Tito Ferradans

Just got my new machined parts back from anodizing.  Here's a quick tease:

The fit & finish on these things is pretty darned good.  I'll post more details once I've had a chance to kick the tires.

Well that cost more than I had hoped, but the new machined aluminum collars fit great, and have been dropped off for anodizing. Now I just need to order some lock screws.  Once I get everything back, I will post pics of my B&H mod Mk II.  Should be ready by the beginning of June.

It took me only forever to find the time, place and people to shoot this. It's the second part to the Single Focus Shootout I posted back in December. It's a lengthy post, but I could really use your feedback!
The goal was to compare the performance of the three most popular single focus solutions with similar setups. For that I used the same taking lenses and identical Kowa B&H's paired with the Rangefinder, Rectilux 3FF-W and FM Lens. I planned a similar number of shots using each of those combinations through a variety of wide, medium, close ups and extreme closeup shots. In the end, the question is: do the single focus solutions stand in the way of story, and if so, which ones bother you, and which don't?
In this other video I went a little more in detail about what I wanted to achieve, the shooting process, the crew, score and lenses, just to give it some context and.
Finally, I made a blog post with a cheat sheet for all the shots and tech specs.
All of this went up online yesterday and I've noticed the strangest behavior. First of all, the view count was incredibly low when compared to regular reviews. Then, the number of dislikes is high, the number of likes is low in raw numbers, and the ratio between them is about 25% dislikes. I usually get between 0 and 2 dislikes for a review (even a rushed one). Comments are also all over the place, both on Youtube and the facebook groups I posted it on. The combination of all these factors got me thinking and that's what I wanted to discuss.
1 - Everyone is ALWAYS asking for narrative pieces, and actual work using anamorphic adapters. It's common knowledge that cat videos and girlfriends aren't enough to judge a lens' performance, since you won't relate to the material, you can nitpick about vignetting, softness, CA and so forth. When you have a story on the screen, it instantly overrides nitpicking, and people will only notice flaws if they're really glaring (like the on-and-off vignetting in the first video). Anyway, I thought the thirst for narrative work using these adapters would be a boost for views, it's a 3-min story vs a 7-min review. So why aren't people interested? Or they just don't care about other people's work?
2 - Regarding the dislikes and feedback: I can't quite figure out if they dislike THE STORY, or THE TEST. I think it's a bit insane that I went way out of my way to shoot something more interesting and the audience completely ignores the original goal (TEST!), judging the piece for STORY and using elements for the TEST as reasons they didn't enjoy the video. Confusing? Here's an example:
I wanted to compare how the FM, Rectilux and Rangefinder perform when paired with a 50mm lens, heavily stopped down. I could shoot a chart (boring), but I shot a story instead. It turns out the FM vignettes like crazy and the Rangefinder barely shows any dark edges. Instead of noticing this objective piece of information ("wow, the FM can't handle wides as well as the Rangefinder!"), I got comments like "you should've noticed the vignetting on set and addressed it". I'm not blind, I knew it would vignette. I shot in a way to SHOW IT! hahahaha
My overall feeling of the piece is that it's making me look bad as if I didn't notice all the issues and solved them. Any advice or comments about that? Did you guys get my original goal was to highlight such issues?
Thank you!

Really good test, I got it - so thanks for doing this, it was helpful for us normal people.
As for the negative/stupid comments - people on the internet are dicks most of the time, but we all know this.
Give them their F**KING CATS the next time!

