Bioskop.Inc

I've been using Super-Takumars recently - they all match up nicely & are sharp when used with an Iscorama. The only downside is that the best 35mm is f3.5 (there is a f2, but too soft), 50mm f1.4, 55mm f1.8, 100mm f2.8 & 135mm f3.5.   I've heard good things about Yashica ML lenses (there's a 28mm, 35mm etc.), but they don't always come cheap.   If you've already tried the Russian lenses & rejected them, then you might be after the Holy Grail!   Best combo for me: Mir-1b 37mm Helios 44-2 58mm Jupiter 9 85mm or Helios 40-2 85mm (both are too soft wide open, so useable J9@f2.8 & H40-2@f2) Tair 11a 135mm

My advice is to buy the computer first, then download the trial versions for both Premiere & FCPX so you can try them out for yourself.   A mate advised me to try FCPX & i was surprised that it wasn't as bad as people had been saying (it is still missing some things but the updates seem to be fixing a lot of the issues & its cheaper). It does take time to get used to, but that isn't a problem if you're willing to learn. For DSLR footage it really makes a difference - stuff that seemed to be generating banding with FCP7, no longer presented such issues as much. On the flip side the full Premiere package has loads of extra stuff (After Effects etc...), but at a price. AVID is awesome, but so is the price tag - I really liked it when I had the opportunity to use it (not sure if there's a trial version).   Sometimes other people's advice can be misleading - if there's a trial version try it! 

Just saw it @ 4k 3D 48fps.   IMHO I thought for a first go at HFR it was fine, some bits were absolutely stunning & other bits didn't quite hit the mark, all-in-all not as bad as people have been moaning about. The CGI characters were stunningly real, Golum especially (that was the best example of the 3D HFR - i think Avatar will be amazing). The film could have been shorter, but he opted to fill in back story & missing elements that were fleshed out in other books (he did the same thing in LOTR, so nothing strange there). There's also the idea of linking The Hobbit with LOTR & the world/history of Middle Earth - nice idea but makes for a long trilogy of films.   The thing i thought let it down the most was the way 3D was used - sometimes the characters just looked plain flat (cardboard cutouts). Only seen 1 film that used 3D effectively - Pina. Perhaps the answer is to use a mixture of 3D & 2D. Oh, the over use of shallow depth of field became really annoying after a while - what's wrong with deep depth of field sometimes?   The HFR didn't bother me at all, it felt nostalgic (Dr Who from the 70s/80s, but much much much better) & almost like you were there - all it needs is a bit more work & for someone to take the time to actually test it out properly before they start filming (you can't fix everything in post). Might watch the next ones in the 3D HFR format, might not. However, if they offered a 2D HFR version, I would be interested to see it just for the comparison with the 3D version. Only my humble opinion...

How on earth did you figure this one out? Just tinkering? Take a photo of the front without the rings on etc...

Nice one, this could be excellent.

Think you're right about it being 2x lenses, but i started off with these lenses & just learnt how to deal with/avoid it. I haven't really thought about it so much since i got a 1.5x lens, but the judder still comes out to play now & then.  Also, i found it was horizontal panning & not vertical that generated this effect.   Enjoy your perfect ovals!

Before you go & see the film (which none of you have yet), go find someone with a brand new TV and watch a few films on it. They all have this "smooth motion" effect on them, which works to some degree of success & it does take a bit of getting used to - hence the TV effect people are talking about. So it might be to do with this & once we all have these TVs, we'll go to the cinema & complain about it not looking real enough - who knows? But you need to give it a go & maybe understand that you might have to get used to it. What it does do is make the CGI so much better, so perhaps Avatar will be better suited to 48fps.   I remember going to see Jaws 3 in 3D & it was laughable! Actually 3D still is, apart from a hand full of films that have realised how to use it properly - watch PINA.    As far as critics are concerned, they're just people, with opinions & pens. If you listen to their opinions & take all they say for gospel, then you've fallen into their mindset/trap. How many times have you read a bad review, gone to see the film & absolutely loved it? Criticism, in general, is just personal opinion spread to the masses - experts they are not (no matter how much you think they are), just journalists trying to make a living off their own taste preferences spewed out into the world.   48fps won't be available in every cinema.

This judder effect is always going to be a problem, unless you hit the sweet spot for movement. Most of us have experienced this at some point & you either have to do slower movements or faster ones. So moving between objects go a bit faster & then linger on the objects, or simply do slower pans, if not you get this judder effect which normally occurs at the speed you really want to go. I think its to do with the sensor's ability to reading/recording at particular speeds. I can normally see it on the screen when i'm recording, or at least once i play it back in-camera.   Is this the only anamorphic lens of yours that produces this effect?   & How's the Iscomorphot 8/2x? Is it to your taste?

