Bioskop.Inc
-
Posts
1,303 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by Bioskop.Inc
-
-
2 hours ago, mercer said:
Pretty awesome, it was both calming and frenetic at the same time, but maybe a little long? At 3.5 minutes with a passage from an old sci-fi book or something from TS Elliott narrating over top of the music and I wouldn't be surprised if this became a Vimeo Staff Pick.
Cheers mercer, yes it's far too long & it was even longer, but as I cut, I ended up putting other things into it.
Going to give it another good chop at some point, just got to decide what to take out of it & what needs improving.
I did cut up a speech from JFK & made his words relevant for today's climate - so that has to go in. Oh well, it's Christmas now & time to relax & enjoy!
-
If it's for YouTube or Vimeo, I use a heavy handed approach simply because too many times I've added grain just to have it eradicated by the uploading process.
Now I upload everything in 2K & use Filmconvert at 150% (super 35mm grain).
If it's not for the internet, then I dial back between 50-100%.
However, recently I've been experimenting with underexposing BM footage & then lifting it in post to reveal the noise, which I think BM cameras do very nicely - so no post grain needed.
-
So I got myself a proper job (as some of my friends would put it) - you know, one that earns you regular good money, one that sucks the life out of you, one that you end up hating!
What do you do to get your mind back?
1) Take a song from a friend
2) Find some free footage/pictures online
3) Restrict yourself to only using your NLE of choice for everything
4) Learn where your shortcomings are & REACT in accordance!
-
In my first job in TV, as a runner, I got to experience the best & the worst directors. The good thing is, that the really bad directors eventually get caught out & schooled by either the cameramen or the producers.
The worst I've experienced is a director that just couldn't control a 5min interview with 3 cameras. They had no idea about editing, so if anything wasn't to their exacting standards, everyone would have to roll again - of course the logical thing to do would have been to just re-film the offending culprit. So basically, something that should take a grand total of 15-20mins to do would take 40mins & they'd have to do about 10-15 of these interviews in a day. Of course, this meant that the shoots would wildly overrun & everyone would have to spend an extra 2-3hrs filming. Eventually the Producer noticed that the shoots were taking far too long & came to show people (this Director) how to do it - needless to say we finished 2hrs early that day & that director got made redundant a while later.
Some people manage to scrape through a career & eventhough their CV looks impressive to the inexperienced, years later you realise that these inept people have been working on shows that are used by young directors to cut their teeth on.
Should you put up with these people? Well, I've seen cameramen walk. Yep, just pack their stuff up & walk. It's quite an amazing thing to see a whole crew walk away from a director. Admittedly it doesn't happen very often & is a very risky thing to do (unless you have lots of work & can for go never working on that programme again), but sometimes you just have no choice but to get the hell out of there.
Just remember, bad directors don't last very long & you'll find that the best crews just won't work with them.
Personally, I'd take a stand - ask for an advance on your payment, get the cash in your pocket & then have a polite word with them. If they don't change, walk!
Just remember that their ineptitude could end up reflecting badly on you - these sorts of directors will place the blame on the people around them, so just make sure you're not around for that...
-
15 hours ago, Hans Punk said:
God we've missed you.
Here Here! Goes without saying...
9 hours ago, PepperJay said:Okay, so I guess my main questions are, does this sound too good to be true, particularly the focus through at 2m? Is it really just a matter of rear element placement, or am I grossly simplifying the engineering involved? What I've read so far was that the only difference between the 1100 and the 1060 was the focal length, which I took as ultimately translating into the field of vision and/or minimum focal distance, but from the ads, it sounds like they have full Iscorama functionality (lens diameter shortcomings aside) at 1/3 the price. Any thoughts would be welcome, because I'm feeling downright reckless this holiday season and wouldn't want to go down that road if it's a nasty one. Thanks in advance!
Think I've said it all in my previous posts, but lets be clear about this once & for all - this is NOT an Iscorama, not by a long shot! It's a focus through & NOT a single focus anamorphic attachment like a true Iscorama, which will focus from 2m to Infinity.
If it works like the Isco Widescreen 2000, then it does produce really nice images but it's a PITA to use.
