Julian

Get both front and rear clamps, well worth the extra price. I have the same lens you have with Redstan clamps. Having the Redstan clamps with the anamorphic will increase it's resale value considerably, should you be worried about such things.

Ask him if he still has 0.4 ATX Tokina diopters for sale. They're the best diopter out there, and they're not getting any easier to find. He had some when I got clamps, so I got one, and let's just say I'm never getting rid of it, even if I do upgrade anamorphics.

Why is it so bad? 
 
 
 
Umm... how old are you? 
 
 
 
So in real life it's a non-issue, huh.
 
Sounds like a poorly grounded or cheaply done audio out plug and/or amp on the motherboard. A bummer, but surely not a "serious bug," as someone screamed. Hopefully they'll fix it in the next batch of hardware. Meanwhile, just go out and shoot something. Go and listen to the buzz of a bumblebee or a ladybug to distract you from the headphone buzz.
 
 See? An alleged Panasonic hating Sony shooter defending Panasonic, how can that be?   :P
 
 
Yeap, that sounds more like it. Either that, or dodgy electronics/workmanship in general behind the line out plug. Hopefully the better headphones designed for audio monitoring are the ones supported by Panasonic.

I do often.  Because it fits the type of corporate gigs I'm doing these days.  It's a short slide 24."  For my jobs that works.
 
I don't do a lot of it though for my personal work though. 
 
However, I recently tested emulating dolly shots hand held with an Oly E-M5 and was very satisfied with the results.  It requires some tai chi body control, but it's very do-able.  I was trying to figure out if I could use the camera on an upcoming documentary that'll put me in the field hiking 15 miles every day for two months.
 
Obviously in that situation I want my kit extremely minimized.  I'm just taking the camera and two lenses... I might have limited gear on that assignment, but with that 5-axis stabilization I don't feel like my shot abilities will be.

This site is excellent for info on manual lenses and has good info on care and repair, getting a basic toolkit together and all that.
 
http://forum.mflenses.com/equipment-care-and-repairs-f6.html
 
http://forum.mflenses.com/basic-techniques-to-repair-lenses-and-cameras-t32862.html

Terrible arguments.
 
Fast and expensive media. For example, the Panasonic GH4 requires a UHS-II Class 3 SDXC card. Not just a 95MBs capable card, but a state of the art one that costs US$250 for a 64GB card. That might net you 80 minutes of video (still haven’t gotten a chance to verify that). It’s possible we’ll see some cameras that use far more compression that can use slower cards, but isn’t the point of 4K to get ready for the next generation of TV, whenever it comes? You don’t want to be the “fuzzy†provider of 4K output, do you? False. 100mbps 4K works fine with pretty much all my UHS-II cards. Also, sd cards are dirt cheap (for example, a Lexar 64GB 600x works like a charm, this is an expensive brand. Cost? a whopping $70 :)) Really, 100mbps isn't exactly lots of data/second. It's hardly more than the GH3 at max bitrate (70mbps).
 
Lots of storage. Thing is, you’re likely to want to preserve video quality during editing, which means transcoding into something like ProRes format. Prepare to be shocked at how big the files get. Really shocked. As in your 80 minutes of video off that expensive card is now 256GB or larger. By the time you build proxies, create a timeline, etc., your single card now may taking up more than half a terabyte. Remember, you also need backups to everything, so okay, we’ve probably crossed the terabyte line. Why would you transcode during editing? When you open the source file in a 32 bit project (standard in premiere I think?) You'll always have the maximum 'room' available. Just choose your codec of choice for export. Keep the source files in their small 100mbps format.
A new MacPro. This was an eye-opener to me. My current gear is quite capable of editing and running the video projects I do (all 1080P at the moment) in real time. My first 4K test? Uh, not so much. Not at all. I have a PC that was high end 3 years ago (Intel i5 2,4 Ghz, 16GB ram, 180GB SSD, Nvidia GTX 660) and I can edit the Panasonic GH4 files just fine. Maybe you need to upgrade a part of your system a bit, you really don't need a $3K MacPro.
 
