tony wilson

amateur anamorphics where a niche within a niche. cheap 8mm home movie film cameras and then bolex poshness. cheap nasty plastic super 8 cameras and then leicina,nizo,beaulieu posh cameras. 1 in 10 would of shot scope. the reason why a lot are around is because before the vhs machine many people projected hollywood movies on super 8 some needed an anamorphic lens. standard 8 scope projection was super rare standard 8 catered for non scope skin flick striptease type filums : ) many many lens whould have been dumped in the bin in the 80s and 90s many still exists in garages,drawers and in lofts. some will always be super rare. think about it.. in the early 1980s and iscorama in london would have cost £1200 sterling new. the best super 8 camera ever made the leicina special and the most expensive the body price was 300-400 sterling. that is a lot of money for a lens you might not use often. the good stuff was purchased by the well off but also corporations for use in photographic marketing and also military. one ebayer last year dumped in the bin 3 tiny moller anamorphics i was trying to buy from him the shit dumped them because he said the coatings had marks on them and he only liked selling good stuff. with shits like that around the real good vintage stuff will always be rare ish.

i sold a moller gem to some lucky bastard a year before the gh1 came out on ebay it sold with 6 bids. i think it went for 120 sterling ish. i was not shooting super 8 film and had a mounting issue and as i had the bigger kowa dumped the moller. feel sick now.. does that mean it was worth that was it a bad day or just not a great interest. clearly i would not pay 2000 dollars for a moller today and i do not need to. but as someone that has had more iscorama than nearly anyone and my background was working with movie anamorphics technovision,panavision and jdc and many other brands. a moller in good nick with a decent taking lens will out resolve many state of the art camera sensors in movie mode. clearly double focus is the issue here as is range of usable optics on large sensor cameras. we have not really seen what it is capable of also the size makes it seem less impressive than it optically is. hollywood likes big stuff stuff that looks the part that was panavisions secret. the secret of the moller is the error free flat field recipe. polishing a piece of glass the size of a dinner plate or 6 optics creates an optical wasteland that can only be corrected by stopping down. when you have some of these tiny optics you can understand how a tighter tolerance can be achieved. andrew needs to start turning berlin upside down looking for one of these. they exist away from fleabay the other issue is the scumbag ebay dealers. i am talking about the mega seller guys that every day have over 50 listings. they make up a figure and allow you to offer a little less. these people are scum and very rarely test anything they have. they clearly sometimes have rare stuff but they also shift stock around some kind of interconnection exists between these dealers in different countries. you need to be careful.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nahua" data-cid="24114" data-time="1356673293"> <p>I tell you these ebay prices are just ridiculous! There's even an Isco with haze/fungus selling for $3500! Cmon people, these lenses shouldn't cost this much. I'm glad I got my Sankor, thing is sharp and smooth focus. Sure dual focus is a huge pain, but the images are well worth it. I'm just amazed at these prices...         that moller lens design is 1950s perfection. the tiny moller size to taking lens focal range factor is excellent given the tiny size. it is sharp yet gives a more analogue feel than the iscorama. easier to use than a sankor type system better than 70% of lomos shoot a lomo at f2.8 and all will be revealed. shoot a moller at f1.8 it will work and give you images beyond most hollywood anamorphics : ) 1.5x compression fucking quite rare. part of a lovely leather clad bolex 8 camera kit.<br /> a state of the art home movie system full of incredible optical mechanical engineering. we live in times where cheap is good enough. since i have mentioned this already one person said he found one in a private sale locally. ebay buy it now is for people that have the money or cannot wait or need stuff quick for whatever reason. i have seen sankors go for 400 pounds buy it now when if you look they can be found cheaper. try to make an anamorphic lens. optex did so did century 800 dollars for a new generation turd. 2 1950s anamorphic amateur top of the tree benchmarks exist. the iscorama and the moller 1.5x. in this case the amateur stuff was better than the pro level hollywood stuff. some are still around hidden in fungified camera boxes. i like optics especially magic ones that i cannot figure out. look at the history of pro 1950s anamorphic technology. moller and isco should not of been making lens this good. so optically brilliant from the getgo discreet and undiscovered by pro film makers for decades.

