Bioskop.Inc

Tito is spot on about the Jupiter 9 - the pictured one is the one to get, but are harder to find in decent condition (this goes for a lot of the Russian lenses - quality control & age can make it all a bit of a crap shoot). For the Helios 44-2 this thread from MFLenses forum is the best source of info: http://forum.mflenses.com/complete-list-of-helios-lenses-getting-closer-t26100.html This forum is an amazing resource for all vintage lenses: http://forum.mflenses.com/ A couple of other lenses, longer than 85mm, worth considering are these 135mm: Jupiter 11 & also Jupiter 37a (the 37a comes in MC & non-MC versions - v.low contrast on the non-MC'd version). The Mir-24M or N (M=M42, N=Nikon) 35mm f2 - stunning lens & not as MC'd as you'd think (its my go to Russain 35mm, as the Mir-1b ain't the greatest). For those that love sharp lenses & can't afford the Zeiss Contax lenses, then the "Yashica ML Primes" are a v.good cheaper alternative: http://cargocollective.com/yashica/About-Yashica-ML-Prime-Lenses

Hey Tito, where did you get the back clamp from, as i really need something like this for mine. Dan, i've been using this lens with the BMPCC & it has surprised me, as i'd given up on it completely but gave it one more try. To get decent results, you'll need a low powered diopter (i've been using a +0.25 & a +0.4) & you'll need to stop down to about f4-ish. You can rack or focus through, but you'll only really get a 1-2m window that is useable. Also, you'll need a taking lens that has a decent focus throw - by this i mean you don't want a lens that has the distances too close together, especially around the 5m mark.

WOW! So much hate for the 54 or the re-badged x1.33 version (yes its an Iscorama in all but name). On the good side, the prices for Iscorama's are dropping & you just can't live in the past, when you could off-load a plastic lens for £3k+. All Iscorama's have the same sort of character & the pre-36s don't flare that great anyways (what a gimmick!) - well not compared to other anamorphics out there. And now that dual focus attachments can be transformed into single focus, you can get a useable x2 anamorphic that is just as good, if not better than an Iscorama. And it is a myth that you can't get a MC lens to flare, you just have to plan a little & give it a little push in the right direction. IMHO I much prefer to be in control of flare, than it just showing up when you don't want it too. And just to be correct here, Tito has the rarest and probably the best of the Iscorama's - the 42.

Thanks for this, it looked really great. I think this is some of my favourite GH4 footage & it certainly has a lot to do with the Baby Hypergoner. I especially loved the seagull shots!

As with all BM products you'll have to wait - they have never hit a release date on time. We need to see what real world users think once it gets let loose into the wild. Weight souldn't be a problem - it will be way lighter than a traditional ENG & you'll find it will take a bit of getting used to, but not much (it'll help a lot with stability when shooting). Cfast cards will eventually become cheaper - all media does once the demand & market forces get to work. Buttons, menus etc... can be a pain, but every time you change camera make, there is a learning curve/time period to adapt. The only thing that you really have to ask yourself is do you need 4.6k & a bigger bodied camera? If its a clear yes, then I would reckon this camera will hit the spot, eventually. If not, then I do think that the Micro camera will probably be better - the pocket still surprises me with the images that people get from it & I believe that i'm not alone in thinking this. My experience with the Pocket cam has been a good one & I think a lot of people just like to complain for the sake of it - the screen, battery life, SD cards, ProRes, menus etc... have never been a problem for me. However, the image has been a real problem though - its too good for the price that they are charging!

I'm going to assume you're talking about the Kowa for B&H. Vintage lenses tend to better with anamorphics - single coatings & more character etc... Modern lenses tend to be too sterile, but its your own taste that matters. Nikkor lenses are great - there is a 40mm (never tried it), but the 50mm f1.8 pancake is worth it. I originally paired it with the Zeiss ZE 50mm f1.4 & that worked v.nicely. But the king of taking lenses for anamorphic adaptors is still the Helios 44-2 58mm f2 - can't be beaten.

Yes, that isn't how it should be at all - you should have 2 lovely flares (green & red). Looking at mine just a minute ago, you could probably realign it yourself - might take a few goes to get it right, but do-able.

