Bioskop.Inc

We mustn't forget that Americans voted in Ronald Reagan.....

Also, as we found out in the UK, the Brexit promises were all lies & I don't see any difference between them & Trump - anyone running for office ends up telling big porky pies, half of which they can never deliver or don't want to deliver.

As far as camera/tech innovation goes, the US might find that homegrown companies that stay in the US might get serious breaks & therefore be able to challenge the big companies from Asia or those companies that go to Asia for cheap labour.

Who cares, LMAO!

Don't get me wrong, I'm not 100% happy with FCPX as there are loads of things missing/wrong with it. But for my use, it was cheap & better than the demo of Premiere, which I tried side-by-side with FCPX demo for a month.

The magnetic timeline isn't great & to begin with I was able to avoid it since i was editing anamorphic footage & had to create an anamorphic template (no custom timelines at the start) - so no magnetic timeline to deal with. I'm used to it now, but not really happy with it - sometimes I forget to replace a clip with a block of nothing & everything does the rumba.

It's the missing things from FCP7 that made me fume, but then again the price made me smile!

For professional projects it's Avid all the way, but in the end no one NLE is king - it's money & habit.

All do the job to an acceptable standard - go in peace.....

4 hours ago, Django said:

this is pretty insane.. 3 minutes of raw 3K on the 5D3.. OMG .. so how can i try this on my 5D3? or is it still in beta for advanced users?

Here, someone has compiled for loads of cameras:

https://bitbucket.org/daniel_fort/magic-lantern/downloads

"raw_video_10bit_12bit_2016Nov04.zip" is the one to download & then you choose your camera model - once you unpack the zip file.

Also note that you need to set inside the RAW menu to Greyscale viewing

This whole debate is so funny & it's mind bogling that we are still here talking about it.

Back in the day, when FCP7 existed, no one would touch Premiere with a barge pole since it was a pale bad imitation of FCP/Avid (in fact I didn't know Adobe had an NLE & I was working for a big media company) - the 2 main editing NLEs were FCP or Avid (Avid was used for the big money projects).

FCP gets re-worked, for the better (so much faster to edit than Avid/FCP7/Premiere) & suddenly Premiere is a great editing NLE - NO IT IS NOT! The only reason small companies jumped ship was because they could now (or should that be, had to) RENT the whole Adobe suite & lets face it the only 2 things worth using are After Effects & Photoshop - Premiere is there, so people use it & not because it somehow suddenly became this great editing platform.

Personally, if you can't edit in FCPX then you've got serious problems & the magnetic timeline arguement is a non-arguement (it's brought up by people who've never used FCPX for more than a few minutes). The only complaint I have is the need for 3rd party plug-ins, but if you've got the time you can make your own in Motion (and they tend to be better) - & no one is mentioning how great the new Motion is!

20 hours ago, mercer said:

Have you processed any of it... Would love to see it. 

And were you getting full 1080p for 11/12 seconds?

For the 60D it isn't full HD, as it was originally (1728x927), so close enough to deliver in 1080.

The main thing is that it is twice the recording time that it was - 11/12 secs, compared to 6 secs.

Just had a quick mess around yesterday & it all looked fine - not bothered about losing DR, as I don't need it.

11 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Remember that the 2K DCI spec for Cinemascope is 2048x858... which is 80% of the above res.

This is the most important thing for me, es[ecially when shooting Anamorphic

Just tried it on 60D & get 11/12 seconds in 10bit DR!

If you've got a 5D3, this is what you can get:

"So i tried 3K 2,35:1 23,975fps- 14 bits - 134 frames
                                               -12 bit - 294 frames
                                               -10 bit - over 3 minutes recording, didnt check longer
1920x648 (16:9 after stretch) 60 fps     -14 bit 308 frames
                                                            - 10bit 1425 frames
1920x648 50fps seems to be continous in 10 bit.

1920x1080 37fps - 14bit - 239 frames
                             - 10bit - over minute, didnt check longer.

highest possible resolution 3584x1320 23,976 10bit - 160 frames (vs 61 with 14bits)."

If you read the last page of the ML Forum post:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.msg174310#msg174310

It clearly states that there is more work to be done:

"As a1ex has alluded to, the entire ML raw backend is basically hardcoded to only handle 14 bit raw data, so preview, playback and all that are not going to be working correctly. Fixing them is a lot of work (lots of tedious bit math), but should be pretty straight forward and requires no reverse engineering. I had a quick go at the preview code, but I'm not sure I understand all the transformations correctly. The result was starting to resemble the correct image but still very garbled."