Definitely don't let those arguments get in the way of your interest in the GH4 :)

Andy, share you YT links! Would be nice. I have a lot of Minolta lenses, so the video below was very useful to me. Even if you don't have such lenses it gives you a good sight of all the parts inside.
 

Yeah, my use of the word "overview" wasn't the best. However, it was great to read the honest opinion of a user who obviously isn't a Panasonic shill or sycophant. His seemingly honest impressions made me more interested in the camera actually. 

There's another good commentary on the cost of 4k here: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-cost-of-4k.html

Back online!

Nope, not even close.. Redstans are beautiful. Website seems to be back online. Did you get in contact?

*UPDATE*
 
So I figured out that Quicktime is only averaging the bit rate. When you play the clips in VLC and view the statistics while it plays, there are peaks that get closer to the 100Mbps mark. 

John, Thanks.  I can't seem to locate any copy of Bell&Howell less than 800 USD.  I really would not want to spend that much if I can help it. Is the Prominar or the Centavision that much worse than the B&H?
 
Julian, Thanks.  I have been looking around for a Nikon MF 85mm f2 and I think that should do the job.  I looked into the Jupiter and it looks like it's a bit of a hit or miss with that lens.  As for the focusing, yes, I'm aware that you have to focus both lenses.  I won't be following a moving subject wit this lens.  If anything moves within the frame, it will be going from side to side and not towards and away from me.  Or I'll tell them to stop moving. :)

58mm will get you a good deal of vignetting, and MASSIVE distortion.
I shot this with a Helios 58mm and a Kowa for B&H, 5D3:

A lot has been questioned about this subject since it first showed up in >a> couple pictures uploaded to Redstan's flickr, or (four days later) in Andrew's first post about them, in late July, 2011. Almost three years have passed and still we don't have enough objective reviews and facts about this mod. I'm gonna try to achieve this goal here. I'm starting with a bit of history (which involves some guessing), but feel free to skip it. :)

At first, it seemed that Alan (Redstan) was the one responsible for the whole thing, but now I believe he was the one who presented the the job to Van Diemen, and made a whole bunch of them at a huge cost and time. I don't think he sold any of these from the first batch, since we never heard of anyone reselling them, or using anything like that, but I might be wrong (Tony, feel free to chime in and correct me if this is wrong information). Then, time passed and a year and a half later comes Andrew Wonder, who was also featured on another EOSHD post involving a tuned iscorama, he called his "Wonderscope" and explained how he linked the pictures to Christopher Smith's machining job at Van Diemen.
 
I come to believe it was only after this "indirect" advertising and lots of emails and questions from anamorphic shooters over the world that Van Diemen realised this "thing" could be a regular service they were the only ones able to provide. Partly thanks to Tony's many inputs on the original design and partly thanks to the sudden interest in the subject. If I'm not mistaken, early 2013 was the moment when other shooters from this forum started sending their lenses over, and we had all the fuss regarding HUGE delays in delivery and processing orders. People had their lenses trapped there for over six months, etc. Just search the forum for "Van Diemen" and some of these will be listed, followed by multiple users asking various questions about the mod. Mainly "is it worthy?", which is a VERY subjective question.
 
I've sent my pre-36 Iscorama lens from Brazil in early December, 2013, after extensive emails with Christopher, at Van Diemen. My main concern was the time it would take to complete the job. He assured me I would have the lens back in 90 days. Recently, other forum members have reported they're >speeding the process to only a week, which is amazing (of course, this doesn't take into account the time spent during shipping).
 
