Bioskop.Inc

For the history & different versions of the Helios 44-2 its best to read this thread: http://forum.mflenses.com/complete-list-of-helios-lenses-getting-closer-t26100,highlight,%2Bhelios+%2B442.html They were made at different factories, at different times & its probably best to read the thread. The 44-2s are pre-set aperture, whilst the 44-Ms aren't. If you've got a stiff focus ring, then these are the easiest lenses to take apart, re-grease & put back together - its child's play (there are online tutorials somewhere, just search). My copy of the Mir-1B is exactly the same, but it works - if its sharp, keep it; if not get a new one. Quality control on Russain lenses seems to have been very average/non-existant. Helios 40-2: Just looked & there is an even newer version, news to me! 2 years ago they started selling old new stock lenses (that was what people said & they looked identical to the original) & now they have made a completely new version (i knew nothing about this). The Original version was M42 mount & when they re-released it, it came in 3 different mounts (M42, Nikon & Canon). This version is identical to the original (see link below): 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 The new version is news to me & I have no idea whatsoever about it or its performance - did they mess with it in some way, who knows?! My suggestion would be to stick with the original design - tried & tested. (I know someone who bought the new/old stock version, as in the link above & its exactly the same as mine). EDIT: Sorry, just checked he bought an original old version. So look for an old one or plump for the one in the link i posted (its half the price that i paid 4/5 years ago!). The only 2 lenses that you might not be aware of are: Tair 11a 135mm f2.8 - pre-set 20 aperture blades (no real weirdness, but a great lens) Mir-24 35mm f2 - shits all over the Mir-1B! However, it isn't a pre-set aperture & has very poor multi-coating (i.e. it still flares nicely, but not as mad as the 1B), but produces great images! Comes in M42 or Nikon mount (designated with an M or an N, respectively).

Sensible to do it in post, especially considering your timescale - but give anamorphic a go at some point, as it really does have a different look (its not all flares). Yep, the Helios really does produce the most unusual/amazing bokeh - the Trioplan is the only one that comes close to trumping it. Meyer-Optik lenses are small gems & well worth having a look at - very similar to vintage Zeiss & i think that i prefer them (colour, contrast & bokeh). Yes correct lens & that's an Exakta Mount - avoid like the plague. Also comes in M42 mount, which you can buy an adaptor for most other mounts (think Nikon is a problem). There's a wealth of vintage lenses out there that a lot of people ignore, but are fantastic. It just seems most people want sterile sharp multi-coated modern lenses. The link below is an aladin's cave of vintage lenses - lots of pictures & the forum members are really helpful/nice (I think there's a 20/30 page thread on the different versions of the Helios 44 alone!) http://forum.mflenses.com/

Have you thought about hiring a proper anamorphic for the day? Worth checking out rental places to see if budget will stretch? These 5 pages of flare tests is a good resource: https://vimeo.com/mkcine/videos/page:1/sort:date Most vintage Russain lenses flare really well, just off the charts - but you've got the 2 really good ones. The other Russain lens that is worth getting is the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5; swirly bokeh like you've never seen & when stopped down has this star-like bokeh - if you like photography as well, its a must have lens. They sell brand new versions now, so you know you're getting a mint version (£200-300). Just Google "Helios 40-2 Bokeh" & you'll see what i mean. If memory serves well, the Super-Takumars (is that what you meant by Ashai Pentax?) flare pretty nicely (not the SMC versions) with or without anamorphic attachments - 55mm f1.8 is always worth a pop (cheaper than the f1.4 version & just as good). Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Trioplan (silver version) 100mm f2.8 - produces soap bubble bokeh, crazy shit! Really expensive ATM, if you can find one, but there is a Kickstarter campaign to start making them again: http://petapixel.com/2015/07/10/trioplan-100mm-f2-8-rebirth-will-bring-soap-bubble-bokeh-to-modern-cameras/

There are various solutions: - If you want to shoot anamorphic & get those blue flares on a budget, then pick up a cheap Singer 16D (think they are also branded as Sankor). It is dual focus, but you can work around that quite easily. If you couple it with a very flare driven taking lens, then you'll get the whole bundle of anamorphic flares, taking lens flares etc... It also has a very large rear element, so you can use with more lenses. Cost is about £150-ish (think there's one on ebay from UK ATM). If not you could rent/buy a Blue Streak filter (they come in different streak sizes) & once put on a flare driven spherical lens, you'll get everything. Or you just use a Flare driven taking lens & add the streaks in post. Check this vid out at about the 0.50 for the blue flares from the Singer 16D (not mine, just found it).

