tony wilson

a lot of the hollywood rental lens us,uk and italian they saw flare as an error as zeiss do today that is why super multicoating was so popular.this was understandable as film is such a beautiful medium you naturally got a unique analogue separation from the actuality. that is why all the alexa ass holes shine lights into modern lens on commercials cos they want a filmic flare anything to create a distance from digical sterility. the old panavision c lens where great from the late 60s [url="https://vimeo.com/34496263"]https://vimeo.com/34496263[/url] but the idiots upgraded them and took some of the magic out of them. all the movie stuff is big and heavy that is why this super 8 and 16mm stuff is so compact and interesting. the moller 1.5s could of been made off planet it is that good superb craftsmanship but double system focus. and the usual iscorama,kowa 8z i have some faulty old hypergonar glass full of errors that i am cutting down to remove flaws slightly radioactive like a lot of vintage lens. keeping my fingers crossed that it will be good. will eventually have maybe 12-20 odd to make and sell into a super compact sharp system.the problem is when you polish or cut these optics you change the focal length and compression ratio.they will go from quite thick to thin optics it will not be iscorama but will destroy lens like optex and panasonic in sharpness. and should be a lot easier to use than normal dual system trying for a kowa,century,panasonic hybrid. sharpness with min optical error but it is tough i have polished some lens so much that nothing remains but 1960s radioactive dust : ( followed by a henri chretien groan from beyond the grave

i made super 8 home movies using all this old junk that is today anamorphotic treasure then got a job in a film studios then in camera rental. jdc,panavision and some work for technovision the 3 most important anamorphic motion picture lens rental companies of the last 40 years. tested gear for many mega movies even prepped vittorio storaro's precious anamorphics. cleaned robert altmans lovely angenieux zoom his lens not his dick : ) check out his zoom technique http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJKQwHSKal0 got kicked off the set of full metal jacket cos kubrick thought i was an assassin. worked on lot's of bbc shit crap.

iscorama is special it was designed in the very late 1950s and was better than anything in hollywood at the time. single point focus ability to shoot sharp at f1.8..even today that is superb stupid compact size hollywood runs on corruption just like the city of london and wall st that is why it never took off on movies. 20th century frog had the market until the late 60s when panavision took over. isco where happy with the home movie and stills adapter market lomo has sexy cinematic softness,hypergonar amazing flares,kowa sharpness. iscorama is just sublime ease of use with superb near modern hollywood level picture quality not bad for something knocked up in 1958

the kowa is simply fantastic even if a new anamorphic came out sub 5000 dollars i would be surprised if it was sharper or better than that kowa. the panasonic is is joke quality wise and like the optex and century is only popular because of wider field,single focus and compression. in a pure set up test the kowa will always win. my harse words are cos i hate chromatic abberation,coma and astigmatism i may not be able to spell der words but doze things sure look bad when you seeum in der image.

your centavision is stupid rare.. nearly all the centavisions around are kowa bell howell types..you have the isco kowa frankenstein one serious optic. i would be surprised to see another like yours on ebay. and all for the price of a proskar : ) here is a few little amanorfical opticul nik naks

i know a guy that chucked 3 of the tiny moller 1.5x lens in the bin cos he said they where a little soft. he thought they where like the iscorama he fiddled with the single focus got a soft image and blamed the gear. i felt like killing him. 4 months before the release of the gh1 i sold an angenieux 0.95 and a tiny moller 1.5x anamorphic to a guy in austrailia. the angenieux sold for £87 quid and the seriously lovely moller went for £60. i had them for my bolex but was not using it. listed the bits on ebay went off on a job came back to my horror only a couple of bids on each 1 guy got both lens. gh1 changed everything for this stuff.

I will be able to test these out side by side very soon. ;-) if you are referring to any of the super small iscomorphots the focus one is kind of ok the sealed one is pretty grim and was sold with various tiny screw in diopters. really does need some serious f stop action 50 lens of the tiny hypergonad most ended up in the uk. my guess only another 15 will ever crop up. the others will be in land fill or cracked or scratched or at the bottom of the sea .