Thanks for finding the footage, but it left me rather cold. Not sure what it is - perhaps it looked more TV Drama than Film? To my eyes, the REDs nearly always have a better look when used for films (or TV) - not so easy to use, so more time taken to get it right? Also, the Alexa was used extensively in TV during 2011 (2012 was its year for film) & could explain why people like it, or should that be are used to it now. Perhaps the same will be true for Sony, but i reckon the Dragon sensor will kill that dream!

The sharp lens debate really becomes void once you project your footage on a larger screen - you need it to be as sharp as you can get once you project it at a decent size. I've had to go the other way with my 54, just too scared a small lens without support is going to break apart. If you're after smaller lenses then Takumars are the smallest i've found & sharp from wide open with my 54 - some say they give a modern look, but i don't think so.   If you're after Jupiter lenses, i've got a few you could try out before you take the plunge - i'm in Bristol so we could always meet up.   stu

Looks really really good - are these your Rollei lenses? Who says you shouldn't use Zeiss/Sharp lenses with an Iscorama - absolutely nuts! The image you're getting from your Nex is so nice.   I now regret getting rid of my old Zeiss lenses, especially for colour & contrast - my 2 Takumars are great, sharp too & the Russians hold their own against most things (& the preset apps are a blessing).

Never tried going longer, give it a go - you should be ok.

LOL! That would've been great though! But still, its doing my head in nevertheless. I know you can take the taking lens down from infinity with an iscorama, but have never had such results with a taking lens at infinity or down a little. Anyone got clues or an explanation?

Sorry, think you've missed understood, the 35mm Tak (at infinity, with iscorama attached) takes 30/40cm off the Iscorama's min focal distance of 2m, so my minimum is now about 1.7m.

So, i got a cheap Super Takumar 35mm f3.5 lens to match with my Iscorama54. Nothing wrong with it & with my M42-EOS adaptor it actually hits infinity properly - so bonus! Attached it to my 54 & here's the weird thing, it cuts down the min focusing distance by 30/40cm - strange!? Now i know what you might be thinking - f3.5, so its going to be harder for focusing & that's what i thought. So i took the anamorphic off, focused the lens (Taks have a very thin focus plain, so no problems getting it precise), measured the distance & again, 30/40cm closer. I even tried other lenses, with & without the 54, and they are normal - 2m is 2m. Now i'm not complaining, just a little freaked out in a good way :) So can anyone explain WTF is going on?

Cheers, much appreciated. Just watched the vids on their site again & it should make a lot of a difference. I'm with you on sticking with EOS (2in1 camera) & renting, just makes sense - oh, & ML is just hands down the best hack. I'm waiting for the 5D mk2 to hit below £1k - real bargain with that filter. Interesting & his stuff on the 5D workflow is good (scanning 1080 to 2k): http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-5d-still-a-workhorse/ The ML hacked 7D could be a goldmine if they get it right & it's hit the £1k mark, but needs to drop more.

Let us know what its like, as i've had my eye on this for ages. It took them almost a year to come up with this option for other cameras & it might be a little bit late in the day. Unless its really worth it, the nearly £200 price tag is a bit steep - i would have paid it, in a heart beat, last year, but now...not so sure! Thanks in advance

You might find that a 50mm will vignette like crazy with your 5D - actually it will, i think 85mm is your minimum. If you're going to try anything that wide then pick the Helios 44-2 (preset aperture is the best) - but it'll probably be a waste of time. I use a 60D & can't really use a 50mm except for wide open. Just remember that you're using a Full Frame sensor & most of us are on crop sensors, so for us a 58mm isn't a 58mm really. So don't think that you are at a disadvantage, the anamorphic will give you a wider FOV because its widescreen. The Mamiya will probably be nice, try it & see. But for anamorphics, simple lens formulas seem to work best - the Russian lenses are great & are all really good Zeiss copies (in some cases they were made on the same machines, once Germany got divided up), so don't be fooled by their prices (not all are cheap, but most are in comparison to Canon/Nikon). Jupiter 9 vs Helios 40-2 (the black version, with tripod mount - don't get the silver one): They are both soft wide open, not horrible soft (dreamy soft) but its an acquired taste - the Jupiter 9 just needs to be stopped down to f2.8 for it to get sharper & the Helios 40-2 to about f2. The Helios 40-2 produces really crazy swirly bokeh wide open & is a monster of a lens (big & chunky, weighing about 1kg). But all-in-all they are very similar, apart from price & weight. I have both & can't decide, but tend to go for the Helios 40-2 & have adapted to the weight - if money is a problem stick with the Jupiter 9. They are both perfect matches for the Kowa. If you want to go wider then the Tair 11a (135mm) is amazing. You could also try Super Takumars (M42 mount) - they do a 85mm & 105mm, are always sharp & give great flares with a Kowa. The only problem that you might have with some of the older lenses is that some might hit your mirror at infinity, so this is a good reference for that problem: http://www.panoramaplanet.de/comp/ good luck

