Leaderboard

i sold 40 of the tokina single element +0.5 and 70 tokina +0.4 achromatic doublet. it took 2 mins of flipping in and out to see the power of the achromatic design. clearly the doublet advantage is in the f1.4-f4 range by far the biggest improvements was with century/optex design and other slightly rough or off anamorphics. what you want with the best anamorphics is the min introduction of error from a poor additional quality optic. most single element stuff is shit and will degrade the image. schneider are using single element for price point they shift more at 250 dollars than a doublet at 700-1000. i have had many optics ex nasa and they loved doublets. over 100 anamorphic nutters have the tokina. the original price was quite good selling today would get some people a nice profit but i see people keeping the achromat and selling the anamorphic. clearly they cannot all be mind controlled idiots. it would be a lot easier if we knew exactly what gear mr barlow has and if he has done these tests himself. i have always offered a full refund on the tokina doublet never had even one returned even when the buyer had a single element tokina at the same time. as i stated before economics are behind this cemented doublets are more complex and you cannot cut corners with them so they should always be an improvement. iscorama is one of the few lens that does not degrade the image hitting the taking lens. the tokina doublets do not degrade the image either. making statements and hinting that low power doublets are pointless is futile. if you have one john why have you still got it ? i have a lovely 5cm nikkor 1.1 lens from the 1950s i also have an f1 leica noctilux. do i really need them when i can sell them for thousands and buy a cheap noctor 0.95. do i need the doublet or these other lens yes simply because the quality is fantastic and superior to other stuff i have tried.

it seems to really pop under the right light. did u use a dolly too?

  Although I never worked on The Hobbit I do work within the visual effects industry. I have to take exception to your comments above. I work with many highly skilled animators who all try to convey emotion in every scene they work on. Although not all of them may be fully versed in cinema language a great many of them are. It is an essential part of being a good animator. Ultimately the creative decisions made on how a CG shot should feel in terms of camera framing and movement, pacing, look and emotion come down to the director. Every CG shot has to go through an approval process before it is deemed fit to be in the film and the final decision ultimately lies with the director. If he or she's not happy it either doesn't make the cut or has to be re-worked until it does work. I agree that many blockbuster films are too CG heavy and lack the subtlety that may be conveyed in live-action. I feel that this problem is not due to uninspired or uneducated CG artists but more to uninspiring films and direction. Too often films are made to outdo each other in terms of the scale of CG used. I believe this is driven by studios trying to get more people through the cinema door and is guided by directors who are often so beholden to the studios that they have no real creative control over a film. I'd think that Peter Jackson has more control over his films (though the fact they've stretched The Hobbit out to 3 films make me question this somewhat) and that if the CG isn't working it's his fault, not the artists creating it. We, as visual effects artists, are often so far down the line of creative authority that we have no say in how a shot is to be constructed. CG doesn't have to be big, loud and showy. In my opinion the best work is that which you don't even notice, and it does exist more than you probably realise. So please, realise that when you say dismissive things like we're just a team of designers with a mouse and not artists that some of us may find it offensive.

Hi Andrew,   Nice summary of critical responses.  I believe the best film critic working today is Joe Morgenstern, his take on the Hobbit is as follows...   "This movie, projected at 48 frames per second, does not flicker; there's a smoothness, almost a creaminess, to the movement. At the same time, though, it feels less like a movie and more like the most elaborate video you've ever seen, a result that's more unsettling than likable. I wish I'd also seen it, for comparison's sake, in 3-D without the high frame rate, because the 3-D is effective. But there wasn't enough time to go back and see it again, and, to be honest, no burning desire to spend another two hours and 49 minutes in Middle-earth."   IMO, the most eloquent summary; in only 4 sentences.   I.   Illya Friedman President Hot Rod Cameras www.hotrodcameras.com

Just got drunk with (whats a gathering of projectionists?) with a load of old De Lane Lea projection and film legends, who've seen it all more than once on the xmas do - verdict from the old chaps - video couldnt have been mentioned more - it is what it is

The ISO test is insane, but you have to wonder if the lighting was turned down of if the NDs, aperture or shutter was changed to compensate for the ISO increases. Because an ISO test under strong studio lights is the height of bunk.

Wow, jg, this is great (like the music too)!