silvertonesx24

Thanks- looks like it won't cut it.

Very nice. Any disadvantages other than the weight? What was your taking lens? Saw 50mm on the vimeo page. How wide can you go with the anamorphic?

Been thinking about getting one, there's one ending soon on eBay now:   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Baby-Iscorama-Iscomorphot-8-1-5x-Anamorphic-Anamorphot-Lens-Cinemascope-/290993700462   I like the single focus design, but my biggest concern is sharpness. Anyone have any advice on the fastest aperture possible they've dared using this lens? I've used quite a few different anamorphics, and the ones that can't be used below 2.8 or so end up gathering dust for me. I know sharpness is relative, but I need an image that's at least usable professionally.

  This is my experience as well- it will work with 85mm pretty good wide open on full frame and as you stop down the lens the vignette will increase. This lens in particular not an Iscorama- it is an Isco-optic or sometimes known as an Isco-gottingen. I believe it is made by the same company that makes the Iscorama (Isco Optics) which is owned by Schneider. Not sure what the difference between the lenses are optically but mechanically an Iscorama is single focus through and a lens like this one is dual focusing.  

  Here is an Iscorama:   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Isco-Iscorama-1-5x-pre-36-anamorphic-anamorphot-non-MC-/261297909606   Iscorama is a specific model of anamorphic lens from Isco. They are rare, sought after, and $$$$. Set up an eBay saved search and set your price over $2000 because they aren't going lower than that.   The other links posted are all decent lenses but not Iscorama. They are sellers keyword bombing Iscorama (and others) to get more traffic to their own anamorphic lenses.

If the clamp route won't work for you, what I've done before is gotten a step ring (say 77-82) and ground it on to the front barrel, and then you're free to use anything 82mm you like

  What he said. Don't bother

  Better watch out, the it's-not-fair-that-someone-else-makes-a-profit crowd will be along shortly to admonish you for that statement.   And completely agreed on the 1.5x. I'm way too used to 2x at this point to go all the way back to 1.33x. Especially now with Magic Lantern raw and having a creative choice in resolution.

  I think you hit this exactly on the head. This is for people unhappy with the LA7200, and it hits that market well. Personally I can't believe the prices that LA7200s go for considering that bulkier or wider 2x lenses with sharpness that I consider usable are much cheaper, and this SLR at $800, it'll eat the LA7200 alive.   But for people like me who moved to 2x after losing patience with smudgy LA7200 and Century, it doesn't really do anything for us unfortunately. 1.33x just doesn't do it for me anymore, I'll just crop. I haven't been impressed whatsoever with any of the demos from SLR or Letus.

I don't get it. Yet another demo video that looks like spherical matted.   Maybe I'm just used to working with 2x bokeh, but none of it looked oval to me.

  Exactly.

  I've had a couple of these that are probably very similar or identical optics wise. As already stated, they are heavy, and you will need a rail system. On the other hand, the image is consistently sharp at fast apertures even f/1.2. Again I don't know about these but the ones I've had didn't flare at all. I've used and tested several low/medium priced anamorphic, and there's really nothing perfect out there so it really all comes down to what trade-off you're most comfortable with. They're either unusable below f/4, heavy, aberration on the edges, require dual focusing, need constant diopter babysitting, or more.   If this is your price range and you are concerned about weight, I would check out or contact the maker of the Apefoscope. I have one and it's nice and light for the money, and usable at around f/2 or so. Some pictures (not mine):   http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjones41/sets/72157632592370798/

  4K delivery for consumers is useless. 4K, 8K and on for production of content is extremely useful.

  They should take the lead from Canon and leave raw video there to be "discovered"

I did this once with an LA7200. I was able to get close focus, but as Gabor said keeping it aligned is tricky.

It's funny, 2.35:1 used to be the new 16:9, and now I feel you've got to be in the 2.7-3.55:1 range if you really want that wide feel now.

Usually, try and keep the sun behind you when shooting. Polarizers for me are a must. Use long lenses as you'll usually be stopping down more than you think. I'll admit plenty of times I've cheated the shutter angle

  Interesting, but the reason someone or a group funds a production company is because it generates profit. What percentage of non-major-and-conglomerate-studios films actually turn a profit? Distribution isn't really the problem. There's Netflix, iTunes, Amazon already.

  No, that is just time washing away the froth.   Everyone remembers The Beatles, no one remembers the Strawberry Alarm Clocks.

To me, it's all about the anamorphic bokeh. Standard bokeh makes me think of a Dunkin Donuts commercial. Anamorphic bokeh makes me think of a painting.

There's a couple of 0.5 diopters available on the bay now and it's pretty easy to make your own housing.

Nice. The exterior shots around 20 seconds would have made me cringe if it had been shot in h264. Highlight rollback is so nice with 5d raw

Set up a new sequence at 1920x816 or 1920x1080 and place your footage. Go to your Motion settings and change vertical height to 50%.

  I wonder what the final settled price point will be.   For me, I suppose I would like it to be under $1000 to be able to justify adding this to my gear.

The only way you're really going to learn is through experimentation.   But If there is one key- it is to buy a good clamp, and then experiment with different kinds that turn up for sale. All you have to do is just clamp them to your taking lenses and then do some test shoots and decide which ones are worth keeping.