EeeCeeGee

Oval bokeh with 1.33x adapter...
 

 
...using a close-up diopter, like you would be having to use with most 2X cinema anamorphics for close focusing and to sharpen up the image not being stopped down.
 

 
...more with a Century Optics 1.33x adapter and CU diopter.  The SLR Magic lens is already demonstrably sharper at faster apertures, meaning the potential for at least two stops more dramatic ovals.

Just a quick reminder to everyone to be particularly diligent on checking seller details on eBay - I've been tracking a fraudulent seller for 6 weeks now, and they include Isco and other anamorphics in the listings.  They've been hacking eBay accounts of highly rated sellers with very high positive feedback to lure in buyers.  Three easy things to check for:
Do they provide an email address off eBay to contact them on?  Two I've been tracking are marhef.ebay@gmail.com and over4.ebay901@gmail.com Is the email address displayed in a picture (ie you can't highlight/select the text, this is one method they use to hide from eBay fraud detection) Look at their other items for sale, you'll see a distinct pattern (highly sought, often rare, listed for a low number but all asking the same high price in the description) The first time I tracked this seller, I worked with eBay to remove 35 fraudulent listings totaling around $85k (most had bids registered).  The second time I found him (last week) he had listed over 170 items totaling $425k!!!
 
Be skeptical, ask around (and I'm still looking for an Isco 36 non-MC, very keen buyer here!)

Well many comparisons can be drawn, but you have to consider certain factors in when comparing a consumer product from the late 1960's to modern day professional cine lenses.
 
For what the Iscorama is:
 
By itself, its a gem of an anamorphic lens, no question.  It's tack sharp, good edges, great optics and saturation, beautiful flares (if you have a single coated version), an of course, out of all the old lenses, the best patented focus system..
 
For what the Iscorama is not :
 
It was made in 1968 as a high end projection attachment, so in part it's really not a stand-alone lens, it is an attachment.  We keep comparing it to actual lenses.  The housing of the lens in complete plastic, is to say the least, it's very dangerous and doesn't protect the optics at all, and if the lens was to encounter any kind of harsh weather conditions etc. it would completely fail.  And as far as the focus goes, although one of the best for what it is, it's still a projection lens so close focus becomes somewhat of a process that you just would not encounter on any proper cine lens.  And ultimately, because it is still an attachment, you will run into only being able to use a set amount of focal length primes, which depending on the cinematographer or certain shot, is a no go..
 
In General Comparison :
 
The Isco has GREAT optics. I've managed to pull images from that lens that look better than some of the most expensive lenses I've ever used.  But like I said above, price tag means nothing.  Great example of that is the helios 58mms.  They are one of the sharpest lens I've ever used, and dirt cheap.  The big expensive lenses are kind of like buying a rare sports car.  Beautiful to look at as far as engineering and build, but more or less afraid to use it. Afraid to "take it out of the garage" and put millage on it if you will..  Personally, when I'm using Arri's or Cooke's, anything thats over 50k in glass, I get a $1,000,000 issuance policy when shooting with them.  Too risky if not, if so much as a nat lands on the lens, I start to worry, so thats my personal way around dealing with stress of rentals and or price tags.  BE SMART!  
 
Conclusion:
 
I think for what most of us are here to do : Get the best image possible with tools we've researched and perfected, but for a personally attainable price.
 
It is a fantastic option, and no doubt ONE of the best, if not THE best, for the price.  I currently don't have 40K to throw down on a set of OCT-19 square or spherical anamorphic sets, but if I did I would go that route.  They are built like tanks, and the optics have so much character.  BUT they are big, heavy, and expensive cine lenses.  They are not fit for lightweight run-and-gun situations.  I still to this day see many top notch lens companies copying the Lomo system for anamorphics, so that usually means they we doing something right if 50 years later the top dogs or still trying to produce their design and look.
 
At the end of the day there are so many factors that go into getting "a good image".  A lens ultimately is just a tool to help achieve the look you are going for, nothing more.  Storytelling, lighting, good characters, and proper operation of the camera are the KEY components of filmmaking.  I don't care how much your lens costs, or how rare it is...  If you just make another cool-looking vimeo lens test, your not a filmmaker, nobody really cares.  No story=no substance  
 
You could shoot a short film with your iphone about a bird you found on the street that is dying, and if it's emotional enough and people care about that bird at the end of your video, then it's good.  No lens can do that.  Thats filmmaking.

