Leaderboard

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :) At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen. I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question. I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping). The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY? The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground. The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m. Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport. I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again. There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all. The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks). Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

I shot my short film on the 550D. Some shots still look quite amazing:

what his videos scream out is that the camera and the lens he is using are the least important aspect in the whole production. His resources are likely spent elsewhere; socialising with fellow creatives, travelling and subconsciously scouting locations, living a cultured French lifestyle - he probably has parents who are also artistic or creative. Writing, reading, watching independent cinema. I imagine he's a guy who would decline an alexa 4:3 and a set of round fronts because it would hinder his apparent efficiency and holistic working process to film making. I'd also hazard a guess Kendy won't even have realised he had a staff pick award or the notice a boost in vimeo plays thanks to this topic on eoshd. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum we have the forum culture who are driven by the technology side of things. Resources spent on things like:- electricity, regularly upgraded computers and camera gadgets, socialising with other tech driven people in an artificial social environment, sitting at a computer desk rather than viewing the world, writing (forum posts), reading (forum posts), watching camera test videos rather than real films. Obviously there are half way housers who are interested in both creativity and technology but ultimately having the technology and consuming taking up valuable time is going to impact on the pure creative aspect.

A Drop In The Ocean: Behind The Move: Kendy Ty shoots with a Canon 550D / T2i and Sigma 30mm F1.4. The results are staggering considering the 'low-fi' performance of the gear. If ever there was a spur to get out and shoot something, this is it... Read the full article here

themartist, thanks for the tips and corrective feedback...just out of curiosity do you disagree with what i've written? I also like to engage in conversation despite having expertise or tons of experience, it helps me shape my opinion and build my knowledge, i've learned a lot from shooting on my own but a ton more by posting and reading here. So I will continue to chime in respectfully, and hope to hear feedback on my commentary directly.

This will be THE video camera for doing sex tapes :)

You can load your video into Photoshop CC, convert to a Smart Object, use Adobe Camera RAW as a filter, then render back out.

The examples you provide of cinematographers who use deep focus are good ones. Nobody is saying they aren’t great. And no-one is saying that deep focus is not a great look. But to say a cinematographer who uses selective focus is not great because they use it is just strange. I can’t see the basis of the argument. There are plenty of selective focus shots in the godfather, among deep focus. Typically selective focus for the closeups and mid shots and deep focus for the wide shots. Do you think that the godfather has gimmicky cinematography? What is wrong with the director or dp indicating where the viewer should look with focus? How is it any different to lighting the scene with different intensities that may attract the eye, or compositional elements that direct the eye, or zoom shots that hone in on a particular element that the director deems relevant? I take exception to the word gimmick. It seems to come from a place of pomposity, as if you feel that shallow depth of field has somehow less artistic integrity. If you were to say that you personally prefer deep focus I would have no quarrel, but you are making absolute statements that shallow focus is a gimmick used by non-great dps. What definition of the word gimmick are you using? Definitions I have found are: "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade." Can the inherent characteristics of an optical system be considered a trick? Apart from when the 5dii first came out, I can’t see it attracting attention in of itself. A film shot with fast primes on a 5d3 might be more appealing to a client than a film shot on a camcorder, but I would argue it is because the image is more visually attractive, not because it is attention grabbing. Wikipedia describes it: " a gimmick is a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries." Since everyone is doing shallow depth of field now, how is using it standing out from ones contemporaries. In fact, one could suggest that deep focus achieves this definition more closely. didn’t citizen cane stand out for this reason. Though I would never call deep focus it a gimmick. Perhaps the word you mean is crutch or substitute. That people use shallow depth of field as a crutch to make up for a lack of other things (although they may be unaware of what is lacking). Probably in many cases with amateur film making this is true. But it doesn’t follow that a great photographer should never use selective focus. I happen to find that the varying focus through a scene can have a lot of beauty. Let’s not forget that it isn’t a case of either f1.4 or f22. There is a whole range in between. Those that think f8 provides deep focus are mistaken. Even the slightest of background blur is visible and has an effect on the dimensional quality of the image. Even the easy rider example you gave had the background out of focus in certain shots. I see depth of field as a parameter: too little can be detrimental in certain situations and too much can be detrimental in others.

