Paulio

You have a good memory, sir!
And yes, its a beauty, in perfect condition, which produces stunning images - not too sharp, but not soft, just the perfect resolution (I think the MC helps?). 
I much prefer it to the 36 i had, it actually feels like a lens (just the right amount of weight) & not some plastic toy.
And, you can use it with a wider variety of lenses.
To me its the perfect Anamorphic - it has done me proud when filming or taking pictures.

Will be good to see some of the new anamorphics used with some older taking lenses to see if they can be given some character.
 
Andrew i'd still like to know if you are paying the 1300 to participate in the prototype round, it's fair disclosure since you
are suggesting we do.
 
Thanks!

for 1700 each i will stick with my 50 dollars lens ad with 1700 goon a vacation

I have a 3 element, focusable century 1.33x here on my desk.  if it is indeed based in any way on this type of design they're onto a winner.
 
Please please please give me some samples on aps-c or full frame at f2 and f2.8 in daylight with an ND.  This will truly give an accurate idea of what we can expect with minimal and/or battery powered lighting setups.
 
re. the 77mm diopter set...  This sounds like a great set.  I'd buy the pair straight away. - since the tokina +0.4 being only 72mm vignettes ever so slightly on iscorama and 35mm taking lens.

It's because it's 1.3 stretch. Not worth the price of admission for me, i'd letterbox for a similar effect and spend the money elsewhere. That said I'm sure its a suitable solution for some, certainly sounds functional and would be an upgrade from a LA7200.
 

"Tony wilson" could answer that. My understanding is they were not cheap when they came out due to complexity of building them, thus why no one can make a comparable modern anamorphic at a reasonable price.
 
You don't want to know the price from a decade ago, or even 3 years ago, it will make you weep :)

i am restarting my anamorphic project anyone with a blackmagic camera based in london that wants to meet and give me some feedback that would be great.
it would be handy if you had played around with scope lens before.
please ping me a message if interested cheers.

"Tony wilson" could answer that. My understanding is they were not cheap when they came out due to complexity of building them, thus why no one can make a comparable modern anamorphic at a reasonable price.
 
You don't want to know the price from a decade ago, or even 3 years ago, it will make you weep :)

i like the moller 1.5x it is a masterpiece of optical art but that is just my opinion.
solid body very good for windy days cheap to for the price even now in the age of the new.

Just because I don't feel the need to post 1000 word jerk off doesn't make the content any less valid mate.

And I'm not really too late to the party, I already own a 36 so I'm not planning on buying a toy version any time soon :)

It's not really a rebuttal when you are just desperately trying to disparage anyone who differs. we've heard your opinion over and over. Your'e kinda just douching out the thread after every other post at this point.
 
SLR magic are gonna have to trawl through a page of your ranting for every page of public opinion on what people want from their product.

Dude, it's pretty clear a lot of people prefer 1.5x and 2x  when you look at the responses here and on personal view. Anamorphic is a niche market and these are the folks who would be dropping $1500 on an adapter.
 
Bit of unnecessary stretch to generalize them all as fanatics.

Tony Wilson mentioned they were using century optics for "reference".

This is much better than the previous test, as I suspected the constant soft focus must have been due to user error. The image quality here looks great, nice and crisp. That said the flares are horrendous and the anamorphic character is so mild that simply letterboxing your footage would get you close enough to this and you could spend the $1500 elsewhere to bump up production value.

my opinion on the matter...
 
these new offerings wont touch the current ones for people like us.  it wont better a century or a la7200 since the guys developing these new lenses dont really understand the reasoning behind why people want anamorphic.  neither will they touch the performance of an iscorama unless they infringe on a patent.
 
their key failing is in deciding to rework a 'one size fits all' option instead of making people work with a proper solution that has limitations.
 
the letus option will have only been tested with Canon L lenses
the slr magic solution will have only been tested with slr magic lenses on m43
 
The key to success is to deliver a set of integrated lenses with no user options available.  each lens being sub 1.5k usd.  each being f2.8.  a 35mm, a 50mm and a 85mm.  each covering full frame to allow yielding of the speed booster for that magical f2..
 
the worst thing in the world is to create a one size fits all front solution that will in 90% of circumstances be fitted to the front of ghastly canon 50mm L lenses.  
 
Set maximum and minimum focus point for each focal length and optimise the anamorphot to suit.  
 
if anything i see these offerings as only a reason for my iscorama to increase even more above its actual value.  and id rather these people put their efforts into something that matched it.  all this computer power we have nowadays.  how can these people not better a 1960's design?

Glad to see Ben Mendelson getting some roles. He's a regular on Australian TV since the 80s!

Footage looks spectacular, I didn't watch this as i'd heard not good reviews but I think I'm gonna have to check it out.
Hopefully I can follow the story and not just nerd out on the anamorphic.

Rich, my experience is the opposite, the longer I've had my 36 the more I use it, total workhorse. 1.5x is a nice sweet spot, some bokeh without massive cropping on 16:9 sensors, on my gh2/gh3 I'm shooting as low as 25mm and up to 115mm, giving me a full range of shots  all with rack/single focus and clean optics. And with your mod I'm focusing down to 3.5 feet without diopters so I rarely need them.
 
