Bioskop.Inc

[quote name='BurnetRhoades' timestamp='1353185033' post='21867'] Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic. [/quote] I've got this image of people sitting in the corner of rooms & saying to themselves "I can see the whole room, cool!" LOL!

I thought one of the benefits of using an anamorphic lens was that it makes the focal length wider - hence widescreen. So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go? I know most of you have gone the MFT route, but there are more & bigger sensors out there too! So what happens when you drop 1K on a lens that you'll only ever be able to use on a MFT & you buy/rent a camera with a bigger sensor? Cause lets face it, things will move on & so will you - the glass you buy should be adaptable for the future. Furthermore, the only cameras that have been used in films so far are the 5D & 7D, not the GH2. If SLR Magic were sensible they wouldn't sell an anamorphic just for one camera/sensor size - so i've changed my mind, they need to make an anamorphic lens that is adaptable to different primes (re. Andrews recent question), but is that possible to do & make it a single focus system?

The focus ring should move, so if it doesn't you are in trouble - sorry. If you bought it off ebay & they said everything was OK (smooth focus etc...), complain & if they refuse full refund, then take it up with ebay. On the other hand if it was dirt cheap, then see if you can get it fixed - focus ring might just need re-lubing.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353095885' post='21793'] Thanks for all the feedback guys. In order of importance what do you think is most critical to you? Single focus barrel (not dual focus like Kowa) OR adaptable to different primes? If the adapter cost for example around $1000 (I just made this up, nothing to do with actual pricing as this is not decided on yet) and was dual-focus would you buy it? With dual focus you cannot rack focus during a shot and it takes longer to confirm focus, is trickier too. How much would you be prepared to spend on a high quality single focus anamorphic (like the Iscorama)? [/quote] Difficult one there Andrew. People would be more willing to spend money on a Single Focus system, but not at the Iscorama price range (I don't think they'll ever hit the quality of an Iscorama, so why price it as such). The idea of it being a closed system would appeal - lens & anamorphic combined. No one would pay $1000 on a dual focus system, as there are too many good cheap ones out there already.

Just to set the cat amongst the pigeons! Have you read this? [url="http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/11/blackmagic-cinema-camera-vs-the-dslr-video-world/"]http://blog.planet5d...lr-video-world/[/url] Video Look? I suppose its all subjective in the end - always has been, always will be. Would really love to see some anamorphic footage from you Andrew!!!!!!!

[quote name='richg101' timestamp='1353075125' post='21776'] an f2.8 35mm monoblock and a set of diopters (+0.5, +1.5, +3.5) would be a nice little package. 35mm is a nice all round length.[/quote] That would be very nice - one system & just stack the diopters when needed. Probably room for 50mm as well? Lets hope they don't just feed the MFT market & forget about all the other cameras/sensors out there! Would be very short-sighted not to plunder the whole market place.

I wouldn't hold your breath too long for an Iscorama copy, regardless of the patent problems. It would probably be very expensive to mass produce in order to get it perfect e.g. no breathing etc... Andrew's comment about it being a sealed unit with a taking lens is probably a hint at where they will probably be going with this lens - at best it will be a focus through type thing. The SLR magic anamorphic is looking good, but what are their plans for it - what's the focus system & what's the market? Not really seeing the problem with dual focus systems or even monobloc fixed focus lenses - i have a lens i can rack focus with & still haven't found an instance where this type of shot would serve me better than another alternative. Still not sure where this obsession with 'Rack Focus' has come from - i've watched, studied & written about so many films over the years and it just isn't something that is used in abundance. The most common usage is to rack focus from one talking head to another, but most filmmakers will not abandon the 'shot-reverse-shot' technique since they are taking into consideration audience identification processes. There are numerous shot types out there, you need to get to know them & stop being hung up on a very minor one - 'John Fording' will never go out of fashion (this is a close up shot, where an actor moves into focus) & is so much more effective, and easier, thus less time consuming to set up, than following the actor whilst trying to keep them in focus. More info is needed, please!

I for one, love DSLRs, but precisely because they do limit you. The consequence of this is that you really have to think about how you want to shoot something & this gives you good experience in planning a shoot. In a way its like stepping back in time, where you have to learn your craft - make mistakes, fix mistakes etc... I personally like to get everything right in camera & never have to say "I'll fix it in post". To me that is just plain lazy & you'll never learn from the mistakes that you should be making if you take that attitude. RAW seems like a good idea (well its amazing really), but how many people will just use it to avoid learning to film a scene properly? With film you had to get it right - no excuses. Why should digital be any different. What makes a film look good is a DP creating a mood, seeing an angle etc... It doesn't really matter what its filmed on/with - if its a good film, its a good film. If you have a good idea, just shoot it on whatever you've got to hand. It doesn't matter, as no one is going to say "Its filmed on a DSLR, so its shit!" The highest grossing film of all time (based on how much was spent & the return it saw) is still The Blair Witch Project - made for the price of a used car, lots of ingenuity & some balls! Of course i want a better cheaper camera - i'd kill for one. The future could & most probably will be bright for low budget filmmakers, but first you need the idea & the know how. In the meantime there's no point getting hung up on codecs, formats, resolution etc... At the moment i'm as happy as larry & love my shitty 60D, with its moire, aliasing, softish picture & the rest of the crap that it throws in my face just to spite me.

