Chris Elkerton

you probably know about this, check it out for  the ones who don't
 
http://www.vision-color.com/visionlog/

between steps 3 and 4, change the project setting to 32bpc, instead of 8 (which is default in AE). It will change the way AE applies any further color correction (like Levels, Curves, or whatever). Ctrl + Alt + Shift + K, or go in the "File" menu, or just click on the 8bpc on the bottom of the Project tab. :)

If your lens is really a 1.6 stretch then you will want to shoot with a ratio of 3:2 or wider. 3:2 with a 1.6x squeeze will give you a 2.4 aspect, 4:3 will give you a 2.13 aspect and would be non standard unless  you crop. With ML you have so many choices for resolutions and aspect ratios that I would personally choose the settings that require the least amount of cropping. Cropping can be useful but you will be maxing out the potential of the camera so every little bit of savings will help, ML raw is very data intensive.
 
If you shoot 3:2 at 1600 resolution that will be about 68 MB/s at 24P, this will be continuous with MLV and sound even with Global Draw on so you can use focus peaking, magic zoom etc. I haven't used ML raw lately but it was a little unstable with Global Draw on - dropped random frames. I am not sure it that has been fixed in the last few months or not, worth checking into.
 
After that is 1728 resolution and that will  pull about 79.7 MB/s which will not be continuous allowing maybe 10 seconds before dropping frames. Not worth it IMO. 
 
So, I would personally shoot 3:2  - 1600px at 24P with MLV and sound using global draw if you have no external monitoring and if it is now stable enough (may require some testing on your part). Even if you are recording externally I would record audio in camera as well. It helps tremendously for audio syncing and can be done automatically using plural eyes. For now I would test and experiment as much as you can. ML raw is awesome but it is data and time intensive and will really slow down post.

chris i dont want to freak you out completely but the komputerbays are a bit of a russian roulette! check them because they fail,
and when i mean fail they dont reach the required speeds or fail alltogether, check the 1 star reviews in amazon
hence the cheap price...if you have money to spare try to get at least one propper 1000x true lexar, since this is a professional gig
 
best of luck

I have 5 (well, 4 now, since I sold one) KB, and had problems with some of them. Their guys told me to format them using a USB3 reader, on a USB3 port, and they should come back to normal. And it did work, flawlessly, in more than one occasion.
 
None of mine had speed issues, though. So I can't advise you on that matter.
 
Lexars are way too expensive.

I have had no problems with the several 64gb cards I have purchased. I believe the 128gb ones do have problems though

please post results... and your workflow when you are done
i get the heebie-jeebies when the camera freezes with ML...
also make sure to benchmark the Komputerbay cards with ML,as soon as you get them, some of them fail to deliver and you will need to ask for a replacement 
 
as far as i know they are lexars that didnt pass quality control, i own one
good luck!

Just bought 2 x 64GB 1000x Komputerbay cards :) Fingers crossed!

Just bought 2 x 64GB 1000x Komputerbay cards :) Fingers crossed!

Pretty much agree with everything said. My workflow is a little different (I don't get along with Davinci), but until this point, I'd say the same.
 
 
Yes, buy more. Get Komputerbays, they're MUCH cheaper, but beware because some are bad and won't keep up the required speed.
 
If you come across a particularly bad translated part, tell me about it, and I'll try to beat google translator on the job. hahaha. :)
I was supposed to translate this whole thing, but I'm lacking the patience to go through 100 pages. hehe

You will need at least 3 64GB cards. One in the camera, one transferring on set, and one for backup/emergency.
 
Make sure you're running USB 3.0 as well.

Hey Chris, 
 
I'd recommend doing a ton of camera test. Personally, I love the ML raw anamorphic workflow. It reminds me a lot of what it was like to shoot on film. It's really a disciplined flow and a scary one at the some time, cause you really don't know if you got the shot till the footage is "processed". 
 
 
I haven't shot ML on the MK2, but with the MK3 I've had some really fun times. I've been using the komputerbay 64gb cards with great results. I get about 12 min of footage while shooting at the highest possible resolution. My post workflow is: convert to DNG's with RAW magic, quick color pass in Davinci, edit in CC Premiere then final color grade and final render out of davinci. Sometimes, after my first color pass I export the clips from davinci as profess and edit as proxy files then relink in davinci for the picture locked final color grade. It's kind of a clunky work flow, there's a ton of other and more efficient ways I'm sure but I like this method. 

Chris, I've written a lot about this process, for my graduation work. Unfortunately for you, it is in portuguese, but google translator might work well.
 
ML hasn't changed drastically since I wrote about it (six months back), and I believe things are easier nowadays.
 
The link is here, and pages from 86 to 97 should help you, regarding configuration and post-processing workflow (using rawanizer, premiere and after effects).
 
I haven't used raw recording in a while, but the MAIN issue for me was stability. Sometimes the camera freezes, and you have to reboot it, or take off the card, or take off the battery, or both. And you should not be alarmed. Keep an eye if recording is continuous, and set it to stop if it drops any frames.
 
Also, you might want at least one extra card, since 32gb goes really fast, and emptying it takes a little while.