[quote name="itimjim" post="24109" timestamp="1356666645"] . Alas, I'm still looking for the perfect solution that allows me to get the rear element close, and clamped.[/quote] my prototype solution has been a nightmare to make but now works well. retention ring adapter the screws lock orientation super safe. depending on the country i am trading these rather than paypal selling. ping me i have a few left for the moller 8 and the 16 : ) antiochus66@yahoo.co.uk

i love the berthiot baby hypergonar as it is a piece of history. the german moller destroys it though. the 2 1.5x bolex moller versions exist one big one 16mm one small 8mm both are gems the baby one being my favorite for size reasons mainly. chretien of france mr anamorphic was under terrible restrictions from hollywood all his post hollywood contract work had to be referred to 20th century fox as he had sold them the cinemascope design concept. his original protoype was tiny it was good enough to be used on many early movies. he was only allowed to make home movie optics for 8mm amateur cameras. anything pro became the property of fox. moller and isco could do whatever they wanted no restrictions in fact they produced amateur lens that where nearly as high resolution as the pros where using sometimes much better. the big film industry boys went super big with the optics creating more wave error and other optical nasties. the baby optics where near perfect gems and error free because of tiny size. if you look at chretiens original hypergonar movie camera lens design in the fotos below, you will see it is super small i bet you that optic in chretiens hand today would destroy any later 20th century fox design in terms of resolution and sharpness. and the original tiny hypergonar would of been sharp at f2.8 unlike the bausch and lomb beasts of fox that needed at least 5.6 for starters. if the later amateur benoist baby hypergonar had had a focus helicoid movable optic design it probably would of got closer to the moller 1.5x. but a movable astigmatic focus optic anamorphic would have been classified as pro level by fox. more mollers exist they are just sitting in old musty bolex camera boxes. i have clamps for all the mollers 1.5 and 2x. the irony of it all is the fact that some of the amateur anamorphic optics where for many years superior to the multi million dollar pro optics of hollywood and it was only various great designers working at panavision that changed it around. even then put an iscorama or a moller up against a hollywood lens that may have been used on great big movies and the 2 amateur optics will give a sharper picture at f2.8.

it will work above 100mm taking lens. 100mm is a little edgy   clearly if your taking lens have 72mm size font optics it may be a problem vintage lens is probably a good route

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="EOSHD" data-cid="23956" data-time="1356185388"> How does it compare to the Kowa 8Z Tony?</p> These Bolex Mollers are rare, don't see that many. Kowa is very sharp, better than my Iscorama 36. it is the best optic after the iscorama. in fact it has a nicer analogue feel than some iscorama.</p> it is 1950s technology clearly made by men from the future kind of like the bolex kern macro switar 26mm f1.1. i really mean that.. hollywood lens at the time the home movie moller lens where made where 100 times more expensive and needed 10 times more light. i have had many hollywood movie anamorphics over the years 50,60s and 70s and it is better than many of them. not all but many. if you get a good un it is bonkers how good they are insane a total jewel. better than the kowa for me less distortion nice flat field as sharp as is needed for any low resolution 2 or 4k movie camera : ) would be a revelation on a black magic camera. perfect for 7d size sensor down. my only slight concern is age so may have coating issues stiff focus. so asking questions and returning lens for serious problems servicing is easier than an iscorama fiddly but easier. well worth servicing. because of compact size dual focus does not seem to be as big a pain as kowa sankor style. i believe more are kicking around germany,holland and austria and switzerland gathering dust sitting in bolex camera box's.

nice price     you can have mine for that : )   please define what you need to do how serious you want the results to be do you shoot reactive super quick style or do you shoot old style with time to set up? spending money quick can be a little messy. unless it is a bargain proper full focus iscorama.

that bloody sensor size is a bitch : ) you should be  looking for a 35mm format lens with filter thread a little smaller than 52mm and focal length min of 100mm. or 100mm and above.

just tried it with an old angenieux zoom seems like  you should get full coverage on gh2 with at least 35mm taking lens.

if you are looking for one of the best anamorphics ever this is it a tiny gem. yes it may seems expensive but it will beat any new lens at it's price point and it seems to have had a service. put in an offer who knows. i have nothing to do with the seller just sayin that in quality terms i think these should be goin for over 2000 dollars.\</p> in some ways better than many of the hollywood movie anamorphics. it is a dual focus system lens. <p><a href="http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bolex-Moller-Anamorphot-19-8-1-5X-Anamorphic-lens-Baby-Iscorama-Kowa-Adapt-M-4-3-/221167649110?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337e9e8156">http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Bolex-Moller-Anamorphot-19-8-1-5X-Anamorphic-lens-Baby-Iscorama-Kowa-Adapt-M-4-3-/221167649110?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item337e9e8156</a></p>