I came on this thread initially to warn people about this lens - there's a lot of bad info about these sorts of lenses. So, lets be clear about it - the 2000 will not focus to infinity, not now, not ever. It's blurred & not in focus. The 2000 is fixed at 5m & it's focus through range is from 4m-6m, at best. When you're filming with it things will kinda look in focus, but if you zoom in it's soft/blurry. Project your footage on a big screen & you'll have a fit/curse the day you ever believed this was a good purchase.
However, if you get some diopters & stick to the 5m mark on your taking lens, then you can change it's focus range - you can also use different lens for close-ups & wides etc... At 5m it's stunning, everything else is meeeeeeh!
-
Transcoding?
In: Cameras
Also, you won't need to transcode to ProRes HQ for just H264. Here's a good article by Larry Jordan & he goes through the different uses of transcoding to ProRes - for 8-Bit he recomends just the normal ProRes:
https://larryjordan.com/articles/pick-the-right-version-of-prores/
-
Just in case anyone still has any questions (or doubts my experience with this lens), here's the Widescreen 2000 in test mode. It's a run'n'gun situation at a concert, which is a good test for any lens & how it will work under extreme/fast working conditions. You'll notice the picture can look soft & that's down to the fact that if you're not @ 5M on the taking lens, then it will not produce it's optimum sharpness. You can, of course, get a false/fake sharpness by stopping down the taking lens, but it'll never be a true depiction of it's sharpness.
Focus range, when you have a +0.25 diopter on the front (good luck finding one, especially a cheap one - but it is the best strength for this anamorphic for focusing through), will only really be between 4-6M (the reading on the taking lens, not the true focal range) - so too narrow to rack effectively (there is a rack in the footage below, but kinda hard to spot because it doesn't perform well in this department). Again if you stop down then you can get a false longer focus range (infinity if you want to fool yourself), but then the deep depth of field can make it difficult to tell what is exactly in focus.
Only the second time I used this Anamorphic in a paid situation & I have never used it again as a focus through. However, stick to the 5M optimum distance, then add various diopters to reduce this focal length, in order to get closer focus and/or change lenses & this is when this lens is at its best. As a focus through, there are better ones out there, but they are all x1.3. So £1k? No way!
-
1 hour ago, racer5 said:
Tweak, all fair points - and yes, moving on.
One last thing for those still interested in the topic at hand (the 1060's available for purchase on ebay from Germany):
I can confirm that the seller will chop off the protruding back if requested, with threads of your choice added. This will help vignetting issues and leave the the rear element in close proximity to the taking lens. He's replied to every question with lengthy detailed messages, a very helpful guy.
LMAO!
Been trolling this guy for kicks - complete noob.
BEWARE OF SELLERS JACKING UP PRICES ON EBAY!
Also, beware of posters who just like to insult/belittle people on forums - they've always got something to hide!
Anyone who has seen me post for the last few years knows that I speak my mind & also give good advice.
If you're going to spend £1K, or there abouts, on an anamorphic then this is the one you should buy (it also comes as the 8/19/1.5x) - hands down one of the best anamorphics out there! This one is very nicely priced & focuses closer than the 8/19/1.5x.
-
15 hours ago, racer5 said:
The "waiting game" point is a solid one Liszon. There are certainly magical deals one can come across in any after-market category if they have the luxury of hunkering down and playing the auction game for long periods of time. If I need a solution "today" though, market prices are not as generous as that. Good points in general though.
Haha, you've must have been coddled growing up, sensitive boy. Here you are getting all hot and bothered, using big bad words on a....CAMERA LENS HOBBY FORUM. You should really explore why you feel offended and affronted so easily. Deep breaths Bio, it's going to be ok...
Don't feel anything about you or what you've said.
You're a sad little person, who probably needs to go back to his Doctor & get get some stronger medication.
6 hours ago, tweak said:Wants help, tells people to "STFU" when given realistic advice... I think anamorphic is going mainstream.
Still think this is the seller of the overpriced lenses - why else would he get offended by my earlier comments?
No reason at all, unless he was jacking up the prices & has been called out....Kids!
-
22 hours ago, racer5 said:
Yeah whatever. Show me a 1060 somewhere for under £500 or STFU.
Not going anywhere dickhead....
20 hours ago, Liszon said:There were a pair of them on ebay a month ago, around £400-500. I have a feeling those "Mini Iscoramas" are the exact same ones actually, slightly modified by the new seller.