Hello,
 
There are far too many tests shot with our anamorphics and far too little work!  And in that spirit I shot a couple narrative bits with my Lomos in the last couple weeks.
 
I shot this with my 35mm and 80mm  Mostly with the 35mm.  The 35mm is an OCT 18 so I also mounted it with a 24mm and a 50mm at times.  Opening shot is 24mm, shots on suspension bridge are 50mm.  Shot on a gh1 (frowny face) and had an arri 650.  I also wrote it and directed it.  First time I've done an ad like this or shot something significant with these lenses.  I used Schneider 4x4 ND's, a tiffen polarizer, and a tiffen +1.5 diopter (closeups to throw that background out of focus).
 
It's an ad for a new app coming out Saturday.  It uses iPhone gps data, and other ambient factors like time/temp to access original artistic content.  So it's a bit like a gallery/scavenger hunt on your phone.  Only available in Minneapolis to at launch.
 

 
I also recently shot a short I will hopefully post here when I make sure it won't cause any problems with upcoming festival commitments.
 
Thanks and let me know what you think!

Now relisted. I would personally give this a big swerve!
Why are the photos so bad? Does he live on a merry-go-round?
With eBay being hacked, this seems like a scam to me.

I'm a cheapskate. :D

Get one made...
 
I hope that doesn't sound dismissive, but I've literally never seen one for sale.  And if i sold you one, I'd need one... I'd imagine most people with any sort of access are in the same boat.
 
Also, frankly.  i'm not sure a leather and velvet lens cover that's fourty years old is even a good idea.  Every time i look at my 35mm I'm terrified that there is mold lurking in that skanky old lens cover, then fearfully pack it with more dessicant.

I've got an Oct-18 50mm front with 75mm Lomo prime, PL mounted and used on a PL converted 7D.
 
I put a 93>82mm step down on the RAF adapter and use 82mm circular diopters/ ND's/ caps etc. This setup does not vignette on APSC. I also can put an 82>77>82 combo of step rings upfront to create a lip for a clamp on mattebox.
If your squarefront is Oct-18, you may have to shave the bolt head of your front lens rail support bracket to get the RAF adapter to fit flush. If your LOMO is Oct-19, you wont have an issue.
 
I just tried it on 5d3 (duel focus configuration) with 85mm taking lens - does not vignette, not sure if that answers your question.

Yeah, just get one made. I think Tito has done it before.
 
I actually have one cap here with me but I'd rather keep it for future use.

I bypassed the pretty leather cap by buying a diopter holder from RAF camera...enables a circular cap up front, as well as quick filter/ diopter changes: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Diopter-holder-for-LOMO-square-front-anamorphic-lens-or-attachment-93x1-5mm-v2-/141055364173?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20d78e0c4d
 
- But yeah, I would also like to get a leather one made, preferably from an old Russian guy with a beard. 

same day rough edit!
 
password: ana
 
it was shot with a 135mm pentacon as a taking lens that was harder to focus than the anamorphic, and had some jag, so we kept losing the vertical allignment. I need to find a better taking lens..but over 100mm to keep it from vignnetting in the full frame, suggestions welcome!

Hi Christina,
It sounds like you have thought this through. Definitely a good idea to shoot some spherical stuff as well, just incase. I think an anamorphic wedding video would be a beautiful thing, and worth the risk :)
I assume you are using Magic Lantern? As Julian mentioned, that is the only way different aspect ratios are really available.
If it was me, I would shoot 4:3 with a 2x anamorphic. I assume ML gives you a higher verticle resolution in 4:3 than just simply cropping the sides off? (I haven't really used the new ML raw so feel free to chime in anyone)

Even though I quite like the 3.55 ratio a 2x would give at 16:9, it may be a bit too much for some people. The last thing you want is someone asking why their video occupies a thin strip across the screen, then even worse, "can we change that" after you have finished the video. :)

If it was my choice I would go with the full frame 5D, and really pronounce that anamorphic look. But that is a matter of taste I suppose, and the 7D may be easier to focus on the fly. In that respect, have you though about getting a laser measuring tool to help you quickly judge distances? Might be worth a look.

Best of luck!

Chris.

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :)

At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen.
 
I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question.
 
I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping).
 
The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). 
 
Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY?
 
The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground.
 
The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m.
 
Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport.
 
I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again.
 
There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all.
 
The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks).
 
Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

As far as full frame goes, you will avoid vignetting completely at 85mm. As long as you don't stop down too much, you can go as wide as 58mm in my experience.

Hmm. Seems to be exactly what yourself are doing, looking to buy cheap. The difference between us seems to be that you want to buy cheap and the resell to make profit. People in this forum on the other hand exchange information about lenses and buy lenses from one another for privat use primarly. After using a lens for a while folks might sell the lens further, a few want to make a few hundred bucks while others dont want to lose their investment.
 
You on the other hand play in a different league. Buying cheap and reselling x3 times the value.
 
 
The problem with your first statement, saying that you're american is that you're refering to north america. Excluding, central and south america. Second, you're a capitalist. 
 
You are the guy that stand for an ideology that segregates people, widens the gap between the richest and the poorest. Lowering the costs in order to increase production, benefiting of people in third world countries depriving them from good health. 
 
Be my guest if you want to be that guy.