Rudolf

I am a die-hard Moeller fan...
For me nothing comes close in terms of sharpness, imagequality, color, flare. These are so versatile and wonderful built. They have so much character. Maybe the difference is they were made for filming and the 16mm version could work on FF like any Kowa. I would definately go for Moeller 16/32 with Rangefinder if I had the money. On the other way they are so easy to handle... you don't need a rangefinder

I don't know the classic anamorphic streaky look. The Helios is great with the Kowa and the Jupiter 85mm is a perfect addition (they are very prone to flares). If you choose a modern multicoated lens there is much less flare. The thing is though that anamorphics were not invented to produce flares or oval bokeh. They determine the composition and you can shoot with longer lens and get more shallow depth. It is a matter of the subject if you go the anamorphic route or not. But nowadays nearly everything is shot/cropped in 2.40. Not sure if even L. Trier does it now instead of his dogmas (didn't he say they are obsolete?) 

I'm shooting on a Kowa 8Z and am currently using a Helios 44-2 58 F2 as a taking lens.  I've found it surprisingly hard to get flares that resemble the classic anamorphic streaky look..  I've only really taken it out on one shoot, but I've had a play around with is quite a bit and a mate mentioned that the taking lenses will (obviously) influence the shot looks, but I wondered if changing the taking lens would change the flare characteristics substantially?   
Like I say, I've only taken it out once and I was pointing it right into the light most of the time (video below), although obviously not on the silly grade time lapses.  
I've been hunting around on ebay and am considering the following, but can anyone tell me how much difference they're going to make, or show me some footage from a similar set-up?  I'm not unhappy with the Helios, and perhaps it's not flaring because of LED lights in squares, instead of one focussed light source...
Potential Lenses:
Rokkor 58 1.2 or 1.4
Jupiter 9 85 F2
Carl Zeiss Jenna 80 F2.8
Reckon these are worth the investment, or will it make no difference?

I thought I'd start a topic relating to The Hateful Eight.  I'll start with my opinions of the movie...  **I'll aim to not spoil the movie for those yet to view it. But please stop reading if you feel I start going too deep into things**
 
I watched the 4th screening on the first day of opening in the UK, at Leicester Square Odeon, London. - The only theatre screening in 70mm in the UK!  We were sat close to the optimum position - second row of the Royal Circle, 4 seats from the centre position.  The most expensive seats in the house. It cost me £25 for the ticket, £60 for the return train, and £70 for a bed in the hotel across the road from the theatre.  So to view the movie I paid a lot of hard earned cash.  I went in after 3 beers so was adequately lubricated and relaxed.
 
Plot - Basic and simple.  But I didn't feel it lacked anything in the way of entertainment.  
Characters - Very Very good indeed.  Every character was loveable (in a QT character type of way).  Each were given superb amounts of great dialogue.  The dialogue felt very theatrical.  The dark humour and dialogue drove the movie for the duration of the 3hours and I didn;t for one second start wondering when the movie would end.  The Goggins/Jackson building of friendship and trust throughout the movie stole the show for me.  
Aesthetic - Stunning.  IMO I felt that the overall resolution was somewhat limited.  It certainly felt as if the Panavision lenses weren't quite sharp enough to fully take advantage of the 65mm format.  I've seen 2.8k Alexa acquired movies projected digitally that felt higher resolution and more refined.  I felt the 65mm non anamorphic imagery from 'The Master', 'Interstellar' and '2001' totally outdoes the overall image from The Hateful Eight.  HOWEVER! - in no way did the perceived lack of sharpness affect the viewing experience.  if anything I think it added to the feel.  I expect if the film had been shot 65mm spherical and delivered in native 5perf/65mm 2.2:1 the overall image would have looked 'technically' superior.  
If anything I'd have liked to see a little more variation in the landscapes.  Visially the whole movie felt very much like a homage to John Carpenters 'The Thing'.  The isolation, the bleak and unvarying landscape, the small shooting quarters where most of the film takes place, the characters and the ending too.  The lack of trust between characters and in particular Goggins and Jackson dieing on the bed at the end was very similar to how Childs and MacReady go to sleep in the snow. 
Music - Ennio Morricone's music was superb - they even used one of the themes from his soundtrack to The Thing -and it felt so right!.  The way only a small amount of Ennio's music was used in a looping fashion felt a bit like Tarrantino had told Ennio that he was going for some type of humorous reference to the way John Carpenter only used limited material from the soundtrack Ennio wrote for The Thing.
Visual Effects - Practical.  Lifecasts of heads full of pig guts being blown up.  The gore effects were second to none.  
Dialogue - too much of the N word IMO.  I'd have liked to hear a bit more variation.  I'd have used c**t a few times to break things up a bit.  Goggins' friendly line to Jackson "I'm not dead yet you black bastard" was very funny.    
    
