Jump to content

Rcorrell

Members
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Rcorrell got a reaction from Paulio in Anamorphic Prices   
    Well many comparisons can be drawn, but you have to consider certain factors in when comparing a consumer product from the late 1960's to modern day professional cine lenses.
     
    For what the Iscorama is:
     
    By itself, its a gem of an anamorphic lens, no question.  It's tack sharp, good edges, great optics and saturation, beautiful flares (if you have a single coated version), an of course, out of all the old lenses, the best patented focus system..
     
    For what the Iscorama is not :
     
    It was made in 1968 as a high end projection attachment, so in part it's really not a stand-alone lens, it is an attachment.  We keep comparing it to actual lenses.  The housing of the lens in complete plastic, is to say the least, it's very dangerous and doesn't protect the optics at all, and if the lens was to encounter any kind of harsh weather conditions etc. it would completely fail.  And as far as the focus goes, although one of the best for what it is, it's still a projection lens so close focus becomes somewhat of a process that you just would not encounter on any proper cine lens.  And ultimately, because it is still an attachment, you will run into only being able to use a set amount of focal length primes, which depending on the cinematographer or certain shot, is a no go..
     
    In General Comparison :
     
    The Isco has GREAT optics. I've managed to pull images from that lens that look better than some of the most expensive lenses I've ever used.  But like I said above, price tag means nothing.  Great example of that is the helios 58mms.  They are one of the sharpest lens I've ever used, and dirt cheap.  The big expensive lenses are kind of like buying a rare sports car.  Beautiful to look at as far as engineering and build, but more or less afraid to use it. Afraid to "take it out of the garage" and put millage on it if you will..  Personally, when I'm using Arri's or Cooke's, anything thats over 50k in glass, I get a $1,000,000 issuance policy when shooting with them.  Too risky if not, if so much as a nat lands on the lens, I start to worry, so thats my personal way around dealing with stress of rentals and or price tags.  BE SMART!  
     
    Conclusion:
     
    I think for what most of us are here to do : Get the best image possible with tools we've researched and perfected, but for a personally attainable price.
     
    It is a fantastic option, and no doubt ONE of the best, if not THE best, for the price.  I currently don't have 40K to throw down on a set of OCT-19 square or spherical anamorphic sets, but if I did I would go that route.  They are built like tanks, and the optics have so much character.  BUT they are big, heavy, and expensive cine lenses.  They are not fit for lightweight run-and-gun situations.  I still to this day see many top notch lens companies copying the Lomo system for anamorphics, so that usually means they we doing something right if 50 years later the top dogs or still trying to produce their design and look.
     
    At the end of the day there are so many factors that go into getting "a good image".  A lens ultimately is just a tool to help achieve the look you are going for, nothing more.  Storytelling, lighting, good characters, and proper operation of the camera are the KEY components of filmmaking.  I don't care how much your lens costs, or how rare it is...  If you just make another cool-looking vimeo lens test, your not a filmmaker, nobody really cares.  No story=no substance  
     
    You could shoot a short film with your iphone about a bird you found on the street that is dying, and if it's emotional enough and people care about that bird at the end of your video, then it's good.  No lens can do that.  Thats filmmaking.
  2. Like
    Rcorrell got a reaction from EeeCeeGee in Anamorphic Prices   
    Just want to throw out my personal opinion on hawks :

