Bioskop.Inc

Finally got to watch the "Nature" one in 4K via Vimeo & it all looks stunning! WTF does YT do to make some stuff look so God Damn Awful!? The Balloon one looks great, apart from the opening Gimbal shots - handheld or imperfectly balanced? Think it might be handheld, as the first shot looking down from the balloon looks like it is - but tough conditions filming in a balloon, so no complaints. The rest looks great, especially the CU of the girl in the balloon. Just can't wait for all the complaints about battery life now.....

That all looked fine for a first view of some footage, but the beach shots were a bit of a mess - either focus on something we can clearly see or deep depth of field. Interesting that he said the following: "The footage was shot using RAW and varying ISO at 400, 1250, and 2500" & "By increasing the ISO to an impressive 1250 and 2500, it allowed me to capture the dark moss-lined walls and unique emerald color, yet also hold onto the highlight detail of the top of the waterfall and sky". So looks like (if BM didn't clean up the footage & left as is) this camera performs very well at high ISO - so yes, Trees & Waterfalls first please & no cats or dogs!

I went with Super Taks all the way & they really do pair well with Anamorphics. But do remember, even though the other Taks say SMC, they aren't anywhere near the type of multi-coating that you'll find in modern lenses. Also, Anamorphics do tend to shine better with longer focal length lenses - so after you get an 85mm, I know that there's a really great Super Tak 105mm f2.8 lens worth getting

Herein lies the problem & I didn't realise that the guy who outed Gunn (or should that be highlighted his bad Troma-era jokes) actually gained traction/notoriety via a Gaming forum, of all places! The real problem with political topics is that most people don't properly read things, or they read only as far as the thing that annoys them, then they go on a single minded mission to make their point over & over & over & over.......yawn! And yes, there are going to be tons of misinformed phone zombies that believe everything they read via Twitter/Facebook etc. The times we live in! The firing of Gunn was a topic that we should have been able to discuss & is very relevant to a forum such as this, but.....and it is a big BUT, people are always going to derail topics to suit their own agendas - a case in point is the P4K thread that got overrun by GH5 fanatics.

That is strange. Have you tried attaching to a camera that isn't Super8 & then seeing if it isn't the lens. Still think it might need a longer taking lens.

It's fine, as long as people can accept that others won't have the same opinion as themselves & that discussions don't descend into hurling insults! Yes, I just wrote that & understand we're on the internet. Just leave your Twitter brain at home, don't get offended so easily & accept different points of view. No Racism, Sexism etc... Oh! And instead of just continuing to bang the same drum, perhaps engage people about why they hold a certain position? Yeah, I just wrote that & I still know we're on the internet.

The vignetting experienced is normally to do with the focal length of the taking lens being too wide. So, when you say that you've tried all focal lengths, what have you tried? The other thing, have you set your taking lens to infinity - as with this tiny anamorphic, this is what you do, then you use the focus ring on the anamorphic. And to you question about the rear element - Yes, you should ideally try to get it as close to the taking lens, but this has more to do with reducing internal lens flares, than vignetting (but it can help with this too). I had this lens ages ago, but only used it on a DSLR, so taking lens was 58mm & above. Dreamy soft wide open, but stop the taking lens down a little to f4 & it should be sharpish (I say sharpish, as it won't be modern lens sharp, but sharp for this anamorphic).

I think its all a conspiracy, as Gardians of the Galaxy 2 was soooo shit & really not funny at all, Disney saw the script for No.3 & just found an excuse to get rid of him, in order to save the 3rd film from turning out to be an absolute turd. Disney knew exactly who James Gunn was when they hired him - this is the guy who made "Slither" (big phallic penis invasion horror film), a TV series called "PG Porn" (yes you read that right!) & "Movie 43" to name a few. When you hire someone nowadays, the HR department does their due diligence and their first stop is Facebook & Twitter, without exception. I know people who simply haven't hired people for what they've written on Social Media, regardless of whether their posts have been jokes or not - "Hate going to work on Monday mornings or any morning for that matter", "Think I'm going to pull a sickie today", "My boss is a C**T" etc. And that's just for work related things. So, now do you really think or believe Disney didn't know about these tweets a long time ago? Of course they did & they played their trump card (yeah!!!) now to get rid of him for whatever their real reason/s where. As far as jokes about peadophilie tendencies are concerned, just not my thing....

