Jump to content

racer5

Members
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

racer5 last won the day on July 30 2014

racer5 had the most liked content!

About racer5

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1,820 profile views
  1. I'm pro free speech - and that means pro-offensive-speech. 100 percent. We're in Fahrenheit 451 territory as a culture.
  2. Geoff's not saying that gear doesn't matter, he's saying gear has gone backwards - and "the numbers" being pushed don't correlate to nice images. Bayer sensors interpolate chroma and will never yield colors as accurate and gorgeous as the examples he cites. And if the sensor behind that filter is 4k and up it only looks increasingly crunchy and ugly, nothing like natural optical clarity. He's not advocating against the best tools (in the right hands of course), he's saying the specs being pushed are actually a strike against aesthetics. And he's right.
  3. http://www.indiewire.com/2018/05/peta-defends-lars-von-trier-the-house-that-jack-built-duck-mutilation-1201965931/
  4. I agree with almost all of your points about the trailer, Andrew. I'd go one step further past the reservations on Gosling and say the whole cast feels sterile and hip. Robin Wright, Jared Leto as the bad guy, the hot wife from War Dogs. Will these people be in something of lasting value? I'm not sure, maybe. The script is at least supposed to be great. My one disagreement is the wish for Deakin's to have shot on anamorphic. Since the original film came out, this format has become highly fetishized to the point that it now calls attention to itself. No one was counting cool flares in '84, but they are now. I appreciate that Deakins decided to put the emphasis on what's in frame, as opposed to getting precious with how it's rendered. That said, Chnristina Ava makes a great point about naturalism and the grade here being way too much.
  5. That sounds great. I'd be curious how you work the aperture ring into the housing. Please share pics once available, thanks.
  6. Jim I love your clamps and this looks really interesting. My main reservation is that taking lenses of choice are often small, old, stiff little numbers (like the Helios), which are not suited for FF gears - and pushing/pulling heavy anamorphic fronts back and forth. That said, this is a great development and very much look forward to seeing more.
  7. racer5

    Why film?

    Very much agree on Inherent Vice - I love it. It's not a film for "now" unfortunately, the zeitgeist is in opposition to something so wonderfully free and meandering. Gorgeous movie to look at too.
  8. +1 on the Kowa. I've got this as well and it's a shockingly good piece of glass. No idea why these don't fetch a premium. The Rapido clamps turn it into an easy to mount, elegantly align-able solution.
  9. Looking for the original Rectilux Core DNA, thanks.
  10. The difference is in grading.
  11. Pepper, below is part of a thread I had with Mario in Germany about his mod. In short: the mod favors close focus at the expense of infinity. A good tradeoff I'd say (I'll gladly crop spherical for infinity shots). Hope it helps answer your questions: you have to know that ALL focusthrough lenses are limited, some more than others. This Mini Isco's are the best focusthrough so far but they are also limited. The alignment is perfect and easy, the sharpness in ideal areas is very high, like Isco 2000 and Iscomorphot 8/x2 but much better usable "before and behind" this ideal area. But, infinity sharpness isnt as sharp as other lenses, you have to stop down for better infinity sharpness with longer focallegth. I had to make some decisions before modification, how these Iscos should work. More sharpness fron minimum to approx 10-15m or more sharpness from approx 6-8m to inifinity. Also i had to choose the ideal focallength (original it was desgined for 100mm F2.8 and 5m fixed focus). I chosen the first option, more sharpness from minimum to near infinity, cause this would cover the most shooting/studio situations, for better infinity sharpness you have to stop down to F4-5.6, real inifinity you need outdoors, so F5.6 shouldnt the problem i thought, for night shots you have to choose a shorter focallentgh like 35mm to shoot with bigger apertures sharp infinity. I also choose 35mm as the new ideal focallength, because ths means that the focalareas around 35mm will be also fine, this means 28mm for M4/3, 35mm S35 and 50mm ff. With the ideal focallength you have a sharp close focus from approx 1.5-2m @F2.8-4m, some good glasses also F2 under 2m, approx 2,5-3,5m @F1.4-2. With longer focals more, 85mm approx 2,5m, 135mm approx 3-3.5m. With shorter focallengths you have really good inifinty results but 85mm is a bit too long. The power of the positive and negative values of the optics are very powerfull, so these Isco lenses are also very sharp with longer telelenses (because it were originally designed for 100mm), whats impossible with other focusthrough lenses (Optex x1.33 for example is bad from 85mm and totally blurred from 100mm) BUT the inifnity sharpness from 85mm isnt the best under F5.6.
  12. Ha, ok. You're clearly well read in fringe matters. My brain is now as bent as a Moller.
  13. No promotional activities here, sir. I'm not the seller and Obama was not born in Kenya. No need for conspiracy theories. I've corresponded with the seller and found him helpful. Bio called me names I called him some back. Like the OP I'm considering purchasing this lens - that's all. The Iscos in question are modified and claim to have better close-focus abilities than a stock 2000 and the 1.33x options out there, this is what attracted me to the listing. The Bolex looks nice but I'm not interested in solutions with fiddly alignment.
  14. Tweak, all fair points - and yes, moving on. One last thing for those still interested in the topic at hand (the 1060's available for purchase on ebay from Germany): I can confirm that the seller will chop off the protruding back if requested, with threads of your choice added. This will help vignetting issues and leave the the rear element in close proximity to the taking lens. He's replied to every question with lengthy detailed messages, a very helpful guy.
  15. If you re-read the thread, "STFU" was in response to being called "a dick" and "a scumbag." All the profanity and namecalling here is coming from your thin-skinned pal, Bio - who got hot under the collar when he was caught in a simple contradiction. First saying: "The lens the OP is talking about is not worth over £1K & only a fool would buy one for that price" "So, yes you can find them for £500" Then when asked to back that up: "Yep, but that's because there aren't many x1.5 anamorphics, if any (especially single focus) for your price of £500." Not particularly helpful in my estimation, and yes I'll call him out as I please. I'm not the ebay seller, although I have started corresponding with him about some machine work on the lens if I do decide to purchase it. Very nice chap to deal with - and yes he's following this thread. Oh dear, still upset I see. A thin skin is a terrible quality in a man. Women in particular find it quite unattractive - but then again showing them the lens collection in your mum's basement probably hasn't been winning you points in that department either..
×
×
  • Create New...