Justin Bacle

I am frequently using an MD -> MFT lens turbo II.
When I want to use M42 lenses, I just stack an M42 -> MD adapter on the MD->MT Lens Turbo, no problems here

Literally videos that invite someone to an event. For example:
I offer video with your face inviting your friends to come to your wedding/party on 11.12.2016 at hotel President in Paris.

I'm going to critic this by being very honest - Be aware, it might be an hard pill to swallow. I'm quite difficult to please when it come to video edit but... you've ask for it. 
///
The first shot look very amateur or bad, try to cut it out. Or at least cut it in 2 different angles. After 10sec, I didn't even wanted to watch the video any further...
Second shot should be out of the edit, nothing is in focus and it goes everywhere / nowhere,
Third is ok but cut the first few blurry frames and then at the girl at 0:18 ...skip to 0:21sec. Try to stabilise the shot until 0:23 then cut again to the smile boy at 0:25 - Make those to shot match with the smile, it's going to be a smooth cut. Trim a bit the shaky end too of this. 
Stabilise the shot #4 or remove it 
#5 ... no need to go past 0:39, the action is done, the few last second are not getting anything positive for the story. 
#6 is ok but try to get it a bit more stable of a pan, try wrap stabiliser 
#7 follow the same as the shot numero 6 
#8 would be ok if you had the girl landing on the mat - now it's kind of pointless for the edit, teasing
#9 stabilize the pan a bit and cut around 0:52
#10 keep only the middle where it's stable 
#11 could be cut out of the edit - it's way to blue for now and clash with the rest
12 - 13 are good, they fit in 
#14 should be cut, pointless for the edit
The streching is ok but cut the last part or let the shot breath a bit with more frame in at the end
#16 - 17 are ok but could be trim a bit 
#18 should be cut off the edit ...or get the 17 out....or insert a different angle inbetween... it's kinda jumpcut 
19-20-21 is ok ... could be trim a bit maybe
/// 
So i've survive until 1:33 so far....and I don't believe I need to keep going for 6min .... try to re-edit all of this in 2min maximum, then repost here. I will be happy to critic further after that...keep only your best shots for the final cut except if you need to include every single athletes in the edit, then you could think about sacrifice quality to please the "client" 
You're shots seems to get a bit better after that. But I far as I can see you don't have enough good material for a 6min edit. It certainly doesn't add up to your story to stretch it that long, it's just painful for the viewer...
Your color correct ...if any was even done look like a log profile. It's getting quite accepted by the general public to digest a log these days ..it's have a vintage/hipster feeling to it....I still think you should do something about it. Push saturation and contrast a bit, Overall you shots are underexpose too

Hi Tito! About your last episode of tuning up the Kowa, when do you know the Lens have to be tuned?
I have the 16H and found it sharp enough but found interesting if it could be sharper though.
Risky dilema.
 

I always assumed the EDIT function had a time limit -- a 30 to 60 minute window to make changes.

Hi Everyone. 
During my quest to understand how raw files work and what are the benefits of using one format over another, I never really found out a clear definitive answer. So i decided to start this topic in oder to do so.
My fundamental questions are:
A) Which raw files DON'T have baked-in white balance?
B) Is there anything as logarithmic raw files?
 And the answers I have found so fare are:
A) .ari files and Magic Lantern 14bit .dng files
B) I don't consider .MXF or .R3D files to be raw but uncompressed video therefore no. Otherwise I would say that the only logarithmic raw files are MXF files

Pretty much all other kind of raw files out there turn out not to be really raw as they claim. In my opinion, I found that working with a linear file was a safer bet against blown highlights and being able to truly change white balance and at least magenta/green shifts (unfortunately no blue/amber cast in lightroom for me, only magic lantern allows you to correct that in camera :D) 
Maybe for you all the answer to this question are obvious, but I though it would be nice to have a little corner of the net with a clear cut answer to which camera does generate TRUE raw files (I am looking at YOU: RED, SONY, CANON, BLACKMAGIC )
Because, I would be pretty pissed off if i'd bought a sony f55 or a RED Raven or a Blackmagic Ursa or any other 10k+ camera and find out I can't truly change white balance in post e.g.: The lumetri panel in premiere does not do that. It only apply a azure/orange filter to the image to simulate white balance shift.

