Hans Punk

Arri did about 7 years ago

Lomo OKC1-75-1 75mm F2

@jaquet Please don’t try ink or paint on the rear edge of a pre-36...it is not a good idea (even for VD to attempt). These optics are best not to touch if at all possible. An effective way to solve the square rainbow flare by making a custom rubber ring and securing it to the outside edge of the element housing. As for veiling glare or white vingette on a pre-36? - I’m not sure if that is particularly normal (as it is with Kowa types). @ch_d is your pre-36 displaying any unusual white flare on the edges? Could you post a screen shot of what you mean? (And what taking lenses you notice it with). Pictured below is a shot of my rubber ring solution to eliminate the square rainbow edge flare that the pre-36 gives with taking lenses other than the factory Isco type that doesn’t have the issue (because that lens has an inbuilt light baffle). I’ve recently given Tito the details on how to make this ring, so he will probably do a video tutorial on it soon, like he did with the information I sent him about the edge blackening, close focus and sharpness tune up mod for Kowa types.

I remember thinking Christian Bale’s outburst sounded perfectly justified. He was the only side that was talking/shouting any sense from what could be heard. ‘I was looking at the light’ implies Hurlbut was too busy and impatient to give the actor any consideration or much courtesy of space (sounded like it was not for the first time). Bale was playing an intense character in a poor film directed by a terrible director. Any actor of worth would want to protect their space for themselves when put into situations where their presence of mind has to be totally focused into a character, especially when trying to maintain a continuity of intensity throughout a scene that has a break or pause in shooting due to an adjustment of a lamp. This was apparently a hugely inappropriate moment for the DP to break the scene for the actor, Bale was right to complain. Hurlbut should have been sensitive to what was happening and been able to voice why he felt justified in breaking the scene to correct a technical issue...he didn’t, at least not to Bale’s satisfaction. Even on the bigger budget projects I’ve experienced , I’ve noticed basic set etiquette such as avoiding actors eyelines during rehearsal and shooting often gets overlooked...sometimes a bite back from an actor can make the crew appreciate how fucking hard it can sometimes be to do their work with a million and one distractions and disruptions. But as soon as an actor voices any complaint, then they can get labelled as ‘difficult’. Their job is to make their job look easy, that’s why they get the big bucks. More crew members should take acting classes to get a taste of what is to be expected in front of the lens, it’s a real eye opener and can massively help understand and empathise with an actors needs sometimes. IMHO Phones that are not being carried by production or hair+makeup/ art dept (for continuity stills) should be smashed with a hammer - If found making noise or (just as bad) someone checking Facebook in front of the director during takes. It’s disrespectful to not at least hide any phone use on a set. It’s like any creative workplace, the best work can often easily be compromised by distraction. Ive noticed that commercials/ music videos that may be shot non-sync often breeds more phone use, since the more relaxed attitude to crew noise levels can breed other behaviour that normally would be frowned upon if shooting sync and having constant calls for quiet. If your fellow crew members (or director) are happy about using phones on a set...at least give your actors/performers a break from seeing or hearing them when they are trying to prepare or execute a performance. It is simple respect.

Agreed, the 3x crop mode is still very unique advantage - especially for macro video. The ability to also shoot higher resolution (even at reduced frame rate) in raw is quite amazing.

LOL

Inspired by @Justin Bacle and his post, I recently picked up the big brother of the GB-Kalee that had damaged internals - but luckily the front focusing section was in great condition. The optics are a beastly 100mm front and rear so I separated the front focusing assembly and have been pretty impressed by the optic quality and coating. I post this here as it is a bit more info on the bigger brother of the GB-Kalee Small as it may inspire others to remount or test further these lovely vintage optics as single focus solutions. Unfortunatly I have just started a long term job that does not allow me to spend time playing with re-mounting this beast, so I've decided to sell. From what I can tell, to get minimum focus on this big boy (of 1m) - the front and rear optics need spacing of approx 40mm...which unfortunately is further than the helicoid will allow without unscrewing and separating the two body halves. However if someone was to re-mount or rail-mount the optics in some kind of MacGyver fashion, you'd have a very tasty big boy focusing optic to play with. Like I said, I now have no time to experiment with this myself, but from some rough handheld tests - it appears to deliver the same high quality as it's smaller Kalee brother, but with bigger optics. In a shameless move (but target to those following this thread who might find interesting) , here is my focusing assembly listed on ebay: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/GB-KALEE-VARAMORPH-Focusing-front-Assembly/253440130338