    For some reason in the anamorphic community, hawks have gained this god like top dog on the podium position, and professionally I have no clue why. To me it seems to be nothing more than an unattainable price tag, yielding almost no one ever actually using them. People tend to think the best is the most expensive. This is so wrong. I worked on a feature that used hawks latest and greatest anamorphic prime set, and let me tell you.... They (in my opinion) suck. Not only are they a trillion dollars, they are soft wide open, certain lenses edges are soft, and they have over engineered them to the point where they completely lack any sign of character. No flares, no interesting optics, nothing. On top of all that, if you really do your homework, look at X-rays they've taken of a brand new hawk lens next to a 1970s lomo lens, and you won't find but one difference in the optics or mechanics. The whole reason I'm part of this community is because I've seen so much done with so little.. Finding weird lens combinations, or trying lenses that were not supposed to be used in some manner, that's what's its all about. Price tag means nothing. Experience is everything. I recently had the privilege to test out arri's new anamorphics set along side with cookes new anamorphic set (still in development). After talking with the guys who made them, and then actually getting my hands on them and trying them out for myself, there was one huge difference between them. Arri had spent so much time engineering the lens to be "perfect" that it lacked (in my opinion) the most important part of the lens, character. When I talked to the Cooke rep he said they were specifically designing the lens with old anamorphic characteristics in mind, no multi coating etc. that's what you want, reguardless of its price tag. Don't believe the hype before you get your eye in that viewfinder.
  3. Like
    Rcorrell got a reaction from Tito Ferradans in Anamorphic Prices   
    Just want to throw out my personal opinion on hawks :

    For some reason in the anamorphic community, hawks have gained this god like top dog on the podium position, and professionally I have no clue why. To me it seems to be nothing more than an unattainable price tag, yielding almost no one ever actually using them. People tend to think the best is the most expensive. This is so wrong. I worked on a feature that used hawks latest and greatest anamorphic prime set, and let me tell you.... They (in my opinion) suck. Not only are they a trillion dollars, they are soft wide open, certain lenses edges are soft, and they have over engineered them to the point where they completely lack any sign of character. No flares, no interesting optics, nothing. On top of all that, if you really do your homework, look at X-rays they've taken of a brand new hawk lens next to a 1970s lomo lens, and you won't find but one difference in the optics or mechanics. The whole reason I'm part of this community is because I've seen so much done with so little.. Finding weird lens combinations, or trying lenses that were not supposed to be used in some manner, that's what's its all about. Price tag means nothing. Experience is everything. I recently had the privilege to test out arri's new anamorphics set along side with cookes new anamorphic set (still in development). After talking with the guys who made them, and then actually getting my hands on them and trying them out for myself, there was one huge difference between them. Arri had spent so much time engineering the lens to be "perfect" that it lacked (in my opinion) the most important part of the lens, character. When I talked to the Cooke rep he said they were specifically designing the lens with old anamorphic characteristics in mind, no multi coating etc. that's what you want, reguardless of its price tag. Don't believe the hype before you get your eye in that viewfinder.
  4. Like
    Rcorrell reacted to tony wilson in Advice on eBay anamorphic lens listing (No advertising)   
    i have 5 of them let me know if someone wants 1
    ex pentagon war room military video telephone pictures of drone strikes in 16.9 before the sensors changed.
    made about 10 years ago i assume mr poison works or has worked at isco as he has quite a collection of wacky stuff.
  5. Like
    Rcorrell got a reaction from Paulio in Stills from my Anamorphic shoot this evening   
    I did a shoot last week only took a couple stills, but they are still fun.  Used the lomo square front 2x 50mm attachment with the Helios 44-2 58mm f.2 with the 5dmk3.  Stills become quite awesome while using the 5dmk3 while shooting raw...  Orginal image is 5.7k, and then when stretched becomes 11.2K!!!!  you can put that on a side of a bus natively!!  Thought it was super cool, so im sharing...
  6. Like
    Rcorrell reacted to Zmu in I just modified my Iscorama 36 for close focus   
    I came close to attempting this mod myself, but decided to bite the bullet & send my mint single coated Nikon Isco[30mm] from Aust all the way to Vandieman Films in London to get re housed - I bought a new Pelican case for the journey - but still bloody scary!
    ...now it's there I'm glad I did it - I'll post upon my baby's return  : )
  7. Like
    Rcorrell reacted to Andrew Reid in For sale: Iscorama 54   
    Let me know if you need anything from the admin panel - like IP address, etc.
     
    This guy was a new user here, this was his first post. That should be another warning. Only deal with people who have a history of genuine posts and contributions!
     
    I also recommend asking for some form of ID and an address if you are dealing in large sums of money.
     
    I'm going to put a page up with some basic rules. Forums are not eBay so you must be more careful.
     
    Hope anyone who has been stung gets to the bottom of this.
×
×
  • Create New...