PepperJay

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..?
 

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..?
 

First batch babies are getting ready for shipping.
 

Thanks guys!
 
So if it doesn't say "MC," it might be single coated or it might be multicoated.  That ebay listing looks nice, and definitely looks single coated.  The price seems a little crazy though, compared to other lenses I have seen being sold. 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Non-MC-Iscorama-36-1-5x-anamorphot-anamorphic-lens-adapter-in-rare-NOS-condition-/253204521615?hash=item3af42a628f:g:rQMAAOSwrohZ3ycA

Listing photo. Looks non-MC (single coated) like the Pre-36.
Seems to be the best of both lenses, rear element size and Non-MC.
 
This may be an extreme opposite, but it serves:

 
 
Related video of 36 MC vs. Pre-36:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mG2jee5UScE

 
And a thread:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjG0Mbg1e3WAhUJrlQKHalmAhsQFggoMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eoshd.com%2Fcomments%2Ftopic%2F3829-who-else-has-a-single-coated-iscorama-36%2F&usg=AOvVaw1pP9ZnvIJ1WELm5BBeL7PH
 

The full body prototype is in production already, but it's far down in the queue, not a top priority. Also the price is yet unknown, though it will definitely less then VD.

send it to Van Diemen

Greetings, Anamorphic Community,
I've been working on trying to restore an "as is" 36 purchase I made in a foggy haze of ebay madness earlier this year. See original listing pic below: (Those are dead bugs under the front element. Yep, dead bugs. The inner elements have what was believed to be either fungus or deteriorated glue.)

After sending it out to a well-known specialist for servicing, it was returned to me with regret that it couldn't be worked on because the front focusing element was not accessible due to tightness in the threads (after the four front screws were removed). Also, the plastic ring w/ label took a little beating in the process, but I'll get to that later.
However, it seems that before sending it back to me, lubricating oil was generously applied inside in the hopes of loosening up the parts, and by the time I was able to inspect it again, the lens was able to open up this far without any tools.

At this point, I have only to attempt to unscrew the inner element housing (2nd from the left) in order to clean the lenses, although I'm a little nervous about alignment after the work. It's very possible I've already set myself up for some extra trial & error work because I pretty much accidentally opened up before I even realized what I was doing, let alone set some markers (or, yes, even some masking tape to protect the glass--will be rectified immediately, I promise).
Anyway, I'm a sort of crossroads here. I could use my spanner wrench to get in there and do the deed myself, or send it back to the service shop to clean, lube and align for several hundred dollars. The other option, however, is to send it to Van Diemen for the $1,100 VI housing (assuming the optics are up to snuff, naturally). What hurts, though, is knowing that the VII exists for more than twice the price. If they ever sold the (what seems to be vastly improved upon) updated version for around $1,500 USD (or even via another batch purchase like Andrew Wonder's in 2014--any takers?) , I'd be in, but right now it'll come in over $2,600--a bit too rich for my blood.
Another option is to go with a half-mod, at an appropriately lower price, but given the age of the current plastic housing (and the unsightliness of the damaged ring--a merely cosmetic, but still costly hit in the hypothetical future of selling my stash for recreational drugs), I'd really like to explore a full-metal body design, despite the weight increase. Also, the improved minimum focus and the shorter focus throw are a given if I'm spending anything more. I know I could file the stopper myself, but the anxiety of either worrying about it separating on me by rotating it too far on a shoot or even popping a hole and screw in the lens just seems too stress-inducing and/or ghetto for what I've already paid. BTW, no offense to anyone ghetto-rigging anything--I just have a knee-jerk reaction to this particular op on this particular class of lens.
Any suggestions/comments/news on the housing front? I heard Rich was developing something a few years ago, but it seems viable options are fairly limited in this understandably niche market. The perfect scenario would be if someone could just 3-D scan the shit out of the current plastic housing parts and simply recreate it out of a far more durable material. Note: I say "simply" because I probably don't know what hell I'm talking about. :D
Best to all, and thanks to everyone for your contributions past, present and future.
-Jason

Hey guys, I wanted to share this rehousing mod I made recently for my Iscorama 36.

It's a replacement for a front piece of old plastic housing, that is made of anodized aluminum and has cine gears, retaining 72mm front filter threads and adding just 50 grams of weight.
It took me quite some time to figure out this design and I'm pretty proud of it! It solves some real-world problems like close-focus, enabling you to focus down to 1.1m, but unlike DIY mode it has a hard stop at 1.1m and infinity, and looks way nicer then a grub screw drilled into a hole. 

I made a little video explaining what it is, since after I posted this on facebook people started asking what it does and what are the specs, and asking how to buy one. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd1w620ddxnv2je/proxiscope.pdf?dl=0

I have decided to order a small batch of these, and already placed an order at one of the shops that does the first stage of the milling. I will make another video showing a closeup process of swapping the housings, so people can evaluate the effort and see if the price (which will be announced at the same time) is right for them. This is intended as a do-it-at-home kind of mod, but you can also take it to the nearest photo technician and they'd be able to do it for you, it's a simple process that takes 3-5 minutes to perform.
I also made a PDF with some specs, you can find it here. https://www.dropbox.com/s/wd1w620ddxnv2je/proxiscope.pdf?dl=0

If you're interested in getting one – shoot me a message and we'll figure it out, there's a little queue forming already

Use the lenses, definitely--they cost less in the long run!
 

Use the lenses, definitely--they cost less in the long run!
 