It took me only forever to find the time, place and people to shoot this. It's the second part to the Single Focus Shootout I posted back in December. It's a lengthy post, but I could really use your feedback!
The goal was to compare the performance of the three most popular single focus solutions with similar setups. For that I used the same taking lenses and identical Kowa B&H's paired with the Rangefinder, Rectilux 3FF-W and FM Lens. I planned a similar number of shots using each of those combinations through a variety of wide, medium, close ups and extreme closeup shots. In the end, the question is: do the single focus solutions stand in the way of story, and if so, which ones bother you, and which don't?
In this other video I went a little more in detail about what I wanted to achieve, the shooting process, the crew, score and lenses, just to give it some context and.
Finally, I made a blog post with a cheat sheet for all the shots and tech specs.
All of this went up online yesterday and I've noticed the strangest behavior. First of all, the view count was incredibly low when compared to regular reviews. Then, the number of dislikes is high, the number of likes is low in raw numbers, and the ratio between them is about 25% dislikes. I usually get between 0 and 2 dislikes for a review (even a rushed one). Comments are also all over the place, both on Youtube and the facebook groups I posted it on. The combination of all these factors got me thinking and that's what I wanted to discuss.
1 - Everyone is ALWAYS asking for narrative pieces, and actual work using anamorphic adapters. It's common knowledge that cat videos and girlfriends aren't enough to judge a lens' performance, since you won't relate to the material, you can nitpick about vignetting, softness, CA and so forth. When you have a story on the screen, it instantly overrides nitpicking, and people will only notice flaws if they're really glaring (like the on-and-off vignetting in the first video). Anyway, I thought the thirst for narrative work using these adapters would be a boost for views, it's a 3-min story vs a 7-min review. So why aren't people interested? Or they just don't care about other people's work?
2 - Regarding the dislikes and feedback: I can't quite figure out if they dislike THE STORY, or THE TEST. I think it's a bit insane that I went way out of my way to shoot something more interesting and the audience completely ignores the original goal (TEST!), judging the piece for STORY and using elements for the TEST as reasons they didn't enjoy the video. Confusing? Here's an example:
I wanted to compare how the FM, Rectilux and Rangefinder perform when paired with a 50mm lens, heavily stopped down. I could shoot a chart (boring), but I shot a story instead. It turns out the FM vignettes like crazy and the Rangefinder barely shows any dark edges. Instead of noticing this objective piece of information ("wow, the FM can't handle wides as well as the Rangefinder!"), I got comments like "you should've noticed the vignetting on set and addressed it". I'm not blind, I knew it would vignette. I shot in a way to SHOW IT! hahahaha
My overall feeling of the piece is that it's making me look bad as if I didn't notice all the issues and solved them. Any advice or comments about that? Did you guys get my original goal was to highlight such issues?
Thank you!

Tito, first of all massive kudos for going to such lengths to produce a 'real' short for testing these lenses. I think you and your crew did a great job, certainly considering the few hours you had. Regarding your questions, a few observations:
What people say or think they want ("narrative lens tests FTW!"), is often a different thing from what they actually prove to be wanting (see also: relationships, gear, presidents and so on). Still, intent and purpose of the short might be somewhat too unclear for some viewers. On youtube the short is presented on it's (narrative) own without a disclaimer, intro or clearly stated goals within the video. It seems you can never be explicit enough. Perhaps you should put your explanation video at the end of the short for more clarity on it's purpose? What might be confusing for viewers is why you would still use those obviously compromised shots? In reality, you would never use shots that show as much vignetting as some in the test (...right?). So help us viewers put the technical details in context. The narrative speaks for itself, but the technical aspects are less self-evident, even with the cheat-sheet. Tell us what you learnt from each setup, what you were trying to test and what you're opinion on the lenses is. How would you incorporate what you learned from this test into 'real shooting'? Just talk over the short film, enlightening us with your newly acquired wisdom about those lenses! There, an idea for a new video for free! ;-) As always, keep it up man, look forward to each and every video of yours.
 
LOL, nice one mate

I think you should have labelled up each shot saying what lens was used etc so people get a constant reminder that they are actually watching a test. Text on the black letterbox so it still doesn't ruin the pictures?
Also (and now this is absolutely subjective and probably easy to suggest and harder to do..) I would have written a few events into the narrative to show the same scene/shot more than once but with different lenses. Like a character has a dejavu moment so he gets to see the same thing twice? Looks around then jumps back, rubs his eyes and sees it for the third time. This way you can make a comparision including all the lenses from the exact same POV and still have a narrative structure.
Or you got 3 guys at a poker game trying to recall the same story but they remember it differently so they keep interrupting each other with corrections. Each of them is basically a lens showing the same scene but as they keep going on and on about what happened we get to see the the act in a few alternative variations.
Rectilux as the handsome hunk, FM lens as the fat bastard and the Rangefinder as a hopeless barfly? Haha..

This is my debut work, that took me 2.5 years to finish. I've learned so much from this community, that I just had to post it here.
This is a music video for the band where I sing. Shot on BMMCC with contax glass, rangefinder and isco s8 2x. Big shout out to @Tito Ferradans @richg101 @ken and @Hans Punk. You guys are all listed down in credits for providing so much help with getting into the whole anamorphic thing. I was making those credits in hurry and totally forgot to include @Bioskop.Inc so a special thanks and an apology goes to you!
 
