responding. I don't have a problem with your opinion. But calling this a threat to democracy and free speech is ludicrous. A soccer player getting sacked can still find another team to play for. A recording artist dropped by their label, can still sign somewhere else. If he's really that special and unique he'll find another sponsor and you'll continue to enjoy him. You've now posted 3 times about the same thing. And plenty of people have disagreed. Are you going to keep posting until we all agree ? Or all leave ?

Hi everybody. I was at CES today and at the Samsung CES booth where they had some NX1 cameras mounted around a photo booth with a couple of models in a living room setting. I happened to notice that the Samsung people did not have the NX1 SD card slot glued shut so I slipped in my own SD card and made some video using the Gamma Normal, Gamma C, and Gamma DR profiles that is in the 1.2 pre-release firmware. I thought that I would share them with all of you. Before I made the video, I performed a RESET ALL on the camera so I would be shooting with pristine default settings. Attached are the screen grabs of the video playing in KODI/XBMC of my MacBook Pro. Take note of how the black colors in the picture frame that is on the bookshelf to the left of the model's head perform under Gamma DR and Gamma C, and Gamma Normal. You can get the raw H.265 files from my MediaFire file share: https://www.mediafire.com/folder/63s4q7yuwp7nk/CES2015_NX1

new firmware is on my nx1 - was so simple to install. It has enabled 6k IMAX recording and global shutter and 14 444 pro res files and slo mo up to 400,000 FPS and made the camera say "nice shot" everytime I get a good shot. I highly recommend upgrading.

Some various shots using the awesome FF58 and other with a Voigt 50 1.5 (@2.8) together with the SLR Anamorphot. Yes the low light ability is pretty insane on the camera, I wish I brought my Ninja Blade to record the footage though. Hard to pack everything while on vacation since, you're supposed to be on vacation lol. I hope there will be a 4:3 mode for 2X anamorphic on this camera one day...we can wish :)

IMAX cat videos please.

As these user names seemed familiar to me, and I felt I had seen useful and helpful post from these guys in the past I decided to see what kind of trouble the were causing. Of baltic's 8 posts I would consider 7 o them to be helpful normal discussions, this being the only exception. And of Nog's 13 posts I didn't find any that were looking to cause trouble, the were all offering opinions, help, or information. This was by far his most troublesome post. Baltic's fanboy comment was out of line and I don't agree with telling someone what kind of videos they should make, but is that single post ban worthy? As for Nog, unless you removed all of his troublesome posts so I was not able to find them he absolutely didn't deserve getting banned for that statement. Do you really feel that is trouble making? I am a huge fan of your site and the work that you do, I check in here almost daily since it is one of the best sources for information on anamorphics which is a large interest of mine. But I have to say that banning these individuals, especially Nog in this way is more damaging for the community than anything they did. Am I missing something here?

I've been out in Dubai for commercial work, and in my spare time I used the 5dmkIII + raw to shoot a travelogue. Tried to capture some of the lesser-known parts of Dubai and the surrounding region. Enjoy!

I am in talks with some professional musicians and film scorers here in Berlin and have discovered some real talent... The average quality of their work far exceeds the current music licensing libraries and it is more original, more interesting.   I am thinking therefore some kind of music licensing service might be useful to offer on EOSHD especially with the Vimeo copyright problem filmmakers are facing. I don't want to see people sued for copyright infringement when they are just trying to express themselves and their art.   Some of the pros I know here are doing really high end audio - we're talking Hans Zimmer & feature film standard. However these are professionals and we need to pay them. It is simply not going to wash using a track for free that took them 6 months of recording time in studios that charge $400 per day.   I'm wondering what a fair and acceptable rate would be for licensing? I want it to start low to be accessible to artists but scale up to commercial work in the right way. Typical prices at the Music Bed range from a minimum of $50 for non-profit to $399 for commercial work and for larger scale commercial work custom quotes are required.   EOSHD music licensing would be different.   For personal work or zero budget short films on Vimeo / YouTube (non-commercial) $19 - 1 track $50 - 5 tracks $99 - 10 tracks   For commercial work - small clients (<10 employees) and non-profit organisations $50 - 1 track $99 - 5 tracks $199 - 10 tracks   For commercial work - large clients (>10 employees) and advertisements $199 - 1 track $399 - 5 tracks Custom quote - 10 tracks   For features, documentaries and short films with a crew $199 - 1 track $499 - 5 tracks Custom quote - 10 tracks   Of course before you buy you can play all tracks in full on EOSHD to see if they are what you need.   I'd like some feedback on this first before I decide to go ahead with it or not as the amount of work involved here is very significant.   In particular what do you need from such a service? What projects do you need music for... And what do you think of the pricing?   Cheers!

