Rudolf

Could be this one? '?do=embed' frameborder='0' data-embedContent>> (because it is the "rarest anamophic ever"... )

I think the "focus mod" is water under the bridge. Somebody did experiments with it 3-4 years ago and noticed fringing when not stoppeded down (I recall it was a 42 however...) So doesn't make sense. For good reason Isco made diopters. These achromats do the job! And for good reason they build the 36 light and versatile. But I am not an expert... :rolleyes:

Thank you for your clip! Beautiful :) The ease of use and the great reliable quality of the Iscorama is priceless. Only the Möller comes close. The Baby-Möller despite of double-focus system is very easy to rack focus (except with Nikon lens...) and the image and character is the best of all the adapters I have come along. Everything else with big mounting gear and clamps and rods or whatever is somewhat annoying and degrades the fun massively (My Isco 54 is already covered in dust)

I used the Tokina 17mm fd with LA7200 and GH2. I think that was ok (if I remember right) But with Speedbooster... maybe not a good idea: Will vignette and you have to stop down anyway (at least 5.6) or image is very soft. Otherwise FDs are very good with anamorphics.

Filmshooting is somehow an art of is own. There is much you can do with film, you can't with digital because you cannot manipulate it. You cannot touch it! Maybe film is a bit more like painting instead of taking a digital picture...?!

I think it is great if such an initiative is launched. For sure this is also a big amount of work. The concept and pricing is very promising and looking good! However I see some problems: Probably everybody who makes a video spends some/a lot of time to choose the right and unique music in order to make the video/piece of art very special and unique. You don't want to share your soundtrack with hundreds of people as you don't want to share your footage. This is a big dilemma with library music. That is also the reason why I don't use preset sounds... So, if this shall work I think there has to be an archive or pool which offers the possibility to find something unique.

Probably digital is already superior to film quality wise but... there is so much more about film: Well stored film lasts for your whole lifetime and can ever be reproduced (also with a device built of LEGO :) ) Shooting film is totally different as you have to think twice. David Lynch pointed out that actors seem to work more determined/concentratde when shot on film For my latest Super-8 project I shot 10minutes of footage which cost me more than €250,- So this is something worthy and that makes it special. When I capture video it is always too much. I am tired of watching hours of rubbish. For some reason film is more artistic for me. I also like to cut with scissors and project film (just watched a great documentary from 1971 - even my 18 year old son was impressed). The most important thing is maybe that my brain is analogue and analogue is more pleasing to me. I also prefer records instead of CDs :) Regarding the above mentioned new camera - There is such thing: It is called "Logmar" and produces stunning images with Super-8. This looks absolutely like 16mm when you choose some of the new negative stock. And there is no (NO!) flicker at all :o But sometimes I also like digital and it is fine for me but at least I have to use some less sharp lenses and some anamorphic glass to reduce the cold clinical sharpness. Just a matter of taste :)

Rich, this is totally astonishing. You are gifted with very much talent! I lost much of my interest for digital cameras during the last year (and I don't understand anything about the technical background) but this... man thats epic!

Thank you very much for this review. I should have sold my GH3 yesterday...

maybe you'd like to check this out: http://savefilm.org I now this is a forum for digital cameras but maybe here are some filmshooters as well...? However I apologize if you consider this as spam and if not thank you very much! I love film :)

It would be also appropriate to ask the artist who created the music to inspire your video for permission. Maybe the musician just doesn't like his music being used for any reason... BTW I have made very bad experiences with so called fair music: I sold very little cds 5-6 years ago with a fair lable and discovered later that my cd was on no. 4 of their charts (I googled the my cd and found hundreds of obviously illegal download links). However the only way for me to make some money with my music is to produce GEMA free music which my customers licenses from me and then may use as agreed!

This discussion is too much about law and profit I think. There is an other interesting question: How big is the portion of the music on that new creation (the video)? I have been making music and doing some filming/video for 25 years with very little success but much fun and passion. Honestly I don't think it is as artistic to create a video with random shot in any city with any people and add some music as to create just a nice piece of music. When you want to create something really new and try to be artistic it is much more satisfying to create everything yourself (including the music) or work with musicians together. What I try to say is: In many cases the value of the music is higher than some more or less average footage. If you really like the song there is a much higher chance you'll watch the video then the other way round (in my case) We have to rate the music as art much higher and not just talk about law and money! PS I am not an artist. And I don't understand how so many people dare to call themselves artist?!

