Bioskop.Inc

bioskop is one of the most helpful and friendly posters on this site.
full of good solid information.
if this german seller is so good and friendly and the price  for this fixed focus masterpiece worth it why does mr racer not simply buy the lot?
instead of promotional activities via linkage
i have some of these mr racer it is worth 600 -700 tops you can have mine for 800 since you like a bargain
but i suppose if you purchased mine you would then have 4 to sell from germany.
 
they are nice yes sir  and good  not reaally rare rare i had 4 once upon a time
mr bioskop is correct in these pricing matters and regardings here
hare here

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.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rare-Bolex-Anamorphic-16-32-1-5x-for-M39-Leica-Mount-w-H16-RX-Ring-4089-1210-/222334873744?hash=item33c430f090:g:RqgAAOSwHsRYDiiO
 

From what I can read you partly instigated it. You're both as silly as each other. Move on.

His advice that the lens is not worth that much is 100% sound advice, as it's not worth that. Does it mean that we can find them easily for under that price? Probably not, but that's also not what he said.
There aren't many 1.5x anamorphics, not just for that price, but in general. Does that make them better than other anamorphics? No. Does that mean you should pay silly inflated prices for them? Let your intelligence and wallet be the judge.

Maybe some truth to it. I've had some people send me abusive/threatening emails after posting reccomendations for alternative products to theirs... so wouldn't be at all surprised.

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.

Mine was meant to be humorous too, so if my snarky attitude came across wrong, apologies ?
 
Concerning "resolution" IMO there are two ways to cut it: numerical/objective resolution, and perceived/subjective resolution. One can be defined by calculating how many practical points of information are in your image (in our case, pixels). The other is based on how much detail the human eye perceives, and with anamorphic especially, the two are at odds. 
Objectively, you may say that by stretching a digital file by a factor of two, you have halved your numerical resolution. It is half as sharp. The catch is, though, top to bottom you have lost no sharpness. The image still has the same number of "lines" (in the case of 4K, 2160 lines). At this point, the temptation is to say, "ok, I may have lost half my resolution, but not half my sharpness. I've probably lost 1/4 of my sharpness." 
But subjectively, as the eye sees, the loss is even less. Because your vertical lines of resolution are all still there, you still have very near the original sharpness in many parts of the image. The eye picks this up, and the brain is frighteningly good at filling in the rest. Add to this that the images are changing constantly, and (all else being equal), you won't loose much perceived resolution at all over shooting spherical, even at 2X. 
The by-far most important thing has already been stated though: If you're delivering to web it doesn't matter. Most web watchers are in their phone or tablet, most of which are not 4K, or even 1080p. The minimal loss in sharpness/resolution won't even make it past the compression to be honest, but the stylistic differences in the image will. That's why I prefer 2X, as it can be more pronounced. But 1.5X also looks great, it's just a preference.

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?

While I feel the article is not on form (we're all human, I think), those that question Andrew's filmmaking ability seem to forget that whatever he is doing, it's obviously working as he's able to make a living off EOSHD. That to me is a very good business man.  
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). 
I hope Andrew sticks to the 1DX II, reviews cameras here and there and we see more of an emphasis on other areas. Although that might not be a good business decision, as loads of people go nuts over cameras. The Panasonic GH7 will be announced with an auto Hollywood mode so we don't have to make effort anymore, and the internet will literally set on fire (when they find out the auto Hollywood mode is on a 2 second buffer and fills a 1TB SD card instantly). 

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.....

Here are some sample clips:
Sorry for the bad focus, i shot this handheld with the camera LCD only.

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.

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.....

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.....

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.....

This. Topic. Again. Is 4K good? Do we need 4K? I wrote budget 4:3 4K, because the next camera that can do native 4:3 anamorphic is the URSA Mini. But let's not push this conversation to off topic.
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!

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.

Yup, and I prefer x1.5 any day of the week. Unless I can use a 4:3 capable camera, with x2 primes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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!

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!