Comparison to Pulp Fiction - I know it wont have nearly as much rewatching potential as Pulp Fiction does.  My viewing made me come away knowing it was meant to be a theatrical type experience rather than a watch at home type of experience.  Pulp can be viewed on a pc monitor without the overall experience being harmed.
Comparison to Inglorious Basterds - Better characters but lacks the varied scenery and very very refined lighting of Inglorious.  If anything its a shame Inglorious wasnt shot in Ultra Panavision 70.  I felt budget of The Hateful Eight was consumed by the logistics of 65mm.  The need for way more light, the snowy locations, etc.  Some of the side-on shots of the stage coach going through the snow looked like they cost a fortune, but don't have the impact that some of the scenery from Inglorious has.
Comparison to Django - About on a par overall.  If I gave Django a 7.8/10 i'd give The Hateful Eight an 8.4.  I bloody love Christopher Waltz, but felt Tim Roth in some way filled the gap playing a role I feel Waltz would have filled very well.  
 
Intermission - Perfect.  without the intermission the movie would feel too long.  It was a refreshing change to be able to stretch legs, grab a fresh coca cola and talk about the movie.  
 
Overall - One of the best cinema experiences I've ever had.  On a par with my childhood/teen cinema experience of Jurassic Park, Independence Day and Titanic.
 
 
 
 
 

BTW: To slow down the 5dIIraw euphoria a bit…

Moiré and Aliasing is unfortunately as bad as we know it from 5d-h264. 

The VAF Anti Aliasing Filter comes with the limitations that Andrew pointed out (a bit less overall sharpness, less sharp on the edges with wide angle lenses, focus point changes during zooming…anyway I would recommend it!).

Independently of this, the max. resolution with my 5d2raw setting is:1872x850 (aspect ratio 1:2,20).
So you have to upscale it to HD.
If you want to shoot in 16:9, the horizontal resolution is reduced even more.
 
Nevertheless I love the image quality, for several years.

I'll answer each of your points as best i can
 
1. creative people who want the cheapest access to celluloid for motion picture.  The same type of people who still shoot film (1000000% more expensive than digital), listen to vinyl records (which are 1000% more expensive than itunes and 1000000% more expensive than piracy), and those who drive classic cars instead of modern cars (they break down more often and are less fuel efficient, yet they still do it.  it's called going against the grain. enthusiasm. passion. nostagia
2. not always.  8mm film shot, developed and scanned well will outperform full hd digital.  if the 8mm format took off the costs will likely be massively cheaper than 16mm or 35mm due to demand driving prices down.  the 8mm film stock has the same colour and highlight rolloff as the film stock used for interstellar, hateful 8, and the master.  if you only need fullhd then 8mm carefully handled will deliver.
3. it may be too pricey for some, but not everyone.  those who might make the choice to invest in stuff for their art endeavours rather than waste money on big tv's, junkfood and consuming stuff they don;t need tend to spend their money on stuff like this.  
4. patience is a virtue.  you may not be patient enough to wait for development.  I get impatient too.  but as above - there are people who are patient and they benefit!
5. maybe.  I like to think when I'm 50 I'll have the budget to invest in stuff like this for my own enjoyment, capturing family, grandchildren, life, etc.  But I know plenty of commercial film makers who will be investing in this little camera for commercial work.  The value in doing so is heightened by the fact that there are those with your opinions who aren't willing to go to the effort or invest in the action of trying something against the grain.    

I started shooting polaroids about 2 years ago.  3200iso b+w and 100iso colour from fuji.  it costs about £1.50 per shot, and within a year the entire supply of film will be exhausted.  .  only 3 out of ten pics are viable to be scanned and shared.  Even then the images get next to no likes on flickr. technically they're weak.  however each image I take on polaroid feels like a real photo.  a physical entity.  I've done a few birthday/wedding jobs where they budget £5 per photo.  They are willing to pay this because the pictures are so much more magical.  technically they're awful but on a human level they are magic.  The effort I went to making a camera that obtains the best from polaroids is pretty mad looking back on it - when you consider how technically limited the format is.  But from the private messages I get asking for a parts list to make the camera below, it's clear film is still important enough for kodak to develop this new 8mm camera.
 

I say even bigger THANK YOU! for your last post. Problem is many people just don't understand film. It is like telling video is digital film (my CDs are not digital records).
And I would really like to know what you did with you Canon 814? That looks very intresting.
I second that. It would definately help the thousands and thousands of videomakers to improve and teach them a lot: Less can be more - especially when you have to look more for quality and make sure to get the shot done. A very important aspect in filmaking.

Yes, please tell me...
 