Didn't see those, but you can be lucky & perhaps the demand has died down a little. I'll be interested to see how much this one goes for, just for reference. But if the price is silly i might sell mine & pick up a cheap GH2. Prices are really up & down at the moment depending on the lens - a Kowa B&H went for just over £100 the other day & its worth so much more! I forgot to bid on a Sancor 16D the other day & it went for £70 - bugger! Someone posted a 2000 & 42 a few days ago (starting bids 99p), but the listings vanished as fast as they went up - probably got an offer he couldn't refuse!

No, this wasn't me, but once i saw this it gave me serious lens envy. I ended up buying the iscomorphot S8/x2 (monoblock), as i kept getting out bid - at the time they were going for £600. I was lucky earlier this year & bought one as a potential B-cam lens to go with the 54. They come up every now & then, definitely worth a pop. But expect the bidding to vary & do keep in mind that they normally don't go cheap - you need to be seriously lucky. Just did a little test & you need to stop down to get infinity, otherwise its a mess. On the Tair 11a i actually got the best results at 15m rather than at Infinity (it was actually pretty damn sharp, my bad) - in fact i couldn't get anything in focus with the taking lens at infinity no matter how far in the distance i searched. Go figure! With the +0.4 achromat on you go from 5m to 1.6m. Oh & sharp from wide open. Edit: That one on ebay is now at £310 - lol! Hope you guys aren't bidding against each other!

There's a lot of rubbish posted online & have no idea why someone would pretend a lens does something when it clearly doesn't. Also, there could be confusion over/between the Widescreen 2000 & the 2000 series of Iscoramas (the sealed monoblock anamorphic lenses - the 2004 with a Leica 50mm f2 Summicron being the best) If you stop down a lot it kinda goes to infinity, but isn't as sharp as it is at 5m - deep depth of field etc... So in the Terminus vid, he's outdoors & stopped down. Don't get me wrong its useable footage, but if you blow it up (big screen, not vimeo) it will be soft in comparison to any close up footage. This is a better example of what it can do: http://vimeo.com/19736579 Prices vary a lot, they go for between £300-£600 (normally closer to £500) - they do seem to be v.popular. Of course you can be lucky (i was) & if you can get one closer to 400, its a bargin! I'll do some quick infinity footage & post it.

I'll second richg101 on isco widescreen 2000 - it is very sharp & you'll have no problems about using a 35mm lens on a GH3 (i've used a 30mm lens on a 60D with no vignette - so in theory you could go lower than 35). [u][b]However[/b][/u] - it is a fixed focus system @ 5m, so you can't rack focus! (disregard what anyone else says, its not true - you've been warned) On the plus side you could put almost any diopter in front of it & get very little noticeable CA (i remember someone telling me that its made up of 2 achromats) - a +1 would serve you better than a +0.4, but both would be ideal. It will be sharper than an Iscorama, have the same look & be a 3rd of the price.

If you're worried about weight & the possibilities of mounting on your shoulder (in the future if you run out of budget), then check this article out - by a Hollywood DP (his whole blog is very informative). [url="http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2012/10/why-a-shouldercam-should-be-heavy/"]http://www.hurlbutvi...hould-be-heavy/[/url] Think it covers the basics.

If you're leaning towards the BMC mft, then you're going to have to wait anyway & you'll save money on glass. In the meantime you could rent a RED One for a day & see how you like it - what do you loose (ok a bit of cash, but you gain peace of mind). I just stopped myself buying the Red! Have you looked at the following? http://www.ikonoskop.com/ or http://www.digitalbolex.com/ I'd wait if i were you, as there is more to come.

Just hope this film is a success so he can carry on using film & isn't forced to go down the digital route. Would be a real shame to lose film altogether, as digital really needs to have the benchmark shoved in its face every so often - just to keep it honest.

Its all about what happens next year & for me its a waiting game. Do i want a RED? Yes! Do i need a RED? No! Its the same with 2k & 4k. Just rent, as it'll be dirt cheap. I just love a good scrap! Its going to be amusing watching them beat themselves silly over pricing. Sit back & enjoy the show!

[quote name='ScreensPro' timestamp='1351862390' post='20869'] Have you ever used one? Great camera but an absolute beast. I shoot nature, predominently. The thought of carrying a kitted out R1 up a mountain trail is not something i want to do again. Add to that - lack of QT, less DR, proprietry media. If you are studio based, or have really great support gear and an AC built like a tank, then it is a stunning, stunning deal though. The image quality is undeniable. [/quote] No, but was about to hire one out & now i'll wait, as the rental price will have to come down. And definitely not practical for mountain climbs, but thats not my thing. I was mulling over the BMC, but would never buy v.1. And also, it still hasn't shipped yet which might suggest they are tweaking things - if they're sensible, that is. Got my eye on the Digital Bolex - who are making loads of interesting adjustments before actually releasing their product. I just think these are interesting times - recession=competition war=price drops. Really think there's more to come! Going to hold onto my cash for a bit longer & not jump headlong into the abyss just yet.

