QuickHitRecord

[quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1350529179' post='19883'] footage is nice. the design of the lens is classic the back cylindrical convex optic is about 5mm to small. so you get smearing,ghosting and a little double imaging . if it had of been a little bigger it would be a beast simply relationship between focal length of taking lens and importantly massive size difference between 2 optics coupled with focal length of iscomorphot i suppose it is a question of finding the perfect taking lens. i have had some and they where in pretty poor shape it is quite a complex lens amazing for it's time really. it was designed for bolex reg 8 so amazing it does that well. i gave up on them because i could not find a perfect one and i did not want another dumb 6 month repair job. [/quote] You are right about finding the right taking lens. So far, I like it best with my Nikkor 85mm Non-Ai f/1.8. Second place goes to the Helios 44 (with which I shot the video above). And I really do not like this lens with my Nikkor 50mm AI-S f/1.8. The edges are soft and there seems to be even more ghosting.

This is a new benchmark. I think that we're only 18 to 24 months away from ALL new professional cameras offering 4K. At this rate, I'll be surprised if it's not in the next iPhone.

Looking forward to the 25th!

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350492944' post='19861'] I don't see much reason to hate it :) Which Iscomorphit is it? 8/1,5x or 8/2x? I'm waiting for my 8/2x to arrive. My first reasonably small anamorphic.. Curious how it will work out. [/quote] It's the 8/1.5x, like this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_14/gallery_18451_14_27471.jpg[/img] Isco couldn't let things be too simple, so their Iscomorphot 8/2x and 16/2x are a completely different series that looks like this: [img]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7220/7307238896_31593601c5_z.jpg[/img] I believe that both of those are dual focusing. I have seen some wonderful footage from the 8/2x.

[quote name='Germy1979' timestamp='1350488234' post='19852'] Let the chastising begin, lol. [/quote] What do you think this is, Personal-View? ;-) Thanks for the workflow. I have Premiere on my work machine so I'll give it a shot.

I can't decide whether I love this lens or hate it. It is very easy to use with rack-focusing and no need for diopters (focuses as close as 1' or so) but there is often ghosting if I shoot faster than f/4 or sometimes f/5.6. But at those apertures, it acts like a shallow DOF amplifier. Still, I do lose the light. Here it is coupled with my Helios 44: [media]http://vimeo.com/51600001[/media]

[quote name='Xiong' timestamp='1350440923' post='19835'] I would love to know more about this shooting style with anamorphic in mind. Whats the benefit from just shooting with OCT-18 over just adding black bars? Resolution? Since Im still in the process on getting started I would love to hear more info on this subject if anyone can tip more or lead me to some really good articles on it. [/quote] Take a look, this is a good place to start: [url="http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide"]http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide[/url] But be warned, it's an addiction.

Here is a composite of the Quicktime screen grabs for the time being: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_471134.png[/img] It looked different in Photoshop. The FCP side actually looked cleaner. After the new file was created for posting here, I'm back with an image that reinforces my initial observation. I am sure that someone more knowledgeable than I can shed some light on this.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350422595' post='19825'] Squeeze factor changing because of the focus distance? That sounds quite inconvenient... Is it possible at all? If I squeeze the still to 3,55:1 (16:9 x2) it looks more natural. [/quote] I don't understand the optics behind it, but that's how it appears to be. At least in my experience with my OCT-18 set.

[quote name='yellow' timestamp='1350424361' post='19826'] Hi Even though you feel the settings shown provide good results, the settings don't make sense with regard to luma range and matrix. It's AVCHD off a GH2 so BT709 is the matrix and GH2 encodes into 16 - 235 luma 16 - 240 chroma so limited range not full range. QT Player screen shots are not really reliable, QT auto scales the levels and upsamples to 4:2:2 and then converts to an RGB screen grab, so don't think the screen grabs are reliable. Also the method of providing grabs is so painful, is it not possible to just provide a zip download and better still the sample GH2 clip you're testing then others can actually make a comparison if anyone is interested. :-) [/quote] Good points. What is a better way to go about posting accurate screen grabs?

My crusade against color banding on the GH2 continues. The Flowmotion hack (v2.02) minimizes banding as well or better than any hack I have tried, but I still get unusable shots from time to time. Today, I used FCP7's log and transfer to import a single clip with banding issues. Then I used 5DtoRGB to process the same problem clip and exported every possible combination to see if there was a magical setting that would stop color banding altogether. There isn't. But somewhat unsurprisingly, ProRes 4444 / Full Range / ITU-R BT.601 seems to be a significant improvement. Here are the settings: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_2014.png[/img] Andrew has posted about using these settings (or with ProRes 422 at least) to preserve color information, but it seems to have an effect on banding as well. To see for yourself, you can go to my photo album on this site ( [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/album/15-5dtorgb-vs-gh2-banding-problem/"]http://www.eoshd.com...anding-problem/[/url] ) and download the screen grabs. For best results, I recommend viewing them in rapid succession in a program like Preview like this: [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/gallery/album_15/gallery_18451_15_497834.png[/img] The only downsides are that the files are about twice as large as good old ProRes 422, and it takes MUCH longer than FCP7's log and transfer window.

