Christina Ava

Very rough test Anamorphic  letus adpter
Canon 5DMRK3, ML RAW, 3200 iso, film convert used
tripod on dolly
Sigma 35mm 1.8 , lenses 50mm at 1.2, , 100mm macro at 2.8  all wide open.
Letus anamorphic adapter.
very rough first tests. very low light full frame 35mm
(Thanks JB)
 
https://vimeo.com/85719835

Man, one article on Cooke, one on the Amira. And I'm changing direction completely away from DSLRS!? I have D5300, E-M1, A7R reviews coming in a few days. Also with greatest respect Matt you are someone who has joined the forum quite late (and begun reading EOSHD even later?) so you're not in the greatest position to tell me what direction to take with my filmmaking and the site. Would you turn down high end stuff if you had the chance to buy it for a bargain price?
 
Back on topic and no more reverse snobbery!!

From the unofficial Cooke owners club at NAB:  " We did some very critical tests with Leica Summilux-C lenses, Zeiss Master Primes, and the Cooke 5/i. We put them on digital cameras, looked at how much resolution they had. We looked for color fringing and many things, like distortion, and so on. They all looked very good.
We tested with the same lens projector we do for film. The lenses were all very, very close. We looked for breathing. We tested for color fringing, because that’s very critical on digital cameras–they see it. We put them all on our M.T.F. machine. They all had high M.T.F. We looked at what I call fall-off illumination, or shading–in other words, how bright it is in the center, how bright toward the edges. They were all very good. Some were a little bit better in one area, some in other areas.
They were so close that it didn’t matter a whole bunch. Then we did a film test. We did this on a stage that was very well lit by a very good DP, Isidore Mankofsky, ASC. We shot a grey scale, a color chart, and then we had a set with a desk and a practical lamp. We were looking for several different things, and one of them was narcissism (double image of hot spots) and other things.
We tested all of that, and there was a young lady that was supposed to be our model. Well, she got sick. She didn’t show up, and so there was a young woman there on the set. We asked her if she would be our model, and she agreed to that. She was about 27 years old, and she had no make-up on except what a normal lady would use to go out. You know, a little bit around her eyes, and she did have a little blemish on her face.
The film stock used on the test was Kodak 5219. The film was developed and we projected it. It looked better with the Cooke lenses. I was trying to analyze why it looked better with the Cooke lenses.
All the lenses were so close, the Leicas, the Master Primes, and the Cooke 5/I’s. Why did she look better? I analyzed it more carefully and what it is, the Leica lenses and the Master Primes have higher contrast, and they showed the blemish. Even though the Cooke lens is just as sharp, it’s not that high contrast. And it almost hid that blemish. It was almost gone. So this “Cooke Look†is a real thing. I wanted to say that. We’ve always known that–at least I always felt that–and so many people know that the Cooke look is good."     
 
I found this article  interesting.  The "look" comes from lower contrast and was not mentioned as noticeable except on the film test models skin portion of the test.    Also, For those wondering how the sharpness compares, here is a test by lensrentals comparing still and cine lenses in which the 50mm Cooke was mentioned.  www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/the-great-50mm-shootout.     
Congrats Andrew I'm so jealous!
 
 
 

Christopher Doyle (In The Mood For Love, Hero), Stefan Ciupek (Slumdog Millionaire) and Franz Lustig (How I Live Now) will be at the Berlinale Film Festival in February with a Canon sponsored workshop for aspiring filmmakers.

Read the full article here

.....this is my dream of dreaaamy lens...it is known that cooke lenses make the skin tones agreeable.. basicaly it makes actors look Good!
example, i was watching "true blood" and thinking how the actress playing Sookie Anna Paquin is not that "beautiful"
i thought well they are using some kind of magic lens here, so i look it up in imbd, and voila they are shooting all cooke lenses and angenieux...it really compliments actors
if you do any tests use real people and skin tones! and i hope the next lenses are angenieux.... :wub:

.....this is my dream of dreaaamy lens...it is known that cooke lenses make the skin tones agreeable.. basicaly it makes actors look Good!
example, i was watching "true blood" and thinking how the actress playing Sookie Anna Paquin is not that "beautiful"
i thought well they are using some kind of magic lens here, so i look it up in imbd, and voila they are shooting all cooke lenses and angenieux...it really compliments actors
if you do any tests use real people and skin tones! and i hope the next lenses are angenieux.... :wub:

What is it that makes Cooke cinema lenses so special?

Read the full article here

Also, I think the academy has a very limited scope on cinematography.
 
