Gabriel Copoeru

I wanted to share on the diopter thread and with the EOSHD community of my first shots with my Baby Berthiot Hypergonar paired with 2 Tokina +0.4 Achromatic diopters and a Marumi DHG +3 diopter for the close up shots. I just ordered a Polaroid 500D Close Up Camera Lens for getting even closer. Good price on those. 
 
 I shot this over three days in May 2015 in North Carolina. I filmed in Chimney Rock Park, Fairview
Buncombe County, and outside of Burnsville.
Cut to the music of Dances With Wolves by John Barry. 
I shot on a GH4 in 4k with the scenery setting.
I used the Baby Hypergonar 1.75x anamorphic lens with a Schneider-Kreuznach 50mm f/1.9 Xenon and a Olympus Zuiko Pen F 38mm F1.8 as my taking lens.
Custom Redstan housing for the baby!
I just lowered the mids on a few shots with Colorista 11 in color correction. 
I love the look and feel of this lens so much! I hope you enjoy it 
Special Thanks:
to Seb Farges "Baby Hypergonar oracle"
vimeo.com/sebfarges
To Alan Doyle at Redstan
redstan.com/
To all the contributing filmmakers on EOSHD for there invaluable input. Also to Francisco Rios for his work with the Baby and Davide Marino for helping get lens!

short I did last year with BMPCC/SLRM Anamorphot
 

I am not a pro filmmaker  - just enjoy making some music and having fun with mostly super-8 film.
As many of you might know a lot of the Iscos were developed with the film enthusiasts in mind (the 54 for example were built in to fit most of the Braun Nizos, and Schneider Variogon lenses with their 62mm threads) but sadly there are very few movie clips online. So here are two clips I made last year. I think the Iscorama perfoms very good even with the small film format. Focusing is not easy and sometimes the image becomes very soft. But for me that is not so bad as I am not into that super crisp and ultra sharp look. And when the film is projected with the Iscorama in front everything looks even better (and it will be always stretched perfect ).
 
 
 

​It's a 55mm front thread.  The wide angle adapter is 58mm, so I got a 55mm to 58mm adapter.

Here's a few pictures of the lens and wide angle adapter:
 

I did a quick test this weekend.   WIth and without the wide angle adapter:
 
 
Quick test with different lenses (with wide angle adapter):
 
 

No they really shouldn't. A lens does not "resolve 6MP".
A lens renders a certain spatial frequency at a certain contrast ratio. It might take detail at 20 line pairs per millimeter and produce 70% contrast, detail at 50 line pairs per millimeter results in 30% contrast etc. This relationship is captured by the modulation transfer function (MTF), a quantity which varies according to the distance from the image centre, and the direction you measure in (sagital vs tangential). Manufacturers already publish MTF charts for their lenses, which is the equivalent of what you're suggesting, only much more meaningful. There are some differences in how these charts are computed (e.g. whether diffraction is included or not) so they're not always directly comparable, but they aren't anywhere near as misleading as trying to attach a single "megapixel" rating to lenses.
The other reason stating "this lens resolves 6MP" is meaningless is that the important thing in determining how you images will look is not the lens MTF itself, but the system MTF. The system MTF is the product of MTFs of each part, the lens the filter stack and the sensor (and image processing to an extent). Because it's a mathematical product (a lens delivering 80% contrast combined with an AA filter that delivers 95% contrast results in 76% contrast (0.8 x 0.95 x 100)) you can improve the system MTF by improving the MTF of any component in the system. Hence you "6MP" lens will give you more resolution on a 24MP body than on a 6MP body.
 
It's exactly this thinking that leads people to declare that there's no reason to have a 50MP sensor as there are no 50MP lenses in existence. Even the kit lens in your example produces some contrast in the centre of the image at 50MP.

Here is some footage that I shot with a 16mm Bell & Howell anamorphic just like the ones on offer here:
 

what's with all the handheld gimbal manufacturers always spamming the anamorphic forum?

what's with all the handheld gimbal manufacturers always spamming the anamorphic forum?

