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.

Yes very helpful friendly members there, frequented the site for many years. Here's a SMC Tak breakdown, scroll down below the Canon FD bit: http://k10dpentax.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Repair And a short list ;-) of links to repair breakdowns and such: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html Have you also tried pentaxforums? http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/54-pentax-lens-articles/179912-pentax-k-28mm-f3-5-disassembly-cleaning.html Biggest contention I've found over the years has been what sort of lubrication to use for smooth focus and I settled on this, which has worked well: http://www.ebay.com/itm/HELIMAX-XP-Camera-Telescope-Optical-Instrument-Focusing-Helicoid-Grease-w-PTFE-/271052175856?clk_rvr_id=631740458361&afsrc=1

Nothing wrong with this list so far, but why present it like this? Of course I'd love 1080p96 with supersharp images. But it is understandable that Panasonic has to do some tricks to get so many frames of the sensor. Even though not as sharp as normal 1080p, I think it's perfectly usable. Especially with shallow dof shots it looks lovely imo: With deep dof and lots of detail, the resolution doesn't look as good indeed: Is this a 'problem' of the GH4? Don't think so. I still think the 96 fps is a huge PLUS for the GH4. Which other camera has this possibility?? Regarding AF: I haven't seen any proper tests in video mode. Have seen an example where the GH3 gets it focus faster in AF-S mode, but is that a big deal? In AF-S you are shooting something static anyway, it's just to get the focus point right for the beginning of your shot. How about continious AF compared? GH4 should be better with the new focus system indeed, although I'm not sure if that works for video. Anyway, I don't have a problem with a list of points that are worth mention, but don't present it like things that are wrong with the camera. Also Panasonic is pretty open about things like the extra crop. You can see it as a downside, but also as a upside, because it gives you 1:1 pixel readout so no ugly artefacts from scaling. Do you have a GH4? Or are you looking for reasons not to buy one? :)

The sensor readout is much faster on the GH4, by 50%. But 400% more data coming off the sensor, that isn't enough to compensate. Audio issue is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Who shoots video with audio in stills mode? That's what the movie mode is for!   AF is of no interest to me either.   The soft video in VFR mode, well treat it as a creative bonus tool... You could pay $15k for a camera today, and not even get 60p! (C300)

The 100W (18W used), 1600 lumen Cree 5000K LED lights were $21 each. They are super bright, and look pretty good. When recording at 24fps, they look OK. However at 240fps (Sony FS700), they flicker. I tested the Yongnuo YN-300, YN-600, and F&V R-300- no flicker at 240fps. The old 120W (45W used) 5100K CFLs don't flicker (though some make noise & buzz). Here's a 60W Cree tested (no flicker at 24/30fps): Those looking for budget lighting, I'd start with the Yongnuo YN-300: 2280 lumens for $67 http://www.amazon.com/Yongnuo-Professional-300pcs-sheets-Camera/dp/B00AZFE5DS/ref=sr_1_1 and this power supply (in addition to Sony NP-970 batteries for non-AC use), $25: http://www.ebay.com/itm/110V-220V-AC-Adapter-Power-For-SONY-NP-F970-F960-F750-F550-YN-300-II-YN600-YN160-/291005963183 Based on specs only (not tested), 2 Cree 5000K lights are 3200 lumens for $42 + $20 for 2 clamp-on bulb holders = $62. The YN-300 with AC adapter is $92, however it's also dimmable, camera mountable, doesn't flicker at high frame rates, and can also run on batteries. The YN-300 II and YN-600 are "bicolor" and more versatile, however they are effectively 1/2 brightness when using the daylight LEDs (I'm using lights in the daylight 5000+ K range). I'm going to keep looking for LEDs that don't flicker at high frame rates to replace the CFLs. This info is helpful: http://www.davidsatz.com/aboutflicker_en.html

Curious! Just downloaded the same file. In Iridient, all the black spots are still there. Hmm. Maybe it's an Iridient thing, as I've been thoroughly mocked elsewhere for not assuming from the get-go. Thanks for your help, Julian! Also, as a quick aside - any harm in running pixel refresh more than once? I've done it a couple times and while I can't see any harm in it (or imagine there being any), the thought just crossed my mind that maybe it shouldn't have been done.

Sony don't think that way:( They will impart the same old consumer way of thinking to this -leaving the good stuff out and save 10bit for the next model, or the next model, or the next model.. Wish they'd just slow down and release products that last 2-3 years instead of releasing a new model every year with only marginal improvements. here is how the A7S should be released and aimed at the pro market:- Marketed as a specialist low light camera as well as a 'c cam' / 'stills + movie' camera for those using F65, F55 and F5 X-AVC 10 Bit 1080p up to 50p internal X-AVCs 4k internal body shape bigger and bulkier (as the A7 + battery grip) to fit proper connectors, better processing and space for one of their bigger batteries architecture to accommodate updated firmware over a 3 year period £3500 price tag Instead they're releasing a camera perfect for consumers which will be ooo'd and ahh'd over by the dumb sony alpha rumours readers for the first month then forgotten by them and the support team in 8 months time.

