Bioskop.Inc

No Problems. I've got a 95-82 & 82-72 stepdown. But if you've only got the Tokina then try & get a 95-72.

Thanks! Don't think i'm going to go all "Dexter" on mine, unless i find another cheap one & i don't think that'll happen in a hurry! Did yours have a tiny screw on the middle of the body, connecting the long thin tube to the back of the larger front section or did you just get hacksaw happy with it straight away!?

On an APS-C sensor, you can use 95-82 (or 72) step down & you don't get any vignetting with 50mm lenses & above.  With a 35mm lens & 82mm filter it is very faint in Movie mode (or 16:9 picture ratio). You can get even less vignetting if you Blu-Tack the 82mm filter inside the front element opening (it won't hit the glass), but that isn't really ideal!   So for diopters, you're ok with 82 or 72mm if you stick with a 50mm taking lens or above (aps-c sensor, x1.6 crop).   You can come across some crazy big cheap filters/diopters on ebay from time to time, but its v.rare.

So did you just remove the long bit at the back & keep the front intact? I was told that you could remove the back part & make the min focusing distance smaller - there's a screw on mine, about half way up the body, but its super-glued into place & is impossible to get off.

The Ninja2 people were so confident that it was a proper good signal - they had it at NAB & must have tested it, so why the misinformation? But it did seem to be a long shot to expect Canon to produce clean 422 HDMI out - monitoring only!?  But could this new firmware help the ML guys? Could they hack it so it was clean 422 out? They've made so many advances in the last few months, that anything seems possible.

Yep internal lens flare is a problem with the Kowa & I think John is right about the distance - could this be to do with its original application & the camera/projector/lens combo it was meant for?   I found the Helios 44-2 58mm pretty much solved this problem & Alan (aka Redstan) has always said that simple recipe lenses work best! However, i found that this flare mainly presented itself with outdoor shooting (sun) & not really indoors (lights).   It does take sometime to get used to an anamorphic lens - it isn't like a spherical lens & you need to allow yourself time to understand/decipher its peculiarities. Don't dismiss the Kowa, it is a fantastic lens - but you'll need to experiment with taking lenses to find the perfect match.    Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of people have found that using longer focal length lenses produce the best results with anamorphics.   Also, some people really like this effect - i'm like you, it just pissed me off!

4K is a marketing ploy (come on, wake up!) & if you're not making films you simply don't need it - even then 2k is the standard. Shit HD TV broadcasts aren't even 1080! And the RAW aspect is nice, but it isn't a realistic/cost effective option for a big production - they still have DPs don't they & precisely because they get it right. RAW seems to be great for people who just can't be bothered or can't do it (harsh i know, but it kinda rings true).   And why buy a more reliable/expensive external HDD, well if you've never seen a cheap one melt in front of you then just wait until it happens to you! And it will happen. Its distressing & v.funny!  As far as archival goes, the safest option would be to just keep the original card/s & save the NLE project file (safest, not most cost effective).

There's gotta be some where else in London than those guys?!   Have you tried Van Diemen? http://vandiemenbroadcast.co.uk/   They have a few used Angenieux lenses for sale, so they must have some experience!

I've been processing this all day & F**K ME - Canon were hiding DNG files from us! The ML people are really smashing down the walls that Canon have so carefully put into place to restrict its users. Damn, that idea of buying a cheap 5D2 isn't looking so stupid now! I think on the forum that this might work on other cameras too. And people wonder why anyone bought a Canon - ML was a definite selling point for me.   But the thing that amazes me is why they don't just try putting a camera together from scratch - if they did a Kickstarter project, they'd get the cash soo quickly based on their track record alone! 

Here's an article about it: http://andrewwonder.com/blog/entry/wonderscope-15x-anamorphic-test And these are the people that did the mod: http://vandiemenbroadcast.co.uk/

Yep it seems to be a Fantastic little beast! Nice to compare the downloaded footage & his new corrected one - shows what you can recover in post with ProResHQ files.   Was it just me or was rolling shutter effect pretty absent - the opening car scene. Couldn't notice moire effects either. And as far as sharpness is concerned, its perfect just as it is or you could add some, but really why would you.   For quick rough & ready footage, this really does prove to be a real DSLR killer - much better than anything out there at the moment. Just have to wait to see what it can really do when he actually plans out a shoot.   Now they have to ship in numbers in July & i guess they will.

Film was expensive & time consuming, but made you plan & really think. I thought it was interesting that they pointed out that you only had about 10mins with film, it was almost as if they were directing their comments to the DSLR users who complained about the recording time limits. I know various hacks can extend recording times now, but i really like the nostalgia of the 10min limit & it really isn't a problem. A good example is the original version of The Silent House - filmed on a 5D2 & made to look like one continuous 85min take (the re-make copied the exact same format).   I'd also forgotten how bad the image quality was on the Dogma95 films - it just goes to show that if its a good idea/narrative, no one really cares about quality.

That's the problem with these type of mass market docs - you want more detail because you know most of it all ready, but you're not their audience. Its just a stepping stone piece for the people who have no knowledge of the rise of digital filmmaking - & lets face most audiences couldn't care less. There was a good article in The Guardian where it was explained they couldn't interview everyone they wanted to & couldn't exactly do everything they had planned to do - that's the hardship of making a doc.

