Bioskop.Inc

There's gotta be some where else in London than those guys?!
 
Have you tried Van Diemen?
http://vandiemenbroadcast.co.uk/
 
They have a few used Angenieux lenses for sale, so they must have some experience!

Prices are all relative & it sounds like you just need to haggle.
The thing with haggling is to start low & you already know that he basically wants rid of them (he can't hire them & they are in questionable condition).
There are 2 ways you could go about this (after you've found out how much it will cost to repair them):
1) Offer a stupid price, he laughs at you & you ask him how much he wants, you state that you really don't have that sort of cash & then offer more (but way below your max) - then the real haggling begins!
2) Ask him how much he wants for them & then state you don't have that much, but could offer him x amount - again the haggling begins!
 
Either the way you get him to reveal his hand first & not yours (never tell him how much you've got to spend!)
 
Remember, what he wants for them should never be the price that you pay - as all sellers want to get as much as possible & their dream price is always unrealistic.
Also, remember if he hasn't rented them out for 2 years & they are in a questionable state - some money is better than none.
Don't appear too keen or excited, as he'll sense your weakness & exploit it -  you can always walk away & come back another day.
If, say you get to your limit & he's still not budging, say you'll offer him cash (he doesn't have to declare that) & if he still isn't tempted, leave him your number & ask him to think about it.
 
Give it a go, they're Hawk Anamorphics! - they're probably the best opportunity you'll get to own something by this company & their vintage B Series won't be bad.  

Looks nice & vintage - its going to be great on the 4k BM!
You can get diopters made by Angenieux (i use one with my 54 & its nice - i think 96mm thread) & the last 2 that have popped up on ebay went for between £10-20, but i missed them.
 
As far as repairs go have you tried asking/looking on this forum:
http://www.cinematography.com/
 
They seem nice & helpful - lots of info about all sorts of stuff by professionals & they don't stand for the agro/nonsense that can plague other forums.

Bm's shuttle will probably get an upgrade of some sort, it would be stupid not to supply something like Ninja2 in the near future - its not like they've given us recordable HDMI out for nothing.
They must have a long term plan, which will mean delivering a complete affordable workflow package that will cover the whole production process. And as you said, the BMPCC is the starter option that will get people to think about getting ready for future[proofing] a RAW workflow.
 
I'll start with SD cards & ProRes - hopefully 45mb/s will be fast enough & there's always deals on Amazon etc...to get you through the door. My only Sandisk Extreme Pro is out of date already, as they have doubled in speed since i got mine - they'll get faster & cheaper.
 
As far as lenses are concerned, i always shoot anamorphic & have never used a 35mm taking lens thus far (50-85mm are my favourites) so i won't have to buy much - i don't/won't buy lenses to fit a specific camera (its a future proofing investment thing). Also, i'm using a cropped sensor anyway, so i'm used to every focal length being longer & it hasn't been a problem - just move back a bit, take your time & think about/plan your shots more (should be doing the latter anyway, as its not only about how the shot looks, but how it works overall to your piece).
 
It's going to be fun & exciting - fingers crossed!

Well the Pocket will be slightly larger than S16, so you should consider x3 for this little thing.
 
The problem will be how wide you can actually go - so until John Brawley posts some footage & tells us, we'll just have to wait.
 
Just really hoping the Speed Booster comes out at the same time - it'll be a life & cash saver!
Especially considering the amount of lenses that will be bought up & the over inflated prices that will ensue!

Absolutely, run'n'gun is ok for a while, but it just gets boring.
I bought the 54 for that exact reason & i think it makes you more creative with the shots that you produce, just because you have to think & plan so much more. Also, with the zooms you're going to open up a whole new dimension of shots to think about, practice & get perfect - you'll need a focus puller. But with the 4k BM you're going to have so much fun & produce stunning images!
I think i'm going for the Pocket cam, if i go for the 4k it'll mean a new computer just to edit the footage & then that's just too much money to throw down all in one go.

@JG That's just soooo big & is going to be awesome and you got the Foton as well!
I thought my 54 & 40-2 combo was a beast, but this takes things to a whole new level!
Bet you're happy you bought them before the whole BM announcement came. 

You could pick up a 5D2 + Mosaic Filter for less than the 5D3 - you get better stills & pretty much the same video.
 
Got to remember that Canon cameras are stills first & video second - so all new cameras are aimed at the stills market & not video!
So its business as usual in the capitalist market place!
 
7D2 & 70D will be just as disappointing - a leopard just won't change its spots!

Looks good - Kowa's always are.
Yeah i checked as well & all i could find was reference to the x1.5 version - so the x1.75 must be rare.

