roccoforte

I've been shooting on the 50D with ML Raw hack at 1580 x 888 with an anamorphic lens. Here are some stills (just screen grabs off the Avid, not proper exports) Shot with Canon 40mm pancake f2.8 and the Bolex Moller 8/19/1.5 - http://imgur.com/a/nmknn#0

Ugh,  paid 1000USD for mine. This is sad on so many levels

I think I'll give the Fujinon a try. I can't afford the Jena unfortunately ;o) Also, I did some tests any my Nikon 105mm F2.5 came out really well paired with the anamorphot. But, its damn long. Haha. So far the Canon 40 is winning, because it's nice and wide.

The widest I've been able to go is with the Canon 40mm pancake - http://imgur.com/a/mAKsR - I've actually quite happy with it, but I can't help but wonder if there's a better 40mm out there somewhere!

I'm looking for the ideal taking lens for my Bolex 8/19/1.5 anamorphot on a Canon 50D. My current lens is the rather expensive Zeiss 50mm 1.4, but I'm seeing a LOT of chomatic abberation from this lens and I'm searching for alternative. So, what's your recommendation? Perhaps older Nikon AI-s? Or Canon FD?   Any input appreciated. Thanks.

Hey Andrew - would you mind sharing where you got those awesome wooded handles from on the BMCC? - http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/bmcc-rewo-cage-and-handles.jpg - they're great!

For what it's worth, I paid 1000USD for my Bolex anamorphot 8-19-1.5x about six months ago. I've kept an eye on them since (to asses its value) and they tend to hover around 1000 - 1500 USD. But I welcome an increase in value!!  ;) 

$4,600! - http://www.ebay.com/itm/Iscorama-anamorphic-lens-/200926249978?autorefresh=true   Went up $2000 in the last fifteen mins.

The 35mm on the T2i was the Zeiss 2.0 Distagon. Maybe I should try a different 35mm...?   RE: the GH2; I was referencing itimjim's post above mine (apologies for the confusion). Which is also a different anamorphot, so that may account for the difference too.   It's anyone's guess, I suppose. Just gonna have to drop $1200 to find out!

Now I'm not so sure because 35mm on a my T2i vignettes too much:     T2i   50 x 1.6 = 80 (WORKS) 40 x 1.6 = 65 (WORKS) 35 x 1.6 = 56 (VIGNETTE)     GH2 28 x 1.9 = 53.2 (WORKS w 16/32)   BMPC 17.5 x 3 = 52.5 (NOT SO SURE) <---- 25 x 3 = 75 (LOOKS GOOD)   But is the above calculation the ONLY way of figuring it out?

Thanks for the help. It's pretty easy when you know how!

I'm trying to figure out theoretically what the widest lens I can use with the new Blackmagic Pocket camera AND a Bolex 8/19/1.5 anamorphot. Would the Voigtlander 17.5mm work? How about the 24? (EDIT: meant the 25) Thanks for any input.

Crazy stuff. Very excited to see where this evolves, if so. Thanks

Jumping in here - what's the difference between MC and non MC? Thanks!

Regarding a user calibrated single focusing system; in my admittedly poor mechanical mind, I would think each user would have to create three perfectly sized gears which align just right for their set of lenses. Unless you could create gears which can grow and shrink easily (doubt it) so you can modify. I just don't see it happening.

I've been playing with this in my imagination for a while. Great to see it actualized, but right now it probably costs more than an Iscorama!! Would love to see this working well and cheap. Now - must get that engineering degree!!

Yes - In my mind the oval-shaped bokeh should only be visible when you watch the footage in its pre-squeezed state. (i.e. when people are tall, and soccer balls are egg-shaped) But it remains oval even after it's been squeezed down into its rectangular aspect ratio.    Logically, shouldn't the bokeh also squeeze down back into a circle?   But yes, I see it now; that it isn't uniformly stretched. Very interesting.   Thanks.

Logically it doesn't make sense to me that your bokeh remains elongated even after you squeeze! Are all circular shapes in the background stretched too?   What am I missing here??   Thanks...

(Jump to 07:18)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuouohiEtD0&t=7m18s

Great info guys - this is why I own one ;o)

Well, sure. I'm talking hypotheticals but ya never know...

The DSLR revolution/craze/movement has caused the boom in popularity, price inflation and scarcity. The only reason they weren't popular prior to this is because low budget film makers and hobbyists weren't able to afford a camera for these adaptors to work with. Now they can.   Is it a fad? Not sure. On the one hand, some argue the wide aspect ratio look has a timeless, useful and quality to it, which is always in demand. On the other hand, perhaps people will grow tired of this and it will go out of style. Who can say? As for the lenses themselves; it is possible they'll become relics if a cheaper alternative emerges, which creates the same look (such as better post processing). Or, if sensor sizes become so large that they won't work at all. When that happens, their price will plummet, but then of course no one will want one!

No, it won't work on the 5D because of the large sensor; you'll get a massive vignette.

The widest I've managed to get with the Moller 40mm on a Canon T2i APS-C. 35mm vignettes too much; 50 also works well.

"[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]an outrage" - haha; so why is that then? What benefits would I get from replacing my Vamp Clamp with a Red Stan? Thx.[/font][/color] EDIT: Oh, just realized it's *your* clamp. Hmmmm...