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

the only flaw in your test is the camera.  the s16mm sensor is very forgiving to lenses.  assuming you ever wanted to shoot on a bigger sensor the differences will be more obvious - particularly at the edges.
 
the tokina was originally designed for use with a tokina at-x 70-200 f2.8 zoom, on full frame.  to bring minimum focus distance down from around 1m to around 0.6m if i recall.  if the achromatic qualities were not worth having, tokina wouldnt have bothered and would have sold a singlet.  so we know that for f2.8 70mm on full frame, achromatic diopters are required for clean performance.  since full frame tends to use around an 85mm lens for anamorphic attachments the achro is almost 100% required for undegraded performance to the edges of the 44mm image circle.
 
so, if you plan on upgrading to a bigger sensor, you'll be thankful to have kept the achro IMO

I'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but the thread is a little bit too lengthy to skim through all the way.
If the barrel of the FM is 71mm in diameter, does this mean that my Sankor 16F, that is slightly slimmer than its cousins (the focus ring is just under 70mm from what I've measured) can fit the module without modification?

DISCLAIMER: I apologize for posting a new topic on this, as I have also added this to the diopter thread. I didn't get any feedback and could use some because I want to sell one of these lenses and I can't decide which. 
I hope someone can clear things up for me. Although I've read up a lot on anamorphics over the past months, I am very much a noob when it comes to using them properly, as getting everything you need to maintain such an expensive passion is very difficult where I live. 
Knowing that the very coveted Tokina achromat is arguably the Holy Grail of anamorphic diopters, I was very happy to find one for cheap at a local shop (who knows how for long they probably had it).
I did a very bare bones test to compare it to another lens that I bought a while back, a Tamron +0.5 singlet close-up. I know there may be a lot of things wrong with it, lighting changes, the objects don't have an adequate texture to them for test purposes, and so on, but I wanted very quickly to see if there is any obvious advantage (in terms of sharpness) to the Tokina over it's single element counterpart.
Now, is it just me, or is there no huge difference between the images? I fail to see anything that would justify the huge price gap. I don't know if I should be dissapointed in the Tokina or impressed with the Tamron. I understand that maybe you can see what the Tokina is capable of by using better lenses, filming in different conditions, and so on. I don't know, what do you guys think? What am I doing wrong?
 

​please take a look what the seller said. 
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Anamorphic-lens-1-5x-For-Nikon-V1-N1-Pentax-Q-BMPCC-USA-Seller-VM-lens-/151571055730?nma=true&si=W%2FyiL%2BMZZbVmPeGoLLjyKbrfjgE%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

​I don't think it covers the whole sensor on that camera, unfortunately.

So I recently stumbled upon the VM 1.5 anamorphic lens in my searches to find one that works for my needs than my over-sized ISCO Cinelux.
Has anyone tried this one out? It seems to me like this thread turned into arguing and discussion about the FM focuser. What about the actual anamorphic lens? Anybody tested it since this thread was active? Is it something one would recommend? 
 

​No, it is D.O. 16f.  I believe they have the same glasses.  I can call it's a micro lens, original focus around 0.5~1m, ratio is about 1.6x to 1.75x.  Even adjust to infinity, it is still shorter then Sankor's 5ft at minimum distance.   This lens is cheap, due to it cannot be used regularly.  But IMO, it is worthier than others.  So I sold my Sankor and Eiki 16f, which are the same lens.  Because it is short, so has the similar angle as 16H.  The least distortion is beyond my expectation.  Here are a comparison photo.

I've never used the minolta diopter specifically, but I can vouch for the minolta glass of that vintage.  I have a 24mm, a 58mm and the 35-70 zoom and their all really nice lenses, as is their reputation.  It's older so I'm sure standard older glass warnings apply, but i've read on DP review that its a good diopter.  I think its not a terribly prized diopter just because its only 55mm thread (almost all the minolta lenses from back then are 55) and that's pretty small for today.  But if it works for you I'm sure its a fine choice.

You guys are acting like a bunch of kids. It's really painful to watch.

You guys are acting like a bunch of kids. It's really painful to watch.

You guys are acting like a bunch of kids. It's really painful to watch.

You guys are acting like a bunch of kids. It's really painful to watch.

You guys are acting like a bunch of kids. It's really painful to watch.