silvertonesx24

Thanks- looks like it won't cut it.

Very nice. Any disadvantages other than the weight? What was your taking lens? Saw 50mm on the vimeo page. How wide can you go with the anamorphic?

Been thinking about getting one, there's one ending soon on eBay now:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Baby-Iscorama-Iscomorphot-8-1-5x-Anamorphic-Anamorphot-Lens-Cinemascope-/290993700462

 

I like the single focus design, but my biggest concern is sharpness. Anyone have any advice on the fastest aperture possible they've dared using this lens? I've used quite a few different anamorphics, and the ones that can't be used below 2.8 or so end up gathering dust for me. I know sharpness is relative, but I need an image that's at least usable professionally.

I had one of these for a while, massive size, doesn't flare but is sharp. It will most likely work with an 85 mm on a mkII since I have a mkII and I believe it had very minimal vignette with an 85 mm when I used this lens. The biggest issue is that this is not a Iscocarma it is an Iscoptic which is a different beast all together.

 

This is my experience as well- it will work with 85mm pretty good wide open on full frame and as you stop down the lens the vignette will increase. This lens in particular not an Iscorama- it is an Isco-optic or sometimes known as an Isco-gottingen. I believe it is made by the same company that makes the Iscorama (Isco Optics) which is owned by Schneider. Not sure what the difference between the lenses are optically but mechanically an Iscorama is single focus through and a lens like this one is dual focusing.
 

He guys,

 

I've been looking for a Iscorama for ages, and decided to post here.
I will need it for a upcoming production, and also photography work, since i favor the look of the Iscorama, over the Lomo Anamorphics.

I've got seller/buyer references on dvxuser and bmcuser, so that's not a problem.

Please e-mail me offers with good pictures and proof of ID/date.

Love to hear from you guys,

srvdplas[@]gmail[.]com

 

Here is an Iscorama:

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Isco-Iscorama-1-5x-pre-36-anamorphic-anamorphot-non-MC-/261297909606

 

Iscorama is a specific model of anamorphic lens from Isco. They are rare, sought after, and $$$$. Set up an eBay saved search and set your price over $2000 because they aren't going lower than that.

 

The other links posted are all decent lenses but not Iscorama. They are sellers keyword bombing Iscorama (and others) to get more traffic to their own anamorphic lenses.

If the clamp route won't work for you, what I've done before is gotten a step ring (say 77-82) and ground it on to the front barrel, and then you're free to use anything 82mm you like

Don't touch it with a barge pole.  This is the type that wont be sharp.   The best types are the gold projection lenses.  

 

What he said. Don't bother

Also if you are that kind who likes to speculate the market, after you done all the tests and videos you can still sell the lens and I'm sure you will have a good profit on it until production ramps up.

 

Better watch out, the it's-not-fair-that-someone-else-makes-a-profit crowd will be along shortly to admonish you for that statement.

 

And completely agreed on the 1.5x. I'm way too used to 2x at this point to go all the way back to 1.33x. Especially now with Magic Lantern raw and having a creative choice in resolution.

I'm up for replacing my LA7200.  Damn thing is plastic, the knubs inside holding the front element broke so the element shifts and moves all the time, the rear aligning thread is near stripped, etc etc.  That's not even talking about the optical quality.  Even if it performs almost the same, I'll spend as much for a NEW optic rather than one with plastic housing.  I just wish the CINE prime was 17mm for MFT rather than 35mm, unless it's 35mm for Canon EF mount.  The one thing I am worried about is the need for diopters, I thought there was a close focus switch?  At least the front is round, I was using tape to hold diopters on my LA7200.  Yes I dropped a bunch already (none cracked thankfully).

 

I think you hit this exactly on the head. This is for people unhappy with the LA7200, and it hits that market well. Personally I can't believe the prices that LA7200s go for considering that bulkier or wider 2x lenses with sharpness that I consider usable are much cheaper, and this SLR at $800, it'll eat the LA7200 alive.

 

But for people like me who moved to 2x after losing patience with smudgy LA7200 and Century, it doesn't really do anything for us unfortunately. 1.33x just doesn't do it for me anymore, I'll just crop. I haven't been impressed whatsoever with any of the demos from SLR or Letus.

I don't get it. Yet another demo video that looks like spherical matted.

 

Maybe I'm just used to working with 2x bokeh, but none of it looked oval to me.

