Russell Anway

Apologies, but I had to make this private because this was invited to a film festival and they're interested in premiere status etc. Sorry for the busted post/link. Mods, feel free to delete, or I'll amend later after festival announcements have been made and etc. Thanks.

This is a short documentary I did this past summer about a mushroom farm here in Minneapolis. https://vimeo.com/156486010 I shot this on my a7s with my Lomo squarefronts. The 50mm was the workhorse and I mostly switched between full frame and s35 to zoom in and out a bit. The 35 did some work as well and I dollied the 80 for a few of the mushroom "money" shots. I have one more segment like this shot (urban bee researchers with bee hives (apiaries!) on rooftops around the city). The plan is to shoot four or five more of these and edit it into a feature. The mushroom farm was the tester to see if this project was feasible and if I could execute the concept, or if a feature was a pipe dream (I'm working alone on this, no budget). In general I do think this came off pretty well. The biggest change I'd make is that I feel like I missed a lot of good stuff, and kismet was really against me in some ways. I shot the large majority of the non-interview content in one day, and my approach was to talk over the day with the farmers at the start of the day and have them give me a heads-up when something was going to go down, or when they were going to move on to a new task. I would shoot the b-roll and beauties when I felt I had enough of whatever the task at hand was. But the realization there is that the subjects don't necessarily have a good idea of what will make good contributions to the doc (nor could I expect them to), so they might think something is boring and not give you a heads-up when in fact the thing they're doing is using a fire extinguisher to knock a wasp's nest off the back of their tent and then running away like maniacs, and I'd definitely like to get that. So in the future I think sticking to the subjects like crazy for one full day without breaking away would more substantially fill the film's need. Then the second day could accommodate interviews and beauties. That's what I'm thinking moving forward at least. Anyway, let me know what you think.

Anyone know anyone know if video assist does a de-squeeze? I couldn't find any mention, and that's usually a no. Firmware maybe? Probably? I don't know if Blackmagic has a history of implementing that feature or not.

This isn't really a lens solution, but I'm sure you could return it. I see that it's listed "no returns," but that doesn't apply if the seller told you something that is materially false. Buyer protection extends to messages, not just the listing. If he's telling you that he misspoke, then you have it in writing that you were furnished with false information, and in a way that made the lens seem more valuable than it was. If you could get it in writing from a lens tech that the anamorphic block is damaged, and pair that with the message saying the anamorphic block is perfect, I don't think you'd have a hard time winning a claim including cost of shipping and return shipping (but be sure to require a signature on the return). Also, have you just calmly asked this individual if, since they misspoke, and since, on the basis of that information you purchased the item, they would consider taking a return, or issuing a partial refund? I've done that in the past and people have been surprisingly decent about it. Not everyone is trying to do you over; a lot of people are just not expert in what they are selling. But since this person suddenly had clear documentation of the damage as soon as the auction closed it makes me a bit suspicious that he was. Good luck.

It's true that the 50mm and the 80mm will cover the full frame sensor, but its also important to understand that the areas outside of the super35 image circle weren't a part of the quality control process. So the image there will be more degraded, sometimes extremely so. My 50mm is basically sharp wide open, but it vignettes significantly between T2.5 and T2.8, but if its on a full frame instead of apsc, the effect is extreme, and obvious to the naked eye. That might be fine in some shots (a portrait or other lock down shot), but panning across a white background at a wide stop on FF would be a grave error. Just something to keep in mind.

Check out the diopter thread my man! It's pretty much the most comprehensive discussion of large diopters for anamorphic lenses on the whole interwebs. Only a few links above this one! 100mm is pretty big though, so "affordable" is going to be tough!

Yeah, they are nice glass. Mounting them is an issue still and at the moment the plan is likely to superglue a 95mm thread onto the back. Not elegant but I have a project to shoot soon and there isn't time to keep screwing around with filters much longer. I did negotiate a little discount on them since they weren't as described but I'd honestly have been a lot happier if they'd just been 95 and simple. I spent months hustling before I worked something out with redstan, and spent another month sourcing about 20 different parts to buy the diopter in trade, so I feel your pain!