Meyer Optik lenses are v.nice indeed - they are often forgotten about, but are examples of great german lens making. Nice contrast & lovely colours, but not the fastest - just under Zeiss lenses & I think that has more to do with faster apertures on Zeiss lenses than anything (in fact I prefer them to Z lenses). The 200mm Orestegor gets good reviews all round & the Domiplan is a surprisingly good lens (Meyer Optik didn't really do great/stunning 50mm lenses). Other Meyer Optik lenses to look out for: Lydith 30mm f3.5 - not the fastest, but really nice Trioplan 100mm f2.8 - silver & creates soap bubble bokeh (very rare & super expensive - there's a crowd funding project to make them again) Orestor 100mm f2.8 - great lens, love it Orestor 135mm f2.8 - called the "Bokeh Monster", enough said. Helios 44-2 f2 - has pre-set aperture (clickless aperture). The others are good (44-4 etc..), but this one is better IMO.

This is strange as i've just been filming some stuff with one of these & its soooo sharp @ 4m - I just use a combo of diopters to get closer & various taking lenses to change the FOV. I don't bother trying to rack with this lens. It does sound as if you've got a misalignment problem, but the Iscomorphot isn't a great focus through lens - the Widescreen 2000 is much better at this. So try setting the taking lens to 4m (it might not be that acurate, so a bit over or bit under) & focus on something 4m away (measure it) - I know its obvious & you might need to manually move your camera/tripod forward or back. If you can't get a sharp image (it should really pop when you're in focus), you've got a problem. Try a 35mm lens or higher & set to f2.8-f4. Using a fast lens like your Voigtlander f0.95 25mm wide open, is not the way to go - if your taking lens is soft (wide open or otherwise), then the anamorphic adapter won't change that. A tip i've found for best results when trying to focus through the Widescreen 2000, is use a low powered diopter & stop down a little - the focus range won't be huge (about 2m if you're lucky) & so racks are very subtle, not dramatic.

Don't get me wrong, your comments were spot on & were exactly my thoughts/misgivings - it should be a lot lot shorter. It is nice that people do take the time to comment. But hey, they've got to get people to watch it, not me & if they're happy...

Cheers Teemu, thanks for your comments. You've made some very good points all round & I did have a faster version of titles, which i was told was too quick - he wanted to highlight the music & his story in equal amounts, so there you go. I had also started the voice over parts a lot earlier, over lapping the titles, but it didn't really work. There's so much compromise when dealing with a band - its 3 mins longer than what i originally intended/wanted. There was 5hrs of footage (not all useable), 3hrs of interview (most of it rambling nonsense) & he changed his mind about what he wanted from the doc a few times (I still have hair, but barely). But the client [nearly] always knows best & certainly gets what they want - they be the ones that are paying. Thanks for watching & your comments

Thanks guys, its been a bit of a nightmare (bands can be a bit difficult sometimes), but go there in the end! Yes Hans, the title sequence is a little too long, but we agreed on me creating a Homage to Saul Bass & Psycho - over indulgence by me, but they're cool with it. Did try to get some vistas from Cabot Tower, but my Vertigo made the footage un-usable. If you're wondering about the titles then just google "Psycho Title sequence" - they're the inspiration. Why Black, Grey & White titles with some colour footage? Well I wanted the whole doc in B&W, but I kinda lost that battle - partly due to the studio section & the final graveyard section; they just looked too good in colour.

Cheers Hugo, much appreciated!

Pretty much the final edit for this short music doc - if you see anything that just sticks out like a sore thumb, please say (after a while you just stop seeing things). Thanks for watching or commenting... All shot on BMPCC (ProRes - Film) Mir 24M (35mm f2) + RJ Focal Reducer + Iscorama 54 + Hoya UV/IR cut filter + various diopters Mir 24M (35mm f2) + RJ Focal Reducer + Isco Widescreen 2000 + Hoya UV/IR cut filter + various diopters Tokina 28-70 AT-X Pro + Iscorama 54 + Hoya UV/IR cut filter + various diopters Nikon 24mm f2.8 + Iscorama + diopters Meyer Gorlitz Lydith 30mm f3.5 PW: stu

Pretty much the final edit, but if you do see things that make you wince or just seem bad timing or out of place - please make yourself heard (just be good to have a 2nd, 3rd, 4th...set of eyes). Thanks PW: stu

This is the question that we are all asking, but if the Pocket cam is anything to go by, then the Micro will look stunning! Think they are spending a lot of time on the URSA mini, so its the usual BM waiting game...

Hugo, As always your short is beautifully shot & executed - no surprises there. As a piece to show off the new SLR Magic Anamorphics, well you only go so far - but you wouldn't put crap shots in a lovely piece like this (its called the cutting room floor for a reason). Also, using anamorphics isn't all about flare, shallow DOF or oval bokeh! And I assume that you were using these lenses at their sweet spot, which probably won't be to the taste of everyone, but looks very nice. However, it would be good just to see where & how these lenses fall down - in the spirit of openess & all that, fellow consumers need to get the full picture & not just a pretty one. So, any thoughts you'd like to share - pros & cons?