Just want to throw out my personal opinion on hawks :

For some reason in the anamorphic community, hawks have gained this god like top dog on the podium position, and professionally I have no clue why. To me it seems to be nothing more than an unattainable price tag, yielding almost no one ever actually using them. People tend to think the best is the most expensive. This is so wrong. I worked on a feature that used hawks latest and greatest anamorphic prime set, and let me tell you.... They (in my opinion) suck. Not only are they a trillion dollars, they are soft wide open, certain lenses edges are soft, and they have over engineered them to the point where they completely lack any sign of character. No flares, no interesting optics, nothing. On top of all that, if you really do your homework, look at X-rays they've taken of a brand new hawk lens next to a 1970s lomo lens, and you won't find but one difference in the optics or mechanics. The whole reason I'm part of this community is because I've seen so much done with so little.. Finding weird lens combinations, or trying lenses that were not supposed to be used in some manner, that's what's its all about. Price tag means nothing. Experience is everything. I recently had the privilege to test out arri's new anamorphics set along side with cookes new anamorphic set (still in development). After talking with the guys who made them, and then actually getting my hands on them and trying them out for myself, there was one huge difference between them. Arri had spent so much time engineering the lens to be "perfect" that it lacked (in my opinion) the most important part of the lens, character. When I talked to the Cooke rep he said they were specifically designing the lens with old anamorphic characteristics in mind, no multi coating etc. that's what you want, reguardless of its price tag. Don't believe the hype before you get your eye in that viewfinder.

anyone interested in a rehoused iso 54 is smokin crack.
 
total waste of time i have a variation of the 54 rehoused it is called a mesmerizer by kish.
the weight is 3kgs nice perfect for skate and ski and jumpin out of planes.
I here some of you guys are young and sporty best start pumpin iron get those arms ready.
you will have plenty of time waiting
6 weeks for a 36 rebuild 1 year if your lucky ; )
 
 

https://vimeo.com/67529528
 
Little weekend project. Mainly an excuse to have fun with the kids, and to start re-familiarizing myself with shooting and FX after a long hiatus.
 
Taking lenses were old Canon FD 28mm and 50mm.

over inflated is that inflated as in bubble.
this is not some south sea bubble
not some tulip o mania
no big bang.

show me a pro anamorphic as good as an iscorama or better
tell me the price.
iscorama is cheap
optically under priced
it is not about the price but the precious value.
how many folks have shelled out silly money for china junk optics with 0.95 f stop.
poor copies of leica noct
china has little value now or in 30 years.
the stuff may work but has little soul
that is the modern way
we live in satanic times a new dark age.
iscorama is from a time a great expansive period 1900-1950s the period when great optical men tried to best each other in design.
out do and out wit in light ray trace.
sub standard is the norm today .
input tapped into computer cheap aspherical optic added a new lens for the hd world.
clowns knocking out variations on a theme or just blatant copies average at best.

iscorama inflated no way.
a good price for those who can make it work.
the bolex moller 1.5x is treasure for me has a better look than the iscorama another optical marvel under priced.  
we all want a bargain all could do with a free lunch forever.
all would like a mercedes for the price of a shit ford.
we want the best for next to nothing now godamit and how dare we not be given it.
what is the problem.
we know the cost but not the value.
 
 

the same chap shot this which i like

https://vimeo.com/37044086

Um, sorry but, no.  Those "hidden" costs are invariably related to distribution companies and their fees.  That's how the brothers at Miramax built up their company and gained power, by fucking over the filmmakers they distributed for.  If he's releasing this himself...is he roleplaying and giving himself a hard time?  Is that what you're suggesting?
 
The $300,000 for limited theatrical (less than 50 screens at its highest) with no real P+A budget or conventional marketing is rather outstanding (takes $30M to market a film conventionally, according to Soderberg's revelation).  You aren't even looking at the available information to form an educated guess about what's going on here so your statements are exactly the opposite of "educated".   
 
He's also self-releasing it on DVD and streaming, meaning very little overhead.  The limited theatrical and growing word-of-mouth will serve as a mini marketing campaign for the home video release which could easily bring him three to five times the small theatrical business.  How well it does then will ultimately come down to what he actually spent on it (or raised) and what, if any, deferrals are still owed.
 
You won't know the production cost unless he wants it to be known.  There is no authority to IMDB or boxofficemojo or any of these sorts of sites.  They get their information from voluntary sources with no oversight or fact checking or even a means to fact check that sort of information.  Someone sends a number and if their account or previous history is deemed trustworthy it gets posted as if it were fact without a single phone call or e-mail or any follow-up for first party confirmation.