But if you want to try it has been compiled & can be downloaded here:

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.msg174310#msg174310

29 minutes ago, cpc said:

I don't see anything mentioned about this in the linked thread.

The OP, in the ML link, states that the bits are being compressed.

48 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

@Bioskop.Inc I have no clue ! Which camera is this 10-12 bit thing working on ? I wouldn't mind a 60d

They haven't ported ML Raw to the 80D yet, in theory it is possible, as @Justin Bacle stated, but hasn't been done yet.

Think the only cameras that it is working on are 5D2 & 60D - but you need to compile the code if you want to try it.

I'm no coder, so just waiting for someone to do it.

Personally, I'd hold off buying anything till it works properly & people start to test it - 5D2 might be the better buy, but I like the flip screen...!

9 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

This is really exciting stuff. 10bit will be great for the SD card Canon bodies in upping resolution while keeping the date rate under the max of the SD card slot.

60D now 1080p for 12 seconds!

So glad I kept my 60D - 12 seconds in 1080p, loving it!

Now just got to wait till they let us test it.

7 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

Running out to buy an 80d cause wowwww

Have they ported ML Raw to the 80D yet? Thought they were still working on it...?

15 hours ago, BenEricson said:

The problem with the smaller cameras is they need a lot of weight added to them. The handheld look on a shoulder mounted 16mm camera just looks amazing compared to any smaller digital camera.

The Ronin look is cool but definitely played. It changes how everything looks. A rig can look just as good if not better a lot of the time, especially for doc work.

5-Axis is there for people that have a minimal setup (no rig etc...) & just need to capture something really quickly, with the minimum of fuss - and of course getting the shot without it being a jitterbug nightmare.

But as Ben said, put some weight on a camera & you can get lovely steady shots, not jitter madness - you don't have to have a big rig or anything, maybe a heavy lens. When I shoot with the BMPCC, it's normally without a Speedbooster (I do own a cheap clone & use it for really wide shots) & just some really heavy lenses on it (which can weigh between 1-2kg + whatever else I need like lens support etc...). Yes, it does move about a bit, but not the micro jitters you'll get with a really simple light camera setup, & you have to practice a lot to get used to moving with your subject, as this hides a huge amount of handheld shake & minimises that seasick feeling you can get.

But as you sad, it looks more organic/natural when done without 5-axis, but it takes a lot of practice & a lot of people simply don't have the time or energy to put the hours in. So, if it's easier & quicker to use 5-Axis, then there is nothing wrong with that - especially if you're always going to be using a small lightweight set up. Just remember that if you graduate to a bigger camera then your inability to deal with the weight will also be a nightmare & then you'll have to deal with all the issues that that brings with it.

3 hours ago, Richard Bugg said:

It's difficult to know what motivates people at the best of times. They may have intended to pay, had no money, became awkward about the whole thing, finally made a bad decision to use the video etc. People are not always straightforward, but in my experience, few people set out to deceive from the outset. On my better days I'd rather try and allow for people's imperfections and be somewhat more accommodating, just a little more cautious the second time around as you suggest.

On the contract thing, Damphousse makes the good point you also made; evidence of an agreement would be necessary to enforce the matter, be it emails, phone texts etc, which you say you have. A contract is generally better than less formal communication, being generally less ambiguous and more thoroughly thought out (I'm not a lawyer BTW, so this is just my interested opinion, but I've done some reading and had some dealings with such matters). However, you've got to wonder if for smaller projects wether a legal course of action is worth the money and effort, other than to use the threat of possible legal recourse as a lever to help the 'client' make the decision to pay. Probably the best use of a detailed agreement is that it leaves less room for error or misunderstanding, and so that both parties know where they stand and what is expected on the important matters.

I'd be inclined to give them a ring and have a coffee to discuss things either before or after your email if that seems appropriate. Emails sometimes can come off a bit terse, and verbal follow-up softens things a bit. Good luck.

People can be strange & do silly things, but still theft is theft. The thing that really bugs me is that they ripped it from my Vimeo account a year ago (it was PW protected & I only left it like that for a week, afterwards it went completely private) - so they knew what they were doing & the theft was intentional. Now whether they actually thought about ripping it in order to upload it at a later date is something I'll never know, but the fact that they waited a year suggests that it might have been their long term plan. The fatal flaw in their plan is that I have been keeping tabs on them, as I had a feeling something like this was going to happen - 6th sense?