[quote name='Julian' timestamp='1350414925' post='19818'] The aspect ration in the still with Lily & Niklas seems a bit off though? [/quote] Andrew's not kidding about the breathing. I literally think you're getting a different stretch factor at each focal extreme (like 2x on one end and maybe 1.75x at the other). If I ever take one of these things into a production environment, I'll tape a step ring to the slate for reference so that I can adjust each shot.

I'd love to have the opportunity to shoot with OCT-19s. But since I don't see that happening in the near future, the OCT-18s are optically identical for less than half the price.

Funny stuff, Rich. We need more of this understated humor on the internet.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350304843' post='19777'] i'll definitely put some footage up,.. gonna take a bit more over the next couple of days. here's a still for the time being though, straight out of the Nikon v1 with its 2.7 crop. [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/21346/507bfa33f40e1_anamorphicslippers.jpg[/img] observations so far: - this particular kowa doesnt seem to be a x2. unsqueezing the still i unsqueezed about 1/3 before it started looking relatively normal, which surprised me as i thought i had quite a ways to go before it started looking right. what does that equate to? x1.5? - i did the same thing in sony vegas, a par of 2 made it look fat. a par of 1.75, less fat but still clearly fat. par of 1.5 looked about right..... but i think it can be refined a bit more. i need to film something i can compare infront of me when unsqueezing. or am i calculating wrong? - the lens is really clean as in it doesnt seem to impart too much of its own character apart from the squeeze. - with a 50mm takumar f1.4 it didnt really flare. might have to try it on my jupiter 9. - its a dual focus of course, but it doesnt seem as hard to do as some of the horror stories i've read online. what i found the easiest was to get in position, focus the taking lens, focus the kowa, then move back or forth till everything was good. this lens being so tiny is probably what made it seem not so bad. - the rear thread is about 28mm, making it a couple of mm's larger than a C-mount. i got in touch with a guy who reckons he can fashion some attaching adapter with a regular filter size for it,... i'm thinking about it. what little footage i took today, i quite like the look of. wasnt expecting it to be less than a x2. i've mostly been watching x2 anamorphics on vimeo and youtube as i figured anything else would be way over my budget. luckily it works well on the nikon v1's teeny sensor. m4/3s, i'm guessing it'll vignette as much as any other c-mount lens. [/quote] This looks more like a 1.33x. But if you shoot something that is perfectly round like a step up ring, you'll be able to unstretch the object precisely and know exactly what the stretch factor is. I'd recommend starting a new thread for this lens. I don't think that it has ever been discussed here.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350274831' post='19771'] i just took delivery of this lil' darlin': [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/21346/507b8b90cb9dd_DSC_0962.jpg[/img] its a kowa prominar anamorphic-8, and that's an AA battery. the rear thread is just a tiny bit bigger than a C-mount. I've got a nikon v1 so i'll take that out to play with this afternoon. i've got no way to mount/attach so guess i'll have to handhold it for a quick test. my first proper anamorphic, apart from a massive nikon projector lens i picked up to play with last week, but so far its nice and sharp and focuses to under 5ft. or atleast the focus ring turns to waaay after the 5ft marker. cant wait to head out this afternoon :D [/quote] Please share your test footage. I am very curious about this lens.

[quote name='brucker' timestamp='1350265186' post='19769'] that does look very nice,... it looks quality and that's the first thing that jumps out before even thinking about HD or SD. how'd the clients take it? I'm curious as i'm thinking of doing the same but have absolutely no idea how they're likely to react. [/quote] Thanks. It went over well, except that they ultimately insisted on cropping to 16:9 for the final deliverable, despite my efforts to convince them that the background was the real star here. But they are happy, so I am happy.

@printofpersia I enjoyed both of these films. Your work is the best I have seen with a Centavision. It has a really nice look to it. Keep it up!

