PepperJay

I wanted to share a run and gun vacation travel film in Costa Rica. I took a Baby Hypergonar 1.75x with Voigtländer 40mm f2 and Bolex 8/19/1.5x with Jupiter 11a f4 135mm. I had a ProtoDNA variable diopter in front of both combos. GH5 scenery setting. Finished in 5k. 
 
 

Thats the one....... The red dot is part of the alignement mechanism (how you adjust the alignment of the anamorphot) However that whole black plastic bottom part is removable. It's best to remove that and get a clamp so you can align it properly. This is a video I uploaded tonight all shot on the Ikon and Helios 44/2 as the taking lens........ 
 
Its nothing special just a journey home from work I shot the other night. I've been so busy I've not really shot much with it. There's not much info on this lens though so thought I would upload something. If anyone has any questions about it I'm happy to answer.

Hey, just wanted to let fellow Bolex owners that the RAF mount is perfect. The 24mm rear (and rare) threading for the Bolex is .5 and it fits onto a 55mm filter thread of your taking lens. I had a problem with the initial unit sent because his engineer had the threading size wrong (probably .75), but he's such an awesome seller he sent me the replacement right away and told me to keep the bad one--I'll probably bore the threads out as it still has a side-screw option. Main point: test it right away!
Here's the ebay listing:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/M52x0-75-male-to-M24x0-5-female-step-down-ring-adapter-for-Bolex-8-19-1-5x/253109973155?hash=item3aee87b0a3:g:Y6gAAOSwz~VZnKg~
Cheers!

Partially music video, partially test. Shot on Schneider ES Cinelux 2x | Porst 50mm 1.4 and new prototype lens Vormax 1.33x, paired with Mir 1b 37mm. Camera Sony a6300.


 
setups:

Cheers ! I actually only used the Nikon Pancake 50 1.8, with a variety of cheap diopters.

Hello. I recently purchased a pre-36 from a user on here, and used it for a project; a promo for an arts fair, held on the kubrick estate every year.
 
 Hope you like it !

Welcome and congrats on a nice deal! Not that you asked (or that you didn't already know), but I'd recommend checking out a Rapido set if you're thinking about more anamorphics down the line, particularly those 8mm babies. They're cheap and often universal to other lenses:
http://www.rapidotechnology.com/
Nice tests, too!

Ah, sorry. I think this is the one, but it says 8-H instead:
ebay Kowa Anamorphic listing
Maybe it's the wrong one, but somewhat cheaper. Thanks anyway!

Hey Aanamorphic shooters!,
You're all invited to Anamorphic on a Budget in Amsterdam. Here we all can meet, network and of course show each other's anamorphic sets. The event will take place on Friday December 15th 18:00 - 21:00 at Zamenhofstraat 108 unit 201 at the camera rental Budgetcam Amsterdam.
The GH5's are set up, Red scarlet-W, Varicam LT and the Ursa mini pro, so that we can test all our vintage lenses on beautiful focus charts for fun. Budgetcam provides hospitality. Access is free of charge. You can RSVP at http://bit.ly/2AnFVO2 or via tomas@budgetcam.nl!
Bring your own anamorphic sets!
Thanks Tito Ferradans and Tim Moichido!

Reevaluate? Your listing practices versus everybody else's, yeah, based on that, whatever revision you've been told to do could have been done in the same old thread, cheeky bugger.

Yes, yes, very pretty. Maybe post this stuff in the "Gear for Sale" forum and keep this one for everything else, okay?

Nice find and repurpose--looks part tank now! :D

Thanks guys for the replies, As I take a deeper look at the lens there seems to be microscratches... Oh well just have to live with it for no. Cheers!