If you haven't come across this website yet & not read these articles (well the first 2 anyway, the history one is exactly that, so not as useful) about C-mount lenses, then you should: http://www.c-mountlens.com/category/articles/

Saw this some time ago, it was good wasn't it. Basically it charts the rise of digital filmmaking - it also explains the difference between film & digital.   I thought that the most interesting thing was the question of how they go about archiving digital films & some think that celluloid is probably the most cost effective - so film will never die?!

If it isn't a Mac bug, then yes don't need to follow the 180 rule for stuff like this or fps (there's a lot of misinformation about this cinematic rule, which is really a mechanical dimension of cinema cameras).

Looks like a combination of all 3 - 23.98fps, white background & light. Tough lesson to learn, but i'm sure you'll notice it more than anyone else - can you cut away at the worst bits or is it too much.   I once heard a Director tell a contributor that he'd tie his hands to the chair if he kept talking with them so much - its a very distracting habit when you finally watch a piece & you've just got to try to get them to stop or tone it down.

Yep that's normally the problem with adapting these lenses with the wrong camera & i've noticed a few people moaning about the lack of a PL mount on the BM 4k cam (i think Bm said they couldn't do one properly). So bear in mind that this could always be a problem & finding an adaptor that actually gets the lens at the right distance could be tricky (if distance is the problem).   Everything's worth a try in your hunt, leave no stone unturned. Try ringing some Cinema equipment rental companies as they will have to get their lenses serviced every so often.   You could try Alan (redstan), as i know he used to work in this area at one point - but he doesn't always reply!

Prices are all relative & it sounds like you just need to haggle. The thing with haggling is to start low & you already know that he basically wants rid of them (he can't hire them & they are in questionable condition). There are 2 ways you could go about this (after you've found out how much it will cost to repair them): 1) Offer a stupid price, he laughs at you & you ask him how much he wants, you state that you really don't have that sort of cash & then offer more (but way below your max) - then the real haggling begins! 2) Ask him how much he wants for them & then state you don't have that much, but could offer him x amount - again the haggling begins!   Either the way you get him to reveal his hand first & not yours (never tell him how much you've got to spend!)   Remember, what he wants for them should never be the price that you pay - as all sellers want to get as much as possible & their dream price is always unrealistic. Also, remember if he hasn't rented them out for 2 years & they are in a questionable state - some money is better than none. Don't appear too keen or excited, as he'll sense your weakness & exploit it -  you can always walk away & come back another day. If, say you get to your limit & he's still not budging, say you'll offer him cash (he doesn't have to declare that) & if he still isn't tempted, leave him your number & ask him to think about it.   Give it a go, they're Hawk Anamorphics! - they're probably the best opportunity you'll get to own something by this company & their vintage B Series won't be bad.  

Just watched this as well - probably the most interesting of all the interviews with Petty. They really seem to be going after facilitating an easy Raw workflow. QT DNG wrapper would be amazing, as well as giving us a choice of Lossless or Lossy DNG. Data rates might not be that bad for SD cards, depending on what frame rate you choose. The only thing that worries me is, is he talking about sharpness or resolution? Doesn't worry me too much as anything will be better than my 60D!

Looks nice & vintage - its going to be great on the 4k BM! You can get diopters made by Angenieux (i use one with my 54 & its nice - i think 96mm thread) & the last 2 that have popped up on ebay went for between £10-20, but i missed them.   As far as repairs go have you tried asking/looking on this forum: http://www.cinematography.com/   They seem nice & helpful - lots of info about all sorts of stuff by professionals & they don't stand for the agro/nonsense that can plague other forums.

Don't be so pessimistic Alan, but I do get that sinking feeling that there might be a chance they do this. Giving it out to bloggers & friends would be a total waste of time - they'd be shown up for being total amateurs & i would hope someone else takes advantage. However, the longer that footage is withheld, the more you've got to question what they mean by a July release.

Not sure if these links have been posted here, but they're a useful reminder (even if they have): http://cinematechnic.com/resources/optics_for_super-16.html https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw http://www.c-mountlens.com/2011/bolex-reflex-rx-lenses-the-difference/

This debate is really about taste, but what you should be talking about is what works for your particular project & how it enables you to relate the visual construction of your narrative to your intended audience. Style (or should that be creating a specific look) is a part of telling a story visually, but it is not the only consideration that should be adhered to. So just because you like the way a lens looks/renders an image doesn't always mean that it will work or be the best medium to import the necessary information to your audience. Unsurprisingly their are, so-called, rules for different shot types & in order to break them you have to know what they are & why you want to diverge from them.   RE. Extreme Close-Ups: "Depending on the size of the subject being shot, long focal length lenses or wide angles are more commonly used. Both lenses can produce shallower depths of field (the telephoto because of the optical characteristics inherent to this kind of lens, and the wide angle because of the extremely short distance it will require between the camera and the subject to create a tight framing)." (from The Filmmaker's Eye by Gustavo Mercado).   Oh & Amelie is renown for its use of the "Medium Close-Up" shot, where you can use a Wide Angle, a Normal or a Telephoto lens - considerations are distortion (both Telephoto & Wide Angle do this), amount of  the background to be seen etc...   The book quoted from above will help you guys learn why you are debating at cross purposes - you're all right. It'll certainly teach you about shot types & the lenses you can employ to achieve what you want.     You've started to mention a few Jeunet[/Marc Caro] films, but have forgotten probably the best one in terms of using different lenses - City of Lost Children (everything from fisheye upwards). 

Or you could just fake it in post with a minimal fisheye type effect or something similar that will distort the image to your exact requirements - will save time, money & possibly buying the wrong lens.