Rudolf

Another live music video, this time from the Koko in London.
The lights were pretty full on, or should that be more professional than I've been used to!
Hopefully I'll get a second bite of the cherry soon...
Password:ws2000
 

Here we have a superimposed 2D cartoon/xray section of the inside of Rectilux 3FF-W, Rectilux 3FF-S is similar.
The point of showing this, is that 3FF series come with quick change coupling rings that when fixed to the scopes allow easy screw in at the mating thread 1 and also further supported at the rear 2 by three bolts which pass through the casing , through the rear coupling ring and onto the scope. This guarantees <0.1mm centricity with the optical axis, every time you swap over scopes for different looks. A simple yet nevertheless elegant engineering solution...
 

I have a black 3FF-W coming in a month or so. Will post some sample clips then.

Same thing as Zak, I'll be pairing mine with a Kowa B&H, and Canon 5D3. Samples coming as soon as the lens arrives.

I live 20 minutes from Möller Wedel (that is nearby Hamburg). Maybe I take my racingbike for a spin and ask them about it... I know a camera guy who is specializiad on old
Olympus and I recall he knew the doughter from Möller. Will you send me a Rectilux if I send you the patent?
It is kinda funny Möller as well as Isco/Schneider really dont't care about their older products. Isco have trashed all their Iscorama bits and parts and adapter rings. I had a call and
asked for something some time ago. Luckily Heliopan helped me out. Great little company!
I absolutely agree: Butchering old beautiful things like lenses, cars, bikes... is bad and upsetting!

​Made with the FM
Delta Airlines commissioned this piece to help celebrate the spirit of aviation, all the details here:
http://boydhobbs.com/delta
 
 

This is the answer Andrew,  a customer feedback.
Let's move on man, I do apologize to you again, really sorry!!!
I bow to the man with all the power. Thanks for having me on your forum, what else you want me to do.
 

Honestly I think capturing random people out on the streets in certain situations can not be called filmmaking. There is a big portion of voyeurism in the game. And it is also annoying to have more and more self righous people around capturing every stupid single moment in life with all their DSLRs, cellphones, Ipads, Googleglass, drones, Googlestreetview, satelites and whatever and published to the world next day. Just had been too a great concert and it was so annoying to see all these stupid Iphones everywhere (Why don't the people just enjoy the music and the moment for great memories?).
The only good thing is that we become so used to all the surveillance that maybe one day no one cares anymore of any  imaginalbe humilation in public caputred and published on fucking Youtube by hard-working filmmakers

Great! Looks very good and not offbeat. These lenses are definintely worth considering - I think especially for a camera like the GH4 to add something special

Read the full article - http://www.eoshd.com/2015/02/dog-schidt-optiks-ff58-flare-factory-58-pl-mount-review/

​It is a focus through adapter and as all focus through adapter not sharp beyond 5.6 or so. Therefore it is no competition for an Iscorama. What I like about it is that it is light.
And maybe it is not that bad to blur the too sharp GH4 especially with modern lenses?!
Otherwise I'd prefer the other new kids on the block like FM or Rectilux. Unfortunately I haven't seen real life tests from the Rectilux yet otherwise I'd go for that with Moellers.
Also no support needed and easy swap as John pointed out.
Furthermore I don't expect the SLR 2x to be sifnificantly cheaper then one of the above mentioned competitors.

That looks so gorgeous and I would love to own such a great camera and play around with it. But this ratrace for tech and gear is exhausting and these permanent comparisons between video and film are unnecesssary. Video is video and film is film. What's wrong with that?

I just saw this one yesterday - GH4 / Resolve / FCPX - very nice:
https://vimeo.com/groups/gh4/videos/119679358

John, this sounds absolutely fantastic! To have the opportunity to change the lenses is great. It gave me a headache and I was thinking if the 3FF-S would suit my needs...
Also I was convinced I had to buy one Rectilux for one or the other.
The fact that it is lightweigt and you don't need all the support is just stunning. I love the image of the Möllers so much. I don't know any low budget/projection anamorphic that comes close in character (beside Lomos with its quirks). Therefore 3FF-S would make the Möller 32 more usable as focusing is a pain due to long throw.  I am slightly concerned if the image is affected though. Otherwise I just can say now I am sold.
I am impressed you still recall helping me (I think we are both not so young blokes any more ) And I hope I said thank you! Cause you solved my problem. Again thank you very much (also for sharing your knowledge several other times).
I cannot remember mentioning interestring footage... at least not from me. I am not a filmaker/lenstester. Anyway here is a clip I made with the Möller 8/15 and there are a few focuspulls. I was not very experienced at that time. So now it works better. You just have to use a taking lens which focuses the 'right' way (non-Nikon) and grab both the Möller and the takting lens. It is that easy. However with 3FF-S things can be used in a more serious way I think. As I mentioned I am sold - just have to sort that out with the finance minister (my wife)
 

Shooting film requires a Discipline. Its not about being fast but being a creator, an artist, is the magic of the unknown within the known parameters. DP's all over would shoot film over digital, for many technical reasons and its proven that it would not be much more expensive. I have shot 35mm (Fuji and Kodak) and the latitude its fantastic. I agree with one comment, there is a democracy in Digital, But film requires craft and Discipline, that can hardly be found in the simplistic world of fast content.  Its easy to dismiss Film, when there is very little knowledge of the craft.