There are so many composition styles/techniques that can be applied when using anamorphic lenses. If you can, watch the original full, un-cropped widescreen version of Ben Hur. It was filmed with MGM Camera 65 - 65mm film stock with a specially adapted 70mm anamorphic lens which cropped the picture by x1.25 to give an aspect ratio of 2.76:1. William Wyler hated shooting in this format, citing that there was just too much in the picture. But he dealt with it and he is known for his composition in depth - so its not just about what you see horizontally, but throughout the whole depth of field. So, to claim that shallow DOF is how anamorphic lenses shine is a great [modern] misconception (watch Star Trek - the flares, the bokeh, sigh...), since they also really shine by allowing a huge deep depth of field to be used & this allowed a film to create a highly detailed space to be generated & used by the actors. You've also got to remember that the various flavours of widescreen cinema were a marketing ploy to combat the popularity of television - why go to a 4:3 cinema, when i can sit at home in my comfortable armchair with my 4:3 tv? With the introduction of widescreen cinema, which you couldn't watch at home, films delivered a huge emersive space that you could soak up so much atmosphere and loose yourself in the expanse of the framing/vistas that such cinema was able to produce. How The West Was Won (1963) was filmed in Cinerama with an aspect ratio of 2.59:1 (not anamorphic lenses, but 3 camera pictures projected together). The restored version on BD now has a ratio of 2.89:1, since they stiched all of the 3 camera pictures together. Although not anamorphic, it really shows you how you can use depth of field (deep that is) to really aid in your story telling - a whole battle field or a busy market place for example. Darwinfishes' clip shows this widescreen use in a few of his shots.

Not a lot can beat the ProRes HQ image coming out of the BMPCC (apart from RAW from the BMPCC - but you really don't need to ever film in RAW). And don't listen to the detractors (with their 4k consumer bs): The screen isn't really that bad, i've never missed focus with it (you can get a z-finder - i use a £10 clone from my 60D); battery life lasts as long as a 64gb card, 45mins (if you're indoors plug into the mains, if not get used to turning it on & off - there are cheap external battery options, Anker Astros get praised); you don't need to buy the Metabones adaptor (2nd gen RJ focal reducer is v.v.good at a snip of the MB price); it really shines with Vintage lenses & they'll save you loads of cash. This little camera really shines & will blow your mind, as far as image is concerned. It inter-cuts seemlesly with Alexa footage, enough said really. The only thing that will top it will be the Micro, but who knows when that will be released... But its your choice so think it through carefully.

Go for a camera that produces the image that you like & as Rich has said, don't get sidetracked by 4k or 4:3 shooting mode. I'm not quite sure about whether its absolutely necessary to go with a full frame camera or even advocate extreme shallow DOF (its a look that can be nice & i've done it, but there's more to anamorphic shooting than just that - cinema cameras aren't FF). Also, you don't need a FF sensor to achieve shallow DOF (i've achieved it recently with a s16 sensor & a MFT-ish sized sensor). Just remember that shooting 1080p when using an anamorphic lens (depending on the squeeze factor) will give you a 2/3k horizontal image - with a 2x anamorphic on a 16:9 1080p sensor you'll get 3840x1080. Cinema 2k resolution is 2048x1080 (this is the dominant Digital Cinema Initiatives standard) & 2.39 scope is 2048x858. 4k resolution - UHD TV resolution is 3840x2160 (16:9 or 1.78) & DCI 4k scope is 4096x1716 (2.39). So up res-ing isn't really that much of a stretch, if done at a professional high quality standard. So, tell me - do you really need a 4k consumer camera to film anamorphic? And if your answer is, "well you can always crop into a 4k image", then you're in real trouble - if you can't frame it properly whilst filming, then you either haven't planned it well enough or need to practice more. Its like the, "I can always fix it post" arguement - its like admitting you can't do it properly; get it right first time & save yourself loads of hassle later.

Also do some searches for lenses with good bokeh - people really obsess about this quality of a lens. When people talk about a lens having great bokeh, they aren't only talking about when shooting wide open - a lens with good bokeh should display this at all apertures. Hans has missed out the king of aperture blades the Tair 11a 135mm 2.8 (20 blades) & it really shines with anamorphics. The Helios 40-2 85mm 1.5 - when stopped down past 2.8 generates a star like bokeh, which is actually quite nice/odd, but not round. Don't discount modern lenses, since manufacturing a lens with good [round] bokeh is really one of the goals of lens companies that count for something (or give a shit about creating a great lens).

