Bioskop.Inc

They let you in with whatever you want if you're with the band - if you're just a member of the audience, no chance! No idea about which head to choose - try asking Zak on the other thread.

Normally the adaptors are quite generous & you need to dial back from Infinity to actually get infinity - could this be your problem? But if you're not even getting infinity, then it might be the lens - Russain lenses didn't have the best quality control & sometimes you have to buy more than one copy to get a good one. Try dialing back first - that's the usual thing that trips people up.

Let us know what your thoughts are about the Sirui Monopod - i'm really tempted, but just not sure how much of a hassle it will be at concerts etc... Maybe too much for that sort of run'n'gun situation.

Attach the elastic bands to the handle & then you gently pull them one way or the other - the more you add or the stronger the band, the slower/smoother the pan. This was a tip from a professional who said until you get used to the amount of tension needed for a smooth pan (or get a better tripod, which allows you to alter the tension), this method would teach you as well as giving you smooth panning shots. Sounds stupid, but really works!

Looks a lot cleaner now & the last shot seems fine. Are you panning on a tripod? Didn't seem smooth, kinda stuttered, but it might be my computer. If you were using a tripod, does it have some tension knobs (damn, that's not the right word) - if it does use them & some elastic bands (always use elastic bands for panning sideways).

Is it using 8-bit vid files - as the noise (especially the clouds - macroblocky), might be down to pushing the codec too far. LUTs are fine if you've got a robust codec, but with 8-bit you've really got to watch how many layers you use. Try grading without using LUTs - it'll take longer, but once you've got the look you want you can save it as a preference & then just apply it like a LUT to future footage.

Yeah, it does seem to work - big thanks to Hans Punk for putting me onto this trick. I export & then upload manually - you do get a message, once its uploaded, saying that your settings weren't correct. Next time I upload something, i'm going to export a full-res version & then downsample with MPEGStreamclip. Neat Video can be slow, but is worth the wait. Not sure why you'd want to denoise clean footage, but give it a go & see if it makes any difference. What are you using to colour your footage?

Thanks for this find Zak - how much weight can these things hold or are they purely a small set up only?

Looks really nice, keep experimenting. For better Vimeo uploading/playback, a good trick is to upload in ProRes Proxy & 2k. If you upload in 1080 & H264, Vimeo just re-transcodes your your already compressed footage evenmore & that's why you get a worse picture than you started out with. Don't ever bother adding grain on Vimeo as it just doesn't work - if you do add grain then really over do it. For Film Convert, for example, you need to set the grain level above 150% for it to show up on Vimeo. But as everyone says, if you want a clean picture then Neat Video is the way to go - its also has the best sharpening tool out there.

Is he going to be doing paid work or is it just for himself? If its paid, then he'll be on stage, in the pit & anywhere else he can get a good shot - so he'll be able to take full advantage of any lighting setup on stage. If he's used to Canon, then it might be worth trying to source a cheap 2nd hand 5D2 (saw a 2nd hand 7D go for £350, so 5D2 can't be far behind) - then he's always got the option to shoot RAW if he wants. And for the Moire-ists amongst you, really in those settings no one is going to be looking for that. Forget AF for Concerts, Theatre or Ballet - the camera will just get confussed & you might find yourself in a neverending search battle! I'll go with Matt on this one - BMPCC. Once the new Micros come out, i'm sure he could pick up a cheap Pocket cam. Its a lot better than people think or realise in low light & any noise generated is film-like, not nasty DSLR-like. All he'd need is a few batteries or cheap power pack (Anker), a few cards, a cheap RJ Focal Reducer & a simple rig (I use an old Krasnogorsk Pistol Grip/Shoulder mount & a £10 viewfinder from my 60D). This is the last concert I recorded, in ProRes HQ (should've recorded it in PR LT Video DR mode)

Oh, thought i saw f2 - my bad eyesight playing tricks on me again. But still, it will be excellent!

Man, you just bought the lens that's nicknamed the "Hollywood" lens - it'll be perfect!!! I'm assuming you realise that the blades don't work (per the seller's details), as you've mentioned you have an adapter with aperture - you could always look to see if they can be repaired, as they'll be better than using an adapter's blades.

Perhaps I should point out the very obvious fact that "concerts, theatre, ballet etc..." all have stage lighting, to varying degrees obviously, but its still there & sometimes it can be very powerful. I've found that I'm stopping down the lens or turning down the ISO more often than not at concerts etc... So it does beg the question of how much of a low light performer do you really need?

Do it, your stuff will look so much better & you won't have to mess about waiting for a lens that might not be that great.

Save yourself the time/hassle & get a good 35mm or even a 28mm. Mir-24M or N (M=M42, N=Nikon Mount) - I've had v.good results with the bigger focus through Isco lens (Widescreen 2000mc) & this lens. Or go Nikon or something similar.