​Yes Stu, 
Form, fit and function from design through to final product. 
There is no need to remove the focus ring from your anamorphic lens, and besides,  it is imperative that this is not done, for how else can the minute adjustments be made for precise infinity focus? You will see from the brochure that Rectilux 3FF series also feature infinity adjustment screws because every designer would know that some scope/ taking lens combinations can experience changes to the back focus during close focusing. In short Rectilux can be tuned to your favourite lenses.
Without the anamorphic focus ring, this function goes out the window.
​My focus is on Rectilux, Stu, what happens to other products is not my concern.
​Thanks and you will, birds in flight

​I have never considered a Moller 32 to be an underrated adapter, I think all Moller scopes are excellent. 
Do you remember I helped you solve your filter problem you had with your 32 Rudolf? 
How is that working out for you?
​Rudolf, I think you are in the wrong thread, 3FF-S is not heavy, requires no rails, no sticks and no sidewalk permit and you can swap out the 32 to the 8/19 in less than a minute using the quick change system
​Please show me how you rack focus with the double focus Moller Rudolf. I like to learn new tricks. 
Rudolf, earlier you spoke about interesting footage, can you please share your Vimeo or You Tube account so I can see some examples of what you mean?
 

I've started shooting celluloid with Canon Scoopic and Beaulieu (16mm and S8) for fun and I like the effect on screen. Kodak short ends are quite cheap and I've tested 13 years old GPX with great results. I like film especially with PMT scanners - superb match, see my drumscan samples various films light same scenes:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/66109016@N04/
I wish I could use photography films in cine cameras. When I watch old S8 films brought by people for telecine I always smile. I like digital too for different tasks.

I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. 
And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

Not many people know about this awesome feature - Track your masks in AE CC!
 
Thanks for watching!
Ruan
www.tunnelviziontv.net

Let's remember all the wonderful things about celluloid:
1. The lovely "bob and weave" in the image, as each frame never lands exactly in the same place as the previous one as it goes through the camera or projector gate.
2. All the sparkling dust and dirt in the image which gives it that nice "real world" feel.
3. The fine lines of scratches that appear if you dare to run your film through a projector more than once.
4. The fun of having no idea how your shots came out until a day or two later when your film comes back from the lab.
5. The marvelous megatons of toxic waste generated by photochemical processing.
6. The joy of your footage turning yellow or pink if you store it in a hot place. The fun of having to store film stock in refrigerators to stop it from going bad.
7.   The ecstasy of spending about what a Canon 5D costs to buy thirty minutes of film stock and get it processed (workprint or video transfer not included).

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 

The argument will work itself out over the course of time.  If top D.P.'s stop using film there will be less call for it.  I'm quite sure most of them have done comparison tests with the state of the art digital. 
You also seem to be assuming here that film is being kept alive as the capture medium.  I think the studios need to keep film around to preserve their work.  When large studios submit their films to the U.S. Copyright office for registration they submit film prints because of their archival quality.   We know that in 50 or even 100 years if there's a projector or scanner around the film will still present a decent image.  Digital on the other hand changes so rapidly that it's less comforting to imagine that a digital file submitted now will be readable in even 10 or 20 years time.  The standard submission format for long form film or video content for those of us without many thousands to spend on film prints is DVD or Blu-ray.  It's recommended to send a backup disc but that's it.  How likely is it that those discs will still be readable if not corrupted in 20 years?  I've spoken with the Copyright office several times about this and they don't ingest the files into their computer system...the discs simply get filed and it worries them too.  

Aren't all digital films transferred into film to preserve them? Digital preservation doesn't last. 
I personally can't wait for Star Wars to return to Film, the most recent Digital Star War films were visually totally lacking in character.

I'm an old salt. I've worked in film most of my professional life, primarily in labs (gigantic and small) , post-production and editorial. The past fifteen years, I've been in film restoration. I have literally seen and handled hundreds of millions of feet of film in my life, dating from the early 1900's to, well, negs shot just a couple of years ago.
In my work, we use traditional photochemical and digital technologies hand-in-hand. There are things digital can't possibly achieve, and things traditional photochemical processes choke on that digital wins as undisputed champ. And I LOVE my digital tech. I'm no luddite.
In the end, though, I feel posts like this one (and on other blogs) re: the film issue are an exercise akin to arguing how many angels can dance on a saltine cracker. Or, to put it more directly, "You can't argue taste." It's a tool in the arsenal, just like why someone would shoot video with an 8-bit codec at 720P. Because they can/need to/like to. Right tool for the job. Everything else is academic. If YOU, the media creator, make the format choice that you believe is correct from an aesthetic, technical and budgetary standpoint, so be it. You are the artist. If it is to be 4K HFR 3D, great, if you want VHS, okay. If you want film, rock on.
As to the dated, anachronistic aspects of the film medium, I agree it can be frustrating, unwieldy and time-consuming. I also happen to think performing live music with a band is a pain in the butt just for the sheer aggravation of moving a truckload of instruments, cabling, amps, etc. around, setting up, tearing down, but I would never advocate trashing it all for a keyboard and sampler just because it is cheaper, more convenient and "is just as good."
Just one man's opinion...