I think the big secret is a Metabones Speed Booster that gives the GH4 hybrid tea/coffee making features.

I will be making extensive posts on lenses.... new... old, vintage... cheap and expensive and what their main good points are and how to get the best out of them. And also some useful articles on general lens use that will help improve your shooting and make things more dare I say more 'cinematic' and less 'video' which seems to be what alot are asking for. so say tuned folks and watch this space......

I don't understand this post. DSLRs are for photographers. They are made for stills and not video. It's just so happens that we have adopted it as a filmmaking tool. If you are a serious filmmaker, Canon want you to buy the Cinema EOS Line. Nikon aren't interested. Fuji, erm... No need to bother. Panasonic...they have plans and want you to buy into their M43 system. They get punters in with the GH line, to then offer video based models later. ;) So what if Nikon haven't bothered with a video feature in this camera, who cares? Technically, hobbyists don't need professional features. Professionals need professional features and therefore buy professional cameras. Blackmagic cameras are for pros and lack many pro features. Canon etc, I expect, don't care. It's very niche. I'm not sure why ML RAW comes into this in any way at all. The effect this has on the market is literally nothing. It's a hack. It's not a feature of the camera. ML RAW is a discovery, it's not a market leading feature. The annoying fact for most is that if you want a camera with better features, you need to get shooting and earn some money. If it's just a hobby, then why would the camera manufacturers screw their business models by giving top features to people who just want to point and shoot? It doesn't make any sense. There is a feeling that manufacturers (Canon especially) are not putting in the juice they could even into their pro cameras. This is true, and it happens because they are a business who want to make a profit. I don't think the camera companies are out of touch. This forum is out of touch. The camera companies believe they are catering for you, and as we are all buying their cameras, they are. ;)