Yep, this is what I'll be waiting for - they dropped the Pocket to half price & it was a steal, no contest!

Simple solution is to ask them what their delivery format is: If it's the internet, then 90% of people will be watching on their phones/tablets (are there any 4K capable phones/tablets?) & so the increased resolution is absolutely pointless; If it's TV, then standard broadcast is HD not 4K, so again pointless; If it's cinema, then yes it's worth it, but come on! You could also state that the majority of Film trailers are HD on the internet & if it's good for them....only Netflix/Amazon show stuff in 4K & they don't do music videos full stop. If it's a band with loads of money, charge them more (do tell them it's going to cost them more money for 4K), then take their money and run. If they haven't got loads of money, then state that there is added cost of shooting in 4K - it's the editing/storage time etc... Money always speaks & push this with the Manager, as they are always out to save cash & are normally more level headed than the band, who tend to think they're going to get a Hollywood movie on a budget.

Post some footage once you're done experimenting - I'd love to see some more stuff done with these lenses, as they look really promising.

This is probably the most complete database for what is [potentially] out there, in terms of Anamorphic Attachments: http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Anamorphic_Lenses

With a new computer & fibre (wi-fi, not plugged in), i've experienced no problems whatsoever - 1080p, 2K or 4K. However, with the old computer I'd have to hit pause straight away & wait for it to buffer a little, before I attempted any viewing. On mobile, over wifi or 4G, there are no problems whatsoever & I suspect that they might be concentrating more on people watching on their phones - a big mistake. On the opposite side of the fence - I was able to watch the Champions League final on YouTube (via Firestick) with no real problems, the occasional jitter but no stopping or buffering! Personally, I think things will change, as is mentioned above, they have bought livestream, they allow you to upload in whatever format you like (no more double dipping with H264) & their quality is much better than YouTube (who seem to allow some people to upload near perfect videos & the rest of us get not so great versions).

Anyone thought of using Mamiya 645 lenses? (was trying to embed a really nice video, but poster has restricted it - check it out, it certainly has opened my eyes to a set of lenses) vimeo.com/264306448

That's not what I said at all - try a little harder at reading & also try to be a little less smug. I don't actually like his films, but the ones I have seen tend to be more thought provoking than I had imagined. But here's a thing, here's a 3 page thread about one of LvT artsy films - just haven't noticed a thread about Marvel films here, have you? I remember a friend suggesting we see that "Civil War Marvel film", I countered with Victoria, he watched the trailer & then we saw Victoria instead - so glad we saw this, best film ever, according to my friend (and yes he's a Marvel Braindead Zombie too). Gotta love these artsy films, they're the only ones doing interesting stuff... And Marvel Films are shit...no awful...no, i was right the first time...they're shit & American...so, they're American Shit!?

Hopefully, some people will have sold up by then. The inflation of prices became absolutely stupid - lots of opportunists, as always. Personally, I don't think they'll do a crop. Going on past form, they stick to what they release - they didn't even do an anamorphic 4:3 crop on the last Pocket, so no chance of them changing tack now (fingers crossed).

One good thing about this new camera is that it would appear that people are starting to sell off their S16 lenses - just stumbled across one seller that has started to sell off stuff & has started bids at .99p! So if you still have an original pocket or the box, this new camera could be very good news & surely the prices of S16 will go down & down & down.

Horror Films never get good reviews, it's the Film Genre everyone loves to hate, but unfortunately it is one of the most popular & enduring of all Film genres. I do like his recent quote "I'm not sure if they hated it enough, though." From what I can glean from the trailer, it looks as if it is going to be a very interesting & probably darkly funny film - taking a real scalpel to society. I love the fact that there are reports that Gasper Noe laughed throughout & I'll use this as my favourite review. It reminds me of watching "Scream" in France, with my then girlfriend & we were pissing ourselves laughing, much to the annoyance of other people who just didn't see the funny side of the film. I very much doubt that this film will ever be able to be more disturbing than "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer", but there aren't that many films that could or would ever want to be. As far as Von Trier goes, I'm not a huge fan & I don't think any of his films would get into my Top Ten - "The Kingdom" TV series would (all about supernatural goings on in a hospital - probably his best work). But, the one thing you can say about his films is that they get people talking about what they've just witnessed & surely that is preferred to the multitude of films that just wash over you & are forgotten a few hours later - like all the Marvel films, for instance. Critics, after all, are just audience members that write about what they've experienced & if you walk out of a film, how can you have an objective view/opinion of your subject - you know, the film that you didn't even see!