I have a cheap clone for my FD lenses and GH3. I just came home from a shot and used it the whole time with my Iscorama (no mods here). With the 35mm Canon FDn there is very slight vignetting but still ok for me. And looks good for video but not perfect for stills. Anyway I don't need razor sharp images so I am fine with the cheap clone.

I don't get the point: If you want something robust get a '54! That "upgrade" makes all the advantages of the rather light and small Isco obsolete!

This is not the Leica m39 (Summicron 2.0) Monobloc. "Just" the 42 adapter. I know somebody who owns one (beside 36 and 54) and he says this is the sharpest.

I also enjoyed the tiny Hypergonar but it has it's quirks: At first you need DIY mounting and filterthread solution (there is non) And you definitely need diopters for sharp image. Maybe you can ask the Van Diemen "rehouser" for a special edition ;) It is also rather expensive... In my eyes the small Moeller has the advantage: Very appealing super sharp image, no diopters. Mounting is easy with Redstans clamp. The dual focus on the Moeller is also a piece of cake. You can even manage focuspulling with some practice. For me that small Moeller is better than my Iscoramas :)

I would say in first place it depends on what you are going to do with the camera... I have a GH3 and an OMD em5 which are absolutely enough for my needs (my customers don't have an idea of 4k and raw) - I don't produce big stuff just for the web and some corporate stuff. But when I want to make something special I grab one of my filmcameras choose appropriate stock and decide carefully on my motiv, subject, cinematography. That is a totally different approach and absolutely worth a consideration. Sometimes I have got the feeling the people who film are much more focussed on an artistic and creative work rather then tech-specs. And keep in mind for film you get a 100 year "warranty" (good storage needed) :)

Sorry I don't know the answer, but Moeller resides twenty minutes from my house. Sometimes I am in that area with my bike - I 'll ask ;) It seems to be inferior:

Side note on the "achromat-debate": I read that Kostas Petsas who has some reputation and experience with anamorphics has pointed out (cannot remember where unfortunatly) that he hardly can see a difference between the Tokina 0.4 achromat and the 0.5 single... I compared my Canon +2 Achromat with +2 Diopter ( as well as 2 stacked +1) and there was no difference for me as well. Conclusion for me: To my old eyes, with my old Iscoramas and cheap old lenses and mostly old film cameras it does not make sense to spend so much money. I am going to shoot a low budget sort of commercial soon how will care what kind of diopter I use. I think there is sometimes a gap between reality and budget or purpose of what people here intend to produce. It is always the same: Every two months there are new products causing a stir and driving people crazy... I just cannot believe that all the people here really need 4K - for what? I am making music and filming for nearly 30 years: The possibilities are getting better and better - so does the content? :unsure: Sorry for getting OT

wtf... my Isco is 1.4273 Stupid isco-people should have had in mind that their amateur equipment will be intended for use in huge productions in the future... On the other hand that news will put a lot of pressure on the price tag :)

What a pity... the Cinegon is so super rare. :o Very sorry for that!

There are so many (projection) anamorphics on ebay and few iscoramas. Well there is that Rollei-monombloc which is around for years now... that seller keeps faith :D During the last couple of weeks I also thought that the interest is decreasing and therefore crazy prices. Just check this forum: So many offers even from passionate collectors... On the other hand I am not so sure about the benefits of anamorphics anymore: Anamorphics have their real strength when it comes to project a wider picture. That is where the fun really starts :) But I also agree with woopax and Paulio regarding character and look! I cannot imagine to shot digital for fun without some bent glass in front

Very good looking and you did a good job on focussing as well. Fun to watch. I liked the zebras and the next shots with the shadows... and all the others as well. Also waiting for some new clips with your rare Cinegon :)

Hi Jae! Thank you very much for your work! Very informative and good to know especially if you are on film and doing tests like these cost you a lot of money :) The 54 was (and still is) often used on Super-8 cameras. Most of these cameras have zooms. Mostly from Schneider, some Angenieux. The Schneider Optivaron for example is a very sharp lens. 6-66mm F 1.8 and has 62mm thread. The 54 had a step-ring for that size. Maybe I shoulde try my Optivaron for Leitz with an adapter on the GH3... The Angenieux lenses tend to be softer and have less contrast

Strangely I was so unlucky with the Contax Zeiss: I was experimenting with the 35mm F2.8 and 28mm and I was very unhappy with them. They were inferior to my Canon FDn's and so I sold them. The W. Germany Zeiss with Rolleimount (50mm 1.4) is totally different. Color is different and much sharper. Mine is on par (not better) with Canon FDn 50mm 1.4 I think there are big differences where or when they were made?