the baby hypergonar needs a mild close up if you want to use it at it's best.it becomes very sharp. having a f8-16 lens is not my idea of fun i believe seb relies on very heavy f stop for focus and no close up lens. his work is simply superb but image softness would be an issue on long edit shot holds. baby hypergonar with the 0.5 close up on you can get close to infinity by stopping down a 50mm. as people are proving with clips this baby is the most fun quality tiny anamorphic. the 1.5 bolex moller is better but it is a lot more fiddly old movie close up optics around the +0.25 power would be handy but a lot are over 100mm in size which would look wacky with a tiny anamorphic

all the optics mentioned will be improved by the use of mild close up lens.here is my info on the subject.i have 3 and i would say it is the best of the tiny 8mm film format bunch.the iscomorphot 8 is a little bigger but suffers from bad smearing because the focal length of the optics and materials used.materials where different on the baby hypergonar.all suffer because of tiny back optic sizeevery company had to use different materials and methods to avoid patent law.understand that the fact that these work on a gh2 is a miracle in itself.a 1950s standard 8mm film camera format is super small.the tiny focus iscomorphot are a higher quality optic in the quality of materials used but i believe the none focus hypergonar used with low power close up lens will give better results.bolex mollers have is focus adjustment again the 1.5x moller will destroy iscomorphot 8.a non damaged working bolex moller is gone beat most things.for it's size the baby hype : ) is a stunner.that french guy chretien was the man.it is such a modest little thing to look at it's power lies within the mathematical equations, of glass type,focal length and superb quality control of such tiny optics.this is not a mass production item.these where in fact a proofing run testing the market.[b] [/b] [b]baby hypergonar cinemascopic brothers 2 of 50 made.[/b]the smallest cutest anamorphic in the world.50 of these optics where made around 1956 by Henri Chrétien company benoist s.t.o.p paris.classic hypergonar double element design.heavily revised and miniaturized by Chrétien at Villa Paradou, Cap Ferrat.design was fixed position non adjustable focus elements with distance set in the 9-11 feet range.using taking camera lens focus can improve sharpness under 10 feet as can f stop.use of an anamorphic achromatic close up lens takes the lens to another level.these where made for the popular home movie amateur regular 8 (standard 8) film format and french 9.5mm format.production was cancelled very quickly because of lack of sales and hollywood patent restriction.chretien's sale of the hypergonar patents and cinemascopic concepts to 20th century fox meant he could only sell these babies at home and a few french colonies and only for amateur use.the small anamorphic home movie market quickly became dominated by moller and isco of germany who could sell any place in the world with no restrictions.moller's bolex deal was the deal breaker as bolex was the greatest 8mm and 16mm compact camera maker.benoist went back to making massive cinemascope projection lens under hollywood license and 16mm spherical cine lens.these baby optics where found in a basement in the paris in the late 70s and rebuilt sold off cheap in the 1980s for single and super 8 film use.because of tiny size and modest looks many would have been smashed broken and thrown in the dust bin.classic reason people thinking that this is a lens.if you hold this in front of a camera body you get a blur.so if it is a blur it is broken so these have been dumped by some bozos.the blur is because this is an adapter system you need a regular camera lens behind the hypergonar called the taking lens.when used with a + 0.4 or +0.5 tokina close up lens these are pretty sharpthese are very very rare now.

the baby hypergonar as i describe on flikr shows what a great man chretien the designer was. it is superior to the isco 1.5x it has to do with the focal length of each optic i am sure they are different in hypergonar and in small isco. also glass materials will be different. isco probably used 2 of the same glass types only in this model. baby hypergonar uses different materials that give a more usable result. you could call it an air spaced achromat. as stated they will both suffer because of tiny back element. the isco has nothing to do with moller. remember these are all companies all using patent systems. different glass materials are being used in every lens to avoid patent conflict when you get to the 1970s it becomes much more of a free for all companies are copying and patent cases do not show up much. apart from whem kowa tried to make a focus lens like the iscorama my close up doublet does a great job on all of these wacky lens the low magnification power is the key. if i was selling an anamorphic with the doublet i would keep the doublet because it is so good and flexible. using a single element close up you are adding more chromatic aberration in. sometimes in footage i see what appears out of focus is terrible ca and coma. dp's in hollywood in the 20s,30s and 40s understood the difference between depth of field,point of focus and bokeh. when early bausch and lomb cinemascope arrived they where horrified at the mess and poor quality. chretien sold the concept and the americans believed they could do a better job they did not. chretiens original lens for the mitchell camera was similar in size to the iscorama 36. but a square box design. hollywood made them much bigger. chretien could control the quality with small optics so less error. hollywood wanted big chromatic aberation is optical error and nasty looking. bokeh is romance and natural. i have a couple of old hollywood optics one from the 50s and one from the 60s proper camera lens not projection. and to my horror when i got them one needs f8 the other f8.5 that is why hollywood loved big lights in the 50s