Yep, small & no moving parts. Never seen any distortion with the Isco Widescreen 2000 or it's smaller counterpart the Isco S8/X2 - again, small lenses & no moving parts, as they're fixed focus. Just got to remember that Anamorphics are completely different from spherical lenses - for the most part, you just aren't going to get this lovely pristine look. Most people who turn to anamorphics tend to like & want all the imperfections, what is normally described as a lens having character. They're not for everyone, that's for sure. If you just like the flares, then there are plenty of options out there - blue streak filters etc. Same goes for Oval Bokeh - you have options now. IMHO it's sacrilege to want to make these lenses fit into a prescribed look. They have their own look, which a lot of people love & you adjust yourself for the really serious distortions (like the big fat heads in close ups). It's like that Lens thread that has been overtaken by certain people posting examples of newish lenses, which you can find examples of all over the net - it kinda ruins the whole point of why that thread was started in the first place. Love the vintage look, gotta love the imperfections.

Anamorphic adaptors work best with longer focal length lenses, there's just no competition. In all the time I've used AA's, wide angle taking lenses produce the worst image because they are complex in their lens recipes & then you're adding another extreme angle complex lens on top of this, which is then trying to squeeze a distorted image onto an already distorted lens - it's a recipe for disaster, as you've got 2 special effect lenses trying to work together but failing. We've been saying for years now that AA's like simple recipe lenses (e.g. Helios 44-2, for example) & it is to avoid, as much as possible, the mumps - so 40/50mm & above is your best option. Also, X2 lenses will be worse than other lenses simply because they are trying to squeeze more information down. Diopter's can alter the image as well, which is why you should try to get a good quailty doublet diopter, instead of a singlet - look how curved a singlet can be & just imagine what that is doing to the whole image? So the HCDNA is just adding another layer of complicated lenses in front of an already complex AA & then if your taking lens is a wide angle, then you are just adding one thing on top of another - so no wonder people are getting the mumps! As far as the 2 videos above, I'm not seeing anything worth worrying about, because Anamorphic lenses & Anamorphic Adaptors are full of quirks/flaws/distortion simply because it is such a complex lens to build. I just used the example of a close up of a person, as it'll be more noticeable & something that no one wants to see - it's the worst case scenario. The most important thing about using AA's or proper Anamorphics is that you'll have to change the way you film things - breathing when you rack focus, image distortion when you pan from left to right etc. Start to look at some of the older films that used anamorphic lenses & you'll see all sorts of things going on - cinema history is littered with examples & by history I really do mean that you're going to have to look a little further back than the 80s. A recent great filmed with anamorphics is Lynne Ramsey's You Were Never Really Here - very simple, but effective.

Man I love the white vignetting & some of us feel it is part'n'parcel of using anamorphics - it recently appeared in "You Were Never Really There" Dir. Lynne Ramsey (great film, great framing, great narrative). Embrace the White!