Title sequence for this doc - a homage to the great Saul Bass (Psycho titles to be precise). Timelapse done with Canon 60D, Iscorama 54 & Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm. Going to try another timelapse, to see which one is better. PW: saul b

To add to the suggestion by Hans, the Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5 - the most swirly bokeh that you'll ever see from a lens (just google it & you'll see). I'll second the Mir-1b 37mm for lens flare. As far as the picture is concerned, that's an anamorphic lens & you can get that effect really easily. The Kowa for Bell&Howell is very good at this sort of thing with the right taking lens - most Russian lenses flare really well. Here's a good start for 35mm flares: https://vimeo.com/album/1570850/page:1/sort:preset/format:thumbnail

Meyer-Optik Lydith 30mm f3.5 - not the sharpest or fastest lens, but it has that something. Filmed with it recently on the BMPCC+RJ focal reducer & it really did the business - colour rendition was just amazing. Also, has a pre-set aperture so it renders perfectly round bokeh all the way through. Half-way between 28 & 35 - perfect. Meyer-Optik Orestor 100mm f2.8 - much better than the Lydith (sharper & faster). Maybe its something to do with Meyer-Optik lenses - no, it is exactly this. Love this lens. Helios 44-2 58mm f2 - need i say more...

Looks absolutely fantastic Rich. That 40mm lens @ 1m blew me away - the out of focus background just had that painted quality to it, amazing! The same goes for the shot looking at Clevedon Pier, with the guy in the foreground in focus, from your Iscorama Forbes clip - just looked unreal. Is full HD only a problem? Never when it looks this good & you're getting the fov of a larger format camera. Also, if you use an anamorphic lens, the RAW files should be beyond 2k & then upscaling to 4k can be done (not ideal, obviously). Couldn't really fault it in terms of DR etc... (won't mention the CC - I think the pasty looking Bristolian skin tones confused you!)

Just keep at it, you seem to be doing things ok - you might just need more/stronger ND & to stop down on the lens a little more. I've been battling with trying to get a useable TimeLapse from the BMPCC & it proved a little tricky at first.

Right, I tried the way Hans suggested, with 2 clips. 1) Original clip, but with a lot more saturation added (170%) & a hint of Blue in Blacks/Midtones (to offset Polaroid 600 from FC) - might need a little grain added: PW: colour 2) The closing segment of doc. Lots of S16 grain added (150%): PW: s16

Yeah, the SmallHD 501 will help you since you'll be able to get an impression of what the final image will/might look like - but in the end, you'll be avoiding the issue of learning how your camera works. The other thing i forgot to mention is the use of ASA & your choice can really help or hinder the shots. I am assuming you're using ND filters? The pink you're experiencing is what we all do when white object/things are way over exposed - normally happens when the sun (as in your case) is directly hitting a surface (the white wall). As someone said - Zebras should never be at 100% with ProRes (70-80% when you're starting out & then maybe 90% once you're used to the camera). The BMPCC is not a DSLR & as with all cameras you need to learn how it works/behaves in certain situations - try, test & make notes. Remember, at lot of info about ETTR is for RAW & not ProRes - in a well lit area/scene there is no need to ETTR, in a badly lit area/scene there are more benefits (but only by about 2 stops or so). go to BMCUSER & do a search for things you're unsure about - ASA & ETTR should be your first stops.

Wow! You've only just got a UV/IR cut filter - one thing you'll find with the Hoya is that you'll get a slight green tinge in certain conditions. With the BMPCC exposure is key & ETTR is not always the best policy to take - or should that be over-ETTR. I no longer shoot RAW with this, since the ProRes HQ is jaw dropping as it is & has significantly less moire etc... For ProRes you can push or pull 2 stops, so I put zebras to 80% and either hit it spot on or slightly clipping (as Axel said, this isn't HDR filming - its all to do with the look you're after or the conditions you find yourself in). This camera is also surprising in low light, it cleans up really nice, but I like the grain/noise that this camera produces - no need to add in post, just get it done in camera. One thing that I have noticed recently, is that you really need to boost the saturation - go over the top & then pull it down. Also, if you're in a pinch (timewise) then the Video mode is actually pretty damn good for colour rendition - this really surprised me, since at the beginning it wasn't that great (one of the Firmware's sorted it). Video mode might be a good way to really hone your exposure skills - cripple the camera in order to force yourself to hit exposure pretty much spot on & make decisions about Shadows vs. Highlights. Then once you know how to get what you want, pretty much in-camera, then move to Film mode or Raw in order to really see how much you can go crazy. The Screen is just there for focusing (I noticed you've got the Zacuto) & its fine for that - I punch in&out going by eye, rather than use peeking. The Zebras/Histogram obviously help with exposure, but again sometimes you've got to just trust your eyes. The main thing to do is to test, test, test before you shoot something - you'll get no funny surprises.