The director wants to keep a lid on the production costs so as not to distract attention away from the film itself. He's doing the opposite of propagating a starving artist narrative. That said, I heard a rumour that the budget was around $50,000.
$300,000 in a month is very acceptable for a small scale, no studio independent release, but if the budget is correct, it's exceptional. Six times the production costs is a great return on investment, especially when he's spending so little on distribution or marketing.
Bare in mind that this is not the only number that counts. Carruth is also making money from every foreign distributor that picks up the film. It's just a little from each country, but it adds up.
 
Talk about negativity. This guy could go out and shoot an upbeat movie in the hopes of chasing success, or he could make what he wants to make, on his own terms, and retain total artistic control over the film and its release. He found a way to do the latter and remain profitable.
That is true success. 

they are all mega dealers all connected.
selling shit untested looks pretty but the filthy rotters will not or cannot ever provide proof that it works well.
they get mates to bid silly money then cancel transactions they then have benchmarks.
10k or best offer
at that price they could pay roger film is dead fucking deakins to test it for half a day and give the james bond camera shooters seal of sharp focus approval.
bunch of rotters

There is a chinese monitor called NEWAY CL76HO-X with custom scaling option out there. It's about $300-400 as I recall. 

Axel
 
Kids upbringing is a whole other debate.
 
Inglourious basterds was also shown ON TV where children can watch.
 
So lets separate this into how I feel.
 
Tarrantino films should not be accessible by those under 18.
2) Tarrantino is not a Master at what he does by a long way. Inglourious basterds did not have amazing acting although Chris Waltz came out as the best actor.
I watched the film because I thought it was going to be a take on spaghetti westerns which it wasn't. The best scene was the opening where Tarrantino built the tension up quite well and he let the girl live which was obviously his big mistake as this later leads to his downfall. Okay Brad Pitt was the Jewish (Wish we'd done it this way) Hero Who came across as a nice good old American Jewish boy who dished out justice as a severerly deranged war criminal would. So a sort of highly wishful thinking film for jews who can never forgive Nazis. The Brad pitt hero was the same as say Sadam Hussein who was rumoured to put victims in mincing machines or his son rumoured to use a drill to kill people.
It has in the past been tradditional for the good guy to kill people who had to be stopped and do it as a neccesary evil quickly. However Tarrantino has decided the hero should be a bad guy who kills and maims people with torture in the most sadistic way his mind can conjure up. This used to work well with if it was the bad guy who did this and then got his comeuppance but Tarrantinos films lose any moral compass or right and wrong and replace it with so called real world reality which is also a lie and aimed squarely at those who have no real understanding of violence but like to think they are one of the boys. We used to live in an age where people saw dressing smartly proved you worked hard and your way up and had pride. We now live in a world where robbing stealing mugging is a good way to get those things and idiots that are proud of it.
Tarrantino might say he is only refelcting back what the world really is. I say he is defining the evilness into hero status. Stories must always have a moral compass Must always show good triumphing in some way and must never allow bad behaviour to become role models.
 
Clint Eastwood played a pscho gunslinger who killed the bad guys and got the gold. Morriconne added a great score that made it all cool. Tarrantino tried to rip those off and turn the clint character into a torturer / sadist nutjob and then add cool music and even doesnt use those essential ingredients that say made the man with no name very well at all. But well enough to attract people with wannabe violent attitudes to it. In doing so he redifines the hero status of mad max into mental max with torturer war crime status.
 
Filmmaking shapes culture and society to some degree there is no doubt about that. Tarrantino has exploited one of the last areas to explore precisely because it is sick. Sick films contribute to a sick society to some extent I'm afraid.

Yep Alan is great guy and the adapters are top notch

HAHAHAHA
 
[img]http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/6050494_700b.jpg[/img]

[quote name='treyvollmer' timestamp='1351384945' post='20455']
I just received my Kowa 2x Bell and Howell in the mail today and I'm trying to attach it to my various lenses and then to my GH2.

I'm having a hard time deciphering a few things based off my limited findings on the web.

1) Do I need a special adapter to attach to my lenses or can I simply used regular modern step down and step up rings?

[/quote]

Buy a Redstan adaptor, they are rock solid better than those from Vid-Atalantic and other (some french guy also sells adaptors for anamorphics but they also look very thin too me)

Redstan on ebay

http://www.ebay.com/itm/redstan-anamorphic-lens-clamps-simply-superb-quality-kowa-sankor-amd-more-/181007856057?pt=UK_Movie_Cameras&hash=item2a24e8b1b9

vidatlantic clamp is part of an extension tube 4 dollar china job.
so yes it's real top quality : )

save you money and use gaffa tape or a coke can with bolts and tape it will be just as strong