Hello ana-scope lovers,
I'm selling my Möller Anamorphot 32/2x and Rectilux 3FF-S. This particular Möller is hard to find especially in such good condition. It took me over a year of searching (on and off) to get one in this condition, it looked like new-old stock when it arrived and had been stiff to turn as a result of sitting somewhere unused for years. I regreased it (when used in the olden days of double focusing) but not really important now as you'll have it set to infinity and using it with the Rectilux 3FF-S. The Möller is known for its sharpness and crazy blue/purple flares! 
The Rectilux is also in great condition and I've regreased it also as there was some slight vibration when focusing when I first got it so now nice and smooth. The Rectigrip included, I cannot recommend as it put a small dent in the barrel of the scope when tightened and also hard to gauge if front of taking lens is making contact with back of scope. There is a minuscule mark on the coating because of this but barely noticeable. I only noticed it when taking macro shots to sell the scope so I'm including an excellent Redstan clamp that does a brilliant job of holding it in place and prevents elements from making contact.
Also included are a Coupling Ring which connects the scope to Rectilux, a custom made lens gear for the Rectilux 3FF-S from Helicopter Sean and a thicker custom 3D printed pitch gear for your follow focus because of the long focus throw in and out. A PDF of Rectilux 3FF-S also included and a clamp most likely used for scope's original purpose and could somehow be integrated into a rig set-up, it's extremely solid.
Price: €800
Photos:



You can just see the small indentation where Rectigrip made an *impression*


Rectilux with custom lens gear:

Rectilux has 72mm filter thread. I have used a variable ND filter with no problems. You can also see the purple coating of the Möller that gives it its signature blue/purple flares:

Rectilux + Möller + Coupling Ring + Rectigrip

Custom 3D printed pitch gear. I have basically used a longer screw and placed it on top of original gear:

Redstan clamp:
 
Some screen grabs, oval Bokeh:









A recap of what I'm selling:
Möller Anamorphot 32/2x Rectilux 3FF-S Rectigrip Redstan Clamp Coupling Ring Original screw on clamp Custom Focus Gear for Rectilux Custom 3D printed pitch gear PDF Rectilux owner's manual I take PayPal and possibly we can do it through eBay but would like to avoid because of ridiculous fees! I'll be posting from France.
If you're interested or have more questions, PM me.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?196822-Anamorphic-Shootout/page31 - last post on this page highlights the size and light loss of this lens.

So, we had a quick shoot, here's the result:
Setup: GH4 4:3 anamorphic mode, pentax 50mm smc f1.7, Sankor Compact 2x Single focus anamorphot which is still for SALE, DIY LED panels, homemade dolly with a fluid head and a regular tripod work. You might notice that the opening shot is with a spherical lens, well that's because of the glidecam. Edited & graded in premiere with some luts.
Cheers!
 

Great, thank you for sharing
Last time I checked (17/11 nightly build) the 10 & 12 bit recording weren't working on the 50D but i'll try again as soon as there is another build.

Hi folks, recently I was filming in Italy and we filmed everything with an F55 with CP2 lenses and this godsend anamorphic adapter that really blew me away. The sheer size of it, unbelievable!  
I only found a brief mention of it on the forum, but on cinematography.com I was able to retireve a bit more information. Anyway, for this shoot I intended to use my Kowa B&H, as I really pressed to shoot part of the short in anamorphic, but as you can imagine, without machining out a proper adapter for the CP2 lenses this was a no go.

The thing that baffled me the most, is that, I have been interested into filming in anamorphic for quite a while, and believe me, I searched far and wide for lenses like this. 
Also, I found that double focusing with this lens was not really an issue, quite often I could easily focus through with the CP2s and adjust the anamorphic focus later. Rarely we needed to use a tape measurer.
I was never lucky to get my hands on an ISCO 36 or other ISCOs, so I can't really know if they are as good, therefore folks is there anyone here having played around with both?

I'm talking about the limitations of a non-cemented doublet (achromatic) diopter (vs the single element as with these vari-diopter designs) - the single element optics of these vari-diopters is a major cause of aberrations of image at wide apertures.
Having owned a FM and Core DNA, I can confirm that f4 is the stop where both focus solutions start to resolve the cleanest image on high contrast edges...especially when pushed on full frame. Sharpness 'performance' depends on your eyesight I guess.
BTW - Tito's FM that he did the test with used to be mine...so I know that lens particularly well

To me, smaller filter size and larger aperture should be better choice.  So OM 50/1.2 is the one worthy to try, only with 49mm filter thread.

I would recommend this but be aware that many zooms from this era does have a rotating front element which are not usable with anamorphics (It seems to exist 2 different version of the pentax zoom, one with and one without the rotating front filter). Might sound obvious, but just in case you haven't thought of that. (I know I did not :o )
As for the fixed length, I don't mind my anamorphic sliding on the support, but it's a good idea to find a fixed lens one
(And I guess you'll vignette from 35 to 40mm, but I'm not sure)

100K just lying around?  I need to do weddings.  Augh.  I hate weddings.

Just did a stretch factor measurement as shown by @Tito Ferradans in his video about the Kowa B&H mods.
Isco Ultrastar @ infinity (measured with a +1 diopter) : 1.99x stretch -> 2.0x
Isco Ultrastar @ 1.5m (measured without diopters) : 1.82x stretch -> 1.8x
What got me to measure it is Eddie (from Vid-Atlantic, from which I bought my new clamps), who is advertising the isco ultrastars on sale on vid-atlantic's website being advertised as 1.9x stretch anamorphic. I wanted to test that
I'm wondering if I should just unsqueeze everything @1.9x for simplicity or match the stretch factor for each shot (to this date, I always used the 2x stretch factor for ease of use with after effects)

I bought a Bolex 16/32/1.5x.... can't wait to hold him in my hands. Will receive him within a week time. Any suggestions for a taking lens for my NX1 are welcome!

