Leaderboard

we've lived with dual focus anamorphics for quite a long time.I dont know whats the rush in all this. Please do a proper release, send some pre production unit to Andrew Reid and/or another DP and then, If the unit is good (i dont see why not) people will buy it because the price is good with or withiut discount,

Andy, while I respect Matthew Duclos' tech work and opinions, sometimes he gets a bit too tech in his assessment of what makes good glass. He gave the new Schneider Xenons a thumbs up and to be honest, I think they're somewhat dull and soulless. I did an A, B and C test between Xenons, Zeiss Mk3's and Cooke S4's. The Zeiss and Cooke wiped the floor with them in every respect, especially in terms of color / flesh tone rendition. The flaring on Xenons was pretty clinical. Also, certain lenses were next to impossible to flare due to recessed front elements. What I see in his assessment of the Veydra's are just chart shooting and comparison charts. No faces, bokeh, flare, and all that good stuff that makes up the soul of a lens. Hopefully, I can get my hands on the Veydra's soon and find out if they're the real deal.

I learned this technique some 6 or 7 years ago in some short Photoshop course and totally forgot about it. There are different combinations of CMYK percentages that represent common variations of proper skintones from various races. Of course, no skintone is exactly the same so this is used as a guideline and you adjust the percentages just a little bit for your actual subject. Then you can throw that corrected still into your editing suite and use it as a reference. Here is tutorial link: http://www.graphicconnectionkc.com/skin-tone-correction.html At the bottom of that page are most common skintones with CMYK percentages.

They're is some great C mount glass out there. From the markings it looks like the focus draw is about 180 degrees.

I'm sure Channing Tatum is reconsidering his decision after reading this.

There are more photosites on the RGB sensor on the F35 than any bayer pattern camera since made . Or at least I think so . I don't know. Anyway here's something I just shot on the f35 - regraded using davinci. It can create such lovely colors.

I would get a set of Canon FD primes 20 24 28 35 50 85 100 and an RJ speedbooster for Canon FD - micro 4/3 you can shoot a whole movie on them and they are superb lenses , great warm colour tinge superb blacks and very sharp

You do like to play devil's advocate sometimes Ebrahim don't you :)

"He might turn out to be the greatest filmmaker in the history of cinema. We have no idea. Let him take a shot at it and we'll see if he has it". :o You my friend have a better shot with having sex with Marilyn Monroe than this happening. Yes, and I know she's dead. Good luck.

I don't like acting this way, it is not in my character and I have nothing against anybody. I publicly apologise to all, including richg101, even that he's not correct over me, starting at that time with my SLR sale, and about his today's statement against me. And again: I wanted to try this lens, but I still believe that seller has to respect us more as a community. IT IS NOT the 15 or 20 euros the problem, it is the respect that I was expecting from him, and for a lens that we don't know yet what it will be. Premini's post is very correct.

Dure. You're the only one complaining about the price. Get a clue. Also, I really can't understand your position, if you have in fact like 10 anamorphics for sale.

There's no point in you buying one anyway. Other than for the obvious point that you'll just try to relist it on ebay for an unrealistic price at a later date like we see from you all the time. The reason you don't like the setup is because their mentality is a 'fair days work for a fair days pay'. Improving the community by actually producing something innovative, niche and well priced. Yours on the other hand just takes from the community by pilfering the market then spamming with ebay adverts of the relisted, usually over priced goods. This activity only serves to inflate prices of anamorphics making them inaccessible to most people here (I imagine you;ve probably sniped most of us here at one point or another). You very rarely contribute anything else. http://www.ebay.co.uk/usr/ioannis-aix You have multiple copies of lenses for sale meaning your purpose is resale rather than collection or use. From now on I'll be watching your contributions here more closely. As a moderator I'll be hoping to see at least one helpful thread or post from you for every ebay link you post. Hows that? Lets make this place productive and creative rather than a place of business!

I've avoided this topic for a while & so am now going to throw a curve ball into the mix - "Meyer-Optik Gorlitz" lenses (M42). I haven't tried all of them & there is a lot of info out there - some are to be avoided, but the majority are really good. They are often compared to Zeiss, but I think they have lots more character than Zeiss lenses: Orestegon 29mm f2.8 - probably the best, regarded by most as better than a Zeiss lens. Lydith 30mm f3.5 - lots of character Orestor 100mm f2.8 - this is my favourite of all lenses (there's an older version called Trioplan from 1938 - more character) Orestor 135mm f2.8 - the famous Bokeh Monster Obviously, the Russain lenses are a must if you want Vintage lenses with a lot of character: Mir 24M/N 35mm f2 - It is MC but not modern coating, so not to be put off by it, an excellent lens (M=M42 mount, N=Nikon mount) Mir 1b 37mm f2.8 - Not as good as the 24, but flares are amazing. Helios 44-2 58mm f2 - the 44-2 has a preset aperture & the zebra version is the best i've tried. Jupiter 9 85mm f2 - dreamy wide open Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 - dreamy wide open & really swirly bohkeh, much better than the Jupiter. Jupiter 37a 135mm f3.5 - get the non-MC version, sharpish & very low contrast Jupiter 11a 135mm f4 - not a fast lens but does produce really pleasing images (there's an older 11 version). Tair 11a 135mm f2.8 - Just amazing & has 20 blades. Simply a must, especially on Full frame with an Iscorama.

I was considering this for event videography work, but the specs on B&H list a 29 minute clip limit, making it useless for my 1-2 hour unattended wide shots. Can anyone confirm whether this is true? Seems a shame if it is.