Bit of a curve ball for you - Tomioka 55mm f1.2 or f1.4. You'll find that they made lenses for other companies such as Revuenon, Cosinon, Yashinon & Chinon (they all have the "Auto" moniker) - the only ones worth getting or being sure they are the real thing have Tomioka Japan on the ring as well. Tomioka was the Japanese company that made the Zeiss Contax lenses - pretty much says it all really!

You just can't compare Canon FD to Nikon ai-s to Contax Zeiss to Leica R etc... You've got to really know what kind of look you want & then go from there. Nikon Ai-s lenses are lovely & it makes absolutely no difference which way the focus ring turns - you get used to it. Here's a useful link that rates the different Nikon Lenses & he's always spot on with his analysis - the fastest ones aren't always the best. The 2nd link is a serial number link that helps you to know which one you're looking at when buying: http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html Nikon Ai-s are great & after the Russains, they are my favourite & I will be buying the whole set at some point. I find that i'm looking for how a lens renders the background areas, not just wide open but throughout the range - that's the real test for me, if its ugly at f4/5.6 then I just don't bother. You've got to remember that most lenses don't render their optimum capabilities wide open, especially if they're fast f1.2s. As far as Nikon goes the 50mm f1.2 isn't better wide open than the f1.4 & I prefer the f1.8! From your photos, it looks as if you're wanting a low contrast lens set. I think some of the lenses with older coatings will suit you better, especially those with a Gold-ish tint - be warned these will flare like crazy.

This topic: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/17149-first-footage-shot-with-m43-slr-magic-cine-anamorphics/

Well the obvious choice would be the Contax Zeiss primes, but they can be pricey. However, the cheaper alternatives would be the Yashica ML Primes - both C/Y mount: http://cargocollective.com/yashica/About-Yashica-ML-Prime-Lenses If you've got some cash, then the original Angenieux 28-70mm lens would probably be ideal & would save you using those filters - vintage, so not the sharpest, but the resolution of detail is outstanding (Its an Angenieux lens god dammit!). The Tokina version is close & cost me £100. M42 lenses are a mixed bag - have you tried the Super Tak 35mm & 28mm (not the fastest, f3.5, but sharp). The Russain lenses I mentioned are really good & I prefer the Meyer Gorlitz lenses to the Zeiss Jena. Try this forum for vintage lenses, its a real Aladdin's cave etc... http://forum.mflenses.com/

I know these aren't designed or optimized for S35mm in particular, but... Try some of the vintage Russain lenses: Mir-24M, Helios 44-2, Jupiter 9, Helios 40-2, Tair 11a Super Takumars are nice, as are Nikon Ai-s lenses. But, as a v.good all-in-one zoom the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6/2.8 (Angenieux version) is outstanding & cheep - everyone should have one in their arsenal!

Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6/2.8 (Angenieux design version - google it to be sure of getting the right version). Its parfocal & the front doesn't rotate - stunning lens, its the only zoom lens that i use or will ever use.

What kind of music is it & what kind of video do they want? How are you going to dress the room? That window & brick wall looks nice. The white walls could be your biggest problem or you could use them for filming shadows.

Wow! Yours doesn't flare?! So is this the difference between the Iscomorphot S8/x2 & the Animex branded version? Shame, but still produces nice images.

My bad it has a very slight vignette on the Nikon 24mm wide open at f2.8 & gets worse the more you close down the aperture. I think i did my last test in bright sunshine, but once the sun went down it seemed to become a lot more noticeable - but its a slight vignette @ f2.8. However, it could easily be cropped out, even if you stop down the taking lens to f5.6 - this isn't really a problem, as i don't think anyone is mad enough to present a x2 anamorphic image on 16/9 sensor to its absolute untouched unsqueezed image capacity of 3.55:1. So a 25mm @ f2.8 should have no vignette, but will vignette the more you stop down the taking lens. A safe bet would be a 28mm taking lens. Having a look at the Nikon 24mm f2.8, is that the lens cavity is exactly the same width as the Isco - the front element is the same size as the filter 55, but when you look into the lens all the other elements are smaller. You've got to remember that this lens is for Super 8 & not Super 16.

I used the Nikon 24mm f2.8, but i suppose any 24mm will do - just make sure that the front element on the taking lens isn't too large for the anamorphic's rear (I know that this is difficult, because its so small, but see what you can do). I'll double check to see if i'm wrong, as you can get more vignetting the more you stop down the taking lens. Also, you don't have to get it that close to the taking lens - you only do this to cut down on any anamorphic characteristics, which aren't to everyones taste. Don't worry too much about field of view. Just remember, without any focal reducer: 24mm x 3 (sensor crop size) = 72 (or 72mm field of view) 72 divided by 2 = 36 (the new anamorphic field of view).