it is a fixed focus design for 8mm cine film. it came with various close up lens of different magification remember standard 8 format is tiny film format so loads of depth of field. it is not as good as iscomorphot because of fixed focus. you can use it with digital but have to stop down. you need a +0.5....+1 and maybe +2 close up.. you will then use your camera lens to focus. over 12 feet should be just with camera lens. for focus closer try different close up lens in front of anamorphic and adjust camera lens. baby anamorphic lens bits all these tiny anamorphics suffer a little because of tiny back optic..so choice of spherical taking lens needs experimentation otherwise you will get bad smear and double imaging. even the nicer iscomorphot 8 focus lens smears a lot and is a little soft

leica do not mess around. for them reputation is all. 2nd rate does not exist for them. in the 70s and early 80s when they where using minolta a superb camera and lens company for the making of leica r zoom lens.the leica rejection rate was very high. they set a standard if it does not meet that standard it is rejected. leica could of been as big as zeiss if they had od loosened up a little on this rigid mindset. supreme quality silly high price but as close to optical and camera perfection as you can get. leica now have the technology to implement the digital leicina special. a metal cine box with a leica logo. damn they could even make it out of titanium. no crap tastic plastic materials like the rather flimsy looking blackmagic thing. i have an old 8 year old leica digilux 2,the sony sensor failed last year it was sent back to germany for a free replacement.. how many companies would do that. Dr Andreas Kaufmann is a very sharp fellow we need a leica cine box wih a dalsa ccd

panavision slow kill from unsustainable debt levels and bulky old film cameras. value only in optics in the store rooms. nasa slow kill ex space agency that today have too rely on the russians to get into space. nearly as bad as the brits with aircraft carriers but axed the plane programme. so aircraft carriers with no aircraft and a space agency that relies on the old enemy too get into space. like all nasa projects the technology will be given underhand to china or a group of developers will leave and set up a company. nasa have relied mainly on kodak,phillips and dalsa over the years i cannot believe the funding for this has come from nasa,who are dieing from obama's cuts. unless it is connected with a earth based kill technology which seems to be america's biggest growth area. my guess from someone that has purchased a lot of old nasa optics. the investment in sensor is more too do with drone surveillance systems a rapid expansion of which is going on for use in the american homeland. with all the corruption in the uk,usa and france sometimes the best technology does not get the investment back handers prevail. dalsa are a superb sensor company who have lost out in the last few years not to superior competitor product but simply not paying off the proper people.

kirk You display such a fine tuned sense of taste... really gives weight to your arguments... [/quote] captain kirk it was a joke you know ha ha. but you clearly are warped if you prefer seeing digital 3d munchkins in red sterile vision. so yes i would prefer to see nice girls..i am guilty. my point is this is bullshit politics,money and marketing each director on different deals. with the last big film man standing seeming to be christopher nolan. so i will wait. my guess is i will prefer the exotic analogue beauty of a batman using tools that seemed good enough for welles,kubrick,tarkovsky and truffaut. over the new way's of cameron,lucas,scott and jackson  monsanto like poisonous and plastic. i will wait to eat my words. will scotts new vision best bladerunner.manns best heat..jacksons lotr..lucas thx1138 etc. some of these nazi's actually want film to die.. unless they are being paid by some corporation why bother being negative about negative. it is hilarious they want it to die but they use it as a constant f ing reference. film look this and that.

i must say apart from the negs this new old technology is getting one amazing thing is it has made the fat boy look thin. i assume the bloke with the crack pipe is george lucas. the fundamentals look grim though do we really want to see the bloke from the office and lot's of munchkins in nasty eyepopping clinical digical  3d :'( super high res hot swedish teen romp maybe  ;) but not little people with big noses from munchkin city. i believe that uncle petes been smokin a lot of dope and watchin reruns of his masterpiece braindead.

bullshit,money and politics. some good nay at times great directors seem to do piss poor work in the new digital era. soderbergh's che',michael mann..give me the earlier anamorphic 35mm films any day. let us wait and see how  old fashioned,low tech and crummy the great lovely duo of christopher nolan and Wally Pfister's efforts look using the real film look on the next batman. i remember george i got a free sony cine alta lucas saying 8 years ago digital has bested film r.i.p. well film in the hands of nolan is lasting longer than lucas predicted because it looks good. the shift is about big and little finance,politics and bullshit nothing more. maybe golem should have smeared some of his sweat on the hobbit camera lens  to create a separation from the hideous reality or is it actuality. let the battle commence nolan,ridley scott or peter jackson.