Ease of editing/processing is not the "only advantage" of All-I: its motion also looks more natural (and yes, "filmic"). Yes, long-GOP's image quality looks better (at these two compared bitrates) with static or near-static subjects, but not everyone shoots such subjects, or is able or willing to limit their camera moves to a snail's pace. Personally, shooting an action sport (rollerblading), I am concerned with not just motion rendition, but also rolling shutter, so I expect I'll be using about 20% 4K, 40% 1080p IPB, and 40% 1080p All-I.

No, you need a "gogo gadget-o arm" for pulling near to far!

im not surprised by this result at all. it would have been my first guess that 100mbps ipb is better than 200mbps all i on the GH4 and any other camera to begin with. especially in a comparison like the one you made. let me explain: most of you know what i, p and b frames are and how they work, so i wont get into it. for the 200mbps option to be better in image quality than the 100mbps one, all B and P frames from the lower setting need to be larger (in file size) than half the size of an i frame. lets talk numbers: an i frame in the 200mbps is pretty much exactly 1MB in file size, that means the b and p frames from the 100mbps setting need to be between 500kB and 1MB, so the 200mbps option is superior in picture quality. but thats just rarely the case. b and p frames are usually smaller than half the size of an i frame. in an example like yours with a locked camera the b and p frames will probably around 10 to 20% the size of an i frame, because you have very little change from one frame to the other. if the camera uses 100% of its available bandwidth, which my theory is based upon, the 100mbps will bring you much better quality, because the i frames in the 100mbps setting are "allowed" to be larger than in the 200mbps option. the only advantage of shooting only i frames is that your computer has to work and calculate less. meaning it works better and its response is faster. if however youre on a very fast machine anyway, theres not a legitimate reason to use 200mbps all i.

Wow Tito, you really are a mine of information, this is better than going to college. :)

The negativity is just jealousy. Hats of to kendy to playing his one camera and lens like a guitar, instead of doing endless lens tests and upgrades. Love all his work and look forward to him digging into meatier things in the future!

To me the editing is wonderful, I don't know what kurth was getting at, possibly a bit confused? The segments with the yellow straps and the photograph are clearly intercut with him smoking his cigarette in a non-linear way. They're not supposed to be continuous, so continuity isn't really an issue, they're not action-matches.

I couldn't agree more with themartist when he says: "I think there should be maybe an area of the site devoted to short screenplay writers partnering up with eager filmmakers to create some more compelling collaborations." I may not be J-L. Godard but I think I can write fairly well and I have original ideas. Unfortunately, I cannot shoot, mainly because I have problems with my eyes, and I feel frustrated and disappointed because all DPs I have been in contact with are asking for considerable amounts of money and prefer shooting commercial than films d'Art & d'Essai with broke unknown writers :-( Oops! Sorry! Posted twice. Wanted to edit & delete the redundant one, but couldn't...

Yep. If you are shooting ML raw, I'd go for 4:3. That'd give you a resolution of ~1706x1280. Stretch 2x and you'll get a resolution 3413x1280, aspect ratio 2,66:1

Hi Christina, It sounds like you have thought this through. Definitely a good idea to shoot some spherical stuff as well, just incase. I think an anamorphic wedding video would be a beautiful thing, and worth the risk :) I assume you are using Magic Lantern? As Julian mentioned, that is the only way different aspect ratios are really available. If it was me, I would shoot 4:3 with a 2x anamorphic. I assume ML gives you a higher verticle resolution in 4:3 than just simply cropping the sides off? (I haven't really used the new ML raw so feel free to chime in anyone) Even though I quite like the 3.55 ratio a 2x would give at 16:9, it may be a bit too much for some people. The last thing you want is someone asking why their video occupies a thin strip across the screen, then even worse, "can we change that" after you have finished the video. :) If it was my choice I would go with the full frame 5D, and really pronounce that anamorphic look. But that is a matter of taste I suppose, and the 7D may be easier to focus on the fly. In that respect, have you though about getting a laser measuring tool to help you quickly judge distances? Might be worth a look. Best of luck! Chris.

Now THAT's a short film. It has a story, an actor, a score. If a work doesn't have these components, it's a short/art/music video, but not a short FILM. Anyway, - Great pick, Andrew!

Ok, bought a Pancolar 50/1.8 and Yashica ML 35- 70mm and waiting now for the friggin adapters to come from timbuktoo in a couple of weeks. Better be good Andy or I'll come looking for ya!! :angry:

I've shot this over a weekend last summer with a view of using it to raise funding to shoot the whole film. Check it out, it's short & sweet: Help us to make it happen, we need your voice. Go to www.bloody-title.com and be part of it! Thanks for reading, J.