richg101

You have made a very valid point. it could be that the quality of a medium format lens is contributing to the difference in look. All I know is that on my forbes tests i am running a far from optimal setup. lots of glass, lots of chance for errors and aberrations however despite all this the aesthetic still looks different to anything else. one of the initial shots in the Master is another great way to show the look - when he is cutting the coconuts under the tree. nothing like it.

The proof will be in the pudding. I for one hope a good quality medium format focal reducer comes out. But not for the aesthetic benefits - of which there will be none over a good quality 135 format lens. I'd hope if one comes out it delivers good enough optical quality to transfer undegraded the image circles from my hasselblad lenses onto the a7r's 36mpx sensor - which only a few 135 format lenses can fulfil. But i cant see it happening unless suddenly the world's stocks of 110mm f2 planars is multiplied by 1000 and they start selling for £250. only then will it seem worthwhile to manufacturers for the reasons you are hoping to achieve. Even then, on full frame the 85mm f1.4 will be similar to a 110mmf2 + focal reducer. It's not science or drawings i am using to back up my opinions. I'm just going by my own experiences. We all know an aps-c sensor + focal reducer looks nothing like a full frame sensor. it's similar, but it's not the same IMO. Phase One, Leaf etc wouldnt be making medium format sensors if there were no difference would they?

the effortlessness of a 100mm t2.2 on such a big frame will be astounding. not much different to a 85mm f1.4 on full frame in terms of shallowness and field of view, but it'll be 10 times more pleasing since as we all know a f1.5 85mm always has rather a lot of fringing on contrasty grads like branches or telegraph poles.

Regarding availability of the alexa65 I really hope its cost renders inaccessible to guys shooting commercials and other lower end stuff. I see too many low profile things shot on Alexa and it devalues the look when you go to the movies. I don;t want a Asda / Walmart advert to look like a movie. It would be really good if arri keep this away from low profile stuff in the same way the alexa studio is positioned out of reach of small time stuff. And the same as Panavision's prestige I miss going to the cinema and being wowed every time. It seems only the case with movies by P T Anderson and Nolan that movies feel like movies nowadays.

focal reducers don't give the same rendering as a bigger sensor. the reasons? medium format + 80mm f2.8 has the dof of an 80mm f2.8. It's still an 80mm lens. full frame + speed booster + 80mm f2.8 lens = 50mm f2 lens. no longer an 80mm and no longer renders the gradation between in and out of focus subjects. The field of view and dof will be the same. but the rendering will be distinctly different. The only benefit to a focal reducer on full frame using MF glass is for resolving power. and to make it worthwhile the cost of a high enough quality focal reducer will be thousands due to the fact that there is not enough fast medium format lenses to go round and thus the market is small. As full frame sensors reach 50 and 80mpx the need for such a thing will be more important since a hassy 80mm f2.8 will outresolve all f-50mm 135mm format lenses when compressed down to a 0.7x image circle. = This is my forbes 70 test which shows the power of a big format - the width of view from a 50mm f2.8 is madness when matched to the dof.

looks to me like you;re expecting too much. I don;t know what your exposure methods are, but I'd have shot nowhere near as hot as you are. I see that both the lenses you are using are notorious for fringing on ultra high contrast steps. I think if you closed the apertures down a little this issue would disappear. Looks to me like your fringing lenses in combination with about as contrasty scenes as you could find, as well as your over hot exposure is causing the issue to be more pronounced.

Yo Nick. I don't actually think your setup needs comparing to the iscorama (considering just how humble the concept is, and how humbly priced the lenses are). I'm yet to see a anamorphic with as lovely flares and character as the little b+h. its flares are wonderous. Personally it's a setup I'd have no problems fitting to a bm pocket and imagine the end result would be better than that from a iscorama (due to the stronger squeeze and its inherent nicer and more obvious aesthetic) - helping the smaller sensors out and making the morphic look more obvious. The reason dso first started was because i wanted to make a lens that gave the lo-fi 8mm anamorphic look to the iscorama. have you gone to manufacture of your focus mod for the b+h? I have a couple I've picked up as and when I have seen them in cine and dusty old camera shops I frequent. Would love to mod one of mine with your focuser. on a side note... The FF38 wide angle attachment (0.66x) will be shipping by the end of this week. - the rear optic pretty much matches the front of the B+H and being such a highly corrected lens (4 elements, two of which being ground from pretty much the most expensive flints available). It's probably gonna work really well on your little unit. Maybe a direct trade? one ff38 for one of your focus mod kits? :)

something tells me the gold cinelux lumps might start becoming quite popular...

double tokina? Hark at you! I was shooting with the rama and a +2 century achromat on a job last week. 50cm maximum focus. ovals from the gods:)

You sir have talent:) Love it

Lovely. I'm assuming you;re getting very similar dof to this test i did - which is quite a feat on s16mm. off the top of my head, your setup (25mm f.85 is approximately the same as a 75mm f1.4 on full frame? bet that looks wild. samples please!