There you go you baby boy, someone else saw them & yes, I'm with Liszon - the OPs seller bought them & jacked the price up to stupid levels.
So, as stated, you'd be a fool to over pay for them - it was a warning to perspective buyers.
Anamorphics on ebay is a waiting game & if you missed things than that's just tough!
If you're so desperate, why not rent? If you're willing to pay £1K for a focus through lens, which you'll hate cause it is a PITA to use, then renting would be a good option.
Your attitude really stinks, like an immature kid - if you'd actually come to the table & said that you were really desperate to find a x1.5 Anamorphic, then I'd have probably sold you my Widescreen 2000 for a resonable price. But you didn't, did you? You insulted me & acted like a little spoilt cocky child who wants everything now!
Go on buy that lens for a grand & fuck off while you're doing it......
-
1 hour ago, racer5 said:
Uff, this is the point I'm getting at. £500 was the number you threw out there, saying "only a fool would buy one" for more. :facepalm:
1) The last ebay auction for a Iscorama 1060 went for about £300 or just under.
2) It's not a single focus anamorphic.
3) Loads of great & better options out there for x2 anamorphics, which are below £500.
4) You're being a dick!
5) Go & get ripped off by that guy, he's waiting for an idiot like you - so i'm sure you'll both get along just fine.
People come here for help, so if you can save someone the time & hassle of buying an over priced anamorphic, that is difficult to use, then that's a good thing.
Are you that seller that's ripping people off? Bet you are you scumbag....!
-
9 hours ago, racer5 said:
Thanks for the reply, Bio. I have to say though that what you've suggested is 2x solutions, or the Baby which is for small sensors. The 54 will probably sell for 3k once the auction ends.
Yep, but that's because there aren't many x1.5 anamorphics, if any (especially single focus) for your price of £500.
Also, you'll have to take into account what type of sensor you're using, since this will restrict what taking lenses you can use - e.g. the bigger the sensor (Full Frame) the longer the taking lens has to be.
Here take a look at this Wiki page, as it lists pretty much everything that's out there:
-
2 hours ago, racer5 said:
What other sharp 1.5x single focus options would you recommend in the ~£500 range? Specifics please.
To be honest there aren't that many cheap true single focus x1.5 that you'll be able to shoot wide open, or are really sharp - in fact most anamorphics are considered soft by "the sharp lens brigade".
The problem with the OPs lens is that it's a focus through, which you'll need diopters & to stop down to be able to focus with (& then you don't get a great focus range).
You could go for the single focus Iscomorphot x1.5 (the Baby Iscorama), which goes for around £500-700ish - it is dreamy soft wide open & gets nicer if you stop down to f4-5. It's not to everyone's taste though, so look at some videos taken with them.
If not then you could go for a cheaper x2 dual focus & get a Core DNA or the like.
The Elmoscope is nice & has Blue flares:
You can sometimes find cheap Kowa 8z, 16H or for Bell & Howell - all the same lens, just branded differently. Just bide your time for a bargin, because if you rush you're just going to get ripped off.
Worth keeping an eye open for a Bolex Anamorphic (x2 & dual focus), which is one of the nicest lenses out there.
Just noticed this Iscorama54, but it'll go for over £1K & maybe reach £2K as it's a non-mc version:
Another thing to avoid are those big multi-coloured Isco lenses (blue, red, gold etc..), yes they are sharp, but a PITA to focus with & zero anamorphic qualities & MC'd - you may as well crop than go through the hassle of using one.
On a side note: The seller that bzpop linked has dropped his prices for that lens & I guess that he'll keep on dropping the price.
-
20 hours ago, bzpop said:
This guy charges stupid money for things that you can find cheaper.
So, yes you can find them for £500, but certainly not from this guy.
Just because one person charges extortionate prices for things, doesn't mean that that is the price they go for or the price you should pay.
The lens the OP is talking about is not worth over £1K & only a fool would buy one for that price - there are cheaper & better anamorphics out there.
-
2 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:
I think this camera race is something to brush aside at the moment. The options we have now are ridiculous - I think most would benefit from sticking to their current cameras, ignoring the next batch of camera releases and invest money into lighting, camera movement, lenses and essential video education (loads of stuff out there like Shane Hurlbut).