I am so pissed at the moment that I'm holding off with any direct contact, need a cool head first. Luckily a good friend of mine knows the manager (I do too, but again really pissed & will probably tear his head off) & is going to have a quiet word - my mate's appalled at what's happened and we both think that the manager is unaware of what they've done, so I think that will be a good first step. If he doesn't act, then I'll send the email I've prepared - it'll make them think twice, hopefully pay up & I know I've got the money to fuck them if I so wish.

The stupid thing about their behaviour is that i've got loads of their unreleased music, might even have their YouTube PW somewhere & they know that i'm good enough to twist their words to make a great Spinal Tap type doc that'll make them look like idiots (shit I made them sound good, when they weren't). Again, pissed & need a cool head. 

1 hour ago, Richard Bugg said:

Possibly no need to sign any contract, as a verbal agreement can be binding (UK likely to be quite similar to AU):

http://www.findlaw.com.au/articles/5626/is-a-verbal-agreement-legally-binding.aspx

I think in this case I would be polite but firm; they might be into burning bridges but you don't need to as well. Instead you could ask for payment for the original work up front, since you already spent that time on it, but in addition, because more work now needs to be done, there will be an additional fee (whatever is reasonable to get it up to speed). If they agree and actually do pay up, then you can proceed to update the doc.  They get the video albeit at a higher price than if they had paid as agreed earlier, and you get fair compensation.

At any rate, the original agreement was broken (delay/theft), so it would be reasonable to renegotiate the fee in a new agreement, such that your time and effort, including sorting out the unpaid use of the video is taken into account. If they don't want to pay what you deem to be a fair use of your time, then simply decline.

Yep cheers, Richard. I do have a few emails/messages to confirm the fee etc...

I've got a draft email with a friend at the moment  - what i've done is to ask for full payment up front & then I'll make any changes to the opening/ending title sequence. They will also have to sign a contract which will stipulate what they can & can't do with the Doc and also what I am able to do with the footage (just use stuff for a showreel). Considering that they seem to have never had any intention of paying me in the first place, which is weird as they paid me for other videos, then I'm not going to charge them any more money. Will wait for a response, but it just goes to show that no matter what, you need to be on your guard with everyone.

I've also noticed that they've hired someone to do a video for them & just hope they don't pull this stunt on them!

13 hours ago, mkabi said:

Here is the thing... you record to cover all the bases.

I know a written statement is more binding, but you don't want a chance for them to say that "he tricked me into signing it."

You ever think why do 2 people getting a divorce need a couple of lawyers to handle the splitting of assets? Can't they do it on their own, in a civilized fashion? They need 2 professional, unassociated/unrelated witnesses and a proper binding agreement. But you can bypass all of that if you ask permission to record the conversation of explaining the contract and having him sign it after explanation. Asking permission and recording the consent to record itself is also important.

No offence, but you can't trick someone into signing a contract. If you don't agree with something in a contract, then you ask for ammendments & you don't sign until you are satisfied - simple. Video can be just as legally binding, but I want as little face-to-face contact with this thieving idiot as possible.

It's a real shame in this day and age that people think that they can just steal someone else's work - especially if they post it on a public platform.

I was very impressed with the speed of YouTube, not so much with Vimeo - but i suspect if it had been posted on Vimeo they would have taken it down & banned the person.

Lesson learnt, get everyone to sign a contract regardless if you know them or not and Watermark footage - DOH!

52 minutes ago, maxmizer said:

Verba Volant, is equal to talk ...
Scripta manent is written is forever

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verba_volant,_scripta_manent

exactly...think some peeps here been watching too many movies!

Anyone got links to any UK based online contracts?

35 minutes ago, mercer said:

You would think musicians of all people would be more ethical when it comes to stealing somebody's work. Now I understand how important watermarks are. What sucks is the utter waste of everybody's time your situation was. They can't use your video and you obviously can't use the video with their image in a reel or any other promotional manner. I think your first instinct is the best... Open a line of communication and come to a mutually beneficial agreement, in writing, so you get something for your time but also  make the contract very clear so it protects you from any defamatory statements... Either libelous or slanderous. I'd also get a release so you can use the footage, with their likeness, in any manner you see fit in perpetuity. 