Sweet! I thought that was the case & by chance i have a version that is 2k - going to try this ASAP. Cheers Hans

Thanks, Yep the Tokina/54 combo is certainly a great partnership, but I really like the Mir 24M too (the majority of the shots). Shallow DOF is really down to circumstances, rather than anything else - natural light & Diopters really dictated the look of this section. Will upload a new better coloured version, soon - started to get the hang of really adding back the colour with BM footage. The doc will be in 4 sections, all with different looks & the final one has a dirty s8/s16 type feel to it, which really works but am fearing compression hell will ruin it.

Just a sample segment from a doc that's nearly finished. Just wanted some feedback really - what strikes you as needing change? All shot on the BMPCC (ProRes), the 54 & either the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 or Mir-24 Password: 54 http://vimeo.com/135461772

Iscomorphot 8/x2 - its a fixed focus monoblock @4m, you'll need diopters but the image out of it is stunning (can shoot wide open) & its single coated, so flares exactly like the Kowa (also branded as Animex). Isco Widescreen 2000MC (not exactly 8mm, but small enough) - again another fixed focus block @5m, again diopters are helpful but you can focus through this one with the taking lens (helps if you stop down a little & use a low strength diopter - +0.5). I found that this does flare when pointed at strong [stage] lights, but most things will with that kind of bright glare. There is the more expensive, single focus Iscomorphot 8/x1.5, but you need to stop the taking lens down to f4/5.6 to get a useable sharpish image - anything below that produces a dreamy image, which isn't always desired or v.useful most of the time.

I've used it once without a lens mount when I first got the 54, it was attached to my 60D & a Helios 40-2 - but not for long, as I soon realised I had 2kg straining on my camera. I now always use a lens mount/support system, as its just not worth the risk & it keeps everything stable when I rack focus. Also, with the Pocket cam and/or smaller lenses, I would think the stress of the weight over prolonged periods of shooting could easily break something. I've seen some pics of it on Super-8 cameras & it just doesn't look right or safe. The only time I don't use a mount is when i'm taking pictures with it.

​http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=22721 if you scroll down the page, someone states that the front thread on this Angenieux lens is 107mm, so if they really are for this lens then that should be their size. However, Angenieux made all sorts of different size threads & I bought one thinking it was a 95mm, but it was more like 93/94mm - the only way to tell for sure is when they show up.

Nice one Tito - its good to see someone dedicating their time to creating this resource. Its nice to see someone else thinking that the 42 is the sharpest of all the Iscoramas & its metal! I've found that you can run'n'gun with the 54, yes its heavy but that weight really gives you that extra bit of stability. However, as Rudolf has said, its not that easy with the Tokina combo (too long more than too heavy), which I think is my new favourite taking lens. I've also noticed with the 54 that it can be picky with taking lenses, some producing sharper images than others - the Super Takumar 55mm f1.8 producing the sharpest images (its also the funniest match due to the enormous size differences). Recently, been filming a lot with the Isco Widescreen 2000 in combo with the Mir 24m 35mm f2 + RJ focal reducer on the BMPCC - it has now become my goto R'n'G anamorphic. For some reason I never really felt the love for the WS 2000 on other cameras or perhaps I didn't give it enough time - just glad i kept it.

It sounds very much as if you really like the look of the BM cameras & if that really is the case then go for it. These cameras can produce some of the most beautiful images at their price point & I'd add that the ProRes files coming out of them are extraordinary - so if you don't want the hassle of dealing with RAW at first, then you won't be disappointed by any means. As far as horror stories are concerned, well there are always going to be some no matter the camera & this is simply because no camera is perfect - they all have an achilles heal. You've also got to remember that not every camera operator is equal too - so you need to ask yourself how many horror stories are generated by the operator & not the camera? I've never had a problem with my BMPCC & was shooting, on a paid job, 2 days after getting it (no pain, no hassle, no headaches) - the client kept raving about the image quality. Furthermore, BM are coming out with Firmware updates fast & furious - solving all the problems that people were complaining about. Also, don't underestimate audiences - on the whole they are used to good looking, well shot footage & they will notice if you present them with bad quality stuff (this includes sound).

If you're going to spend $300, then don't buy one of those coloured lenses - they're big & have no character whatsoever. Try searching for a Sankor/Singer 16D or one of the Kowa's 8Z / 16H / Bell&Howell (sometimes rebranded as Elmoscope II) - there are bargins out there & a quick search of Ebay will give you plenty of better options for $300.