Redstan has a 95mm +0.5 closeup for sale. https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F332535123459

AF with anamorphic is generally extremely hit and miss, although with a 1.33x it can work pretty well. Modern MC lenses also don’t flare as well as anything vintage. Even if you don’t care much for flare, the look that you can get with older manual lenses is well worth the effort...a Helios 44 with an oval inside is about as good as Century/SLR/Optex 1.33x can ever look IMHO. Saying that, I bought a cheap Chinese nifty fifty f1.8 knockoff and put an oval inside and that works surprisingly well as an AF taking lens...the simplistic coatings also did not kill the flare too much either. But you can’t really beat the look of using an older manual lens.

Adding oval discs to anywhere other than at a lens at aperture location will introduce considerable light loss and added vignette. Solution is to locate oval aperture directly - or at the closest point to aperture level (as mentioned by whoisjsd). Easiest and cheapest is to modify a Helios 44 lens this way, and to use that as your taking lens. See diagram below to see highlighted area for proper oval aperture placement in Helios 44 (or any similar Double-Gauss lens design): With an oval aperture correctly installed and orientated, the effect is increased oval bokeh on a 1.33x anamorphot, and a sharpening effect due to the taking lens effectively being stopped down on the horizontal axis (yet maintaining near full height aperture). Here is a crappy sample of my 1.33x Century with Helios 44 with oval aperture installed...ignore the softness of the image, the proximity of the subjects was too close for sharp focus...but you can clearly see the improvement in bokeh definition:

Kodak 10 years late with this idea...such a missed opportunity to not have used classic cine camera designs from the past. That at least could create a desirable/ collectible camera for a relatively niche market. That would be of some justification for the insane price and ‘gotchas’ that the Kodak ecosystem will force users to comply with. I’ve not looked into it properly, but it appears that the Kodak s8 camera is a pretty close copy of the previously released Logmar camera. The Logmar looks better, but also expensive considering how much existing excellent s8 cameras go for on the used market. http://www.logmar.dk/ I’d much rather spend the same money on a Beaulieu 6008 PRO and iscorama!

Correct!.... Sorry I was half asleep when I posted before. Yes, indeed the Tokina is a tad stronger...probably making the Minolta closer to the +0.33 power others have claimed. To be honest I personally consider them close enough in power for the two to be considered quite equal in terms of power and quality.

I have Tokina +0.4 and Minolta 100-500mm Achromats and can say for sure the Minolta is a tad stronger at +0.43. Quality of both are virtually identical (superb). I'm currently selling one of my Minolta's on Ebay that has element separation on its edge. It looks ugly as hell from the outside but surprisingly shows very little effect on camera unless directly provoked with a light source on the effected area on a wide angle lens (then it will show a faint glow). If using on a lens with smaller entrance pupil such as a Helios44 - then the effected area can be avoided all together. I've put the starting bid at what I paid for it a few years ago (cheap because the separation issue). Pretty ideal for someone who wants a Tokina quality fractional achromat - but who can live with it's cosmetic appearance. Here is a rough test to show the Minolta's fractional added power over the Tokina. Don't worry about edge softness - that is the lens' quirk (Lomo)...just look at centre sharpness and the fractional distance the camera needed to be nudged forward when Tokina used - to match the power of the Minolta.

This all shows how detached people have become (often them pesky youngsters) on how much power the internet can yield and bite you in the ass when you get cocky. Dipshit kids will always exist - we actually need them, we all make mistakes and often learn valuable life lessons from young age and hopefully grow up to be better people. But when you have millions of followers that you know are mostly young and possibly impressionable, there should at least be a moral obligation to think about what you are putting out there for the kiddies to see. I think apologising afterwards because of the ‘backlash’ is a bit too late...it is often clear that the tears in the eyes are really caused by fear of their channel and revenue being cut off, not genuine remorse. Earning revenue from your apology video is a bit of a giveaway...that at least should be donated to a suicide prevention charity. YouTube should be held accountable up to a point (morally and sometimes legally), but the largest responsibility should rest on the shoulders of the content makers themselves. Imagine what wonderful content could exist if those who created were not purely infected with the monetary incentive of ‘likes’ and ‘subscribes’ and paid for promotion bullshit. Putting cultural value or gauging fame on the amount of likes or subscribers someone has is like telling me how many people in the world ordered a Big Mac in one day...impressive stats if you want to represent McDonald’s at a fast food conference, but otherwise pointless. If you want to stop Gorden Ramsey spitting your lamb cutlets back in your face after you prepared a meal for him, you don’t cook up some frozen substandard shit that the masses seem to accept. You make something of worth and quality to impress...or don’t bother - and appeal to the suckers who can’t taste the difference. Perhaps I’ve only seen crappy YouTube ‘stars’...they just all appear to be like self serving arrogant cocks who remind me exactly of the people I would not invite to my yacht for afternoon tea and scones. YouTube stars ain’t ‘my bag’ so needless to say I have no cultural value associated with them at all...so this recent news sadly has no shock value for me, other than feel sorry for the video-bombed dead guy and his grieving family. It now seems that other YouTube stars are now condemning this guys actions...behold, the moral authority have spoken! We are truly living inside an episode of Black Mirror. Disclaimer: I’ve never seen anything I’d class as entertainment on YouTube, other than Red Letter Media videos and the occasional live streaming from a house full of cats. The only positive reminder from this whole debacle, no matter how much you care (or not) - is to post on your social media feed the number of your local suicide helpline/ Mental health outreach programme and share it with friends. There is a very good chance it will reach someone you care about and remind them that help is out there.

MLVFS is a way to mount MLV video files into a ‘virtual drive’ on your computer, so the video files can appear as CDNG’s. Basically it cuts 95% of the time spent with the traditional ML workflow. Best to read the ML forum, and/or check YouTube for installation tutorial - it makes sense once you dig through everything...it is well worth the effort. https://youtu.be/6v4EWj0zXDs http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13152.0

B&W video can look beautiful for the right subject...especially portraits of interesting faces and documenting everyday life. Without the distraction of colour, often the viewers attention is drawn closer to the subject and can give a timeless feel. Without the luxury of a monochrome sensor, it’s always best to monitor in B&W - since the composition often benefits from contrast in lighting and tone that is not easily noticed when viewing in colour. @mercer MLVFS is now working with the most recent nightly builds, making post processing very painless...especially when combined with Resolve for export. Here is an early ML video that made me upgrade to FF Raw a few years ago...something magical about it. This music video also looks great in B&W:

Another good candidate for high speed photography opening up a different perspective:

Absolutely could be done mechanically, but you’d be limited to the precise throw of one specific taking lens per mechanical calibration, and/or the transport distance of optics throughout the focus range (which is often not linear).The advantage of a motorised route is that you can set custom waypoints along a lens’s throw, allowing offset focus sync between various taking lenses throughout the range.

Cinemagraph technique can look great to visually study a nuance of a specific moment of time, I'm still waiting for ultra low power high resolution OLED picture frames to enable you to upload your own looping 'moments' and hang on the wall. Iconic moments from your favourite movie or interpolated still frames from a burst mode from a camera could look very nice as a hanging picture when slowed right down. Not sure the medium holds up for a 'traditional' narrative tool...as the looping nature of the image is purposely infinite. I think ultra slow motion can be more visually arresting - given the right subject and composition, the end result can be as stunning as a painting...

I was lucky enough to grab a Proxiscope from Max as soon as it became available...he had previously sent me his prototype to do a test fitting on my DIY close focus modded pre-36 iscorama. Here follows my review after using it for a few weeks... Full Disclosure: Although I was graciously approached by max to test out his prototype, I did not take up on the kind offer of a discount in the purchase price of the final housing. This was due to me wanting to give an honest review, as well as back someone who was going to add a great partial rehousing option to those with iscorama 36 lenses. Therefore my review is from the perspective of a regular customer. I am very happy to report that the Proxiscope housing works flawlessly, not only with MC and pre-36 models- but with lenses that have already been DIY modified (cutting/ shaving stopper and body to allow grub screw stopper to be inserted for new stop etc). This is possible due to the proxiscope locking metal collar that completely bypasses the original plastic section and the front section having an integrated relocated metal stopper. The ingenious design allows the new front to enable the same close-focus ability as the DIY mod, but in a MUCH more elegant and reassuring way. No longer is the fear that the grub screw will work loose and let the rama front go smashing to the ground for example. The integrated focus gear to the design is much better than any third-party gear ring, as those never quite conform properly to the isco's tapered front. The anodised finish of the Proxiscope is very complimentary to the original isco design as it does not spoil the classic look with obnoxious bulges or with added weight that then restricts it to rail mounting. Focus markings are clear and are denoted in meters, I think feet measurements are also an option. The Proxiscope comes in a nice wooden box, with all the tools needed to install, with easy to follow video instructions to be found on YouTube. Installation takes about 4 mins and can be 100% reversible to original factory condition. In a world where everyone wants something for free, some may question the price. These people need to take just a second to consider the design time, R&D testing and small-run costs of getting anything of quality made these days. Also the fact that the current cost of a Tokina +0.4 combined with a decent focus gear will run you a comparable amount - without actually giving you the benefit of an 'in-body' solution that the Proxiscope does...Oh, and it's under half the price of the cheapest VD rehousing mod (that you have to wait 90 days+ for!). So, all in all...a very impressive product that massively improves the practicality of using iscorama 36 lens types for modern film making whilst still maintaining the isco's classic look and light weight. Rehousing is solidly built with clear instructions for installation. Fully compatible with 'factory' iscorama 36 lens types...as well as those with previous DIY close-focus modded lenses. (pic below shows slim UV filter attached - not part of Proxiscope)

Here is what’s best I’ve found from over the years... Option 1 Shoot with a camera that has internal ND feature. Option 2 Instal fixed ND’s upfront in a rail mounted mattebox - or VND/ circular ND using a filter tray adapter. Option 3 Rear mounting a fixed or VND (between Anamorphic rear and taking lens front) can work perfectly well, providing the setup is on rails. In bright conditions a collapsed rubber lens hood can also be used to create a lightproof donut that is compact enough to not introduce added vignette. Flares are not affected or dulled...at most an added faint green line is added to the streak flare from the ND’s multi-coating. Option 3 If rail mounted setup is not used - front mounting ND’s can be attached to front of scope lens by using clamp adapter, or screwing into native thread if using iscorama lens types. If using clamp adapter, some added vignette might be introduced if using wider taking lenses. Fixed value ND’s are usually best used in this scenario since they are usually thinner. VND’s can sometimes introduce issues if used on the front clamp of scope lenses that rotate whilst focusing, since a shifting polarising effect can be introduced. Sometimes front mounting ND filters can introduce added flare effects, usually an added faint green streak line flare is apparent when exposed to intense direct light source. Always best to get the best possible quality filter budget will allow - especially if mounted to front of a rotating scope, since some lower quality ND filters can introduce unwanted texture to bokeh. When these are rotated it can be very distracting to see this artifacts in bright light as well as ugly colour shift. A very decent budget solution is the Hoya PROND64 (six stop fixed ND) - quite capable in bright daylight and easy to rear mount in a rail setup as described previously.

Twinkle flare either caused by micro scratches on Kowa or taking lens (or both). Test taking lens first to see if present...if not, then you know it is the Kowa. You can usually tell if an Anamorphic has any micro scratches by putting on a ‘clean’ taking lens and freehand rotate it while pointing at a strong light source. If the twinkles rotate...there is your answer. Micro scratches are usually bad news on rear of lens elements, but a few on the larger front optic usually don’t impact too badly. Your example pics also show some glow, indicating either a load of fine micro scratches or light mildew on At least one of the optics. white veiling glare can indeed caused by light hitting optic edge of front element, blackening the edge will eliminate that...or simply use a lightweight rubber lens hood to control the off-axis light from entering the lens. It could also be caused by the taking lens partially flaring, when it’s flare is being clipped by the Kowa choking the light path.

I tried lots of different nitrile rings, all at different inner diameters and outer diameters...I still don’t know the exact size I used, since I ended up trying a load from an unmarked mixed bag until one or two worked. I think the quicker solution would be to buy a slightly larger than 30mm x 2mm or 3mm thick ring, measure it around the circumference of the rear optic edge...and then cut to size. Then apply a micro blob of superglue to join the ends of the rubber to make a ring with the exact inner diameter. Or buy a strip of the nitrile material and have lots of attempts to make the perfect sized ring that eliminates ‘square flare’, yet avoids added vignette : https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.co.uk%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F120893807581 Hold the rubber ring in place by small strip of electrical tape around outside of rear optic housing, so it won’t shift position. As I mentioned before, it works well as an added ‘bumper’ to help protect the optic edge and face when positioning very close to a taking lens...as well as get rid of the nasty ‘square flare’. This solution works very well but may take 2-3 attempts to work out the ideal sized ring through a bit of trial and error.

I’ve not heard of the issue being present with regular 36 iscorama models, I believe the rear optics on those have blackened edges or are sufficiently shielded by the larger retainer assembly at the rear. The strange flare you mention is only a particular quirk of the pre-36 and (probably) the Cinegon versions.