Sony & Panasonic have just had their credit rating dropped to "JUNK" status. This rating drop means that both companies will default on their debt - hmmmm! We already knew that Sony were in trouble, hence their numerous camera releases, amongst other things, but they haven't proved very exciting - the drip feed release of tech might have to be re-evaluated. It'll be interesting to see what both companies do with the pricing of their new products. Obviously these companies have their fingers in more than one pie, but it certainly leaves the door wide open for new comers to add extra nails in their coffins! If/when BMC gets its act together & no one reacts quickly enough, it'll be the end for them - interesting times indeed! Canon & Nikon will always be fine as they are the go to brand names for photography. And before anyone says it, i know plenty of people who bought a 5D MK 2 & have never ever used it to shoot video. Their argument has simply been, "yes the option is there but why would I, its a photography camera not a video camera". The funniest thing is, it was these people that turned me onto DSLRs for video, even though that's not what they use them for. Got the definite feeling that the DSLR has had its time & we're moving back to the dedicated camera for the dedicated job. The BMC is bound to be better than any DSLR because it isn't a hybrid, it does one thing & one thing only - oh, it does it pretty damn good too! So glad i bought a DSLR that takes excellent photos, so when i upgrade to a dedicated video camera i still have an excellent stills camera.

Love the image this camera produces (the intercut slow-mo footage really makes it shine that little bit more) & of course, it costs more. Really interested to see what Andrew makes of the Ikonoskop. Digital Bolex will be very interesting once they've finished tinkering.

4/5 years ago you'd have to drop £2/3k on a Z1! Laughable now, but it was broadcast quality & used a lot. The 1DC looks a great all rounder & is aimed at Pros for that precise reason. I'm really excited about what ML will be able to do with the 7D & its dual processors! Everyone bangs on about that Canon's profits are down, but they still made a profit & that's what they see. I'm sure next year more companies will produce something more affordable & force the hand of big boys - it'll happen just be patient. The obsession of getting higher resolutions (2K or 4K) is only really practical if your market is a cinema screen, cause lets face it that's where it will shine & to actually spend that sort of cash on a camera that will be outdated in a year or so (if things continue as they seem to be) is crazy if you're not jobbing. You can rent a full RED kit (includes tripod etc...) for £250 a day & if you plan/script well you can shoot a short in that time - now that's a bargain! But hey, consumers are always going to throw their money at something. Just look at Electric Guitars: 90% of people who buy them will never play a gig or make a living & are quite willing to drop £2k+ on a Gibson - always have been always will be. Be glad with what you can afford & don't expect a 2/4K camera for under £1000 pounds anytime soon.

You've got a winner there - looks v.nice indeed.

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1353324872' post='21924'] SLR magic wont be able to manufacture something like the Iscorama for less than twice the current going rate of a used iscorama on Ebay. Even at £3000 for a new anamorphic exact copy of the iscorama 36, and/or a set of matched primes for £3500 a pop, PL mount, they would sell lots. I'd happily do a feature film and know it would be good enough for the big screen using my Iscorama + Zeiss primes on an Epic or Alexa. Problem is, SLR magic might struggle to market to this end of the market [/quote] Really need a bit more information about where they are at right now. I'm assuming, from the footage, its a fixed focus monobloc at the moment & at 1.8m min focus that's pretty damn good already! If this is true, then they could just make a series of adaptors with different focal lengths. But i suppose that will eliminate the possibility of racking focus - unless they can get a good approximate focal length, say between 1-2m, 2-3m, 3-4m & an infinity. A bundle of 4 adaptors, with this possibility & big enough to fit on any camera, for £1000 would be interesting.

You could try the Nex 5N (body only) & get an adaptor for your lenses - just over £300 new.

This does look v.nice & only 400 asa! Hope its cheaper than the Blackmagic & they do keep tweeking the design, which is a good sign all round - not just releasing something rapidly & then announcing a V.2 with fixes.