 

These seem like the perfect answer to folks trying to do anamorphic with full-frame sensors and beating their heads against a wall.

 

Exactly.

Thanks Tony.

 

Here are the links:

 

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/171136978114?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

 

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/221289190944?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

 

I've had a couple of these that are probably very similar or identical optics wise. As already stated, they are heavy, and you will need a rail system. On the other hand, the image is consistently sharp at fast apertures even f/1.2. Again I don't know about these but the ones I've had didn't flare at all. I've used and tested several low/medium priced anamorphic, and there's really nothing perfect out there so it really all comes down to what trade-off you're most comfortable with. They're either unusable below f/4, heavy, aberration on the edges, require dual focusing, need constant diopter babysitting, or more.

 

If this is your price range and you are concerned about weight, I would check out or contact the maker of the Apefoscope. I have one and it's nice and light for the money, and usable at around f/2 or so. Some pictures (not mine):

 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjones41/sets/72157632592370798/

I finaly got to check out 4K at a sony Centre..... thouroughly underwhelmed.

 

Maybe they had messed up the playback or it was upscaled HD,,,, but it was ruined by compression and was about a 20% upgrade on HD from anywhere other than 10" away from the screen.

 

4K delivery for consumers is useless. 4K, 8K and on for production of content is extremely useful.

It would be a shame if they skipped the 4 on the next GH, going straight on to 5. If, for example, it has 4k (which I doubt), they could call it the GH4k, haha.

 

Better would be RAW video, but that's even more unlikely than 4k. Oh well, I guess we're just going to have to be patient and wait and see what unfolds! :)

 

They should take the lead from Canon and leave raw video there to be "discovered"

I did this once with an LA7200. I was able to get close focus, but as Gabor said keeping it aligned is tricky.

It's funny, 2.35:1 used to be the new 16:9, and now I feel you've got to be in the 2.7-3.55:1 range if you really want that wide feel now.

Usually, try and keep the sun behind you when shooting.

Polarizers for me are a must.

Use long lenses as you'll usually be stopping down more than you think. I'll admit plenty of times I've cheated the shutter angle

 

bwhitz, on 08 Jul 2013 - 9:24 PM, said:

 

None of this will be an issue in 10 years, if self web promotion took off. Look at the video game market. Once dominated by $60 purchases, it's now a system run on subscription services and micro transactions, allowing the smaller video game production companies to be able to run. Soon video production could run like this. A small group of film/video artists could run their own production company if their content was worthy, and compete with large production houses. IF the medium arises. I wish it would.

 

 

Interesting, but the reason someone or a group funds a production company is because it generates profit. What percentage of non-major-and-conglomerate-studios films actually turn a profit? Distribution isn't really the problem. There's Netflix, iTunes, Amazon already.

Summer blockbusters were awesome when I was growing up. Jesus, when Terminator 2 came out it was amazing and everybody was so excited to see it! That was the era of Schwarzenneger though. Bigger than life action star, breakthrough CGI, Cameron....and it was actually "good.". These days i agree, the movies just suck... Most of them anyways. Like the music industry, no one writes lyrics deep enough to give a crap about as soon as the song's over, and more often than not -where as I used to ponder and analyze the movies i saw growing up long after I saw them, these days I'm done with them on the way to the car.

 

No, that is just time washing away the froth.

 

Everyone remembers The Beatles, no one remembers the Strawberry Alarm Clocks.

To me, it's all about the anamorphic bokeh. Standard bokeh makes me think of a Dunkin Donuts commercial. Anamorphic bokeh makes me think of a painting.

There's a couple of 0.5 diopters available on the bay now and it's pretty easy to make your own housing.

Nice. The exterior shots around 20 seconds would have made me cringe if it had been shot in h264. Highlight rollback is so nice with 5d raw

Set up a new sequence at 1920x816 or 1920x1080 and place your footage. Go to your Motion settings and change vertical height to 50%.

It's been said before but the tech behind these is going to be reproduced very shortly by manufactures in China and India.

2013 is going to be year of the gyro. I wouldn't drop $2300 on the first wave.

 

I wonder what the final settled price point will be.

 

For me, I suppose I would like it to be under $1000 to be able to justify adding this to my gear.

The only way you're really going to learn is through experimentation.

 

But If there is one key- it is to buy a good clamp, and then experiment with different kinds that turn up for sale. All you have to do is just clamp them to your taking lenses and then do some test shoots and decide which ones are worth keeping.