Justin Bacle

Ooo sorry, didn't thought it was the same "info". This topic should be deleted then, sorry about that :s

Just saw this event on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/events/1800044130310599 As I just needed to update my trusty AF100. This might just be it ! Let the speculations begin

I just want them to reduce the price of this damn BMPCC. Still the same price as when it came out, plus used market is still quite expensive in comparison to the retail price :s

I wouldn't say Vid-Atlantic clamps are crap. I have both a RafCamera, Vid-Atlantic and Rapido. Vid-atlantic is a great cheap solution which can be quickly adapted to everything. RafCamera clamp is great if you plan on letting it on the same lens and adapter but adjusting it every time is a pain (with the tiny screws at least) Rapido is just awesome and very reasonably priced IMO

There is a topic here when someone asked this question and got a detailed answer, but I couldn't find it again :s Maybe someone else remembers it ?

I want to see cheap wide angle anamorphics !!! I usually love to shoot very wide, and that is something I miss now that I mostly shoot anamorphic. Hope I'll find a good solution soon

Hello @ReinisK and welcome to the anamorphic club ! First of all : WE WANT PICS ! I'd like to see your setup and images it produces. Very curious ! :D @Dr. Verbel' already has worked (with great success) on adapting these NAP2 lenses. I still have to do the conversion on mine though (Just 6 months late ... usual stuff) As for the squeeze ration changing, it is quite normal with projection lenses. (Varies between 2.0X (at infinity) and 1.8X (at 1.5m) on my Isco ultrastar). I just stick with 2.0X in post and usually you don't notice it unless you rack focus. A single focus solution would get rid of that. If the ratio seems just off you can just change it in post

Same here ! 25% would be great too if 50% isn't doable :D

Great, thank you for your comparison BTW, I changed my workflow from : MLVFS -> After Effects -> Log cineform Intermediate -> Premiere to : MLVFS -> Resolve I miss the noise reduction and RWA processing of ACR, but the time needed to create the intermediate files is just not worth it :s

This is great ! The only thing I miss using anamorphics, is the wide angle as I love using wide angle shots as much as possible. I guess I'll have to buy a short anamorphic like you bolex

With the 50D at the widest I could go with and without the "wider" setup. Pic 1 : Canon 50D, Helios-44M 58/2, Ultrastar, +1 diopter, Rangefinder, Wide Angle Adapter : Pic 2 : 50D, Pentax 40-80mm (@40mm), Ultrastar YEP, the "wide angle" setup is actually tighter than the basic setup. It also a bit less sharp but shows less distortion (Which is something I like about wide angle anamorphics). Back to square 1 :p

Some time ago, I bought one of these huge wide angle adapters (Mine is a Century Optics C5365 Wide Angle Adapter). I tried to use it for wider anamorphic shots, but failed. As @Ian Edward Weir explained to me on my initial post on Facebook's anamorphic shooters group, you have to focus everything down to 0.5m in order for this to work, but no anamorphic adapters can focus this close of course :p So here is my second attempt. And I find it quite successfull if I might say Here is the setup : - Pana AF100 - Minolta 50/1.4 (@ f/4) - Isco Ultrastar - +1 Close-up diopter - SLR Magic Rangefinder - Century Optics Wide Angle adapter With the Rangefinder focused at the minimum (3'6 ft) I have infinity focus ! (YAY) Pic 1 : With +1 diopter, Rangefinder, Wide Angle adapter (Both taking lens and anamorphic adapter focused to 1.5m) Pic 2 : nothing in front of the ultrastar (focused at infinity) graded to match the previous image Pic 3 : Same image uncorrected It seems there is a lot of light loss with all the optical elements added :P A bit of sharpness loss too, but that's to be expected knowing how NOT sharp the rangefinder is :s I'll make a next attempt with my 50D to see if I can really get wide shots ! Let me know if you guys had any other attempts at this kind of frankensteineering

I'm pretty sure the Rectilux Hardcore DNA has all these features The big question will be the price and availability of course. (Rectilux Hardcore DNA is £750 and come in small batches)

The live images were shot around f3.5 - f/4. But still, I don't really see the point of going f/4 then. If you shoot anamorphic, it is mainly for the flares and anamorphic bokeh. If I shoot at f/4, I don't get any of these :s

So, here is my problem with the Rangefinder : It is everything but sharp ! Here are a few test pictures (captured with the AF100, a Jupiter-8 and the Ultrastar) First one with the rangefinder : And then with a "hama" +1 diopter (I had to move the camera a bit to get good enough focus) The thing I noticed on these "not so contrasty" pictures is that everything is a bit less sharp, high contrast zones tend to show some haze. I guess this is okay for the price, but then comes my real complain. On bright tiny light sources, I get a weird coma like effect as seen on this picture (50D, Helios 44-2 @~f/3.5, Ultrastar, SLR Magic Rangefinder) Plus there is a lot of haze on high contrast areas :s (50D, Helios 44-2 @~f/3.5, Ultrastar, SLR Magic Rangefinder) Do I have a bad copy of the SLR magic Rangefinder or are you experiencing similar results ? I like to shoot wide open, when I bought my Rangefinder I knew it was not that sharp, but the results I saw online are not as bad as what I have seen so far on mine :s I thought i could stop down my lenses for a bit, but it is just not the way I shoot mainly because I don't have a good high ISO camera. (AF100 and 50D are only acceptable up to 800ISO) Maybe I just need to sell it and get a Rectilux :O (My bank account already disapproves !)

nice ! thx !

Can you share some images ? I'm not sure I totally get it As for the distance between the adapter and the lens, it is usually preffered to get them as close as possible. In my tests however (with the ulttrastar) I did not see much of a difference except for vignetting.

Great news It seems that the cheaper way to get it now it to buy it from Adorama's ebay seller page. Which worries me a bit about the waranty. Anyway, I asked JVC about trying it out first

This is just pornography to me : Too bad the price is too high (and I already have 3+ anamorphic projection lenses :D )

You have the visiontech (log-like profile) and visioncolor (a bit flat but no log-like) profile on one package. Visiontech will give you the most options in post production, whilst not being "too flat" (as cinestyle) and noisy as a consequence. Marvel cine is a good option too (and it's free) but it doesn't look as good as visioncolor IMO. You can read more about the different profiles here : https://davidtregde.wordpress.com/2013/09/16/canon-picture-style-tests/ or here : http://philipbloom.net/blog/pictureprofiles/

Well, I don't. I just unsqueeze everything to 2.0x. If it looks a bit strange, then i may change the squeeze ratio in premiere/resolve but i didn't have to do that much If you use a diopter, the stretch factor doesn't change

the isco ultrastar changes from 1.8X (1.5m) to 2.0m (infinity). I'll have to check with my elmo I and Singer/Sankor 16D if you wanna know for these

I would reccomend using a vision color profile on your canon 5D and film on your ursa. And using a color chart for matching shots Try to have two different framing values as it will be easier to match In post, you match the ursa to the 5d mk3 and then apply your grade :p

Here is the last video I shot with the Canon 50D, Helios 44-2 and Pentax 135/2.5, Isco Ultrastar and SLR Magic rangefinder. Not impressed by the reduced sharpness caused by the rangefinder but very usefull in these conditions. The throw is waaay to long though for a single operator :O

I have 58 on the Back (actually 60 but comes with a 60-58mm step-up if I remember correctly) and 72mm on the front