The mod is listed on Van Diemen's website, and costs £850.00 + shipping (and another £95.00 if you want special engraving). That rounds to about US$1500, which, we all should agree, is a big amount of cash. It's important to remember that not all Iscoramas are eligible for the conversion as well. Tony has pointed out that the inner workings of the anamorphot are kept intact, so if you have defective glass or bad internal mechanisms, these will be passed onto the mod. Christopher confirmed this by informing that all lenses are verified once arriving at VD's, and every single defect is reported back to the owner, as you're asked if you want to proceed with the conversion (mine has some faint markings on the rear glass). 
 
Now, what does the mod do, EXACTLY?
 
The original Iscorama 36 weighs about 400g, has a fully plastic housing (which is pretty fragile) and focuses down to 2m without diopters (or >closer, through a hardcore mod). Rear thread is 49mm and you need some spacers to avoid hitting its rear glass onto the taking lens' front glass. Goes as wide as 50mm on a full-frame sensor and has a simple button feature for alignment. Focus throw is long (around 8mm), and if you modded yours for close focus, you need special attention so you don't drop the front element to the ground.
 
The VD conversion weighs 680g (220g lighter than an Iscorama 54, and still much smaller than the 54 beast), because the housing is solid metal. Also, it has standard 0.8 pitch focus gears. At some point during assembly, Christopher sends you an email, confirming if focus engravings should be in feet or meters, and it focuses down to 1.1m (or 3' 7") without diopters (it's twists a little over 360 degrees, and that impresses me every time I do it), even though the closest focus engraving is 1.2m (the 1.1m mark would overlap with the infinity mark). Focus throw is 1cm long, beating the close focus mod and making your life really hard if you want a follow focus that is able to spin from infinity focus down to 1.1m.
 
Rear threads are 58mm, and it does increase vignetting a little. It shows very slight vignetting on a Helios 44 (58mm) if stopped down, on a full-frame sensor. Aligning is still very simple, much like 1.33x lenses, where you have a rotating part with a small screw that locks the lens into position. Mine had the alignment buttons in really bad shape, so this new housing made aligning really simple, and I don't have to worry about breaking the lens apart in the process. They're also kind enough to include front and rear lens caps for safer transport.
 
I also read - after my conversion was done - that Van Diemen redesigned the rear (clamp-like) part of the housing to avoid this extra vignetting. I couldn't find the link pointing to where I read that. If someone knows what I'm talking about, please comment below and I'll update the post! Also, if you want to improve it even more, you can follow >jaquet's tips and stuck it into a lens support so you don't even need to align it ever again.
 
There's a recurring comparison between VD and a 54, and they are, indeed, different lenses. First of all, VD isn't necessarily multicoated, like all 54's, it's still a "medium" lens (not as small as the original 36 nor as big as the 54), but it doesn't draw so much attention, so you still have the stealth factor. Front thread is 72mm, which is a blessing for finding and using diopters, quite the opposite of the 95mm filter threads on the Isco 54. Please consider that I've owned (and used) an Isco 54 for over a year, so these aspects aren't guesses at all.
 
The full metal body is very nice too, since many Iscoramas have had rough times since they left Isco's factory, 30-40 years ago. Mine had its filter thread broken to smaller chunks of plastic and was held together by an empty UV ring. This, added to the almost-stuck alignment mechanism, and close-focus mod made sure that I could not EVER rent the lens as it was. Damn, it's a $4000 lens, it would be nice to make some money out of it, right? VD's conversion lets you rest assured that your Iscorama will work like any regular professional lens should work: without any special information required (specially regarding quirks).
 
Also, some other useful information not entirely related to the conversion: You should check in your country's customs office if there's a special form or procedure for items that are being sent out for servicing abroad and will return later. This will avoid paying extra taxes over the conversion costs. I know Brazil offers this option, and it's particularly useful, since I would pay a 60% tax over the declared value + shipping cost if it wasn't through this method. Plus Christopher is a really nice guy, who replies all messages and addresses every question you might have about the service. A good seller makes a hell of a difference for me.

This is something that I've been thinking about a lot while reading this thread.
 