"Anamorphic Mumps" occur when you're doing a close up of, say, a person & was a common feature of early Cinemascope lenses, which was later fixed in some makes, but not all. The Mumps doesn't appear at longer distances. It's basically to do with the fact that at closer range, you loose the x2 squeeze ratio & when you go to desequeeze in post you get the mumps. What @ken, said is probably correct - the fact that they were also projector lenses would have meant that they would hardly have ever been used to project at close range. Don't know if one Kowa branded adaptor is different from another, but am guessing that they won't be - I was always led to believe that the B&H branded ones just had better QC on the glass used. So, I'm guessing user error/misunderstanding is to blame for the examples of the mumps that you've seen on the B&H, rather than one example being worse than another. This is common when people start to use anamorphics & is compounded even more by people using wide angle lenses with these attachments to do close ups. So many quirks, not enough time or energy to explain everything. The mumps is summed up best thus: "The Problem and the Fix... The problem was called "CinemaScope Mumps", in which the center of the image received less horizontal squeeze when the lenses were focused at short distances. When projected, the center of the image was expanded more than its original compression. In the early days of anamorphic photography close-ups were avoided. When they were deemed necessary, the actor was placed either to the right or left of center where the inconsistent squeeze would pose no problem. It is easy to see what Gottschalk and his team at Panavision were able to accomplish. The upper image is a close up taken with an early Bausch and Lomb CinemaScope lens and the lower image is a 35mm reduction print taken from the newly developed M-G-M/Panavision process. We can thank Panavision that this beautiful woman and all others photographed with anamorphic lenses don't look like broadcaster Cokie Roberts. This promotional photo was produced by M-G-M to promote the new system. The difference between the two photos is at the same time accurate and deceiving. While the system did yield a CinemaScope compatible print without the distortions of contemporary Bausch & Lomb lenses, in fact the low anamorphic squeeze factor of 1.25x would never have created such distortion had it been applied to the B & L design. By the same token, the prismatic anamorphic design would also never create the distortion even if it was 2:1." (above quote taken from) http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup1.htm And David Mullen's explanation: "I don't know the exact mechanics but the squeezed bokeh is actually the byproduct of fixing a problem with early CinemaScope lenses, called the "anamorphic mumps". Basically what happened was that as you focused near minimum, like for a close-up on a 50mm anamorphic (the first focal length made for CinemaScope), the squeeze ratio dropped below 2X. But the unsqueezing is always a consistent 2X by the projector, so the end result was that faces looked slightly fat in CinemaScope. Panavision solved this with some cams in the lens barrel that compensated as the lens rotated towards minimum focus so that the object in focus is always squeezed consistently by 2X -- but the side effect was that objects out of focus now got squeezed more than 2X and thus look skinny when unsqueezed by 2X during projection. John Hora explains it in the ASC Manual. It has something to do with the fact that the vertical plane of focus is spherical and thus focuses at a different point than the horizontal plane of focus which comes from the anamorphic elements. Using two astigmatizers and counter rotating the anamorphic elements when focusing, Panavision kept a constant 2X squeeze on the subject but caused out of focus objects to get more than a 2X squeeze. So the squeezed bokeh effect is more obvious as you focus closer and when shooting at wide apertures, which is why the lens breathes as you rack focus." (above from) http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?99606-ANAMORPHIC-ARTIFACTS-amp-SQUEEZE-RATIO-QUESTION/page2

Those are the ones, especially the 105mm f2.5, also it's worth trying the 28mm, but i suppose it's quite close to the 5mm - these really are a great set of lenses. Most people will be put off by the fact that they aren't very fast, but that's just silly & normally it's people following the idiotic rule that you should shoot wide open with fast apertures. For vintage lenses, 55mm is normally the best due to the fact that the lens recipe is simpler & they perfected it. Have you tried any Tomioka (Japan) made lenses? The 55mm f1.4's are worth a try, very nice for video. They made for various people: Chinon, Yashinon, Revuenon etc.., must have "Tomioka Japan" on the inner ring & have the "Auto" moniker. They did do a 55mm f1.2, which is dreamy wide open & a lot more expensive. At the moment, my goto lenses have been either the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70mm f2.6-28 (the first version is an Angenieaux lens recipe) or the Mir 24m 35mm f2 - for me they are must have lenses. You're right on the money there - 44-2 is an excellent lens if you get a good copy. Lots of other Russain lenses, actually most of them, give this lovely low contrast - it's why people have raved about them for video for a long time. Dirt cheap as well, but you might need to shop around for good copies

LOndon is a complete nightmare (especially the public/private land thing), but where I am in Bristol, no one cares. I've even had 2 Policemen stopping whilst I was filming so as not to walk into shot - I was using the BMPCC with a K3 pistol grip/shoulder mount & probably looked like we were filming tourist stuff. As far as photography is concerned, there's a 24hr photo competition & you get given a time slot to take a photo - never heard of anyone being stopped or the police being called, but they do have better things to be doing & you hardly ever see them walking about these days. If you are filming with a crew, whether it be 2 or 5, it's really easy to get a permit to film & doesn't cost a bomb. But i've shot loads of stuff & never been stopped - quick & discrete is the rule of thumb. But in general, where I am, no one is going to approach you or call the police - perhaps we're just a little bit more chilled as a city.

Really nice, love this lens more than the 50mm f1.4 - have you tried any others? I know they don't tend to be that fast, but there is something really special about the Super Taks.