Saw Blade Runner 2049 yesterday (no plot spoilers in my observations). This is a generally well-realized near-future sci-fi film, as many of the modern fully-funded Hollywood blockbusters are (this one is estimated as costing between $150-185 million depending on what you read). But it does seem somewhat formulaic, lacking any special distinction or energy. It pays homage to the advertising nightmare rainy city as before, and in the breakers yard wasteland goes for a more Mad Max vibe. But non of it has a truly unique knock-out experience as the earlier film managed with less advanced effects. Seeing Blade Runner in 1982 was nothing short of a cinematic revelation about what was possible, given the commitment of various art departments through sheer force of personality and vision. And since things have moved on so much now (the artistry of the CGI people is incredible), it does not give anything like a new version of that sense of wonder which jolted me in the eighties.
The sound design follows the trend of many modern action films in being set at a painfully high level - the sort of film in which just putting a drink down on a table sounds like a firecracker going off, and drawing on a cigarette briefly sounds like a bush fire. On this film, a gun shot was as loud as an huge explosion, taking me out of the story every time because of the discomfort. And this was more easy than it should have been, because the story itself felt confused to me and several times I found myself wondering how much longer the film was going on (never a good sign). Although the trailer gives the impression of a sophisticated fast-paced action thriller, in fact everything takes a long time, and is not particularly worth waiting for. Unfortunately it's not very sophisticated either, with uninspired dialogue. I did actually feel mildly bored, which surprised me - I didn't think they would make that mistake - because the overall drama remained cold and uninvolving. Non of the characters turned out to be anyone I could care for, compared to key scenes in the original, such as when Rachel starts playing a piano (and says: "I didn't know I could play."). With the original the audience felt like crying, in this new one some of the characters cry, but it doesn't ring true. It's a bit like watching a full-on romance movie in which it is obvious there is no chemistry between the two lead actors - all of the humans watching such a movie know it immediately: that these two people are only together because they have been badly cast in a movie. In the same way the new Blade Runner story continues with the theme of what it means to be human in a difficult future world of synthetic people, yet tells it with little show of the humanity which is supposed to be so important.
Seeing the original movie in the cinema was a life-changing experience, and I eagerly bought the VHS, then later many versions on DVD, etc-etc. It was a way of keeping in touch with a dream, but I have no interest in watching this one again - in any formats that may exist in the future. I opted to see the 2D version of the film because the movie was shot in 2D - ironically, the 3D version has been synthetically processed to give a 3D effect. It's not that I dislike this movie because I liked the original so much, my reaction would be the same if the original never existed. Because it's a disappointing movie in its own right, though obviously without knowing that I had to see it out of a slight hope there was something of the mesmerizing quality of Rachel's self-realization. But of course there is only one Sean Young.

Off topic, but I'm 99% certain that that is the theatre where I saw The Good Thief with a post-screening Q&A with Nick Nolte the first time I visited LA. That was awesome. Ah, memories.
This, absolutely.
 
 

I have two theaters, both local ones,
my favorite:

(great little doc on it here, albeit missing Victor the Super Manager...):
https://la.curbed.com/2015/5/26/9956894/watch-a-brief-history-of-the-1923-vista-theatre-in-los-feliz
and since I moved:

I love both venues, but even they've been increasing the decibel levels of their exhibitions like inflation. I guess I just find it hard to believe that my ears are actually getting more sensitive in my 40's. One of my first sh*t jobs was in a theater, and never once had I heard anyone complain that the volume was too low. Anyway, Blade Runner I saw at the Vista and now my wife will never come with me again.

I filmed two weeks during our summer holiday, so there are a few more scenery films to follow ;-) enjoy! 
Samsung NX1 + Voigtländer Ultron 40mm f2.0 + Bolex 16/32/1.5x + Hardcore DNA 
 

Thanks for the info--very nice contribution again!

The Lens Turbo does not remove sharpness from my experience, but add a slight blue flare.
I think that the lack of contrast has more to do with my grading than to the helios as it was closed down to f/2.8. But you're right, the helios is not as contrasty as modern lenses.
Keep in mind that the Singer/Sankor 16D I have is partially uncoated (front element), so your results ught differ
Yep, the Hi-Fi 2 flares are epic ! I find the Dyaliscope to be quite good too

Great compilation! I like the Singer/Sankor for over-the-top sci-fi applications, and (surprisingly) the Cinelux for the subtle ones. Was the lack of contrast due to the Helios? Does the Lens Turbo II have any affect on the same?