Exactly this & only this.
Doesn't matter if you're a professional or an amateur, buy a Canon or a Sony, want a hybid or a dedicated camera. The reason you're interested in all this lovely, and sometimes not so lovely, tech is that you want to create/produce something - regardless of whether you make money out of it or not.
However, there does seem to be a rise in people who don't want to sit down for 5mins and learn how to use what they've bought. Yes, you're not going to be an amazing photographer/filmmaker over night, it takes time & a lot of practice. So, don't ever blame the tools, because that isn't the problem. If you've used enough cameras, you can spend a few days with something new, do your tests (these are YOUR tests, not someone elses & should fit YOUR chosen style), then know where you stand (limitations etc.) & away you go.
So, now I've re-thought Andrew's post & examples: firstly, he has the guts to put stuff on line for the whole world to see, and that takes courage; secondly, the Canon vs. Sony picture comparison might need re-thinking or re-interpreting. Now i'm not defending anyone, but having thought about it for a while, this is the conclusion I've come to. The Sony pic is just an average sterile thing, no complaints, looks fine, but is boring as hell - it has ZERO character! The Canon pic made me laugh at first and then the more I looked at it the more I realised that it wasn't this bland sterile, boring thing - it has character, it isn't perfect & that's why it stands out compared to the Sony pic. We all looked at the Sony pic & thought perfect, but who really wants to sit there and produce the same thing that everyone else is producing? How are you ever going to be your own person, with your own tastes and vision if you just tag along with the rest of the sheep?
-
2 hours ago, Caleb Genheimer said:
Hold your horses there! I'm calling full and utter BS on that last statement ? I use my 2X all the time with my NX1. It's 16:9. I get paid actual monies (several monies sometimes) specifically BECAUSE I shoot 2X! There are monitors that can desqueeze it and crop to 2.35:1. I have one. There are adaptors to make it single focus. I have one. Shooting with it? Easy as shooting with any standard prime lens.
In terms of "easier to deal with"? As in the post-production? Don't fool yourself, unless you're a fool (which I'm sure you're not). It's just math. Desqueeze ratios and aspect ratios. Vertical and horizontal resolution. All can be sorted with simple division, multiplication, subtraction or addition.
If you feel the need to defend the 1.5X, that's fine, there are great 1.5X lenses and crappy 1.5X lenses, just like there are great and crappy 2X lenses.
As as far as calling 2X users "purists"? I take offense. I'll put my "cheap" 2X up against what I can only assume is an Iscorama that you spent too much money on. But I'll tell you right now mine is sharper, the bokeh is more distorted, and the flares aren't yellow, they're blue. Oh, and it has a wider FOV (even when cropped to 2.35:1).
Im all for everyone finding their own solution in anamorphic, but do the math, don't just make blanket statements.
Read the whole thread & then comment on the while discussion - not just on one post. Come on try a little bit, please! It isn't hard, or maybe it is?
What was being discussed, was whether you should crop or not & if you do how much resolution you loose by cropping. If you'd actually read my earlier posts, you'd see that I do use x2 Anamorphics on 16:9 sensors & I crop. My point, & raf702's, was that if cropping a x2 anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor really means that you loose so much resolution (to the detriment of the final image & especially if you're projecting on a big screen), then a x1.5 is a good compromise as you don't need to crop, since 2.66:1 is a nice size to finish with. You don't throw away any of the sensor's image & so don't loose any resolution.
I know sarcasm/humour doesn't translate well in a post, but if you'd actually read the whole thread then you would have been able to divine my comments about "x2 purists" was a joke! The part about cheap x2 anamorphics (which is why I put it in brackets) wasn't a joke & was an insult - those horrible sharp multi-coloured anamorphics just have zero anamorphic qualities, they are sterile rubbish & overpriced now. I've been posting on this forever & also on people getting ripped off spending way too much money on them.
And the, mine's sharper than your's BS - just grow up. Sharpness, when using an adaptor, is just as much about the taking lens, as it is about the actual adaptor.
Also, don't get jealous that I got into Iscorama's when they were cheap & yes I have a 54 (also had 3 36s & sold them for a very tidy profit!) - not because it is the sharpest (it's actually really good on that front if you use the right taking lens), but because it is heavy (so good for stabilisation), single focus (so no need for extra glass to infect the image), Multi-Coated (not a flare addict & helps with contrast & so perceived sharpness) & you are able to use a wider range of taking lenses with it.
