BrooklynDan

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

A medium format video camera from Fuji would shut the game down. Even though, it would be a pretty impractical format with limited lens choice compared to Super 35 or full frame, cinematographers think with their hearts as well as their brains, and getting the opportunity to shoot on a nearly IMAX-sized sensor would override a lot of other considerations.
Do it, Fuji. DO IT.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

I'd prefer if they released a dedicated cinema camera instead. It's easy to forget that Fuji has over a half century of experience making motion picture stocks. They were Kodak's main competition. Their Vivida daylight stocks were gorgeous. Deep rich colors and solid velvety blacks with warm lovely skin tones. Sadly, they no longer produce film stock, but bringing that look and feel to a digital cinema camera would be an amazing coda to that legacy. 
I also think that Fuji's ergonomic sense work translate very well to a video camera. They have a charming analog feel to all their cameras, which is something that is sorely missing from most low cost video cameras today.

The new Caldwell Chameleon anamorphics also use a similar design with counter-rotating cylinders controlling the squeeze ratio, albeit at a much higher price tag. This design was also used in the series one Todd-AOs way back in the 70s (see Max Max, The Getaway, Logan's Run). 
This is IMHO, the best design ever developed for anamorphic lenses. Without the anastigmatic group, the breathing and mumping is a bit much. The variable diopter design solves the squeeze issues, but the breathing is still there and it works very poorly for wide angle lenses. I've handled a variety of wide angle anamorphics from Lomo, Hawk, Technovision, Cineovision and JDC and they all had massive front elements, awkward mechanics, and severe barrel distortion.
The Gottschalk design allows you to build a lens wider than 40mm while maintaining reasonable size and weight and a standard front diameter. Panavision has a 20mm that's barely larger than a Cooke S4. And the vertical breathing and crisp blue flaring is to die for. I'm really excited for these Xelmus lenses and I hope that they flesh out the rest of the set. 35mm up to 180mm would make these a standard on many sets.

Bingo. With modern computerized design and high quality materials, building a sharp, functional lens is easy. Building one that has charm, character and panache is a whole different story. 
BTW, if you are looking for a successor to the Iscorama, the new Aivascope 1.5x seems like it fits the bill. Single focus mechanism and 50mm coverage on full frame.

I think that people get too wrapped up in the fact that the equipment is cheap and they forget that everything else is still the same price. I went to film school and while the career opportunities afterwards left something to be desired, it allowed me to produce work of a far higher production value than I could on my own. I had access to a soundstage, a wide variety of lighting equipment, screening facilities, mixing facilities, production insurance and because my school also had music, art, theater, and acting programs, a steady supply of people who could act in my films, help me build sets and compose my soundtracks. Interacting with other artists from a bunch of different disciplines is crucial to one's artistic growth.
It is also important to recognize that breadth of knowledge does not equal depth. Yeah, YouTube might have a million tutorials on everything, but it doesn't compare to a seasoned professional talking to you in person and showing you what's what. Teachers don't just relay information, they organize it and put it in context so that it makes sense. I took four years of cinema studies classes with some of the best instructors on the planet, and no amount of individual study could've rivaled the quality of education.
The only big issue with film school is the debt. And yes, it's a pain in the ass. Choose wisely and don't go to USC if you can't afford it.

I think that people get too wrapped up in the fact that the equipment is cheap and they forget that everything else is still the same price. I went to film school and while the career opportunities afterwards left something to be desired, it allowed me to produce work of a far higher production value than I could on my own. I had access to a soundstage, a wide variety of lighting equipment, screening facilities, mixing facilities, production insurance and because my school also had music, art, theater, and acting programs, a steady supply of people who could act in my films, help me build sets and compose my soundtracks. Interacting with other artists from a bunch of different disciplines is crucial to one's artistic growth.
It is also important to recognize that breadth of knowledge does not equal depth. Yeah, YouTube might have a million tutorials on everything, but it doesn't compare to a seasoned professional talking to you in person and showing you what's what. Teachers don't just relay information, they organize it and put it in context so that it makes sense. I took four years of cinema studies classes with some of the best instructors on the planet, and no amount of individual study could've rivaled the quality of education.
The only big issue with film school is the debt. And yes, it's a pain in the ass. Choose wisely and don't go to USC if you can't afford it.

I think that people get too wrapped up in the fact that the equipment is cheap and they forget that everything else is still the same price. I went to film school and while the career opportunities afterwards left something to be desired, it allowed me to produce work of a far higher production value than I could on my own. I had access to a soundstage, a wide variety of lighting equipment, screening facilities, mixing facilities, production insurance and because my school also had music, art, theater, and acting programs, a steady supply of people who could act in my films, help me build sets and compose my soundtracks. Interacting with other artists from a bunch of different disciplines is crucial to one's artistic growth.
It is also important to recognize that breadth of knowledge does not equal depth. Yeah, YouTube might have a million tutorials on everything, but it doesn't compare to a seasoned professional talking to you in person and showing you what's what. Teachers don't just relay information, they organize it and put it in context so that it makes sense. I took four years of cinema studies classes with some of the best instructors on the planet, and no amount of individual study could've rivaled the quality of education.
The only big issue with film school is the debt. And yes, it's a pain in the ass. Choose wisely and don't go to USC if you can't afford it.

I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc.
I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera.
In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:

You can rent glass, you know? I know places where you can get a set of Lomos for $500 for the weekend. For a specific project, it can be doable. Also adaptors. The new Aivascope is looking scrumptous. 
Anamorphic and auto focus in the same sentence is decades away. It's hard to put into words how hard it is to grind bent glass, but that's the reason it's so expensive. 
Also, auto focus and cinema do not belong in the same sentence. No serious film crew uses auto focus. It's an amateur tool that works ok for documentaries. But if you're shooting actors and needs graceful, predictable transitions, turn the damn focus ring. Makes no sense to demand manual control of every other parameter, but then leave your sharpness to a dumb computer.

I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc.
I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera.
In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:

I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc.
I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera.
In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:

I chimed in and left my two cents. Full frame, anamorphic support, SDI, color science, etc, etc.
I also insisted that the camera have a shoulder-mounted form factor. I simply do not understand why people have their arms wrapped around the mirrorless style even for dedicated cinema cameras. We have 100+ years of cinema camera design behind us, and none of them looked like a stills camera.
In case you forgot what a real cinema camera looks like:

Looks pretty sharp. Apparently, it was optimized for full frame sensors, so it can handle M4/3 no sweat. The built-in focus gear, close focus and non-rotating front makes it more practical than the Iscorama ever was. Looks like a win!