 

Who would be interested in Optical Flares presets for anamorphic adapters/lenses? I've already made one for the Anamorphot 2x with the range finder, using Tito's video as a reference.
Anamorphot 2x.ofp

The iscorama is the lightest, widest and most compact setup. You can go 40mm with a pancake on full frame, and nothing quite beats those warm flares.
The only issue I see is close focus, but that is also workable with regular diopters, since you have a 72mm front, which is easy to cover. Oh, and the 49mm threads at the back are also super easy to mount to taking lenses.

Also, you could get a Kowa C35 and Hard Core DNA for 2k vs the 3k + for the other. I do think it's nice that the Iscorama is a mechanically solid and produces a lovely image but I don't think it's worth an extra 1k or more. If I had one and I payed 3k for it I would vote for it as well. They are lovely. 

Check out my picture of lens. From left to right. 2 Baby Hypergonars, 2 Kowa 1.75x Inflights, Kowa C35 1.5x, Bolex 16/32 and Bolex 8/19. The Kowa C35 has a much bigger back then Bolex 16/32 and the Kowa Inflight is much bigger then the C35. 

 

Yes. :D
Not really, it depends on the taking lens. The rear element is what limits light transmission. In terms of sharpness, I'm good all the way down to f/1.4 with a Isco. Haven't tried 1.2 because I have no lenses. hahahah

Yes. :D
Not really, it depends on the taking lens. The rear element is what limits light transmission. In terms of sharpness, I'm good all the way down to f/1.4 with a Isco. Haven't tried 1.2 because I have no lenses. hahahah

When I have some spare time, I'm planning to do a little shoot with my Kowa B&H, Kowa inflight 1.75x (both with Core DNA) and iscorama pre 36 (with 3.5ft close focus mod) on full frame with recent 3-4K magic lantern crop resolutions. I will probably throw in some iscomorphot s8 2x shots in there (because it's ridiculously underrated for portrait/closeup compositions). Think the Bolex 16/32 is the only lens I'd actually be interested in trying out...the recent Bolex+ML footage from @SigurdW looks great.

The iscorama is the lightest, widest and most compact setup. You can go 40mm with a pancake on full frame, and nothing quite beats those warm flares.
The only issue I see is close focus, but that is also workable with regular diopters, since you have a 72mm front, which is easy to cover. Oh, and the 49mm threads at the back are also super easy to mount to taking lenses.

The Canon EF 40mm f/2.8 doesn't. It impresses me every time, but works. I might get a tiny little bit on the edges, it's been a while since I used the combo, I don't remember if it's 100% clear.

I use a Sony WA adapter for their handy cams.  The front thread of the BH is almost 55mm, so just use a step ring to attach a WA adapter.  I used the Sony because they are readily available and cheap.  Because the one I'm using is 0.7x, it makes lenses a little wider.   Handling is tough though.  The weight of the WA adapter makes the setup extremely front heavy.  I always use rails to mount the lens.  Also the front rotates, so make sure your lens is clean.

No worries mate, there is a learning curve to this stuff...
Yes, a diopter would fix this (that's more or less the point of a diopte), however you lose the ability to focus at infinity. Suggested read: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7282 (and everything else that Tito put out :-p)

Thanks for sharing, very nice! The adapter clearly benefits from the smaller sensor as it looks pretty sharp all around, performs certainly better than in @Tito Ferradans's (otherwise excellent) fullframe example video.

Lots of people are pretending that these are a good option for filming with - for £50, but if you're paying anything in the £200 range, you can do a lot better.
Have a search in this section, so much advice - hell, buy a copy of the Anamorphic Shooters Guide! It does need updating, but has a lot of info in it.
Alternatively, if you don't want to spend any money, just take a look at Tito's info:
 

Thank you! Make sure to subscribe!
And yeah, that sums it up. I bet one of those compact 85/2.8 would do an amazing job, but I haven't had the chance to test one yet! :D

Awesome, great tool! Watched a lot of your videos on YT, looks like you know your stuff  I bet it's hard though to find a sharp taking lens above 85mm with a small enough front element to be used with anamorphic adapters?

www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go :D
aaaand http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8330
it's not that you CAN'T go beyond 85mm, is just that image quality starts to drop considerably.

www.tferradans.com/anacalc/go :D
aaaand http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8330
it's not that you CAN'T go beyond 85mm, is just that image quality starts to drop considerably.