Please read this thread, I wrote earlier. scheme on pic

 

I start to think about the housing for my verbascope with single focus  
 
 
 

Mine was meant to be humorous too, so if my snarky attitude came across wrong, apologies ?
 
Concerning "resolution" IMO there are two ways to cut it: numerical/objective resolution, and perceived/subjective resolution. One can be defined by calculating how many practical points of information are in your image (in our case, pixels). The other is based on how much detail the human eye perceives, and with anamorphic especially, the two are at odds. 
Objectively, you may say that by stretching a digital file by a factor of two, you have halved your numerical resolution. It is half as sharp. The catch is, though, top to bottom you have lost no sharpness. The image still has the same number of "lines" (in the case of 4K, 2160 lines). At this point, the temptation is to say, "ok, I may have lost half my resolution, but not half my sharpness. I've probably lost 1/4 of my sharpness." 
But subjectively, as the eye sees, the loss is even less. Because your vertical lines of resolution are all still there, you still have very near the original sharpness in many parts of the image. The eye picks this up, and the brain is frighteningly good at filling in the rest. Add to this that the images are changing constantly, and (all else being equal), you won't loose much perceived resolution at all over shooting spherical, even at 2X. 
The by-far most important thing has already been stated though: If you're delivering to web it doesn't matter. Most web watchers are in their phone or tablet, most of which are not 4K, or even 1080p. The minimal loss in sharpness/resolution won't even make it past the compression to be honest, but the stylistic differences in the image will. That's why I prefer 2X, as it can be more pronounced. But 1.5X also looks great, it's just a preference.

Good Evening. I'm in searching for money needed for 4x anamorphic project of mine. And here i am selling my most valuable lens in collection:  LOMO NAS4-10 2/75mm (2x squeeze factor), with rails mount and OCT18/e-mount adapter - 4500 USD
It covers full-frame (not much of lomo anamorphic does this) and that's where its shining in my opinion. Its a nice universal prime for most cases: in terms of hFOV its like 40mm and still have a nice perspective and properties of 2/75. Which it have) I love to use taking lens by itself for photography (girl portrait in attachment), its great unique lens for FF and i had modified anamorphic attachment so it can be quicker to attach and easier to colibrate. Taking lens have 15 bladed aperture (no hard stops).
I shot a lot of lifestyles reportages/promo videos with a7s, some examples shot in 1080p:
https://vimeo.com/13376337  https://vimeo.com/132940435  (some backstage: https://pp.vk.me/c625420/v625420382/165a8/rPYJsQDX0VE.jpg )
also here some videos without web compression (see vid_gentlemen_life.mp4 for most actual footage - it was shot in 4K with Shogun): http://dropmefiles.com/jvXQ1
80-90% of these materials was shot with that lomo, as i said its very universal.
Housing have some scratches from screws, one of glasses have mark on it (maybe MC mark, dont know for sure, it doesn't affect the image so i dont touch it). Everything else is in great condition. Will give more photos of gear on request if needed.
Payment through paypal. Dont have an ebay account, the only international deal i had done - buying of rectilux cdna from Louis (he's on this forum to)
And here's some interesting fact about Lomo NAS and BAS: NAS have mechanical sync single focus and BAS - singlefocus based on diopter; that's why NAS have some breathing, but way better sharpness. Thats why f2 BAS even dont have that f2: it have lock on f2.8 to compensate soft from additional glasses.

I was thinking about a solution like this using a couple of servomotors and an arduino. Give me a week to come with a solution on paper  I'm sure it's not that difficult and way cheaper than the other solution

Here is a simple cinematic test using my new a6300 camera. 
 
 

Basically, I have figured out some rules.  
Longer lens has less dioptre than shorter lens.  I got help from a friend in optical shop, where has instrument can check the lens.
These are rear lenses of different 2x anamorphic lenses:
    Sphere/Cyliner
A. +6.00/-6.00
B. +5.00/-5.00
C. +4.75/-4.75  
D. +3.50/-3.50
Front lens should be like this:
E. 0/-13.75
F. 0/-10.50
Many front lens are too thick, the instrument was unable to check.  Also some front lenses I did not take apart.  
For example, if B+F is original 2x lens, then A+F would get about 1.7X, C+F would get 2.2X, and D+F would get 2.7x. 
 
 
 
 

The Samsung NX1 and Sony A6300 have been warned. Fujifilm has arrived! No really. This time they mean it. The X-T2 shoots the best 4K I have yet seen for $1500, with a great lens range, pleasing colour science, less rolling shutter and a different approach to ergonomics to Sony.
Read the full article