I've got 2 x2 anamorphics (yes i've got a Kowa like you & it's exactly the same sharpness as my Iscorama - so there) & another x1.5 - the sharpest, by a long way, is the tiny Iscomorphot S8/x2 (the fixed focus one), which i've been using at the moment (go figure)!
But you're right, I'd never spend the amount some people spend on Iscoramas ATM & especially the tiny plastic ones, which are a liability/accident waiting to happen.
So, back to the discussion:
Do you loose a lot of resolution by cropping a x2 anamorphic on a 16:9 sensor or not? And, what do you mean by resolution when you use that term?
-
The picture comparison made me laugh! For your home scrap book, the canon is fine, its a complete mess, but fine. However, if you showed them to a client...they'd tell you to throw away the Canon shot & boost the saturation on the Sony.
If you do a comparison between 2 cameras, then you really need to level the playing field (use standard profiles on both cams, as was said above). I'm with you on Canon colour, but between the 2 pics, i'd go for the Sony (with some tweeking) or just take another go at the Canon one, so it looked better. The other problem, is that at the moment people are edging towards that neutral look (as in the Sony pic) - doesn't make it right, but if you want to make a living.....
- valery akos, Michal Gajdoš, Geoff CB and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, funkyou86 said:
IMO, try to search after AGFA 1.5x anamorphot commonly known as Moller 19/1.5x, it's the focus through version of the Moller 8/19/1.5x. Cheaper than the Isco, quality wise: really sharp!
Nice tip, didn't know that this existed or that Moller had a focus through - the image from a Moller is absolutely lovely!
Sharpness really comes from the taking lens & you're never going to reach the levels of just a lens when you add an attachment on the top - but I know what you mean, every little bit helps.
-
14 hours ago, keessie65 said:
Does anyone has experience with the mini iscorama 1060?
No but looks exactly like a Widescreen 2000, with the option to align the lens. However, might be a bitch to mount with that long protruding back - possible though & not really a problem.
If it is like the Widescreen 2000, then it is a great piece of glass - excellent even. It'll have a minimum focus distance of about 4/5m & is kind of a focus through - but it isn't that easy to use & will take some practice to get your focusing technique down. The only tips I can give you, having used the Widescreen 2000 extensively, are as follows:
- You'll need a low power diopter, which is x0.5 or there abouts, a little under is best (this is essential, as it'll help with focusing). The glass is so good that you don't need to buy really expensive diopters (a +1 & +2 will come in handy too).
- Use a taking lens that has a long focus throw, as it'll make it easier to focus with. If not your focus adjustments will have to be so small, you'll end up missing focus more often than not.
- Practice, practice, practice & that means you'll have to spend some time getting used to how it works/how to get the best out of it.
Finally, don't pay anymore than £500 for one - there are some floating around that are way too expensive! If you're spending £1K or over for it, you may as well wait for an Iscorama 54 to turn up - they normally go for about £1.5K ATM. Or simply buy a "Kowa for Bell & Howell" and then get a Rectilux Core DNA (or the like) to stick on the end - a good idea to get one of these if you get it for £500.
-
Budget & 4K are not things that hold any interest for me what-so-ever. If a camera doesn't deliver in ProRes, then it's a waste of time. The same goes for 4K, it's basically a cinema format that is a pipe dream for the large majority of consumers - damn, they can't even give us proper HD tv broadcasts yet!
If you're on a budget, then the Isco Widescreen 2000 is a really good option for a x1.5 - stunning glass, kinda focus through but nothing a few diopters can't solve (hard to find one now, but hey, worth the wait). The only other option is to wait for an Iscorama 54 to turn up, they are a lot cheaper than the others (people don't rate them, but they really are the best Iscorama MC or not) & it'll give you the diversity of numerous lens options, build quality & the weight you really need to film properly.
Start saving your cash, stop buying camera after camera & loosing yourself in this stupid search for perfection that doesn't exist - find the one you like right now & stick with it for a while. I'm not upgrading my BM Pocket for quite a while yet, as nothing comes close to the beautiful image quality that it produces - it's not perfect, but that IMAGE!!!!!!! If you continue to find problems with cameras, then you'll never be happy, cause there is no such thing as the perfect camera - never was, never will be.