The really incomprehensible thing is the main guy is so paranoid about people stealing his music/musical ideas that he's never released anything & then he does something like this!

I'm getting a contract drawn up & it will give them permission to post a new version on the internet (YouTube etc...), but that the rights to sell the doc for financial benefit will remain mine. As you said, I'll get them to sign off on being able to use any footage for a showreel etc...

To be honest, I thought I was done with these jokers & had moved on, until Facebook came to the rescue with a new window about people I might know and this idiots face staring at me - can't express how much I hate Facebook (amusing to begin with & then it became an info grabbing underhand organisation that sells your personal info to the highest bidder) and then this happens!

NB. I am not American, nor do I live in America and therefore, have no interest whatsoever about what is legal in the USA. Furthermore, I would never record someone in order to entrap them (unless it is for journalistic purposes) or have it/use it as some sort of proof, which it isn't. I would only use e-mail as a form of communication, as it now works in the same respect as letters do/did - get everything in writing, since it becomes a legal document & sending it is as good as signing it.

24 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

How much total time did you put into this project and how much money max are we talking about?

I don't want my name and work misappropriated.  Misappropriation degrades the value of my other work.  Usually when I've sold pictures I've used rights managed licensing with very specific geographic, time, and print run limits.

I won't go to war over $50.  I mean if these guys owe you a paltry sum of money I would just say pay me my fee and the video is yours to use as specified by a contract.  Otherwise walk away.  There is no need to get nasty or unprofessional.  If they don't pay you take it as a lesson learned.  In photo forums there are tons of GET A  CONTRACT threads.  I certainly would not give my work away for a pittance.

It's a balance.  You don't want to get taken advantage of but you don't want to engage in raging battles either.

Wouldn't go to war anyways, but it's more than £50.

As stated, the title sequence has now gone to someone else, so that will need to be re-done, but it won't take long to do - a few hours at best.

They've already taken the Doc down, so they know they did something wrong & could be in trouble. I knew I should have gotten them to sign a contract, but it wasn't a serious project for me (not much time or effort - except the title sequence, which has paid for itself since).

What pisses me off more is that they ripped the penultimate version way before they even said that they were having trouble coming up with the money - it's the bare faced underhand nature of it all. They had made their minds up that they wanted it for free, ripped it and then waited almost a year to post it - little did they know that I've been checking them out every few weeks or so.

Social Media can be your friend & the evidence that produces the final nail in your coffin!

45 minutes ago, mkabi said:

Draw up a contract now for whatever cash they have to offer now. Put clauses in the contract that forbid them from ripping your new stuff. Re-edit and give them a half-ass version, cause they are paying you half-assed - put another clause in there that says you pay for what you get

Last clause should say that you are the true owner of the material and that you can do whatever you want with it.

Have them sign it, give them a copy and have them sign it. Explain for the most part that they are receiving the old stuff, not the new stuff and if they rip the new stuff you will sue. Also, in my opinion, so that it doesn't come back to bite you, you should ask permission and record conversations between you and these guys, so that they know what they are signing up to do... etc.

Take their money and don't look back.

That's kinda what I was thinking of doing - do a new Title sequence & then get them to sign something, so i cover myself. I'll keep contact via Email, just so that i've got a record of everything - no need to record people.

On the plus side YouTube were quick to react, but the video had been taken down - did a follow up with them to make sure it had been deleted & not just made private.

Vimeo, on the other hand, informed me how to rip a video from their site without using the download option! So for a paying customer, I was completely reassured!

So this is another one of those warning posts about so-called clients & online video ripping!

About a year ago, I finished a short doc for a group that i'd done some work for in the past. It wasn't what I really wanted to do, but I thought "what the hell, i'll get a little pocket money whilst I finish off a short film" & their manager was a friend of a friend that I'd meet numerous times (nice guy, I know where he lives etc...don't think he's their manager anymore). So I did some live videos for them, they paid me & all was fine. They then wanted a short doc, so cool, no problem & we agreed on a price - it wasn't a lot, but I knew them & they didn't have a lot of cash, no problem.

I did it in my spare time, things evolved organically as we went along & eventually I got a bit bored of the ever changing ideas of the main protagonist. So I came up with a final version, which he liked (ego & all) - so all was fine. I had posted a few things here (PW protected & made totally private soon afterwards). It had taken a while to complete, as I knew they'd need time to get the cash together & had pointed that out to them numerous times - no problems, we're putting money aside etc...