The system in the drawing is identical to Alan's & so explains why he gets a credit. The above anamorphic, image wise, looks quite good, but the flares are a bit...well...all over the place & distracting. But everything starts out as a prototype.

Wow! And you'd buy a BMC instead of a RED One MX for what reason exactly? Sale of the Century! Really tempted...

Looks like Redstan has already beaten him to it! His was v.easy to use & i think he used vintage glass. I'm sure he'll comment at some point.

I've only recently, like a few weeks ago, got a sneak at what 48fps might look like & it did my head in for a while, but then i relaxed into it. I'm no spring chicken either & the thought horrified me, but then i had my eyes opened! Yeah, the video look, well not exactly. The suspension of disbelief & audience identification etc...well that's Film Theory for you. And the theorists are still mulling over the Filmic Experience & there's still no straightforward answer to what actually goes on - hence the Theory. You might have heard about the early silent film (the train arriving at a station - the first film?), where the audience all started running when they thought the train would burst through the screen. That looked real to them & things have moved on a huge amount since that film. So perhaps they're just trying to recapture that early experience? It'll be interesting & a challenge for both audience & filmmaker. Things will move on & that's just the way of it, can't live in the past forever. We'll just have to suck it & see.

My initial thoughts - lucky bastard! Redstan for diopters - also he's got some new vintage ones coming soon, if you can wait a few weeks. If you've got the money, upgrade your Anamorphic - Iscorama. But apart from that, lovely.....

@ Axel - projection-wise i was talking about before digital editing, sorry should have been clearer. As soon as digital crept in, then yes. As far as detail, i meant objects etc... I remember being involved in doing early tests using HD cameras for TV & it made me laugh how much more complicated it made everything. It showed up every imperfection, on clothes (dandruff & dust being the biggest pains), skin blemishes & every object - it was crazy annoying! Time saved in some quarters didn't quite equate into others. But don't get me wrong, i love digital. What does make me laugh is people still trying to get the "Film Look"! Film has 1 foot firmly out the door, but is hesitating. It really needs a shove! Lets reserve judgement on all things digital until The Hobbit and/or Avatar 2 hit the cinemas. I'm really curious/excited about ditching 24fps - historically it was a film standard created due to the expense of using celluloid & i don't think it translates well to digital. I want the hyper real effect ASAP. I want to feel as if i could reach in & touch everything - a virtual reality effect if you will. Less detachment & more emersion. I just watched Watchmen Blu-ray on the new Samsung TV using an Oppo player & it really shocked how crisp,sharp & real everything became - the opening scene was jaw dropping, bits of dust, glass etc... The image looked too real (people are claiming TV like) to begin with, but after 10mins it made the experience so much better! I don't want 2k/4k, i want 7k & as many fps as possible! If you've never used film to make a short or even a feature, then you've been saved a great headache - especially the one on your wallet!

All this debate about 1080 vs 2K vs 4K, but none of you have mentioned Super Hi-Vision (7680x4320). http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11436939 Unfortunately, digital resolutions seemed like a revolution & it still does, but was it really a scam? You really have to ask yourselves why some filmmakers are still using Film? Is it because nothing will ever be able to replicate light hitting celluloid? If you've ever talked to a projectionist, then you'll know that film is very sharp & that they would soften the image as time went on and their projectors got better & better - so as to keep things the same. You also have to ask yourselves - How much detail do you really want/need to see? Have you ever experienced how much make up is needed when making a film or even TV now? They just don't want to see everything - especially in TV! These v.high resolutions (if you read the above article) are for big screens, so the image doesn't look too soft. Will we ever get 2k or 4k TV programmes any time soon when they can't even deliver true HD. The best quality HD channel i have is not surprisingly the NHK HD news channel. NHK claim they will be broadcasting in Super Hi-Vision by 2020 & we all know that we are about 10yrs behind Asia in getting this type of tech - look how long it took us to get True HD TVs. Its all a BS scam! They feed us dribs & drabs of tech, in order to keep us happy & have forgotten about the digital age we live in - we know there's better out there! Just look at broadband speeds - How is it possible that South Korea get faster broadband speeds when they're out & about, than we can get at home? We're being lied to, scammed (whatever you want to call it) all in the name of profit & there's nothing we can do about it!

You'll be able to use 30mm & maybe smaller with the 54. Alan (aka Redstan) sells a lovely adaptor clamp which takes you from 77 to 62mm & it also covers/protects the rear lens (which sticks out a lot) - then all you need is a stepping ring to attach to your taking lens. Or, you could just buy some spacing rings (you'll need a few) & then a stepdown ring - your choice. Very lucky to have scored a 54 for that price, well done! But be cautious when mounting on a tripod or handheld as its very heavy & will damage the taking lens and/or camera mount because of the weight. You'll probably need a diopter to get closer. enjoy!