The only lens in this bracket I can think of that compares/exceeds in terms of quality and versatility for real world narrative use is the centavision. (or a full range range of dso when they're ready)
 
sure 1.3 with 16:9 will result in a perfect 2.35, but so will just cropping your footage... whats the point of anamorphic if you are not getting the bokeh/burnt in stretch?  
 

I don't know. I think I will stick to my GH3 for my Micro Four Thirds glass.
 
And at £1500 the BMCC mFT is an option.
 
I can't risk having shots ruined by big white invaders from outer space.

This is an interesting development.  One can argue that the Canon engineers pretty much knew that the camera was capable of 24p with the higher (1000x) cards, as it's not like the flash memory manufacturers aren't testing their products with all of the various camera companies prior to their release.  The 1000x cards have been out for a year and a half now, so it's safe to say that Canon engineers knew full well that the MKIII was capable of RAW recording using (the fastest) CF cards.

That said, RAW video isn't something Canon has dabbled in extensively at that prosumer level and price point.  So even though the feature was obviously workable, it may not have been guaranteed/developed in time for the camera's release.  Canon can't deliver a camera worldwide and advertise such an important feature and have it cause their cameras to crash/overheat because they didn't have time to test it out.

As for this news trouncing BMCC/BMPC/BMCC4K?  Meh.  The hack, I'm certain, is welcome for those that already own the camera, but really, unless you already own a ton of Canon glass, the MKIII isn't a "must buy" now that it has 1080p RAW via a hacked firmware update.  The BMPC camera pretty much equals the apparent quality of new haxored MKIII at three times less the price.  Granted you don't get full frame, but if you really need FF, then feel free to pay three times the price.  It IS a bargain if you need FF-RAW.

Regardless, this is good news.  Hopefully Canon will embrace this, and release their own firmware update instead of trying to pretend the same people that can afford the MKIII are the same people that can afford their c100/c300 pro line.  The CF card costs are actually reasonable if you're getting RAW FF for the price of a really good CF card.  Another good plus of getting a 1000x card is that they dump to storage -really- fast.
 
Now all Magic Lantern has to do to REALLY shake things up is offer 1080p RAW on the T4i/T5i. :)

Thanks Rich that's a v.generous offer & would be good to meet another enthusiast in Bristol.
 
My feeling is that the T* coating is killing pretty much all internal/external (normal spherical) lens flare & this is some how allowing the flare generated by the anamorphic to become a little more prominent. However, its still piss poor & nothing like a flare produced by a non-MC'd anamorphic lens - i was just curious if anyone had an explanation, as it was unexpected.
 
NB. If you have a MC Anamorphic & are reading this, please don't think that an expensive T* Coated lens is any sort of solution, it isn't!
I bought my MC lenses so the flares wouldn't get in the way - just look at Star Trek they're in every F**king shot & it just gets distracting/annoying, IMHO.

Great news, I may have to start saving for a isco optimized kit of these. The graded footage is a massive improvement, definitely very deliverance-ey.  I have an obsession with films from this era(badlands, the graduate, mean streets etc),  they were the peak aesthetically in my eyes.
 
My current attempts to reproduce this look are shooting hacked low contrast gh2, russian glass, isco 36, filmconvert for grain/filmstock. Definitely getting there, but I prefer the image produced by my KOWA over the isco, unfortunately it is pretty un-usable in real shooting conditions for obvious reasons. Some DSO primes might be just the ticket as it would push the bokeh to 2+.

Absolutely bloody superb mate, love the low contrast and the bokeh is spectacular.... actor looks like he's crapped himself when he walks though :P   This is just the kind of aesthetic I've tried achieve with less success, looks almost like 70's celluloid. So creamy, but with bold skin tones.
 
I heard rumor you might make a suite of lens sizes eventually? is technically possible to do this process to other russian glass like jupiter 9, mir24, mir10a? I'd love to use these for narrative stuff, a kit would be my dream come true.
 
Awesome stuff!!!

I have the full badass glidecam package.  monitors, dual arms, vest, car mounts, etc...   Everything depends on what shot / aesthetic your trying to achieve.  For  5d3 I would use a 2x anamorphic with a 50mm, which = basically a 25mm.  unless your shooting a skate video or going for a fisheye look, which doesn't even quite make sense with anamorphic, that should cover you.  With an iscorama the 50mm will end up being close to a 33mm lens.
 
That video you posted is another perfect example of someone that has no idea how to balance their glidecam correctly, and it is the biggest contributing factor to getting good results with these systems..
 
PM me dude, be glad to let you test out the rig, and show you how to properly balance these things.  The pelican is currently sitting in my closet, I rather see someone get some use out of it.  
 
I'll try and post a video later if i have some time today..

Speed booster improves overall sharpness on the iscorama and zeiss planar 50mm f1.8 (at f1.8).  Bokeh is a lot more pronounced.  Edges suffer marginally on landscape shots, bit in most situations the edge softness only adds to the perceived shallow dof.
 
I have also tried quickly on a mates little cinevision 8mm 1.5x which is great at f2 on a helios 44 on aps-c.  but on speed booster it vignettes a lot.  but sharpness seemed unaffected.  dof was shallower, but since the little 8mm doesnt gain any light at apertures bigger than f5.6 the speed booster didnt add any more light - just shallow dof.
 
the requirement to use a longer lens than normal (to avoid vignette), as well as the shallower dof naturally pronounces the ovals making 1.5x ovals look more pleasingly like the more authentic cinematic look you get from 2x ovals.