Is Tarantino a master? Well he certainly is post-modern (if we're still allowed to use this term) in his use of historical film pastiche - he carefully stitches together elements, whether they be stylistic or narrative in nature, culled from the film archives to make a new whole. Now some people say that he is simply a great copier of other people's work (Reservoir Dogs & Kill Bill being great examples - the former uses City on Fire as a template & the later is an amalgamation of numerous asian martial arts movies) & others claim his brilliance for homage.
 
Is he an original, progressive filmmaker? Probably not, since he isn't breaking new ground, but is constantly looking backwards to the past. Now, this isn't a bad thing & is his greatest achievement, since he educates his audience in the importance of film history & has helped a lot of people [re]discover films that would've either disappeared without a trace, or simply remained undiscovered.
Where would Asian action films, such as John Woo's, be without him? Would their stylised 'ballets of death' have ever become as mainstream as quickly or at all? Hard to tell, but he sure helped!
On another point he introduced me to the magnificent films of Wong Kar-Wai - who IMO is a true modern Master.
 
Is Tarantino in the same league as say Orsen Welles, who at 25 made Citizen Kane, which has nearly every single type of camera shot used in modern cinema. But he certainly is a master at the niche he has made for himself within the confines of American cinema.
 
On a quick note, he isn't subverting the 'Hero', he readily applies the 'Anti-Hero' as his main protagonist & this characterisation is a whole lot older in narrative story telling than Tarantino's application of it.
 
And does 'Art Imitate Life' or does 'Life Imitate Art'? I'll leave that up to you.
 
As far as the violence debate is concerned, this is very tricky ground since researchers simply can't sit a bunch of kids down & let them watch grotesque horror films or explicit acts of violence. These films aren't meant for children (this doesn't mean that they don't watch them) & research does point to the fact that they can have a lasting effect, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that it will turn them into mindless killers. Sociopathic personalities are said to be 'genetically based but typically has environmental factors, such as family relations, that trigger its onset'.
 
Having written a PhD on Horror films, the one thing that becomes painfully obvious is that researchers can only determine the effect of such material after the fact & the inquest/research goes on, but there is still no clear cut answer. What we do know is that Fear & Terror are a part of our lives, and that we learn coping mechanisms during childhood to deal with such feelings - parental comfort/explanation/protection & dreams (nightmares) can play a role.
What i would like to say is that making sweeping statements about the effect films have on society is to enter into a minefield & to suggest that society has become more violent as a result is to be completely uniformed about the history of our society. The research that i undertook suggested that the cities that we live in are less violent, than say Victorian times (& they didn't have violent films to watch). I got sidetracked into the Ripper murders & reported violent crime in the Whitechapel district of London - the Ripper murders were by far the worst, but certainly there were some pretty gruesome murders carried out on a daily basis, stuff that would make your stomach churn.
 
Killings, muggings, rape, child molestation/murder & gangs are not new phenomenon, they are as old as the cities we live - fact.
Why are Human Beings so violent/aggressive towards each other? Well that's the eternal unanswered question, isn't it.
To blame cinematic portrayals of violence as the main cause is to be simply naive & uninformed about the history of our society.
The way the mass media try to scare us into believing a supposed truth is just a smoke screen to hide the fact about the true nature of ourselves & the authorities' ineffectual attempts to stem the problem - scape goating is such an easy option. 
 
Sorry for the rant...

I tried to cc this footage & there was something seriously lacking with it (really lacklustre) - i just couldn't get it to do what i wanted (will give it another go, as i probably gave up too quickly).
Just think that the 8-bit quality does need a little help & the theory that flat is best is probably the most misguided advice for DSLRs. You simply can't put back in stuff that isn't there in the first place - this isn't RAW. So dialing down everything, IMO, isn't helping anything, its disabling you. With a DSLR you should try to get it as perfect as possible & then tweek it in post - 8-bit isn't that flexible before it falls apart on you.
Was also a bit confused why there was noise at iso 200?
 
Maybe i'll change my mind, but i'm not overly impressed with GH3.
No criticism of your footage intended (as i don't think there is anything wrong with it - just the theory behind it) & I was really grateful to have something to play with.
 
Thanks, it was really good & brave of you to do this.
 
Perhaps we could all do this more regularly, so we can really test out cameras before we take the plunge?