The master says best:
 
http://sea.blouinartinfo.com/news/story/874483/christopher-doyle-interview-part-2-life-of-pi-oscar-is-an

Robocop? Good??

hello everyone thanks! i think im going for the UK lensdoctor conversion, 
the edmika is cheaper and looks good but the actual DIY does not look easy, especially the part where you need to pull out the glass on the back with pliers, without scratching it, and there is some danger of locking up the aperture ring, and then having to dig deep.
 
nevertheless Ed mika  has some really nice solutions for people that are handy and confident to open up their lens.As far as i get he is sorting out a new conversion soon.
 
this lens is worth the trouble!

If you are looking for the best achromat for your Sankor, then this is it in Series 7 thread (54mm)
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/261350865781?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649
 
at 0.7 diopter it will allow close focus from 0.75 to 1.5m - a perfect supplement.

As far as I know these EdMika mounts are reversible conversions. You don't ruin your lens, you can always install the original back part of the lens, the FD mount. There are tutorial videos on youtube about it. You just have to unscrew 3-4 screws, remove the FD mount, install the EF mount, reinsert the screws.

You can use an FD to EOS adapter which has an additional layer of glass inside.  This will soften your image (especially when shooting wide-open), but you'll be able to focus to infinity.
 
Another option is to switch to mirrorless cameras ... I just made the switch from Canon to Panasonic (and also Sony).  FD glass works splendidly on mirrorless cameras with a simple adapter without glass.  
 
I shot this video with FD glass and a Panasonic G6 : 
Coely - My Tomorrow - YouTube

Go for the conversion, definitely. The adapters with glass to correct focus will leave you with a virtually unusably blurry image at fast apertures, which is what this lens is all about.
 
Great lens, deserves the conversion.
 
There's also a guy in the UK who does a conversion where you send the FD lens to him. Professional guy and highly recommended.
 
http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/eddiehouston1545
 
Try dropping Eddie an email :)
 
The EdMika mounts look good too.

Don't use lenses for mounts with shorter flange distance than the one of your camera. Maybe there is someone who can change the lens mount for you to make it shorter.

Only solution:
 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EdMika-Canon-FDn-FD-85mm-1-2L-EOS-mount-conversion-kit-/181006816741?pt=US_Lens_Adapters_Mounts_Tubes&hash=item2a24d8d5e5
 
I have read that on standard fd to eos adapter the lens is pretty much useless.

one solution is the Kipon adaptors, the other is to convert your rear FD element I think, but maybe someone else knows better.

Hello fellow optical connoisseurs,

 
I got the 85mm f1.2 canon on a lens binge today, and nowi am wondering how to adapt it on a canon mark 3.

Does anyone know the lens? It needs a converter (FD lens to EF body), but as i read on, it seems the lens loses its infinity focus, and i don’t know if it even shows any vital marks when on the camera.There are some limitations that seem to be very serious ones.

 
I am using it only on manual mode and for video.

Does anybody own the lens, can you please recommend any good adaptors? Has anyone shot any video with it?

 

Thank you very much for your time


p.s don’t drink and lens

$5000 for shipping from Germany to the US seems legit :)
Maybe he plans on hiring Elton John to swim it across the Atlantic wearing a pair of gold Speedos.

I just ordered 5mins ago with viabox.com
Seems like a reliable source, read reviews many people had success with them

Thank you everybody for contributing and helping me out! I finally got my first anamorphic a Sankor 16C,I think it fits my style and limitations.
Its a light lens, that i will pair with a 135mm pentacon on my FF. Hopefully i will be able to shoot handheld, 2x, and start my journey to the anamorphic world.
Have a great Christmas
love
c.

Thank you everybody for contributing and helping me out! I finally got my first anamorphic a Sankor 16C,I think it fits my style and limitations.
Its a light lens, that i will pair with a 135mm pentacon on my FF. Hopefully i will be able to shoot handheld, 2x, and start my journey to the anamorphic world.
Have a great Christmas
love
c.

It is a good low cost choice for a beginner in the scope land.
 
Don't forget you can unscrew the small lens hood to reveal a 52mm filter thread - useful if you need to use filters or dioptres. Enjoy !

Thank you everybody for contributing and helping me out! I finally got my first anamorphic a Sankor 16C,I think it fits my style and limitations.
Its a light lens, that i will pair with a 135mm pentacon on my FF. Hopefully i will be able to shoot handheld, 2x, and start my journey to the anamorphic world.
Have a great Christmas
love
c.

I think that it looks rather good.
 
To figure out correct aspect ratio, shoot an image of a circle on your monitor or a step ring on your desk. When you import the footage, you'll be able to see pretty quickly what stretch factor to use (many lenses that have a '2x' designation are actually 1.9x, 1.8x, etc.)