fuji make yummy stills and motion picture film...even instant films. they also have made small batch cameras like the hasselblad x pan. with the highly regarded sensor division it really is a superbly structured company in kind of shape that kodak can w never now attain. this company for me have the future potential for superb high end products. kodak went for cheap made in china rebadge. fuji film have said guys we cannot beat the big boys canon and nikon with trickle down vast product range. but we can look at another company leica and using are internal resources can carve out a good position in this brutal market. aim high. look how far they have come in less than 16 months. all they have too do is listen..listen to the customers who are paying for a premium product like the american airforce rebuilding steve austin the 6 million dollar man they have the power,the resources,the technology. they now are carving out a market at some point when they integrate the film and the digital guys together a slicker moving picture device will surface. the next high end camera they do should really make leica sweat. also fuji has a very small but really superb optics division with over 40 years of work behind them from 35mm lens,to high end broadcast camera zoom lens to large format optics. i cannot think of another company that has so much internal integration. i just hope they have the vision and the aggression.

nikon gets a thrill from loss of face from video because they never wanted it,said it was not necessary said people did not need it.and we understand what is best. just like the market should be happy with the smaller dx format and on a test bench it was good enough. canon have been cautious waited,they shaped the new market framed it. canon is hardly likely too produce a dud here,they will leave the loss of face too the nikon video clowns. japan is bankrupt this means a need for big sales..fukishima is not in cold shutdown. the mark 3 will be a very sweet slick bit of kit and another small chip off the red block.

ohh blessed nikon why do you not wait. why always be first too show your stale video goods. d90 humiliation. rotten video implementation. trumped by a flawed canon. such loss of face. next time be patient. wait let your enemies show the cards,let them show the firepower they have. then react in that critical decisive moment. if these moving picture retarded nikon cameras keep coming,we can only assume it is a policy. nikon understands something about video. never go full retard.. :)

contax with the contax n did a big sensor digital slr camera lovely pictures at 100asa it failed.then kodak it failed. canon took it up and ran and ran. later they came out with the beast of video that changed some things. nikon have always been behind making excuses..we do not believe full frame is important,we believe in the lab are smaller sensors are just as good blah,blah. then when it started costing nikon  money and sales  they did a mad rush into full frame...the cameras turned out to be superb but again a knee jerk reaction..the same with mirrorless kicking and screaming bad rushed design and again with video. i thought nikon today where at least 14 months behind canon and panasonic on the video side. with the mark 3 from canon it will be 18 months and that includes the new nikon with uncompressed out which is stunner stills camera with d90 upgrade video. canon will do just enough improvements too screw over nikon and the competition with very solid sales,not the revolution but enough too make a few red guys sweat. nikon deserves nothing until show a real commitment,canon deserve a lot of praise for what they did and hopefully whats too come. both nikon and canon control too much of the market,i wish fuji film and leica would step forward.

just when the video retarded nikon d800 thinks it's something cos some dude with a big helmet on a motor bike. shakes his stills camera around and his director says. man the d800 as a camera it cannot get any better than this this is nikon steppin up and changin dere game  :D all i can say is god help us if that is true and then. comes this modest cheap bit of panasonic plastic and with the help of a mad russian and other looney tunes. they fart in the general direction of canon and nikon and say you own the market but not for much longer. you have been lazy and greedy. mirror mirror on the wall yes, in a new camera ? hail the hackable panny. and lets have leica and fuji do something cool in this moving picture arena.

this is just a clip it means nothing. any turd can be made shiny and new and the nikons make mighty fine video of the second rate. this is a man and a teams clip it is not a test. let us wait for the nice people to shoot statics,you know the kind of things crew tend to do. boring stuff on a head and legs locked off and uncompressed output. let us wait for nikon to explain fully the technicals of the video output. reminds me of some youtuber shooting lens focus sharpness tests of traffic while panning. kubrick did not get his crew to do camera tests from choppers or motor bikes at night. enjoy the clip as a nice cool clip but it could indeed have been done 4 years ago by the 5d mk2. when i saw the cool apartment i was waiting for the guy to splash his face with water like the original5d clip. nikon make the greatest high end slr stills cameras in the world and some bad low end stuff they have shown a complete disinterest in video. like full frame sensors they have been dragged kicking and screaming into this area,certainly the most conservative of companies. the knowledge base within is 14 months at least behind panasonic,sony and canon. this is not a revolution this is a revamped d90 in video terms the uncompressed output will not be the holy grail. it is and has been ignorance but could also be as someone else said a losing face issue. meaning they are not gonna get into a brutal war with the companies that have had a long history of broadcast video.maybe it is a yakuza thing. my guess is they have put this technology  in without the video implementation skill set and talent of panasonic or others.