Firstly there is a multitude of problems that were allowed to happen, that has had this announcement made and uncharacteristically these comments are made by the two people often associated with destroying Hollywood in the first place, whilst both Lucas and Spielberg created moments in cinema that yielded the terminology 'blockbuster', they are not to blame entirely.   The studios having let the dreamers of the 70s have their way, in order to stop their film industry falling apart, an industry that no longer knew what to do with the fast changing cultural landscape of the era, decided to play observer. In observing they saw a formula and took the reigns back, what they didn't observe is the 'why' and focused only on the '$' these films made. Having run much of the Hollywood gauntlet under this ideology worked until the era of todays audience kicked in, or more importantly speaking the age of the internet. Today audiences are in charge and the film industry is having to fight back against many other forms of entertainment on many different portals out there, what is making it worse in this 'tailored to my own choice' era, is that again the industry isn't wanting to understand or learn from, so they keep upping the event tentpoles and not the culture of what cinema has been for a 100 years.   Originality costs today, that is the fundamental reasoning behind remake culture, the last studio original fable was Inception and Nolan had to earn that, and did so with the ROI of TDK and the promise that he would also do TDKR. The same goes for Spielberg, just because he has made a lot of hits doesn't mean they will bow to him, the business is about the business of film, so for Schindlers List to be green lit, he had to sign for JP:Lost World and when you watch that film, you can tell right away his heart is not in it, in any of it, because he had to make it and not wanted to make it.   As for Lucas and his Red Tails nightmare, the business told him 'no one would be interested in that particular story, it was the business talking and he didn't want to listen, this was both right and wrong. Lucas accused the industry of being racist and this was a huge error on his side of reasoning, a little blind sided and more in line with a trouble maker, than as a bonafide reason. He should have understood what the industry was saying or just financed it himself, which he ended up doing.   At the Berlinale this year, I spoke with a lot of buyers at the EFM (European Film Market) as I have a UK thriller script set in the Afro Carribean UK community and even though it's not about the culture of these people, the first thing more than half of them told me was, we don't buy black stories, when I probed why, rather than assuming the worst, they said we cannot sell them, it was that simple, they were being truthful about sales which is what they do and they know what they are talking about, they were not being racist.   What is clearly missing and has been for a long time is what the culture of cinema used to be about that led to an industry being fruitful and now that there are signs of it becoming fruitless, no one wants to understand the hierarchy of the failure that has led to that.   If anything, the people, as in the audience, well they are in charge now right, not the studios, and are dictating what is being made by them. Good you might say on one hand, well actually it is bad on the other, because for every $1b, an empty and void of content Iron Man type movie makes, this only guarantees to Hollywood that that is what the people want, hence why they will only give their energies and resources to keep making them. However, if only those type of movies are shown, what choice do we have? It's a vicous circle, and until once more the industry collapes, and again they ask the creatives to give them back an industry again, it will be too late.   We cannot have the 70s again, and Hollywood cannot rely and hope the same can be repeated again, because those that can have gone on to other portals now to deliver them, furthermore, watching cinema and that magical artful experience of having a voice shared by many at the same time, a voice that matters first, is truly if not already lost right now.   A New Hope is more than needed, both culturally, creatively and most importantly, in alignment with an industry willing to listen and apply.  

Raw for under $1,000. This is actually what you call a "game changer" in the real world Laforet. Lmfao

On my first shoot with the Sony FS7 - I was very impressed with the image out the camera and the ergonomics, but I was very disappointed with the performance of the firmware. It was slow, glitchy and hard to use. (The video is out Jan 29th - edit this week). I chose the FS7 again for another shoot as the client was adamant on 4k and slow motion. I agreed and received a brand new unit from my rental provider. Things were a bit different this time, as the body had the extension unit and battery bolted onto the back, plus a Vocas railing system underneath. I chose ProMist filters to diffuse the skin of our lady pop star with a matte box, locked off on a Satchler tripod. I shot the video in XAVC-I 4k 25fps and slow motion in 1080 150fps, SLog3. I had plenty of lighting such as Kino Flo, Arri and Dedolights so I could light the vast location which was a decadent seaside theatre room. I have to say, the dynamic range wowed me even more. Lighting the large interior was a smooth process. Detail is very impressive. The zebras and peaking are very good. Noise looks minimal. Motion cadence however does look a little 'video', although I can't judge this fully until the grade. Handling the camera was fine on the tripod, as expected. An annoying issue with the extension unit is that it gets in the way of the HDMI port. You have to really force it. We didn't get it to work in the end. May have been an issue elsewhere, so we used the very good LCD throughout. Firmware wise - the camera performed better than before. I'm not sure if the unit before was a bit faulty, as it was slow and crashed a lot. Still - it wasn't as responsive as I'd expect. The menus are dreadful and over complicated, it takes so much time just to change the most simple settings. As a user experience - the firmware performance and user experience is very poor. I've got used to it, but it really does need a complete overhaul. The button layout on the side of the camera is also slow and fiddly. They really need to come up with a modernised way of button layouts on these types of cameras. Finding where to play a clip was a nightmare, until I found a little button called 'Thumbnail.' Not the best name! Another issue was the Speedbooster. Changing aperture on an EF lens was terrible, as the aperture setting would go crazy and go from f2 to f16 with a slight dial. Metabones and Sony need to chat. With these issues aside, the camera is great to shoot with and delivers a lovely image. It makes the FS700 look like a toy. For the money, it is fantastic. I much prefer using this camera compared to a RED Epic and Blackmagic CC. I do miss the quicker setup times with a DSLR/DSLM camera, but you gain quality features for a better picture. I will definitely use it again and can't wait to edit the 2 music videos I've shot. When they are released, I will share! Here is me and the camera:

Canon 5D3 + Iscorama pre-36 VD + Helios 44-2 at f/4 Canon 5D3 + Kowa B&H + Jupiter 9 at f/2

​Nahua, when I get more time I will show you how I did it, I will post some close photos on how I clamped the sankor to the FM, meanwhile I did one more video test.

For me it has to be upgrading my cameras. I got a BMPCC for £366 in the summer sale and a GH4 for £899 on black friday weekend. Together that's the same amount of money I paid for my D5300 and G6 a year ago. But I've moved from two excellent enthusiast hybrid cameras to two professional video cameras. It really has been a big and worthwhile leap for me - not least because I'm done buying and researching cameras for at least a couple of years now. I'm going to focus completely on making actual films for people other than fellow camera boffins. That's the big moment for me. Merry christmas and a happy new year everyone! I hope 2015 brings good filmmaking to you all!

I've been playing with the GH4 today in RAW stills burst mode. My workflow needs some refinement to get the motion blur looking more regular, but I actually quite like the filmic staccato of 12fps. The image quality is insanely nice though: Note: Plus members can download the original Prores LT file on Vimeo. I REALLY RECOMMEND DOING THIS - motion looks much worse when streamed. Vimeo blurb below: First test of using GH4 in RAW stills burst mode to make video. RAW stills converted to ProRes 444HQ and slowed to 50% in 24p FCPX timeline. Graded in FCPX and some grain applied. Also used REVisionEffects' RSMB to add motion blur as most of this was shot with a very high shutter speed. This has caused some unpleasant motion artefacts here and there. The final shot in the video (of blowing leaves and cars) used a 180 degree shutter in-camera (1/25s) and looks better I think. I will try using that setting for my next attempt. Rolling shutter looks quite severe. The GH4 buffer can only do about 40 frames in raw burst mode, so you can't really get longer than a 3 second clip. My card is a Sandisk 95MB/s U1 - I don't know if a faster card would do better. I actually really like the 12fps look, particularly when used with film grain and the really bold colours you can get from raw. I like the excessive motion blur. I think if you avoid severe camera movement so as not to draw attention to the rolling shutter and low frame rate, it can look very filmic. Obviously this can't be used for everything but with some refinement I think I will be using it a fair bit. If you like the 12fps look (12fps is right on the border of human perception of individual frames - I think this makes it rather interesting) and can live with the short burst times, there are a lot of good reasons to try this out. Yet another great thing about the awesome GH4. Check our blog for further testing of this mode: lintelfilms.co.uk/blog/ Note: I tried using 'optical flow' (FCPX's version of Twixtor) to create 'real' 24fps, but it was a mess, with lots of the usual warping around movement (even though I used a very fast shutter speed). Music by Chris Zabriskie.

A is video.   Some people got it perfectly. A bit more compression in the blacks on A and a bit more sharpening in-camera. The raw file had more C/A because Adobe Camera Raw didn't remove it by default and sharpness was left on default as well which is why it looked a little softer.   But the very fact that they look so similar to the general 'audience' with almost a 50-50 split between you on this forum over which was which, shows how good the video is on this camera.