Dilemma of the century. Do you take the advantages of raw or 4K? Do you take the full frame sensor or the crop? Do you take the DSLR form factor or the advantages for video of mirrorless? This is something I've been really trying to draw a conclusion on in recent weeks for my own sanity! Read the full article here

Hello everyone, Here is my latest video work, an ad I shot with the red one mx: hope you like it, let me know what you think I also started a facebook page for my photo/video works: http://www.fb.com/karimnassarofficial If you follow me there please pm me with your page so I can follow you back! looking forward to hearing your thoughts

My first shot with the new camera and this lens adaptor. I am still learning. Cannon 50mm 22/f 200 ISO San Disk Extreme Pro card - 95MB/s (1) Afternoon light on a hazy day, no filters. Love the camera. Let me know what you think. Thanks, RJett

Nope, not even close.. Redstans are beautiful. Website seems to be back online. Did you get in contact?

Thanks everyone :) Nope, just good ol' 8 bit h.264. I used Contax Zeiss lenses back then (and still do, they are amazing)

Superb. Only 35mm film and a better score would have made this any more authentically cinema for me. I wish I had your skills

looks superb Homerus Act of Valor was shot by Shane Hurlbut on Canon 7d (apsc) cos they could use PL Mount Cinema lenses on it and have the corect field of view with them unlike the 5D MKIIs they also used that needed full frame lenses Zeiss ZE http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/05/chaos-in-harmony-by-kevin-anderson-rental-manager-at-hurlbut-visuals/pl-mount-5d-7d/ http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2011/02/zeiss-a-cinematic-journey-on-act-of-valor/ the film looked great I watched it without knowing it was shot mainly on Canon Cameras

is this raw 550d? lens?

58mm will get you a good deal of vignetting, and MASSIVE distortion. I shot this with a Helios 58mm and a Kowa for B&H, 5D3:

I was very impressed with the cinema 100mb/s 4kc mode compared to the 200mb/s 1080p mode. I brought both into after effects for some color grading, and the 4k footage grades and keys a LOT better than high bitrate 1080p. Macroblocking is way less visible in 4k, but for some reason, the recording time available on my card shows a lot more time remaining when in 4K cine mode than in 1080 200mb/s; nearly double the amount of recording time! There's something about how 4k compression that just works much more efficiently than 1080p, giving much more color depth and resolution even at lower bitrates.

*UPDATE* So I figured out that Quicktime is only averaging the bit rate. When you play the clips in VLC and view the statistics while it plays, there are peaks that get closer to the 100Mbps mark.

Thanks for the kind words Andrew. And yes, It seems I have done a lot, with at least another 15 that have either never been released (nearly all because the artist didn't like how they looked), taken down some time after they were posted, or never paid for in one or two cases. I don't really charge a lot though, which forces me to work quickly. Normally these days I'll have the edit done in around 4 hours, or more for the more complex videos. And I'm pretty lazy with colour grading. I'll match up the levels of all the clips, and then find preset colour look in any of the plugins I use, and modify that. I think it's good to stick with just one camera too. And even just one lens. The less decisions you have to make about what gear to use, the easier everything becomes.

John, Thanks. I can't seem to locate any copy of Bell&Howell less than 800 USD. I really would not want to spend that much if I can help it. Is the Prominar or the Centavision that much worse than the B&H? Julian, Thanks. I have been looking around for a Nikon MF 85mm f2 and I think that should do the job. I looked into the Jupiter and it looks like it's a bit of a hit or miss with that lens. As for the focusing, yes, I'm aware that you have to focus both lenses. I won't be following a moving subject wit this lens. If anything moves within the frame, it will be going from side to side and not towards and away from me. Or I'll tell them to stop moving. :)

It's funny, the other day while I was tidying up and sorting through an old hard drive, I found some of Kendy's videos I'd downloaded years ago, from when he was shooting pigeons around Paris on a little Canon Ixus 110. Inspired me to go out and get the same camera, which I ended up shooting 4 or 5 music videos with.