I tried to cc this footage & there was something seriously lacking with it (really lacklustre) - i just couldn't get it to do what i wanted (will give it another go, as i probably gave up too quickly).
Just think that the 8-bit quality does need a little help & the theory that flat is best is probably the most misguided advice for DSLRs. You simply can't put back in stuff that isn't there in the first place - this isn't RAW. So dialing down everything, IMO, isn't helping anything, its disabling you. With a DSLR you should try to get it as perfect as possible & then tweek it in post - 8-bit isn't that flexible before it falls apart on you.
Was also a bit confused why there was noise at iso 200?
 
Maybe i'll change my mind, but i'm not overly impressed with GH3.
No criticism of your footage intended (as i don't think there is anything wrong with it - just the theory behind it) & I was really grateful to have something to play with.
 
Thanks, it was really good & brave of you to do this.
 
Perhaps we could all do this more regularly, so we can really test out cameras before we take the plunge?

Finally plucked up the courage to try a ML nightly build (today's) - the anamorphic squeeze in live view works & isn't disabled once you press Rec!
 
It can do:
x1.25
x1.33
x1.5
x1.66
x2
 
The only downside is that it judders a bit when you pan, but this doesn't affect the end result - it also seems to highlight moire a lot more, so that's handy.
 
Hasn't crashed on my 60D all afternoon.
 
Oh! There's a new look interface!

For FCPX you just simply import the footage, put into the timeline & then select/highlight it.
 
Open the Inspector window & you should automatically be on the Video setting (as opposed to Info).
You'll see the Transform box - open it.
Then expand the Scale section & that will reveal x & y axis.
If you are using a x2 anamorphic you just simply change the y axis to 50% (this is the squash method & your footage will be 1920x540).
 
Stretch method (so your footage will be 3840x1080) see this tutorial (you'll need Motion):
http://library.creativecow.net/articles/payton_t/FCPX_Custom-Resolution-Timelines/video-tutorial
 
For other anamorphics (squash method) with a different aspect ratio, you can simply do the Math (eg. x1.5 anamorphic - you divide 100% by 1.5, which gives you 66.67%).
 
Camera stuff - this all depends on the camera (Canon try different Picture Profiles & Magic Lantern / GH2 try different hacks).
But basically once you've attached the Anamorphic to the taking lens (& aligned it - just shine it towards a bright light & make sure the flares are horizontal) you're ready to go.
 
Hope that helps...

Found this link the other day & it totally revolutionised the way i went about colour grading in FCPX!
http://www.colorgradingcentral.com/final-cut-pro-x-color-grading-table-of-contents
 
This was also useful (explained a bit about histograms/waveforms as well):
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/01/7-tips-for-hd-color-correction-and-dslr-color-correction/
 
And the LAPUG is an amazing resource:
http://www.lafcpug.org/
 
And this is all things FCPX:
http://www.fcp.co/?view=featured
 
Also found these free plug-ins for FCPX by Alex4D (i'd used his old ones for FCP6/7):
http://alex4d.wordpress.com/fcpx/
 
The first link is great to route around in, lots of stuff there.
As far as white balance is concerned, go Manual & try using a grey card or just go with what looks natural/neutral to you.

I love a good test!
Actually i'm testing my brains out at the moment just to get the last shots for a short, which has been in the works for nearly a year now - time, money & re-adapting the original idea.
I joined this forum because people seemed nice & friendly, handling out advice/tips that were really helpful.
It doesn't matter whether you are a professional or an amateur, as you can & should be learning things all the time, regardless of where the information has come from.
 
I love learning stuff, which is probably why I did a doctorate in film & then taught. But after a while i just wanted to put all that learning & theory to the test - no matter how unsuccessful.
 
HOWEVER: In recent months, the "Trolling" has really hit a peak. This seems to be a trend on a lot of forums & is just getting worse & worse. If you've got nothing nice or constructive to say, keep it zipped - you just come off looking like a real wanker!
 
There's a good saying:
"No one can ever presume himself to be so erudite that he can do without a dictionary."
 
And forums like this have been my dictionary! So, thanks for all the tips, advice, help & especially those TESTS!

If you haven't ever seen the cartoon version of The Hobbit, then its well worth a look.
Here's some reasons why:
 
http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/brilliantbutcancelled/2012/12/5-reasons-to-re-watch-the-anim.php

I've been using Super-Takumars recently - they all match up nicely & are sharp when used with an Iscorama.
The only downside is that the best 35mm is f3.5 (there is a f2, but too soft), 50mm f1.4, 55mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 & 135mm f3.5.
 
I've heard good things about Yashica ML lenses (there's a 28mm, 35mm etc.), but they don't always come cheap.
 
If you've already tried the Russian lenses & rejected them, then you might be after the Holy Grail!
 