i have nothing for you barlow. who are you? why do i need to prove anything to you you think you know best why the fuck would i tell or show some shitter i do not know my projects. you are a bore. fishing are you serious from you fuck off : ) i was shooting super 8 scope when you where still jerking off to jilly johnston and sam fox i have had 40 more iscoramas than you have ever had destroyed my first one in the 1980s. i do not need to here pointless theory from you if it is true or not is not important. it has all been done by germans americans and french men decades ago. bottom feeding that is all. how many iscorama have you had 1 or none? why do you think i do not know about iscorama design for your info the 2 double element cylindricals where so superb that the 2 front single element focus groups could be used. but you understand all of this cos yer gonna bring down slr magic with the power of the barlow brain.<br /> out of ideas? go fuck yourself : ) did i say i had any fucking ideas am i messing people about in any way. i am not in a race i tinker and fiddle with lens i have got plenty of projects but may not bother because of cost. i may do stuff i may not it is not a big deal. feel free to blow the moving picture market wide open orson einstein. just because i don't show my stuff or sell stuff does not mean it does not exist. anyway let us agree that you know better than everyone and leave it at that. good luck with the china paper work means nothing from a legal position though.. please be gentle on us john. what has vidatlantic and slr magic and redstan ever done to you apart from ignore you.  

watch this space mr barlow i did a variable focus diopter last year.big deal nothing is new here. all been done and sorted by 1960. isco patented applied for in 1957 just tweakin and fiddling that is all. unless you have designed a variable compression anamorphic with the ease of use of an iscorama with the sexy imaging of a bolex moller 1.5. priced below an optex. now that would be worth watchin and waitin for. damn maybe that is it those pesky mollers don't need silly close up screw on optics.

  not in double element.. i am making some after christmas they will be +0.3 and +1 in double element not sure of the size exactly.   the stuff that is sometimes around now is the kenko and the schneider but as you know they are single element.

<p>do the tests use your eyes come back when you have.<br /> i have my eyes are getting old but they do not lie.<br /> <br /> <br /> i have single element angenieux +0.25<br /> and angenieux +0.4<br /> the tokina doublet is better.<br /> <br /> you still have not told me what optics you have for your visual tests?<br /> <br /> your gonna make a million john with all your booky wook info.<br /> the power of words over real image testing : )<br /> <br /> <br /> for your info i have been working on a various new close up's myself.<br /> <br /> all the tests done so far show double element design being the way to go on +0.3 or +0.4<br /> the lab tests showed the angenieux single element + 0.4 to be inferior to the tokina double element +0.4 meniscus design.<br /> angenieux made some mighty fine quality optics so a good single element lens to test.<br /> all the recipes where put into zemax the tokina design won out.<br /> i suggest you start doing some buying testing or making maybe help vidatlantic out he has a quality control issue with his tin and glass : )<br /> figure out what the money split is and you will be laughing especially if you buy the junk from china.</p> <p> </p> <p>a perfect optic for the panasonic would not be the 72mm tokina +0.4</p> <p>it would be a large double element +0.25 or +0.3.</p> <p>but that is from real world testing.</p> <p> </p> <p>thank god you have destroyed the myth and seen through my lies just in time before the christmas rush.</p> <p>hail the single element.</p> <p>hail the barlow wangchung close up image sharpener</p>

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.

<p>mr barlow..</p> <p>you are clever i believe..</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>if you have got single element or achromatic doublets &nbsp;and the time to do some tests with anamorphic and double element single element close up combos.</p> <p>if not&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>do tests in zemax software.</p> <p>input single element information then try a &nbsp;doublet design.</p> <p>see what the results show..</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>i remember you got upset because slr magic did not take your technical advice probably was good advice but do something with your concepts and ideas.</p> <p>do it yourself and prove everyone wrong.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>i have many double element close up's.</p> <p>+0.3..</p> <p>+0.4</p> <p>+0.8</p> <p>and +1</p> <p>they are all superior to any single element i have.</p> <p>maybe it does not matter if you are viewing clips on an iphone.</p> <p>i think you will find &nbsp;maybe many companies did not make them because of hassle and cost.&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>and the old method of stopping down as a solution for correcting error.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>companies like ikegami,fujinon,cooke,isco,angenieux,pentax,elcan leica canada,pacific optical all made low power doublets.</p> <p>for tv and military contracts.</p> <p>clearly industries where quality trumped price point.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>are doublets vital no.</p> <p>but the very nature of the design requires more care and attention during manufacture.</p> <p>no cuttings corners here.</p> <p>china sells a shit &nbsp;4 dollar single element close up every 10 secs so who got the math correct clearly china.</p>

blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="JohnBarlow" data-cid="23633" data-time="1355687630"><br /> <p>Close up lens' below 1.0 diotr do not require to be achromatic as there is no CA to correct</p><br /> <really wow i suppose i better refund all those folks i have sold tokina achromats to : )

airspaced correction does not have to be a thick cemented doublet  these anamorphic optics are achromatic airspaced single element optics do you really think slr magic produced a cemented doublet anamorphic in that short time frame? it was either 2 separate pieces of bk7 or a copy of the optex 2 different glass types (airspaced achromat) with a variable focus tube.

the panasonic is a posher version of the century and optex and generic design. posher because panasonic had better quality controls and higher spec. but still variations on a theme. the designs of these may seem simple but they are complex air spaced cylindrical achromatics. designed on a super computer and optimised for various small sensor but semi pro camcorders. the poor quality relates more to what they where designed for and the variable factory quality control. and like most anamorphics missalignement of front and back optics. although these type are single element they are anamorphic cylindrical achromatic designs. achromatic like thick doublets in quality anamorphics just different recipes. they are not just a couple of bits of glass. if they had of been designed with movable optics quality would of improved a lot. my guess is the slr magic test lens will be a variation on the century panasonic system.