Ha!

So when it was finished, I got the old "We don't have all the money at the moment. Let us have it and we'll pay you when we do..." Well I wasn't born yesterday - no money, no video & everything on Vimeo was made completely private (my eyes only). I've bugged them a few times about payment & then gave up all hope - the doc was finished Sept 2015!!!!!!

I've since moved on & started working with some friends on a collaborative effort of Sound & Vision - they've provided me with some great ambient music for my short film (other things too) & i've been doing some video work with them. So I re-edited the defunct doc Title Sequence for something else & expanded it further to it's full potential - really like it & don't care about the money side of things as I am a part of the project.

Today I found out that the original band I had done a Short Doc for had ripped a copy from Vimeo & posted it online a few weeks ago!

They've since taken it down, after I contacted them - they claimed it was an old copy (BS obviously, as they never got given a copy) & would look to pay me! I've contacted YouTube & Vimeo.

QUESTION:

Should I ask for the money they owe me, get paid a small sum of cash & hand over the Doc.

or Just say that some of the footage has now been re-edited for another project & legally it isn't their's now (which is true now, as I stupidly never got them to sign a contract), but I can re-edit a new title sequence?

or Tell them to go f*ck themselves the thieving motherf*ckers!

1 hour ago, JazzBox said:

Great filmic quality!

I use the GH4 and the G7 the very same way: no V-log or Cinelike D, but just "Natural" (with saturation and contrast -5) for a 90% ready look.
I'm deciding to sell the GH4 since Canon colors are better to my eyes and I don't need 4K ... but of course it is still a great camera  

Yeah, I'm with you on the Canon Colours. I have seen some good things done with the GH cameras & the GH5 will be interesting, but only if it lives up to the specs.

The thing that bugs me most about the BM cameras is the colour, not really crazy about it. But because they spit out RAW/ProRes you can really go to town & actually get the look/colours that you want without your footage turning to mush - great for learning proper colour grading.

I personally found using a DSLR really hard at first, simply because I had to learn a new way of filming - well, accepting the limitations of a shit codec with digital tech. BM Pocket placed me back into my comfort zone & it was a relief to use a camera that I understood/would do what I wanted it to - it was like turning back the clock.

Go with what your gut says - there's no right or wrong, just what's best for you.

8 minutes ago, JazzBox said:

I love the Micro's files and they are very simple to work with in post with corrections and color.
But the ergonomics is really bad... I like to shot as run and gun as I can, sometimes I have the time to rig all the things, but most of the time I like to spend more time on the lights / panels etc... and less on the camera   

If I had to choose I would have the BM Micro files in a GH4, maybe with a Super35 sensor

Maybe I could not sell the Micro and use it when I have time to setup it, but, talking about EOSHD C-Log, which Canon camera would you buy to use it as its best?  (possibly I would not use RAW) 
 

The Micro's ergonomics is why I stayed faithful to the Pocket - it's all there in a tiny package. I think my next purchase will be a MB speedbooster, as it'll make it easier to use (better stability, which isn't bad now) & give me close to S35.

I'm kinda hoping that BM will make a smaller, more DSLR friendly shaped BMCC - can only live in hope!

Which Canon camera? Wait till the 5D4 comes out & then pick up a cheap 5D3.

It's a no brainer as you'll get Magic Lantern for free, which will give you RAW CDNG continuous filming (use it or not, it'll be there for you to change your mind) & all the other missing bits'n'bobs that ML have added to the party. Can't underestimate how useful the ML hack is for filming/photography - it's not just about adding RAW filming, there's so much more that it adds to your camera.

HOWEVER.....Just not so sure c-log is the way to go with DSLRs. But this might be how people are using it & then thinking that they can grade the footage to death! I might be wrong, but I took kidsrevil's advice (back in the day) & still feel that you can get good result's straight out of the box with a DSLR (& some minot tweeking).

Here's something i shot a few years ago on my Canon 60D - I used an early version of a VisionColor PP & just desaturated the footage, as I got the settings in-camera slightly wrong. It's all natural [window] light & 1 practical above the mirror. Also, the DPX conversion ended up being a red herring (at the time I was on FCP7 & it didn't handle H264 footage very well) - I've revisited the footage recently in FCPX & it still looks great. The Anamorphic squeeze is slightly out too!

1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

Yeah I agree with oval bokeh and totally out of focus areas, but this is the entire frame, including the parts that are partially in focus. Everything except the dead center.