The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a very good lens it was my standard lens on my 550d (its an aspc lens not a full frame lens), I have shot about 10 pop videos with this lens and the Canon 50mm f1.4 which works well with it as a companion lens . I still use the Sigma on my G6 as it is very sharp wide open for low light scenes and with the Lens Turbo EF to micro 4/3 adapter it is even sharper wider and now faster.....F1.0 and approx 21mm on the G6 ,which is great for all those Fincher style low light wide shots - This just goes to show its not the camera its the person behind the camera that counts.

Amazing stuff, I love my old t2i as well. Have been shooting wedding films with it until very recently. This wedding film is 100% with the t2i. Im not as talented as the guy above :), but I think it still holds up pretty well...

I'm pleased you took my message as I intended it. I didn't want to come across combative at all, thats not my intention. Ive mentioned before that really most Micro 43rd, APSC mirrorless/DSLRs can do the job. Some might be better than others according to the user. Its relative. But I tell you this, I would be delighted to have a 5D. My only problem with it is the size (both for traveling and as it may draw more attention to me in more dangerous countries). But for you, I say get to know your camera like the back of your hand. By the time you've improved, maybe they bring out the Canon 5D mark iiii - in which case you still have your lenses and have learned the system. I disagree on your understanding of and obsession with the filmic look and I think its crazy to chase after a "perfect camera" that you feel will get you closer to that vision rather than focus on your skills. Camera bodies are almost disposable. Invest in lenses, but most of all invest in your own skill set.

It's even better when they jack up the shutter speed to 1000 when they're outdoors on a bright day.

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot while reading this thread. It doesn't seem to come up often enough how important it is to get to know your camera/kit inside out. Personally I'd rather use a 'lesser' camera I'd had for 6 months or more (one I knew exactly how to get the best/what I wanted out of) than a 'better' camera I'd only had for a few months and wasn't so confident/intuitive with. Until very recently, you could even have gone so far as to say that because H264 cameras are relatively so close in video quality, the best one is the one you have used the most. That's how I feel after watching some of Kendy's films anyway.

The above seems so tragically steeped in deep subjectivity that it's almost inflammatory. There was otherwise great discussion until this. All art, apparently, derives from a healthy dose of illusion and its crafting. There are various techniques. Simply. Why elevate your private thoughts (or others) about what "truly great" directors do to the level of universal truth? Remember, if you are making (...art, especially) you are constructing (reality, specifically). Again, various techniques.

Thanks Ebrahim! How would you suggest I change the lighting/camera-settings to be more flattering? Thanks Pablo! A couple years ago I worked on Background Subtraction image processing apps (desktop and mobile) where we removed the background without a green screen. There's lots of cool tricks that would help with a green screen- not present in Premiere's Ultra or other chroma key filters. There's another chroma key in AE- didn't try it as AE is so slow and we had limited time. Have you tried the recipe? That's something I came up with- so far everyone who's tried it loves it. Grapeseed and coconut oil are both healthy oils for cooking (not non-stick per se). We cook on iron pans (safest / most healthy (no teflon)). Picture Profile 6 Settings with changes (any value not listed is 0 or default): Black Level: 0 GAMMA: CINE4 BLACK GAMMA: RANGE: MIDDLE, LEVEL: +4 KNEE: MODE: MANUAL, MANUAL SET: 75%, SLOPE: +5 COLOR MODE: TYPE: STILL, LEVEL: 8 COLOR LEVEL: -2 COLOR PHASE: +4 (this may need to be tweaked based on lights used) COLOR DEPTH: B: +7, C: +7 (same comment regarding lights used) WB SHIFT: FILTER TYPE: LB-CC, LB[COLOR TEMP]: -4, CC[MG/GR]: +2, RGAIN: -9, B GAIN: +9 (same comment regarding lights) DETAIL: 0 Again, the goal is no 'look'- accurate representation of the scene is the goal. I'll do another test with this light set up and no green screen.

Aperture settings between 0.95 and 1.8