It doesn't seem to come up often enough how important it is to get to know your camera/kit inside out. Personally I'd rather use a 'lesser' camera I'd had for 6 months or more (one I knew exactly how to get the best/what I wanted out of) than a 'better' camera I'd only had for a few months and wasn't so confident/intuitive with. 
 
Until very recently, you could even have gone so far as to say that because H264 cameras are relatively so close in video quality, the best one is the one you have used the most. That's how I feel after watching some of Kendy's films anyway.

I think the limits of Kendy's gear has allowed him to really focus and hone his style. There's a definite consistency to all his work in terms of style.
 
It's only one style though, remember that there's a broad range of looks that would need different gear. A wide angle shot of a city would be moire hell on a 550D.
 
The Sigma 30mm F1.4 is interesting. I picked a battered old one up today for 189 euros. It is actually quite sharp but not too 'perfect'. Goes well with my Iscorama 54 as it is quite stocky but wide, like the Iscorama 54, and the focus ring has quite a short throw. On the Nikon D7100 it looks great. On the BMCC speed booster on my GX7 in 1.28x crop (full sensor, for stills and 1080p) it gives a nice fall off from the centre in terms of vignette while never quite going completely dark in the corners. Nice little character. I can see myself using it. My favourite look of the moment though is still 5D raw + 50mm F1.2L. Unbeatable :)

By the way here's a few frames from Kendy's next film, doesn't look quite so 550D does it? :)
 

 
He is very talented, I have followed him on Twitter, let's see what he comes up with next....

They've landed in the UK! Mine is shipping tomorrow for delivery on Friday :)
 

A decade!!!! I can't wait that long!!!!
 
Seriously though, everything you've mentioned is pretty much already out there in affordable cameras. The GH4, the A7S, the BMPCC and the EM5 -  take the best of each and you're almost there. In terms of technology, there's no reason that camera can't exist at a decent price. The main obstacle is marketing. Hopefully Blackmagic and Panasonic have shaken things up enough to speed things up a bit.

Turn off audio and see if it changes.

I, for one, appreciate the sentiment this thread has evolved into.  As the technology rapidly becomes more democratic the tools become a commodity.  What you do with that tool matters more.
 
I love watching the march of development as much as the next guy, and I like to buy video/film cameras. Canon, Panasonic, Nikon, Hitachi, JVC, Sony, Fuji, Bolex, Arri...  I've owned 'em or rented 'em all.  But I'm not a fan boy that projects their purchasing commitment/ownership into some sort of brand proselytizing.
 
It's not too hard to imagine that in a decade we'll all have access to numerous small DSLR cameras shooting over 4K with incredible low-light sensitivity, full frame, uncompressed internal flash card recording, 5 axis-stabilization, and over 15 stops of dynamic range.  And it'll be pretty cheap to boot.
 
Digital moves fast and we'll have those goodies before you know it.
 
Those that concentrate on the craft rather than the tech will stand out from the numerous numerous people that will also own this gear.  As it has always been and and it will always be.
 
It used to be that purchasing a superior camera got you into the realm of "pro" simply by ownership.  After all, six figures for a well lensed and rigged camera is serious business, and DOES have value.  However,  I really think that legacy of the industry will be more and more irrelevant.

You're right about shallow DOF being used to direct the audiences eye. You're wrong in saying that its just to hide bad lighting or framing.

There's definitely a place for low-fi image quality.
 
Kendy's video shows why hiding stuff is just as important as what you show. The 550D / T2i was a perfect choice for what he wanted to do. I have used that Sigma 30mm F1.4 and it also has character. Nice lens. Not too perfect, not too clinical.
 
Says Kendy...
 
