QuickHitRecord

Andy, I am not using any of these old Schneider or Isco lenses, but I am curious about how your mount works. Could you post a video clip?

  That makes sense. Maybe what I am focusing on is the macro-blocking and compression artifacts (and lack of it in the other image). I understand the basics of the science of color space, but I always thought that it was something that could be seen with the naked eye. Perhaps it's not.

  Good point. I have included the link. But like you said, it's important to run tests on your own camera because sometimes for inexplicable reasons the results can be different.

Interesting. I did a similar test a while back (also with Flowmotion 2.02), but got completely different results: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1299-gh2-iso-tests-rethinking-the-iso-bug-iso-320-cleaner-than-iso-160/   Grabs (click for larger view):       Did you account for the ISO bug when you shot yours?

@chauffeurdevan @hmcindie   I am by no means an authority on this, but the examples shot by Andrew are consistent (at least visually) with what I have come to expect  of the difference between 4:2:0 and 4:2:2. Here's an example that I screen grabbed from a D800 with and without Ninja 2 external recorder that I downloaded from Vimeo a while back: This is what I am seeing in Andrew's examples, especially when one looks at the lens center. Whether the D5200 is providing true 4:2:2 output rather than a re-wrapped 4:2:0 in a 4:2:2 signal, I have no way of knowing. But there is clearly more chroma detail in the first shot, wouldn't you agree?

Whoa. I think that may be the largest front element to rear element ratio I have ever seen on an anamorphic lens.

  They are big and heavy, and they breathe when focusing. I had to make custom mounts for mine to get them onto 15mm rods. In the case of my 75mm, I had to buy a counterweight to keep my setup from being too front-heavy.   All that said, they do make a pretty cool image.   I have made some additional notes in this thread: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/809-first-lomo-square-front-test

That is a classic example of color banding. It is a result of an 8-bit codec. There are only 255 shades available from each color channel with 8-bit (over 1000 for each channel in 10-bit). Unfortunately, it's very common, especially in DSLRs. It's easier to see in some cameras than in others.

  Look at the blockiness of the detail of the object behind the lens in the one shot and then the relative smoothness of the detail in the other.

That's a world of difference. If NAB weren't around the corner, I'd consider snapping up one of these.

  Interesting. I didn't know that about the 35mm roundfronts.   I can vouch for the quality of the OCT-18s. In my conversations with Olex Kalynchenko of Olex Camera Services he revealed to me that optically, the OCT-19s and 18s are the same. The only difference is the one-piece body and a superior lens mount.

  I use an Iscorama-specific Redstan clamp and my Iscorama (Pentax mount) is easily realigned by pressing the buttons and then rotating the barrel. After playing with many lenses that don't do this, it's a nice little perk. I am not really sure that I understand why it is not working for you.

  I see no reason why it would not work. The step ring has to be glued to the front of the giant 35mm film projector Hypergonar to give something for the Xume filter to screw into (because otherwise there is nothing).

I don't think that the threading is standard (i.e. spacing is consistent) with the threading on photography/video filters. That's why I glued an 82mm to 77mm step ring on the front of mine.

http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/1428-help-using-oct-18-mount-lenses-with-canon-ef/

  Over what, blogging about his IQ tests and opinions?

It's a huge anamorphic zoom in PL-mount (hence the Arri sticker). The seller is looking for about $2000 more than the lens is worth, which is is why no one has purchased it. It's been listed for close a year now, or perhaps even more:   http://youtu.be/UJICDqXSx_I?t=16s   If it's like the other Lomo zooms, it will exhibit heavy breathing while rack-focusing, which isn't a look that many people want. Also, as an older zoom lens, you'll likely have to deal with a lot more distortion and CA than current lenses, and I doubt that it's truly parfocal.   No idea what the numbers mean...   I love Lomos but I'd pass on this monster and get something smaller, cheaper, and more fun.

  Well, that's not something I hear every day. Looking forward to your footage!

I think that it's less of a company and more of a one-man operation. Alan makes these and sells them out of his home. I don't think that he's in an unhealthy relationship with the internet like so many of us are so it can take some time before he gets back to you. It's well worth the wait; the quality of these adapters is superb.

I have never seen that one before. It looks like a French version of the Century. 1.5x stretch, right? Is there a focus ring? What is your minimum focus distance? And most importantly, do you have any footage to show us?

  Those ARE unique looking flares. I can't quite put my finger on why they look so different. They don't show up when you'd expect them to (i.e. when you were pointing the camera into headlights) and they look solid. As in, they don't look like light but rather like something physical and tangible emanating from your light sources. Cool!

It's nice to see a write up about these. I haven't seen people posting much info about them at all. The ability to rack focus is nice. I'm curious though, since this seems to be an optical effect created by mirrors, how do the flares look?

Picture?

I'd rather talk about cameras.

  I'm pretty sure it would just be Nikon-mount glass. I have a set of Nikkor AI-S lenses that would probably work with it, but for most non-Nikon collectors this would probably not be a great fit.