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible. Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens. I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time. Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs. I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package. What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

just as a point of note on lenses for films : David Fincher shoots most of the time with the same lens focal lengths even when he changes his DOP so even if it is Jeff Cronenwerth, Harris Savides or Darius Khondji on camera for him he is still using a 27mm 40mm most of the time and a 75mm for the close ups , at f2.8 with nds and at f2 at night , thats about it , most of the film is shot on those 3 lenses thats all he needs (page 162 of the book 'New Cinematographers' gives you a look at Harris Savides note book for the film 'The Game' he lists scene by scene what lens he uses and its f stop ....its mainly all 27mm 40mm 75mm at f2.8 or f2.... The late great Gordon Willis shot 90% of The Godfather series for Francis Ford Copolla on a 40mm f2.8 lens - if you get this months American Cinematographer magazine OCT 2014 its a special edition all on Gordon Willis - The Prince of Darkness and it reveals all on how he shot these great films . Then you have Paul Greengrass who uses long zooms all the time and the late Tony Scott who shot almost always on long lenses and used x2 extenders too, thats his 'look ' And then the great Sergio Leone shot all those Clint Eastwood 'Dollar' series films on a single Angenieux 25-250mm f3.5 zoom So my point is you dont always need very wide lens to make great films ..... as long as you have in Super 35 field of view a 28mm. 40mm and 70mm which the Nikon zoom gives you ,you can make a film.....what camera you use to get those lengths is upto you , you may need speedboosters or adapters but those are the numbers that work for me most of the time.

I think we as forum users should be able to discuss and talk about whatever mysterious company/person we want. I don't see the connection between unlocking the topic and actually supporting said company. Not relevant at all.

To be fair, if you read the thread: What is being discussed is a checking of interest in the focus module to push prices down, not a reselling by comurit. And so far it's at the early stage for interest-checking, there has not even been a discussion yet for how a possible discount would be given. I can agree on the part that we really need more information about Anamorphic shop before ordering anything from them. No website so far, only a Facebook page. I'd rather know who's behind it all before ordering anything from them, discount code or not. I must agree on what came up in the earlier thread: You as a moderator are biased - you are using the rules for selling on the forum, when the discussion is on the topic of interest-checking and discount - something that could be a nice thing for every user of the anamorphic forum. (Not too different from when Andrew got early-buyers discounts on the SLR Magic for the joy of the forum users). I see these kind of community efforts as something that adds to this community, not subtracts. Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that you have anamorphic business yourself that you want to protect? I'm a longtime reader of this forum and I'd want unbiased moderation on this forum. Threatening to purge a thread sounds like you do it for your own good, to be honest. I have a hard time seeing it any other way, however much I'd like to.

Nice project guys. As a 'rama user I might just be interested in this modification. Though unfortunately my 'rama tends to only see use when setting up FF58io's of late :( - i think it needs to come out to play more! Please consider these requests:- 1. incorporate a rear section that is made in two parts (the rear most part removable so user has option to allow the optic to protrude out the back slightly for use on lenses where seating the iscorama deeper into the front of the taking lens. In effect the rear most part would be a threaded tube of 15mm length or so that can be taken off if required. Additionally, the rear most portion could be interchanged with a donut type cup with the same mating thread for use when rigged and positioned in front of regularly changed primes. - if the iscorama could be slid back and fourth on the mattebox rail support, and butted against compact primes etc, the rehousing will be great for hire outs. 1b.. definitely provide a removable lens support leg allowing coupling to rails(to allow sliding back and fourth for prime changes). hiring something like this to a bunch of muppets on set who have never handled a iscorama would be a worrying prospect imagining them doing taking lens swaps over and over again all day. 3. maybe machine primary rehousing from ABS to shave off some weight? As nice as the metalwork is, It would be nice to avoid adding any more weight onto the filter thread of taking lenses if possible. No amount of body strength is going to save the 'rama if it is dropped due to a failure of a filter thread. 4. a lovely addition would be to have the focus mech non rotating. The 150degree turn for 3.5ft-inf would be a dream. if the diopter no longer rotated during focus, even better!!! xxx