Best combo for me:
Mir-1b 37mm
Helios 44-2 58mm
Jupiter 9 85mm or Helios 40-2 85mm (both are too soft wide open, so useable J9@f2.8 & H40-2@f2)
Tair 11a 135mm

The sharp lens debate really becomes void once you project your footage on a larger screen - you need it to be as sharp as you can get once you project it at a decent size.
I've had to go the other way with my 54, just too scared a small lens without support is going to break apart.
If you're after smaller lenses then Takumars are the smallest i've found & sharp from wide open with my 54 - some say they give a modern look, but i don't think so.
 
If you're after Jupiter lenses, i've got a few you could try out before you take the plunge - i'm in Bristol so we could always meet up.
 
stu

Cheers, much appreciated.
Just watched the vids on their site again & it should make a lot of a difference.
I'm with you on sticking with EOS (2in1 camera) & renting, just makes sense - oh, & ML is just hands down the best hack.
I'm waiting for the 5D mk2 to hit below £1k - real bargain with that filter.

Interesting & his stuff on the 5D workflow is good (scanning 1080 to 2k):
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-5d-still-a-workhorse/

The ML hacked 7D could be a goldmine if they get it right & it's hit the £1k mark, but needs to drop more.

[quote name='BurnetRhoades' timestamp='1353284294' post='21910'] [img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/13968/50a97ac24a62d_YESSSS.gif[/img] [/quote]

SLR magic wont be able to manufacture something like the Iscorama for less than twice the current going rate of a used iscorama on Ebay. Even at £3000 for a new anamorphic exact copy of the iscorama 36, and/or a set of matched primes for £3500 a pop, PL mount, they would sell lots. I'd happily do a feature film and know it would be good enough for the big screen using my Iscorama + Zeiss primes on an Epic or Alexa. Problem is, SLR magic might struggle to market to this end of the market

[quote name='BurnetRhoades' timestamp='1353185033' post='21867']
Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic.
[/quote]

I've got this image of people sitting in the corner of rooms & saying to themselves "I can see the whole room, cool!"
LOL!

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353095885' post='21793']
Thanks for all the feedback guys.

In order of importance what do you think is most critical to you?

Single focus barrel (not dual focus like Kowa) OR adaptable to different primes?

If the adapter cost for example around $1000 (I just made this up, nothing to do with actual pricing as this is not decided on yet) and was dual-focus would you buy it? With dual focus you cannot rack focus during a shot and it takes longer to confirm focus, is trickier too.

How much would you be prepared to spend on a high quality single focus anamorphic (like the Iscorama)?
[/quote]

Difficult one there Andrew.
People would be more willing to spend money on a Single Focus system, but not at the Iscorama price range (I don't think they'll ever hit the quality of an Iscorama, so why price it as such).
The idea of it being a closed system would appeal - lens & anamorphic combined.

No one would pay $1000 on a dual focus system, as there are too many good cheap ones out there already.

as suggested by [url="http://www.eoshd.com/comments/user/21340-bioskopinc/"]Bioskop.Inc[/url] in past posts, a wide prime with a series of matching diopters to get closer would be nice. an f2.8 35mm monoblock and a set of diopters (+0.5, +1.5, +3.5) would be a nice little package. 35mm is a nice all round length. and for closer shots where you want a bit more of a portrait feel a +1.5 diopter from 1.5mts away on a 35mm focal length would give lovely close face shots with nice bokeh.

I wouldn't hold your breath too long for an Iscorama copy, regardless of the patent problems. It would probably be very expensive to mass produce in order to get it perfect e.g. no breathing etc...
Andrew's comment about it being a sealed unit with a taking lens is probably a hint at where they will probably be going with this lens - at best it will be a focus through type thing.
The SLR magic anamorphic is looking good, but what are their plans for it - what's the focus system & what's the market?

Not really seeing the problem with dual focus systems or even monobloc fixed focus lenses - i have a lens i can rack focus with & still haven't found an instance where this type of shot would serve me better than another alternative.
Still not sure where this obsession with 'Rack Focus' has come from - i've watched, studied & written about so many films over the years and it just isn't something that is used in abundance. The most common usage is to rack focus from one talking head to another, but most filmmakers will not abandon the 'shot-reverse-shot' technique since they are taking into consideration audience identification processes. There are numerous shot types out there, you need to get to know them & stop being hung up on a very minor one - 'John Fording' will never go out of fashion (this is a close up shot, where an actor moves into focus) & is so much more effective, and easier, thus less time consuming to set up, than following the actor whilst trying to keep them in focus.

More info is needed, please!