- Justin Bacle and raf702
-
2
-
Andrew has a weird/rare single focus x2 Isco Anamorphic, so Isco did make a few made to measure lenses it would seem.
So is this a 54 housed in a smaller body? But the 49 name would suggest that the rear element is 49mm & not 54.
Whatever you've got, it is rare & if it is as sharp as the 42, the OP has got a very nice lens indeed - none of this plastic 36 housing shit, that makes you too scared to take it outside.
Flares be damned, it's the out of focus qualities that are the important thing.
- SigurdW and valery akos
-
2
-
3 hours ago, raf702 said:
I got a bit tired of shooting with 2x and 16:9. I'm happy with a 1.5x on a 16:9, post is easy and don't need to crop the image. Find a quality 1.5x is the only hard part.
Exactly, x1.5 is more than adequate & 2.66:1 is far easier to deal with.
It's only really the purists (with their cheap x2 dual focus adaptors) that advocate a x2 anamorphic, and you can only use one with a camera with a 4:3 option.
- raf702 and Justin Bacle
-
2
-
Get really confused about how resolution is used, or can be applied as a descriptive term, especially when cropping any type of image.
This reveals the circle of confusion when using the term resolution:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_resolution
Personally, don't think it really matters if you crop the sides & resolution (whether used properly or not) is one of those [stupid] hang ups like crop factor or sharpness - I'm going with the final pixel count & not the possibilities of the original sensor image size.
Confusing myself now......
-
In an ideal world you need to shoot 4:3 with a x2 anamorphic, and correct me if i'm wrong, but a camera that can shoot 4:3 is using a crop of the sensor - so you're already loosing some of the sensor's resolution? Therefore, if you crop in post (it's just the sides after all) you will be throwing away some of the image and so, some of the resolution. But is this any different to those that shoot spherical & crop in post? Personally, i don't think so and the reason become clear if you consider the Cinema DCP aspect ratios for 2.39:
Cinema DCP 2K = 2048x858
Cinema DCP 4K = 4096x1716
I crop all the time & feel fine about it - it looks fine & you can even do minor pans. My other reasoning comes from the notion that if you squeeze the footage (this has been discussed before elsewhere on the forum), rather than stretch, the footage looks sharper - not sure if this is an optical illusion or true fact.
But if you look at the Cinema DCP ratios, you could get away with upscaling slightly to 4K anamorphic - this would be beneficial if you were shooting with really sharp lenses, as it would take the edge off (so to speak). This sort of upscaling is done a lot, especially if you take into account the amount of Alexa footage that you see at the cinema (if projected in 4K) is upscaled.
However, if you look at the 2K DCP ratio (2048x858) and then consider that a x2 anamorphic on a 16:9 package will give you 3840x1080, so you'll be downscaling (sharper image?) and loosing some of the sides might not really be that much of a big deal - again, this is assuming that what I've read about squeezing instead of stretching is correct.
Personally, i think that the 2.66 aspect ratio is a really good compromise, as its not that much wider than 2.39 and it was used as a cinema aspect ratio called Cinemascope by 20th Century Fox between 1953-1967 (basically it is 2x larger than the Academy's aspect ratio of 1.37). But, because of the magnetic strip used for sound, most Cinemascope films were 2.55, but that doesn't exist anymore so 2.66 is fine.
Or you could go with the Ultra-Panovision 70 aspect ratio of 2.75:1
NB. Polyvision aspect ratio was 4.00:1
One final thing: If you're delivering for the internet, it doesn't matter as most people will be watching on their phones or tablets & they'll never notice a loss in resolution or whatever. Same goes for TV distribution, since HD broadcasts aren't even proper HD, no one is going to notice.
How do you grain?
In: Cameras
Posted
The tip about using an adjustment layer is also a really good thing to do - I use FilmConvert that way (for colour &/or grain).
My the experiments with underexposure are iffy at best, as it's really difficult to get the footage shot in daylight to match stuff filmed indoors or in low light. But you see a lot of films that are clean one minute & then get grainy the next - so not everyone adheres to an even amount of grain.
The two free grains mentioned (VisionColor & Gorilla) are good to use.