The way that you've written this sounds like it is a problem, can you throw up an image or 2?

One thing that the Super Taks are renowned for is their thin plane of focus when wide open, but am assuming that this isn't the case....

Also, as Hans said, Diopters will introduce more distortion to the anamorphic qualities & this can produce an overly soft extra-stretched effect. Good quality diopters (doublets, not singlets) tend to control this more, but can still be present. 

I've found this to be a problem & now now tend to use longer taking lenses with my Iscorama, when i want to do close-ups etc... I also find getting too up close & personal with real people can be off putting for everyone concerned - objects don't get put off!

5 hours ago, mercer said:

Yeah a drone camera... How many of the actual users fly it? And to be honest, if that is improved battery life, then the Pocket must be worse with battery than everybody claims, because I was lucky to get 45 minutes out of a battery, on the Micro, if I shut down the camera between takes. And even then the battery drains quickly unless you remove it. 

But other than a few minor annoyances (IR Filter, lens selection) the ProRes image alone is the best 1080p image for the money and the Raw is just mind blowing.

I probably would have enjoyed the Pocket better, even with the frequent battery changes. And if I can ever find one for the right price, I will surely buy it and use it as designed... No screens, no external batteries, just an OIS lens or a C-Mount and monopod.

Got a huge smile on my face right now  - 45mins battery time, well they kept that quiet! Exactly the same on the Pocket....but you can actually pick it up & go without spending a fortune on the extras that are needed to make it useable.

There's a guy over at Cinematography.com that shared quite a few tips to get the best out of your battery life on the Pocket, not all of them logical but they work: turn down the screen brightness etc...and the strangest was, Do Not turn it off between takes, as that drains more of the battery. So much BS spoken about the Pocket & once you actually Learn (yes, I know, it's a dirty word nowadays, but it's an important aspect of life) how to use it properly, it is so much easier to use than a DSLR (cause your image worries are gone).

Ease of Use vs. Fucking Awesome Image - well I know what i'll pick everytime.....

9 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

This thread may be helpful for me. I just got the Rangefinder to use with my Takumar 50mm and Singer 16D. I did some testing with/without the rangefinder and the background is stretched vertically by quite a bit with the RF. Is that normal? It's rather odd looking compared to the "anamorphic only" footage. I can still return it and get the Rectilux but I wanted to find out if that's a characteristic of both, or just the RF.

Good choice in taking lens, I've found that Super Taks are a great sharp taking lens with Anamorphics.

As far as the extra stretched background, that's a bonus - oval out of focus areas is why a lot of us use anamorphics (Yes, it's not the flares! You get over them very quickly once they ruin a great shot & by ruin, I mean obscure what you really want people to be looking at, & yes that's not the flares).

Visioncolor's profiles, for Canon, are the best i've ever used, VisionTech being the pick of the bunch - only needs minor tweeking & you're done.

As far as BM cameras are concerned, they are 10bit Prores & not 8bit H264 - so of course their Film profile is going to be miles ahead of the majority of cameras on offer. However, if you haven't got the time to learn how to shoot a proper camera, then their Video profile setting has been vastly improved from its humble beginnings & produces a great image if you simply don't have the time to grade a lot or are used to grading 8bit H264 (NB. The bonus being that it won't fall apart like H264, because it's still 10bit ProRes).

The real problem with the Micro, it seems, is that improved battery & 60p simply doesn't seem to out weigh the bad ergonomics - whatever that is meant to mean for a drone camera?

7 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

Its definitely a factor, and it certainly helps to be aware of what is actually the limiting aperture in the system.  Even the Iscorama-54 isn't large enough to avoid stopping down an 85mm f/1.2.

Although I don't have the Iscorama-54 design prescription and can't accurately evaluate its performpance, I do expect that it has plenty of aberrations on its own, especially at full aperture.  A good test of the 36 vs 54 would be to use a prime lens with great performance that has an entrance pupil larger than 54mm.  The 85mm Zeiss Otus comes to mind . . .

Well I don't have a 36 anymore (not for a long time), but do have 2 other Isco-Gottingen made anamorphics (widescreen 2000 & Iscomorphot s8/x2 - both fixed focus), so might be worth a try to see what the difference is between different anamorphic back element sizes.

The largest fast 85mm I have is the Helios 40-2, which is f1.5 & it looks like the pupil size is slightly larger than 54mm.