My understanding is that the OCT-18 lenses are only compatible with mirrorless cameras like the GH2. I'd be reluctant to put two adapters together because single adapters account for the accurate flange distance needed for a full range of focus, but stacking two would compromise that distance and you'd probably lose infinity focus. With regard to the lens barrel rotation, there is an OCT-18 adapter for Micro Four Thirds cameras that has a pin built in to prevent this from happening ([url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/OCT18-OCT-18-LOMO-lens-Konvas-anamorphic-GH2-GH1-AF100-AF101-4-3-adapter-/260910613284"]http://www.ebay.com/...r-/260910613284[/url]). You might consider looking into the OCT-19 mount Lomos instead. They are typically more expensive, but I know that they can be adapted for use with Canon cameras ([url="http://www.ebay.com/itm/OCT19-OST-19-OCT-19-KONVAS-LOMO-to-Canon-EOS-5D-7D-60D-1D-T3i-550D-T2i-adapter-/260875544582"]http://www.ebay.com/...r-/260875544582[/url]).

[quote name='Francisco Ríos' timestamp='1349458065' post='19418'] Hi Nick, Can you tell your experience with cavision 3x3? Which filter do you use with these. I like the size and want to use it with gh2 plus anamorphic, so I guess will need a support. Best regards. [/quote] The Cavision that I own is a 4x4. I am looking to replace it with the 3x3. After all of my research, this matte box is simply the best fit for my purposes. I don't have it in my hands yet, but it's in my B&H shopping cart (along with some 3x3 Schneider filters). I'll order it as soon as their holiday is over. There is an informative discussion taking place over at Personal-View, along with a review from a forum member ([url="http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4412/smaller-cameras-can-make-do-with-3x3-matte-boxes#Item_16"]http://www.personal-...e-boxes#Item_16[/url]). I am already sold on this, but I have sent the company a list of questions. I'll share their answers in that thread when I hear back. UPDATE: Cavision just wrote back to me. See the thread above for some new info.

[quote name='craigbuckley' timestamp='1349447633' post='19413']What is the GH2 "Hack" all about? I keep hearing that and not sure if its a program or a setting or what...[/quote] Based on your questions, I think that you would benefit from a class in basic photography and/or filmmaking or at least some Google searches, and then I'd recommend that you pick up Andrew's e-book all about the GH2 ([url="http://www.eoshd.com/gh2-guide-book"]http://www.eoshd.com/gh2-guide-book[/url]).

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1349299830' post='19371'] [url="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Century-Optics-4x4-Sunshade-Filter-Holder-0DS-FH44-00-/390436902067?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item5ae7da54b3#ht_3332wt_908"]http://www.ebay.co.u...3#ht_3332wt_908[/url] very expensive for what it is, but I have one of these. lovely and small and mounts directly to the lens - no rail mount. Tightens around a 72mm step up ring really well. room for 2x schneider 4x4's. being century (owned by schneider) they are compatible with pro filters. Wish I had the cash for the century filter set. a few nd's, fades etc. lovely search around. I got mine for around £80 brand new. [/quote] Thanks, Rich. I've added it to the list. I have been curious about this one. Do either of the stages rotate? Do you think that you could post a photo with your unhoused NEX so that we could get an idea of the size?

I recently got my 35mm Lomo NAS Squarefront back from Olex Camera Services. Besides the fact that it sat in NYC customs for three weeks (not Olexandr's fault!), I have no complaints. The lens functions smoothly and focuses perfectly. He did a good job and I would recommend him.

In my quest to find the perfect matte box, I have been doing some research that I will share here in the hope that someone else may benefit from it (this is a cross-post, there is also a thread on Personal-View: [url="http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/2876/matte-boxes-and-filter-thickness/p1"]http://www.personal-...er-thickness/p1[/url]). Not all matte boxes on the market will take Tiffen or Schneider filters. Take for instance the DMatte from DFocus. It's a bargain for the price, but when I finally brought one home, I couldn't support my Schneider filters because they were a millimeter too thick. I've since returned it and resumed my search. It looks like these are my options at this point:[list] [*]Arri (confirmed by forum member) [*]Chrosziel (personal test) [*]LockCircle (manufacturer confirmed) [*]Lanparte (confirmed by forum member) [*]Cavision (personal test) [*]Cinematics (confirmed by forum member) [*]Cokin (website info) [*]Vocas (manufacturer confirmed) [*]Genus (manufacturer confirmed) [*]Movcam (manufacturer confirmed) [*]Century Optics ["Sunshade Filter Holder"] (confirmed by forum member) [/list] I have no confirmation, but I'd be surprised if the matte boxes from O'Connor, Bright Tangerine and TLS Raven could not hold 4mm filters. If you know of any others, please comment and I will update the list.

[quote name='Caleb Genheimer' timestamp='1349131839' post='19294'] A lens hitting the sensor? That is just silly. A lens is designed to be a very exact distance from the image plane, and any correct adapter will keep it at that distance. Since it is designed to be that distance from the sensor . . . only a lens DESIGNED to hit the sensor would be able to do so, and nobody designs lenses to do this (ultimate photographer troll, anyone?) [/quote] I think we have a volunteer.