72mm sigma in the old style box from the early 1990s much better quality and 8 euros more always on ebay always in a gold battered  box magnification is 1.4 1.6 best cheap option.   http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-72mm-Close-up-filter-lens-case-B-/130820810993?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item1e758728f1

the the fact is this is about the bankers the money men the faceless demonic shitster psychopaths that run the industry. it is not about a tool director. they are whores with expensive tastes and freak sex addictions. fincher does what his handlers tell him. he is a good old ex music video player you know another satanist. but clearly super talented. i seem to remember a film he did called seven and another interesting one called the game both had supreme cinematography and where excellent movies of the older school. his quote is complete sell out bullshit about losing rushes if you have good words actors and superb technical people as tony scott once said it kind of does itself. maybe tony scott was killed cos he did not go digical like his big bruver. shooting film did not destroy tony scott's little movie or anything about this scene probably enhanced the mise en scene and the Intensity. will 2 to 4k twatter fincher ever get performance like this with his safe 40 min hd hi res takes. and his poxy little movies probably starring bradley cooper and justin timberlake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3yon2GyoiM

why? well made anti brown people bullshit. george clooney angelina and brad neo liberal or neo con shit. clooney in africa angelina on the syrian border matt damons twatter friend direction with the help of the cia. anti iranian shit disguised as a munich an all the presidents men,a parallax view,a marathon man. a clever piece of work but with a filthy rotten aim to demonise the lovely people of iran before the next oil and bank wars. all of these tavistock medicated tools are working for the cia and nato

<p>dese words are rubbish innit i finks youse is an old geezer yeerrr<br /> doze arty fillums are for old pervurts and day is borin init<br /> im gonna love der hobbit it will be brill &nbsp;der directer is a jeaneeous much better dan spielburg or jj abrahams or der bloke dat directed der last 10 twilight films</p> <p>my filum studie teecher says michael bay is der best directer in hollywood and the 5 transformers films &nbsp;is a masterpeaces.</p> <p>but i found dem all a bit gay innit</p> <p><br /> i fink roberty patison should of played der hobbit and der girl from twilight shud have played golam.<br /> robert patison is a proper actor and i fink havin a vampire in der hobbit wood have been excitin innit<br /> everyone luvs vampires just looks at de der respact and beleef wee av in are queen liz and her nazi husbend der movies are not changin day are gettin betterer and betterer all der times<br /> der old folks just do not udderstand fast and furrious directin and der pictures are to clear for dere old brains to process we kids fink it is brillient. eye have not red der book hobbit but if it is thick why not 4 movies it is better 4 short movies so we dont falls asleep. get vinn diesel and der rock in hobbit number 2 eye says old farts say we are gettin dumber cos of der mcdonalds the chem trails and der flouride in der water<br /> we young uns are gettin cleverorer.<br /> old folks are der dumb ones i see dem in der street talkin to demselves like nutters,<br /> i hope beyonce or adele sings der song in der next movie i surprised adele was not in der film as she looks like she is a goblin innit<br /> use idots shud stop moanin and get wid der tavistock programme innit.</p> <p>der governments want good &nbsp;digical technolgy for us wiv good stories.</p> <p>der peeple here who says dis is all a satanick mind control are ike mentalists</p> <p>predictive programmin blah blah<br /> der tv der olympics der cinemas der music it is all der bestest ever.<br /> brillient amazin everyfink is der best it can bee.<br /> are leeders love us havin so much choice all part of spreedin der democrutsy love around der globe.<br /> my dad told me to reed aminal farm and 1984 cos he said der future is here<br /> but he just stupid and ugly and borin innit</p>

    jannard is a dead man walking arri alexa has destroyed him. death by a thousand alexa use commercials every 2 weeks. he may be getting some big movies but the bread and butter money is in the shit jobs and arri have that sewn up sweet.   no disrespect but ron howard is just a bald twat from happy days another hollywood satanist : )   it is all so tired. get this out on dvd  a series of ghost stories directed by Masaki Kobayashi in 1964 in lovely toho scope. the trailer is a little dull the movie is sublime perfection : ) and scary in parts.   [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5mvupo9Wc"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5mvupo9Wc[/url]