Something wasn't mentioned here. All this is about film! Keep in mind that there is no(!) fresh color reversal film available right now - for no format at all.
 And this new development of Kodak/Logmar could hopefully result in the new production of fresh color reversal film (we are still waiting for Ferrania...)
And keep in mind: The magic bergins with the projection

I say even bigger THANK YOU! for your last post. Problem is many people just don't understand film. It is like telling video is digital film (my CDs are not digital records).
And I would really like to know what you did with you Canon 814? That looks very intresting.
I second that. It would definately help the thousands and thousands of videomakers to improve and teach them a lot: Less can be more - especially when you have to look more for quality and make sure to get the shot done. A very important aspect in filmaking.

Can't wait for the first non-reusable SD cards  

Thank you.

If you dont get it you dont get it. 
Some play soccer. I think it sucks. Thats becaude I dont get it. So I let it go.
At the store I might buy stuff to make Pizza. The guy next to me buys frozen pizza. None of us get it. So we let it go.
But I dont stand there questioning him, try to lecture him or call him names. I let the man eat his pizza and let it go.
I will pre-order that thing asap. A roll of of s8 costs $15 from shoot to export from the NLE. Cheaper than going to the movies and ten times more fun imo.
 

but if you can't reuse your film it'll mean you make damn sure what you shoot is worthwhile.

Shot on super 8 and seriously beautiful. Slow motion, highlight roll off, color. It's all there folks.

Developing at home i easier than making mac n cheese and costs a fraction.
Besides, imo, you dont shoot s8 as an alternative. Its its own thing.
Btw, I shot some s35 s8 the other week

The Moeller 32 (which is still one of the most underrated anamorphics out there) could be an option. Regarding imagequality, sharpness, and especially character there is not much left to be desired. The downside is of course you cannot go wide (less than 50mm on mft) and focusing is anyoing. The Moellers are my favourites and despite Lomo and all the colorful and huge projection-things there is not much left I haven't tried in the budget area
BTW with modern sensor you don't have to worry about losing quality on 2x stretch. That was different in the old (small gauge) film days and was the reason why many adapter have the 1.5 stretch.

For his upcoming snowy western Tarantino unearthed special cameras and 1.25x anamorphic lenses at Panavision which hadn't seen the light of day since 1965.
The film was shot on 65mm film and will get a 'Roadshow' release on Christmas day in amazing 70mm.
Read the full article

I recently had a dramatic situation at my house where I had to grab the things that were most valuable to me. I grabbed a few hard drives and my Bolex Moller 8/19/1.5 ;o)
It pairs really well with my 50 Karl Zeiss Jena 1.8 as well as some old Nikon AI-S lenses. My brand new Rectilux is being tinkered with right now and I'm getting some good sharpness with this three lens combo. (See still). Although I've lost my close focus but I'll take that loss now that I can focus quickly.

I am a die-hard Moeller fan...
For me nothing comes close in terms of sharpness, imagequality, color, flare. These are so versatile and wonderful built. They have so much character. Maybe the difference is they were made for filming and the 16mm version could work on FF like any Kowa. I would definately go for Moeller 16/32 with Rangefinder if I had the money. On the other way they are so easy to handle... you don't need a rangefinder

as Rudolf said, the bolex-moller anamorphot 16/32/1.5 will cover full frame, using the helios 44 58mm no problem, image is really good, sharp, color is great , and blue flares!, you can focus to 1mt I believe , (the little one 8/19/1.5 goes to 0.5m, but it will not cover full frame) without diopters. Awesome optics without breaking the bank!! 

I am a die-hard Moeller fan...
For me nothing comes close in terms of sharpness, imagequality, color, flare. These are so versatile and wonderful built. They have so much character. Maybe the difference is they were made for filming and the 16mm version could work on FF like any Kowa. I would definately go for Moeller 16/32 with Rangefinder if I had the money. On the other way they are so easy to handle... you don't need a rangefinder

I am a die-hard Moeller fan...
For me nothing comes close in terms of sharpness, imagequality, color, flare. These are so versatile and wonderful built. They have so much character. Maybe the difference is they were made for filming and the 16mm version could work on FF like any Kowa. I would definately go for Moeller 16/32 with Rangefinder if I had the money. On the other way they are so easy to handle... you don't need a rangefinder

This is a quick test showing flaring of every 50mm (or 'normal' focal length) I have in my arsenal, and in stock at the moment, some have been supplied to me for optical work.  I'm not going to go an list each lens in order, but upload this to illustrate how much variation there is between 50mm lenses despite being almost all consisting of 6 elements in 4 groups, or double gauss designs.  Though anamorphic lenses are often seen as flare makers I think some of the results here are magical enough to warrant pairing them with anamorphics which don;t have particualy exciting flaring like an MC 'Rama 54, or a cinelux and an FM- just for the defocus and aspect ration alone.  with some of these flares from the prime alone, why add more!   
 
     

There is a 1.9x big mutha version out there that is for DLP use, bit too big and heavy for practical use on camera though! Cricriprod's 1.33x Isco looks far more camera friendly