I grabbed one of those b+h's and thought they had everything (lush flare, good performance-considering their size, great bokeh rendering). it is literally the 5 turns worth of focus ring that keeps them from being useable. going back to my original post, I don't think it is crucial for the new ones to out perform or even meet this benchmark, but at least show how they compare so people can see if they are worth an investment.

I wanted to show how the Iscorama 36 delivers when fitted to a fast 50mm on full frame. boring imagery I'm afraid due to the size of the sensor the field of view obtained here is very close to that which you would expect from a 35mm focal length anamorphic on 4perf 35mm film. A 35mm anamorphic lens is considered wide, and anything beyond that is considered a 'special effects' type lens as far as i am aware. I feel the ability to obtain a wide angle from a anamorphic is a very desirable attribute. A fast wide is the holy grail. The magic is that despite the fact that we are getting a little fringing on leaves (characteristics of the 50mm lens when wide open), the results at f1.4 (t1.5) are astounding when you consider the width of frame and the control of dof possible on this combo. to me I think this is the benchmark the new bunch of single focus options should be compared against. -can they deliver this field of view/dof combination? nearly what you;d expect from a motion picture 35mm anamorphic from the likes of panavision. -can they deliver the above without adding CA or softening at f1.4? -can they do this on a full frame sensor? -can they do this without adding vignette? -can they provide this without the need for additional support? -ultimately, can the new options improve on the Iscorama when the above criterion are met? This is not a poke at the new units, but a personal opinion of my own which i feel needs to be considered. For example since the SLR magic anamorphot arrived not a single user has really put it through any challenging tasks and as such, we are now seeing many appearing on ebay due to what i imagine is disappointment from users expecting more from it. at the time of launch of the slr magic iscoramas went down in value slightly. of recent i have seen a lot coming up for sale - from people thinking about the new options around the corner? who knows? if we had seen the slr magic tested on a f1.4 prime on full frame we'd have probably seem more obvious oval bokeh, however, will it have been so soft the results are null and void? We need to see these things IMO.

the opteka's are a joke. tiny optics in a big ring. i think the 77mm one has the same optics as the 55mm version

large +10 achromats are rare as rocking though. I think redrocks is the only one ever made in large numbers

indeed. those +10's were essential for using with redrock dof adaptors I imagine! I actually grabbed on for development of my 70mm dof adaptor I built a while ago. It never got used though.

i have an old +10 red rock achromat sitting here I knew would come in use:)

beautiful results Tony. And lovely to see some helpful diy info being posted. The use of stronger optics in your second test is great. Anamorphic lens whacking anyone? In my experiences I would add that using a large diamter century diopter of +7 strength alongside a cheap 'singlet' wide angle adaptor for the pd150 will work great. As wide angle attachments they are hopeless, but as a source of an off the shelf high quality portion for what you are doing they will be great!

nice. need to see some humans in the tests, faster more exciting focus pulls, etc but the bench/swing and inf all visible in the frame is a good indication of depth of field. I'm glad i grabbed a cinelux for this. edge to edge niceness. if anything I'd like more breathing! edit. just seen this is on the nikon v1 at f2.8. could do with seeing some larger formats to decide just how usable the focus optics are.

wow. that youtube sample looks pretty bad for an official advert for the video capabilities. looks like its trying to sell a camera like this based on its low light capabilities. While the A7S is still rolling off people;s tongues it's like trying to palm off a 10 year old F1 car as something current. My 8 bit xavc footage seems like a distict step up from previous 8bit footage i have been shooting with - even when uploaded and crushed by vimeo. why does this look so nasty on the gradations? Then onto the daytime stuff and there is no dynamic range. I'm blown away how such a large production budget could be lowered in value by the camera and lens system. cries out 'man with a stills camera on a film set' to me. Shame. i expected at least a lovely 1080p image like we see from the c100

it's a camera you can call your mates on. perfect. when i saw 1" sensor I smiled:)