Use a tape measure to get the distance - sounds obvious, but when starting out with a dual focus lens doing things properly will pay off in the end & save you time. Once you set your taking lens & the Kowa to the measured distance, then tweek both lenses until its sharp - when its sharp the picture should pop. Could also be your choice of lens - anamorphics can play up with certain lenses.

Well after extensive testing with BM ProRes [film] footage, whilst using FCPX, it really seems that the Alexa profiles are so much better than the BM specific ones - skin tones, contrast & colours appear much nicer. However, I have found that to get the best results (or at least, to my liking) in FCPX, I am taking the flat Film footage & adjusting exposure, WB & saturation - this gets the footage looking like it should do e.g. revealing all the goodness of the BM footage. Its only then that i've put the Alexa rec709 profile from Filmconvert on top of all this & it adds that extra something that was really lacking in the BM profiles of Filmconvert. Now my footage really seems to come to life in a much more pleasing way than before. This is especially so for this Doc i'm finishing up - Black skin tones just always came out looking un-natural, with hints of orange/yellow. The Alexa profile just nails it perfectly or at least a lot better than before! The 2 flavours of Log profiles didn't seem as nice going straight onto the BM flat film footage though - got me thinking that I could try making Film footage flatter before adding FC... cheers Ed for pointing us towards Alexa FC profiles, more work for me now, but better looking footage!

Ed, thanks for the Filmconvert Alexa tip, it really is so much better than the BM one I was using - the only downside is that i now have to re-colour an entire Doc! But it'll be worth it.

The Doc Searching for SugarMan (2012) used all sorts of different camera footage - he ran out of money & had to resort to using his iPhone (not one of the new ones, but one circa 2010/11) to film a portion of it. So might be worth doing some research on what cameras they used & the tricks they employed to mix'n'match different quality footage. The one thing I do know about the iPhone footage, was that he used an App that simulated s16mm style footage. Must be lots of tricks out there...

Kind of a Catch 22 situation going on here: Low Budget filmmakers want an all-in-one anamorphic, but they are difficult & costly to make. Judging from their previous offerings, i just don't think SLR Magic are going to deliver something that's going to have enough of the WOW factor that people are looking for, at a price that they can afford or are willing to pay. I agree with Rich here, if you're going to invest in an anamorphic lens, the Iscorama is still the go to adaptor/lens. Also, you've got to consider that by being able to pair them with different taking lenses, you can drastically change the look of your projects & so aren't stuck with one look specific look, but a variety. The market place has just been blown wide open with the Rectilux Core DNA & the SLR Rangefinder, so now Dual Focus Anamorphics have become much more user friendly - shit, you could buy a couple or more & it'll still be cheaper. I know that there aren't that many pre-36s or non-MC 36s out there, but the hype that they are the best Iscorama just does my nut in. Yes i've owned one & yes i sold it - I prefered the look of the Kowa for B&H, was prepared to endure the extra hassle & the extra cash in my pocket. Just remember that you can get MC anamorphics to flare - in the recent-ish Star Trek film they shone really powerful torches/lights into them to really get the lenses to flare in a crisp over the top way. I recently encountered this with an MC lens whilst filming a concert & I wasn't even in control of the lighting! When i've got time, i'm going to try & demonstrate this, which will hopefully dispel some of these myths. But having said all that, I do tip my hat to SLR Magic for actually making them & really hope that they have come up with the goods.

If you've got a budget to make a doc, then rent something that's going to make your life easier - don't buy. Something like a C100/300 would be an ideal choice, simple to use & has everything under the hood - the image from them can be plenty cinematic.

Found 2 pieces that say the 2012 version is exactly the same as the original: http://forum.mflenses.com/new-helios-40-2-from-us-vs-old-helios-from-russia-t64227.html http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/helios-40-2_85mm_f1-5_review.html so it should look like this: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Helios-40-2-85mm-f-1-5-Russian-M42-mount-lens-for-Canon-EOS-cameras-NEW-/251984781540?hash=item3aab76a0e4 This looks like an original: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Helios-40-2-85-mm-f-1-5-MC-Lens-for-M42-screw-/231672592736?hash=item35f0c33960

Wow! Did a bit of reading on the 2 newer versions of the Helios 40-2. The brand new one, no one knows anything about it. The new one, 2012, (identical in body shape to the original) no one seems sure at all about quality - is this a ploy to hike up the price of an Original?