Helios 44 / FF58. Full frame is best since it uses the most of the lens's image circle and thus more of the character caused by limitations of the design show up. Canon FD lenses are not characterful at all. I'm amazed people have recommended them in this topic. All designed with computers by the best optical designers of the time. Modern coatings The whole thing about these japanese lenses was that they were at the peak of technological ability of the time. Very littler improvements have been made in optical terms since the FD mount was instigated. - 1971 is modern. Look at 1950's and 1960's glass. Anything after that will be clean and boring!

@Comurit The 10% discount and relayed Q&A from Anamorphicshop that you arranged is more than enough positive input to the forum IMHO. I congratulate you in getting off your ass to represent the members here. People who can't see the bargain that they are getting before the discount need to get their heads checked I think. The price (without discount) is already very low considering the solution it offers to many lenses. People who already own projector anamorphics that fall below 70.1mm diameter will have the re-sale value of their lenses increased, so if they buy an FM lens or not they benefit directly from it's release. It also opens up the cinelux and isco type lenses to be used in a practical way - lenses that are (for now) considerably cheaper than most other anamorphic lenses out there. I'd go as far as to say that this product will also rejuvenate many lenses that have been dismissed in the past. Fixed focus lenses can now be transformed into single focus for example. It's a shame that not all can see the positive knock on effect that having this FM lens out in the wild...but they'd rather quibble over the already low cost. It's like complaining about Scarlett Johansson's lipstick colour, after she just kissed you.

For those criticising, try to shoot a movie on a shoestring budget. Film making the indie way is a huge amount of work and stress typically done by a very small crew of highly dedicated folks. Most good 10-second commercial videos these days have much higher budgets and crew than the average micro budget indie feature. Great job OP.

I don't know for people here, but for me I prefer Nikon putting its money in actual film makers than a flurry of techno geek bloggers that don't even have some short movie to their credit. I am actually talking about real short movies, with a story line, actors, props etc not just some random street shot assembled with some copyrighted music. The story style or plot might not appeal to many here but it is a mammoth task compared to some random shots. Nikon Europe also have the Nikon film festival where the winner gets a d810 and a trip to Cannes short film festival. For me I prefer that they put their money in actual film makers like in this film. It might not be to the taste of many, but it is ten time more constructive and creative than flying a bunch of bloggers to some exotic location to shoot some random flicks.

You mentioned DSLR, so I am guessing you have a decent understanding of the process to take pictures. You can shoot either a jpg image or a RAW image. With video though, you can only shoot what amounts to a jpg image in video mode. The jpg system in the camera "bakes in" the settings that you set the camera to work with, and in the process it clobbers the file making it much harder to "processes later in your computer. Video people have their own language and they don't call it processing the video, they call it "grading" the video. You know, like teenagers have their own language, video people have their own language :) So in an effort to do the very least clobbering of the file, and leaving as much of the information still to remain in the video, an effort is made to to do as little damage to the file as possible. To do this, the video is shot as "flat" as possible. This means little contrast, little color saturation, little sharpness - basically the most untouched the file can get. This leaves as much of the original data as possible to still be there to addressed and called upon when you get the video into the computer. Companies recognize this process and they try to help. Just like you would have color calibrations called vivid, portrait, landscape, natural, standard and so on, they add special color choices for video. Sony has s-log, Panasonic is adding v-log, and so on. It is as dumbed down as the file can get and still get recovered in the computer. The joke, or facts are, it still doesn't get as good as a raw file you would be using for pictures, and you are still using a partially baked compressed file that is just "less clobbered". In my pro work, I shoot raw for stills. For video i shoot as flat as I can get the video, but it still ain't no raw file. On the other hand, raw files for video are not easy to work with like raw files for still images. And there are not that many cameras that even offer it, plus the knowledge it takes to process the video - or "grade" the video is harder to do. Vlog is Panasonic's attempt to hardwire a very flat file for us to work with. They had CineD before this and I personally didn't like it. I found "natural" on the GH4 with everything turned to the flattest setting and for me is better to work with. In low light I like "vivid" with everything turned flat and seem to get lower noise. I am eager to see if this vlog will give a nice flat file to work with. For you, you need to remember your video shot in vlog will look terribly flat and bland. You will have to work it once in the computer, it isn't a set-it-and-forget-it type of setting. Hope that helps some. Peter

From the Imaging Resource interview: Samsung noooooooo!!! Someone please send the Magic Lantern guys a camera!

  Yeah, the slow-mo at 120fps 1080p is pretty good actually, I'll need to try it more to see exactly how good.

Andy, your attempts to provide justification for the claim of 6feet MFD are insincere at best.   Here is why:   1) Regardless of the indicated focal range on the transfer, silk screened on the side, the Cinelux have two physical constraints preventing sub 3m operation without dioptres. Firstly the inner tube butts up against the rear element assembly and secondly there is an internal metal obstruction. This double whammy cannot be overcome without a significant re-engineering of the design. I speak from experience as I have just completed harvesting the glass from a small batch of these units and have disassembled them down to the atomic level.   2) Cinelux are designed for F2 operation with Cinelux flat lenses. They also work with older units like Xenons and ISCO sphericals from F2.1 to F2.8. Projection sphericals do not have an aperture which can be adjusted apart from some Cinelux units which have F1.8 to F4 via thumbscrew. There is no way a projectionist can set F16!    Besides, there is no lamp bright enough to support this Fstop even if it were possible because it would incinerate the film.   Of course, dioptres are not an option with these units as they will cover/prevent access to the focus controls, wont they?   An average lit living room is typically F2, 800ISO @1/50s. To get to F16 you need 6 stops brighter illumination.   So how many 10Kwatt HMI lamp heads plus ballast are you recommending to pull off your F16/ 6Feet  trick?????