Nope. I'm Dog Schidt Optiks in my day job, and Richard Gale on the EosHD forums. I wish I'd gone ahead with a similar thing about a year ago when myself and Hans_Punk were talking about putting together a DSO Iscorama copy very similar to what FM have done and what you have tried. I myself don't feel patent infringement is a good way to create products (if this is infact the case). I'm not in the anamorphic business (Yet) But i will be, and I don't intend to be repurposing projection optics since they present far to many problems to pro's wanting wide (f-35mm anamorphic). In any case I dont think the bloke behind FM (I love the way you know his full name) needs anyone talking on his behalf since his footage and product is showing great promise - personally all i know him as is 'MK' when i messaged him asking to be put on the waiting list for his unit.

? You;re nuts man. really mad. This is a forum, not a pace of work, so stop taking things so seriously. You talk down rudely about this FM focuser, making ill informed suggestions that the optic is possibly some $4 off the shelf pieces of glass. You also seem to be giving Nick (Quick hit record) and redstan (Tony Wilson) public tellings off.... I for one was speaking to Nick with regard to his own hard work on his little bell and howell project and it seems funny you had been talking to him (since it now turns out what he was planning would have affected your own plans). A quote from your previous post:- QuickHitRecord, on 03 Sept 2014 - 7:16 PM, said: How the heck is he doing this? I can't wait to learn more. Hey Nick, if you don't mind I will have a stab at answering your question :) Remember the discount voucher I sent over to you to get those $4 lenses from Surplus Shed back in January when we were discussing these things? Well, completely out of the blue Tony Wilson contacted me last week suggesting I was using the exact same focal lengths as those $4 dollar optics that we bought, amazing coincidence for sure :) Rectilux is very very different from a $4 optic. When the information about the focus throw in millimeters from near to far of this FM lens gets out, then we will know for sure what focal lengths are being used. Perhaps when or if anamorphicshopcom (Mr Mindaugas Komskis) decides to make a personal appearance here, then he will fill in the blanks. I am looking forward to that. I am also looking forward to seeing the footage with all the scopes it is claimed to work with." Don;t for one second tell us that your post was anything other than an attack on the unit we're discussing and getting excited about here (positively as forum members - not business men). You on other other hand used the thread to bring up your own unit. From day one it has seemed you've only been here for business reasons. Come on man. We've all seen your repeated condescending remarks towards others here - including myself. I distinctly remember the time of your arrival here when we were discussing use of a tokina +0.4 as a sharpening aid for optics such as the century and despite not having any practical experience with such items you were very quick to disregard experiences of others (including myself). But worse, people like Redstan, Andrew Reid and others who I and many other consider some of the most well informed anamorphic enthusiasts in the world. If i recall you said something along the lines of "You have no idea who you are talking to do you?" to myself when i brought up my findings from using the century and the tokina. As a result I have been eagerly awaiting the 'marvel' you have been repeatedly bringing up over the last years. Finally you announce this marvel and it's not really anything worth getting excited about. Footage tells a million words and unfortunately I have yet to see anything from you to back up your very powerful talk. And as such you;ve compelled me to come in now and then and promote some discussion and critique - my back up of the iscorama you disregard in your own thread - I've shot the tests you suggested, proving my theory. God knows why. maybe it was just to re cement my own experiences in my head. edited it too, but can;t even be bothered to upload it and waste vimeo bandwidth. Walk the walk as well as talking the talk and maybe you won't have to see people talking the truth in a maybe rather negative way. Nothing in my previous post was particularly unfair when considering how you behave here. the focus mechanics you've shown look like you've taken a £60 helicoid and lathe turned the notches off to disguise it. If there wasn't such big talk here I'd have let that one slip. The talk, the price, the attitude... it's all wrong man.

fantastic design by the looks of it. interested to see how the long shroud might be removed/changed? for fitment to other anamorphics. Lovely large optic to accommodate the focus throw required for the 0.5m minimum focus (without vignette I imagine). front thread is spaced out from the optic to clearance and further reduced chance of vignette at full focus extension. looks like something designed very nicely from the ground up with a real bit of mechanical design rather than an ebay helicoid, a plumbing fitting and a pair of tiny off the shelf singlets. bet the price is reasonable too...