Here is a quick comparison between the anamorphic lenses I have.
The goal is to compares the flares and sharpness.
Hypergonar Hi-Fi 2
Dyaliscope Champion
Singer/Sankor 16D (uncoated)
Elmoscope 1
Isco Ultra-Star
Schneider Cinelux.
All shots with :
BMMCC
Mitakon Lens Turbo II
Helios 44-2
Focused to infinity, using a +1 close up diopter (Hama) except for the cinelux which used the Rectilux Hardcore DNA
(Sorry for the misaligned Cinelux shot, didn't see it until edit.)
Shot in Raw 3:1, edited and graded in Resolve. Applied the same color correction to all the shots.
I chose this lens, so that every anamorphic adapter would not show vignetting.
Equivalent focal length is 58 (Helios 44-2) * 0.72 (Lens Turbo) * 2.88 (BMMCC) = 120mm (FF)
The flares from the Hypergonar and Dyaliscope are just epic. 
I really like the subtle flares of the Elmo I
The flares of the ultrastar and cinelux are very muted, as expected.
The Singer (Sankor) 16D shot is just to show what happens if you want to uncoat your lens  
What do you think ?  

SF is my favorite genre, and perhaps not surprisingly, Blade Runner my favorite movie, but this one never connected with me. That said, my hopes weren't high to begin with. Of the director's previous work, I much prefer Prisoners over The Arrival, the latter which--unlike apparently most critics on rottentomatos--I felt insulted by. Not Elysium insulted, and certainly not Signs violated, but the air of condescension was a bit thick as the credits rolled. But back to this new work. First off, however, I need to send out a message to the film mixers and/or theater owners in this country:
PLEASE STOP TRYING TO BLOW OUR F*CKING EARDRUMS OUT!!!
What's the thinking here? Rattle our bones with Zimmer horns every 20 minutes just to wake us up? Film scores are supposed to help guide us emotionally through scenes, not jar our goddamned teeth loose. My wife was measuring the decibels (from inside her bag--no ambient light a-holes here) in the back row and it was averaging over 126 dBs whenever there was a scene transition. She had earplugs and still had to sit the last 45 minutes in the lobby of the theater. Such a gentleman she's got, I know...
Actually, that's really all I had to say for now. In my youth, I could talk all night about a new movie, but these last few years consuming Diet Coke, I have to watch it at least a second time before I can even approach forming a concise and fair opinion worth the time it takes to listen/read. I do, however, agree with at least one other contributor before me saying the plot was pretty convoluted. To be fair, I think half the plot was already lost on me, because despite the volume set to "sphincter-puckering," all the women not named Robin Wright mumbled their way through half their lines. Not that it would have mattered, because I think the main point for now is that after watching the original at least 200 times, the entire point of the movie was never intended to be that complex: A robot hunts other robots and discovers what it means to be human. Ridley, God bless his heart, was just old school enough to let you figure that last part out for yourself. Wasn't even a twist by then, really. Too subtle for some, never accepted by others, painfully clear to the ones that would go on to subject themselves to a 2nd viewing...and maybe a few more after. The reason I love the original was actually because the story was thin, the theme was heavy, but the visuals made me feel like I was looking into a window into the future. Dystopianland. Yeah, screw it, I'd go.
Anyway, one last detail before I sign off: This film, for all its visual competence, fell sadly short on one movie staple that really would have gone a long way: who exactly is the baddie? Rutger Hauer might not have been a traditional villain, but he was a perfectly compelling foil to Ford, particularly when Ford wasn't onscreen. Luv was a tool, Leto was embarrassingly lame, and as bad as his acting is, I would have preferred keeping Bautista around for at least some degree of physical menace on the hunt. Also, the android physics were wildly inconsistent. Like stupid inconsistent. But nothing that a little Zimmer-induced aneurysm shouldn't be able to take care of.
Despite my critique of the movie, I really don't hate it--I just don't feel much for it. Oh, my God, was that the intent all along..?
 

I am 3d printing out sizer rings for it so i can mount it to my rails. cant wait to see how it performs, especially at the corners! The flares that I got with it from hand holding were the best I have ever seen.

+11
I am sick of it!! I go to watch a movie not to be blasted into submission. It's a form of punishment that only the sadistic and the moronic actually enjoy!
Glad someone else spotted this mini-trailer for yet another sequel.
With the crap box office, I hope they cancel it!!

Hahaha, it's a valid question I think!
I would still stick with Pre-36 or original Iscorama - since that's what they were, by coming attached to an infinity-fixed 50mm (various mounts) -, the anamorphic attachment was labeled purely "Iscorama", and the differences between the original one and the 36 are tiny.
I would love to hear other people's opinions as well, though! :D