It might be worth emailing redstan. I emailed him when he was sold out but still was able to secure a +.25 82mm in trade that was not officially for sale (someone bailed on paying him after begging to reserve it so he sold it to me since I had money in hand).

Thanks for the response, I did find that thread as well, it's definitely not 107 on the back, but could be the diameter of the front. I may have to do something insane like busting the glass out of a big uv filter and super gluing it onto the backs of the diopters. That would be real sad though. im still hoping the cavision thing was somehow non-standard.

Looking for a little help on some diopters, hoping someone has the info I'm looking for. I just bought a pair of Angenieux diopters. These specifically http://www.ebay.com/itm/281716858980?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT I contacted the seller to find out what the thread was and he said they were 95mm, so I bought them, and bought this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981558-REG/cavision_art105_95_threaded_adapter_ring.html The goal here is to build a filter mounting system with thread size of 95mm that can be mounted to rails which could be used with lomo squarefronts. The problem is the cavision thing does not thread onto the diopter, it seems to be too small. So basically i'm wondering if anyone knows anything about these diopters, are the threads actually 95 or was seller guessing and they're 96mm, that's an oddball thread size and would be hard to make a filter system around (where am I going to get 96mm ND's and polarizers?) The threadsize is larger on the front than they are on the back, and I might be able to make it work if either thread was something standard. Problem is they're obscure enough that I can't find specs on these anywhere. It would be great to find some kind of official specs for these (thread size of the zoom they were designed for would do but as best I can tell they were for the angenieux 12-240 zoom and the only thread size I can find associated with that lens is 72mm, and that is definitely not correct for this), otherwise I'm basically just buying crap off amazon to see if it threads, or returning them, and I'd much rather get them working than send them back (projects are coming up and big diopters like these for an affordable price are not that common!). Just can't make any sense of the 20x12 20x15 markings. They look like nice glass, but if I can't get them in front of a lens they're not very useful. Any help is appreciated!

I'll second ceico7. Stuff I've got from ebay from untested sources has nearly always proved to be a waste of time/money. So I just pay for that good polish stuff now. The one thing I'll point out is that if the pin is out of alignment it won't matter on the foton-A like it does on other anamorphics. Normally, for example any of the OCT19 lenses, it would skew the image, but that won't be an issues with the foton since it is a two piece lens and the anamorphic portion is aligned to the rails, and not to the mount. So the spherical will be "out of alignment", but the anamorphic part will be aligned, so you won't be able to tell. If the lens is out of alignment and it's a single piece, you can also always loosen the PL and then spin it to alignment and then re-tighten. You just have to be sure and get your back focus correct.

Wait waaaah? Both of them? I know the one in the first picture is an oct19 but what about the one in the back left of the photo of your collection with the after-market metal ring, mounted on rails? Is that really not a conversion?

Who did the conversion of your oct18 35mm to single piece? Recommended?

I don't totally follow your workflow, but the first one looks 100% correct. Moreover, in premiere it's easy to check, there are percentages beside your pixel number, and if you are finalizing in a 1080p frame (and why would you final in anything bigger when nearly no one's monitors can display that added detail?) your aspect ratio really doesn't matter, there is no standard for web. So if the percent value of your height is half of the percent value of your width then your desqueeze is right. Pixels are sort of beside the point, since you are really after the ratio. That's it. I usually do something close as needed (a little zoom and reframe here and there is all good) and then use a cine scope overlay to cover my creative dalliances.

I've never used the minolta diopter specifically, but I can vouch for the minolta glass of that vintage. I have a 24mm, a 58mm and the 35-70 zoom and their all really nice lenses, as is their reputation. It's older so I'm sure standard older glass warnings apply, but i've read on DP review that its a good diopter. I think its not a terribly prized diopter just because its only 55mm thread (almost all the minolta lenses from back then are 55) and that's pretty small for today. But if it works for you I'm sure its a fine choice.