The whole film was done over 3 days, post production included. I used my small Canon 550D, everything is natural, no additional lights. I think it is much more atmospheric. I don’t like it when you can see everything clearly on screen because it looks fake. I like the idea of showing just the shapes or the shadows of the characters like in a comic book. I wanted something organic so I added some clean 35mm grains to my footage, because I like the visual render of the old cameras such as the Bolex. For the strange flares effects, I use a broken glass in front of my lens and shot with only one hand. It’s easy with a small camera like the 550d, but could be a pain with an Alexa because of the weight. Because I make everything with After Effects (including the edit) I work very fast. I don’t waste my time by switching between several softwares or video tools.”
 
Talented guy and without doubt the 99k plays on Behind The Move are there because of his sensitive use of the camera aesthetics, the sensitive handling of music and content, and the content itself including that amazing girl, fantastic dancer, great story. It all matters. ALL of it.
 
In the case of Behind The Move the low-fi visuals suited the content but what about when they don't? What if you want to film a rich sunset in memory colour and see every blade of grass in a field? The 550D works best with the shallow DOF and medium close-ups seen in Behind The Move because it hides a lot of the flaws, like a lack of detail, moire and aliasing, compression, muted colour, etc. There will be a LOT of content that these issues don't suit and it helps to know about it before getting all inspired over someone else's content and picking a camera that might be completely ill-suited to your own.
 
Also shooting style has a lot to do with it. Here the 550D is on a relatively slow-shutter speed and all handheld, with some great framing going on. Kendy's camera work here is like a high wire act. If you don't always get the framing emotionally connected with the mood and the subject matter, the slight of hand will be revealed the magic vanishes. If your shooting style is locked down, on a tripod, the 550D is the last thing you'd want to use, believe me. If your shooting style is more dynamic and flowing, then you'd probably be better off investing in drones and rigs rather than cameras anyway. Everyone is different.
 
I want epic scenery, anamorphic, striking visuals, super rich colours and rich details. Sometimes I may want handheld camera-work, even black & white, a grungy low contrast low resolution feel. Why not start off with as high a quality image as you can get your hands on and rough it up? The glass in front of the lens in some shots in Kendy's movie is an example of that. Making stuff look less clean, less 'real', more magical and otherworldly.
 
The technology needs to keep improving and the shooter needs to stay on top of it.
 
I am already imagining ways where Kendy's video could have been improved in terms of lenses and cameras!
 
It doesn't need to be improved though because the muted, low-fi look is perfect for his subject matter... the isolation, loneliness and overwork of the dancer, being stretched this way and that in a big city away from home.
 
If the film was longer and we followed her back home and there was a loving embrace with her mum or something... maybe you'd not want the same look for that scene.

kendy ..pure talent! he has a page where he sells his canon picture style and how to grade it here: http://www.kendyty.com/#!stills/ck0q
 
 

I downloaded Luke's raw files for that test. It was a good test but not a definitive final one as I am sure he will be first to admit. I am sure he has more planned. The stuff I found...First the GH4 has digital sharpening applied because it is set to 0 in-camera, the middle of the sharpness scale rather than -5 and that separates it from the Epic and 5D because they both have no sharpening applied in post on the raw data. None of that changes Luke's conclusion that the Epic is softer though, he's right. It is. The GH4 seems a little overexposed in the test which lends a harsher look to highlights in the image, like glinting specular highlights on the roof and the gradation in the sky suffers a bit because of it. The 5D Mark III looks overexposed to me and boosted in post to ISO 800 to match the native ISO on another camera. It should have been shot at ISO 200 with no exposure boost in post necessary on the raw file. Exposure to the right may have helped it. The Epic looks filmic to me, but I am surprised how little extra detail it is giving compared to upscaled 1080p to 4K from the 5D Mark III!

The epic is the reason why a lot of people in the video world think 4K is just a marketing thing.
 
It's actually great that one year after ML RAW we are comparing compressed video to it, something that was completly out of question just a few month ago.
 
The most videoish thing is sharpening slighly out of focus areas, or footage shot above f4-5.6 which on m43 is already totally into diffraction area, there is nothing more ugly than sharpened diffraction.