Thanks for passing that valuable info along, racer5! My initial impression is that he's made the best trade-off, as I'd find more run & gun subjects within the 15m range, and wouldn't find it a problem stopping down for infinity shots at wider focal lengths anyway. In terms of my own conversion plans, I guess I'll simply have to test the limitations of what I have without screwing with the optics (aside from removing the 1" rear barrel housing the two rear elements--see above grab if interested) and see what it yields. Given what's currently online to reference, the only "mod" I can fathom done to the one for sale is altering the rear element position (within main lens body), which I'm not presently set up to replicate. In any event, much gratitude again for the post--a very informative starting point for understanding the potential of this little gem.
* 1060 pic grabbed from Kostas' old sale--retro thanks.

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.

Here Here! Goes without saying...
Think I've said it all in my previous posts, but lets be clear about this once & for all - this is NOT an Iscorama, not by a long shot! It's a focus through & NOT a single focus anamorphic attachment like a true Iscorama, which will focus from 2m to Infinity.
If it works like the Isco Widescreen 2000, then it does produce really nice images but it's a PITA to use.
I came on this thread initially to warn people about this lens - there's a lot of bad info about these sorts of lenses. So, lets be clear about it - the 2000 will not focus to infinity, not now, not ever. It's blurred & not in focus. The 2000 is fixed at 5m & it's focus through range is from 4m-6m, at best. When you're filming with it things will kinda look in focus, but if you zoom in it's soft/blurry. Project your footage on a big screen & you'll have a fit/curse the day you ever believed this was a good purchase.
However, if you get some diopters & stick to the 5m mark on your taking lens, then you can change it's focus range - you can also use different lens for close-ups & wides etc... At 5m it's stunning, everything else is meeeeeeh!

Thanks, I only bought it recently from ebay seller Mario Gorlas (die_bitsbox  http://www.ebay.de/usr/die_bitsbox?_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2754). He had it serviced by a former film technician. They met each other at WDR station, where he also used to service analog film cutting tables. He's also familiar with anamorphics and now services all of Marios lenses.
I would not know how to open the Bolex but I can tell from my recent experiences with the Rectimascop that front and rear elements are correctly aligned (...that's the case if the horizontal flares of front and back lens are parallel and the image is perfectly sharp also if you look directly through the lens). The Rectimascop is a great lens to learn such things as it's very simple to disassemble. Also the focus marks of the Bolex hit precisely.
 

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!
 

Hi all,
Has anyone come across one of these before, I can't seem to find out anything about this lens?
Front markings are ISCO-GÖTTINGEN ISCORAMA - ANAMORPHOT 1.5x - 49 MC.
It has the the same front and rear element diameters as a 54. However this one has a 72mm rear mounting thread, and instead of buttons, has the same alignment mechanism as the 42.
I haven't been able to test it yet, thinking of hacking together a UV filter mount. In the meantime does anyone have any more info on this lens?
Any help would be most appreciated.
Thank you!

 

filter thread added.

Hey, months ago I get the same lens with the same problem, unfortunately I didn´t accept the deal with the seller, which was that I had to send it back to him and pay the shipping, and I kept the lens hoping I would be abble to service it myself. Nothing "normal" worked. I can´t get a focused image in the gh4  and I did some experiments. This is not that the image is soft, it is not focused. Now the lens is servicing in a lens specialized, but they called me saying they don´t know how to repair it. 
Any advice? I can send it to a trusted servicing that you recomend, I can not sell or use it now so only way is to try to fix it. Thank you very much in advance!

I wanted to share my new video I shot with the Baby Hypergonar. Olympus Zuiko 38mm f1.9 was taking lens. 60 time lapse over 3 months. Watch with a glass of wine before bed because it's a real sleeper
 

Holy crap a 1000 pounds! Congrats indeed.

I agree with Timotheus. I bought one for less than half that a few months ago (mostly plastic parts) from Germany; rebadge of Sankor/Singer 16D or Bolex 16F. Seems like a decent enough starter lens, but $300 is a bit steep, unless it holds some mind-blowing secret...

Btw, sliding V2 clamp with anamorphic lens on a rail is possible, so changing taking lens can be quickly done.
People asked about how solid is the V2 clmap.  I tried HIFI-2 (3.48lb), Bauch & Lomb attachment I (3.68lb), Bell & Hewell (6.49lb), See picture of holding them with the clamp on the rail. My tripod mount start titling when mounting the Bell & Hewell, but the clamp is still showing no sign of deflecting.
When playing with this clamp, I realize it could be also used as a handheld arm for holding the anamorphic lens & the camera together, just like the director view finder, see the picture below of KOWA 35mm anamorphic lens, Rokinon 85mm and GH4 held together by the V2 clamp.








It is coming, it will be a dedicated variable diopter, which is optimized for the modded lens, but it has standard thread size, not 75mm for sure, you can reuse it for other anamorphic lens, but result is not guaranteed. 

I just finished a video that is a collection of shots from my trip to Tehran during May of 2016. I hope you enjoy some of the sights I captured of this beautiful city. GH4 4k Baby Hypergonar 1.75x anamorphic with Linos MeVis 35mm f1.6 and the Zeiss Ultron 50mm f1.8. Rectilux 3FF-S, Marumi + 3 achromatic diopter and Fujinon ENG 72mm close up lens. Edited in Adobe Premiere and colored using Colorista III.
 

Shame, I can recommend the Isco Widescreen 2000 as one of the best of the Focus Through/Fixed Focus lenses out there - Run'n'Gun or whatever you want: