QuickHitRecord

Rudolf, I am so glad that some of this was useful to you. It has certainly been a learning experience for me. I have the Thorium Canon 35mm and I think that it vignettes slightly. But the 40mm however does not vignette.

Also, Andrew's book is very helpful. I find the GH3 settings menus to be overly complicated and a bit scatter-brained but Andrew's PDF helps to walk you through it.

The GH3 is supposed to be announced next month. If it were me I'd wait or you might end up kicking yourself.

[quote name='kirk' timestamp='1343831722' post='14782']I'm no expert, and still building my lens collection, but have had great pleasure using my heavy Olympus Zuiko 11-22/ 2.8-3.5, Konica AR 40/1.8 and AR 135/2.5 . I'm hoping to find a Konica AR 85/1.8[/quote] I love the Konica 40mm too. I didn't even know that they made an 85mm, but I gather from what you say that they aren't easy to find. If you are able to get by with three lenses, then I envy you!

[quote name='marcuswolschon' timestamp='1343823654' post='14776']I don't consider the Voightländer a good all-round. The Panleica 25mm does that job much better with the Voightländer stepping in for extreme low-light. I find the Voightländer to be too way soft compared to the Leica.[/quote] I have never used the Panasonic Leica 25mm. Is it stabilized? The Voigtlander is a touch soft but I can rely on it. My GH2 in particular struggles with low-light. I don't trust it not to band anywhere above 640 ISO. It's good to have a lens in my kit that can produce usable video in all but the worst lighting conditions. The 12-35mm Lumix may end up becoming that all-round lens for me. I had the 17-55mm EF-S with the 7D and it was so useful that I rarely took it off the camera. But it does seem like it might be a bit clinical and I am trying to stay away from that. [quote name='marcuswolschon' timestamp='1343823654' post='14776']55mm sound a bit long for product photography unless the products are quite small. For hand-sized to arm-sized objects I use the 25mm with about a step distance. Why the longer one? Distortion? [/quote] I bought it for another purpose but found that it is great for shooting close up shots of products. Very little distortion, and I can get the camera to within [i]inches[/i] of the subject. For eBay product shots, I can show people a lot of detail. [quote name='marcuswolschon' timestamp='1343823654' post='14776']An f1.8 sounds a bit expensive for non-improvised interviews with ample light.[/quote] It's a non-AI. I was able to pick it up for about $100. It is a bit heavy though. I am considering switching to the slightly more expensive Nikkor AI-S 85mm f2, which is much smaller and lighter (and sharper from what I hear).

[color=#222222][font=Helvetica Neue', Arial, Verdana, sans-serif][size=4][background=rgb(255, 255, 255)]Somewhere between ditching my Canon 7D and now (shooting primarily video with my GH2), I have bitten off more than I can chew. I have acquired more than twenty lenses, many of which I rarely or never use. With this much glass, I do not feel like I know and love my kit like I used to, so I have decided to pare things down to include only the lenses that I am most excited about. Some considerations:[/background][/size][/font][/color][list] [*]I prefer the character of older lenses. [*]I shoot a lot of anamorphic footage these days, so I don't want any lenses that have barrels that rotate when focusing or that have large-diameter front elements. 55mm is about as big of filter size as I want to deal with. Also, it may be a petty consideration but having a standard 52mm filter size across as many lenses as possible is appealing to me from a convenience standpoint. [*]Though I'd like to have a go-to, image-stabilized lens in my kit (I'm looking at you, 12-35mm Lumix X), I want to wait until the GH3 specs are announced -- it's a stretch, but in-body stabilization could void the need for this. [*]I am trying to think about the future. I want lenses that I can take to another camera system should the situation arise. [/list] Here is what I am thinking about keeping:[list=1] [*]12mm SLR Magic f1.6 -- Mostly for steadicam work. [*]25mm Voigtlander Nokton f0.95 -- Good all-round low-light lens. [*]40mm Konica AR f1.8 -- Sharp, compact, and works well with my anamorphic lenses. [*]55mm Nikkor Micro AI-S f2.8 -- Mostly used for product photography. [*]58mm Helios 44 f2 -- Interesting bokeh, is a perfect fit for one of my anamorphics. [*]85mm Nikkor Non-AI-S f1.8 -- Fast, and a great focal length for interviews. [*]100mm-300mm Lumix f4-5.6 -- For wildlife shooting. [/list] I think that this represents a good range with little redundancy. But there are some shooters with a lot more experience than I have on these boards and I'd be curious to hear what you think, or what you have in your lens bag.

Nice shot. Can't wait to see some video. That's where the anamorphic properties will really shine.

I just saw this and thought that Andrew had scored [i]another[/i] killer deal on a second Iscorama. Even though I am not on the market for one, for about ten seconds I was just slightly bitter.

Watch eBay! Someone listed a brand new one last night and it was snapped up within a couple of hours...

This is a forum for anamorphic shooting. Post this in the main forum and you will get more feedback.

It had me mesmerized for the first fifteen minutes as I tried to figure it out. Then I surrendered to the abstract and was only able to keep watching for another five minutes or so. Hats off to Lynch for taking some risks.

Be honest. Who watched it all the way to the end?

richg101, I didn't realize that you were Richard Gale. Congratulations, this is a pretty slick design!

I have spoken to several people at Panasonic about this issue and sent them examples because it has been an issue for me as well. Panasonic is aware of the problem but their canned response is basically that it's a consumer-level camera and the video function is not meant to be pushed the way that we are pushing it, so they are not going to do anything about it. Their attention is on the GH3 now. The banding actually starts showing up at anything above ISO 640 for me. Andrew may disagree, or maybe I just got a bad unit, but I do not see the GH2 as an adequate "low-light" camera at all. But this has forced me to pay more attention to lighting composition, which I really should have been doing all along. If you light properly, you can get great results with it.

It is a cool piece of gear to be sure but you'll probably get a better response if you post it in the main forum.

I have found that sometimes the aspect ratio changes slightly depending on the where the lens is focusing (close focus vs infinity focus). This causes the lens to "breathe" when you try to rack focus. I am not sure if this is a focusing adapter but it's something to consider. And either way, it's not the end of the world. Stretch the footage to whatever it needs to be, and then crop it to anything you want.

Put some diopters in front of your LA7200 (+1 or less are the most useful). You will be much happier with the result.

In Quicktime 7, you can change an image's size (both vertically and horizontally) to whatever you need them to be under 'Visual Settings'. I have not tried it with Quicktime X. And I know of now way to set this as a default.

Free advertising for Ray Valenti! Of course, I'll never be able to afford a house after buying all of these anamorphic lenses. There are a couple of generic/off-brand models out there. I have no idea of what this one is. But it's good to hear that you seem to have found a winner. To answer your question about aspect ratio, try this: Print a picture of a circle and tape it a wall. Square up your camera as much as possible and get a quick shot of the circle. Then take it into your editing software and stretch it out until it's a perfect circle again. Look at how much you had to stretch it and you'll know the ideal ratio of your lens.

I preferred the image from the Alexa myself. But if they switched up the DPs for round two, would I be saying the same thing? The fact that the GH2 is even a [i]part[/i] of this conversation is remarkable. I sold off all of my Canon gear and bought the GH2 because I wanted to have a camera that could produce an image without any distracting visual shortcomings -- I wanted people (professionals, casual YouTube surfers, and everyone in between) to be engaged with the content instead of the pixels. For the most part, I feel like it has been a good decision. There will always be bigger, better and newer cameras coming out but as far as I am concerned, this one sets the bar for consumer video cameras and will continue to as long as 1080P is still a part of the conversation.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1342374464' post='13893']yuck! is that 16:9 I see? where's the morph?[/quote] Right on the money, Rich. This doesn't belong here by any [i]2x[/i] [i]stretch[/i] of the imagination. (Commence puns)

I'd like to set up a post where people can talk about their experiences having their anamorphic lenses serviced and repaired. I have very limited knowledge and (fortunately) no experience with an actual repair so far, but please contribute if you have something that you can share here. Many of these lenses are very old and might need some work! In no particular order: GENERAL ANAMORPHIC LENS REPAIR Super 16 Inc (New York) - Bernie O'Doherty repairs and services anamorphic lenses. From Bernie: "A maladjustment of 1/64th to 1/32nd of a degree can mean the difference between a sharp image and one that needs a close-down to f4/5.6 to provide a decent image. And customers seem to accept lower image quality where anamorphic lenses are concerned. Of course, some lenses have imperfect design features which prevent optimum image quality, but, in general, after a good optimizing, most lenses, even anamorphic, benefit from such a servicing." Focus Optics (California) - They may service other anamorphic lenses. When I emailed them, I got a one-line reply that said something like, "Yes, we service anamorphic lenses". Which ones, I am not sure of. Abel Cine Tech (New York, Chicago, Los Angeles) - I came across a forum in which they offered their services when someone asked about a problem Kowa. ISCORAMA REPAIRFocal Point Lens (Colorado) - John Van Stelten was the official one-man Isco projection lens repair service in the United States up until they were absorbed by Schneider a few years back. He has worked on lots of Iscoramas. He is one of the few lens repair specialists that I have talked who offers lens polishing and re-coating. It's not cheap and it can be risky, but in some cases, this process successfully removes any trace of scratches, coating issues, and fungus that has etched into a lens element. He also has an autocollimator, which is essential for re-callibrating lenses after they have been taken apart. Nippon Photo Clinic Service (New York) - They are listed in the Wikipedia article on Iscorama as being a repair show that can service Iscoramas. They can probably service Kowa and Bell & Howell as well. I need to give them a call to confirm (they are closed for the weekend). LOMO REPAIROlex Camera Services (Ukraine) - I have emailed back and forth with Olexandr quite a bit with questions about my Lomo square front. He is very knowledgeable. I have not yet had to employ his services, but Ed Lee of the Lomo Anamorphic User blog has, and he's given Olexandr high marks. I wish that Olexandr accepted PayPal! Super 16 Inc (New York) - Services Lomo anamorphic lenses. See mention above for more info. RafCamera (Belarus) - Rafael can install PL mounts and geared rings on Lomos. Focus Optics (California) - They service Round Front and BAS model Lomos.

I just got an email from SmallHD about some of the features of their new DP7 monitors that will be hitting the market this Fall. Of particular interest to the people who frequent this forum: [i][b]ANAMORPHIC DE-SQUEEZE[/b][/i] [i]2x, 1.5x, 1.33x — However your image is squeezed, the DP7 can correct the image to appear at the correct aspect ratio, even with DSLR scale. Particularly handy is the ability to send the un-squeezed picture downstream to other monitors for clients/directors who usually prefer non-squishy images [url="http://www.smallhd.com/site/dp7-pro/roadmap.html"](Coming Fall 2012 via free software upgrade)[/url].[/i] You can already more or less manipulate the DP4 and DP6 to display your 3.55:1 image (as well as the other standard crop ratios), but it's nice that they thought to add it in as a preset. After shelling out all of this dough for anamorphic lenses, not everyone will be able to afford a DP7 (myself included), but I would not be surprised if this is pushed out to the lower-end monitors as well in the next firmware update. Let's hope that the good folks at SmallHD are feeling generous!

That's quite a list of credentials. It is great to have such a seasoned veteran in our midst. I could be wrong but I don't think that too many of us have rubbed shoulders with greats such as Kubrick. Having worked with so many anamorphic lenses (8mm, 16mm and 35mm from the sound of it), which have been your favorites? I know that you've spoken highly of the Baby Hypergonar and Iscorama...

Tony, would you mind telling me what your background is in? You have a lot of great insight and everytime you post I know that I am going to learn something. [quote name='tony wilson' timestamp='1342107473' post='13793']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 [/quote] The images produced by Lomo and Hypergonar both really speak to me a lot more than Iscorama. I guess it's easy to tell what I am not so keen on. I will soon have an Iscomorphot to play with. It delivers the distorted filmic image that I like so much, focuses to under one meter without diopters, and is also rack-focusable. So the best of both worlds perhaps!