HockeyFan12

Just changed it to: password But don't worry about it. When using a 35mm retrofocus (stills) taking lens I am seeing no vignetting at all. I tried 35mm f2 nFD and 35mm f2.8 QBM and both looked good on S35. Maybe I remember something wrong. Regardless this is wide enough and I can use a wide angle adapter on the Iscorama if needed since the close focus distance is improved (no need for diopters at normal focus distance). So it works great for me and the focus is smoother than it ever was with the original housing. I don't think there's significantly more vignetting than before. But I do think if you milled down the front threads further there might be room for even more FOV since the vignetting I do see appears to be caused by the filter threads, not the edges of the image circle.

The ALEV3 sensor has soul. (That is to say, an extremely expensive OLPF that smooths the image out really nicely. And nice noise texture. And low pixel density.) I agree that consumer/prosumer video cameras and hybrids are way way too sharp, which I think is what you're getting at. But it's a different market. FS7 etc. is more targeted toward sports and reality anyway. But Red's got their 6K S35 sensor and Arri is working on a 4K+ S35 sensor so I think everything is going to start looking like shit soon lol. Even with the Alexa LF and Alexa 65, you need old vintage glass to get a good look, whereas film and 2.8/3.2k Alexa look pretty good with Rokinons or CP2s.

Thanks. It looks like a +0.5 is a necessity on the lomo. It only focuses to 1.5 meters so with a +1 you're missing the 1-1.5 meter range entirely. So the Focars, if they are +1 and +2, are not a good option except as a supplement. I talked with Raf and he thinks the 86mm might vignette as the original lomo diopter lenses are 93mm. I can custom order a Schneider +0.5 close up filter (single element) for a lot of money, but otherwise I can't find any good options. Do you know of any? If not no worries, appreciate all the help and will be confident getting the Schneider that it's the best option.

SLR magic made these monstrosities that combine anamor-fake with a real 1.3X anamorphic lens and from what I've seen it's the best imitation of the real thing where you don't need to crop the sides and would work well on the 6k: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1233200-REG/slr_magic_slr_ac35133pl_35mm_1_33x_anamorphot_cine_lens.html So you unstretch by 1.3 but it looks like 2x. I can't really recommend buying them because they're so weird. But in my limited experience they do an uncannily accurate imitation. I would mistake them for real 2x, but weird 2x. Weird edges and CA, and sort of a harsh look. But then with modern flares. I strongly considered renting them for my own personal project, but just renting them.... I'd still rent–the differences between anamorphic lenses are way bigger than those between Nikkors and Cookes or FDs and Zeiss. The Kowa evolutions look pretty awesome, though, as does the 40mm Xelmus. If I were in your shoes and could get away with just one focal length, I might go with either of those, but I would never recommend it as a good idea. And those are two of the only options I have no experience with (worked at least a bit with Lomo, Cooke, SLR magic, Iscorama, C Series, T series, never with Kowa or Xelmus except a Kowa 2x adapter, which I loved). Edit: I missed the M43 options but those might be your best bet with a P4k!

I might have misspoken. I think the Ursa is 800 native, the impression I get from the Pocket 6K is it's more like a 400 ISO camera that you can push a stop. So when you push it a stop you get an extra stop of highlight detail compared with the Ursa, but the Ursa seems cleaner in the shadows to me if you rate both at 800 ISO. I don't think any of those numbers factor in raw recovery, which other raw formats (Arri raw, canon raw light, etc.) usually don't support. I have relatively little experience with either camera. Both seem to have very good dynamic range to me.

At 800 ISO I'd guess so. But the Ursa seems a lot cleaner to me. I'm guessing the P4K and P6K are more like 400 ISO cameras that still look okay at 800 ISO and the Ursa is more like an 800 ISO camera. I bet the URSA Mini still has the most overall dynamic range and you could always expose at 1600 ISO.

https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=101735 +5.9 according to Black Magic. Which is still pretty darned good. With raw recovery this could surpass the F5/F55 (+6 but noisy shadows so worse in practice), EVA1 (+6), and C300 Mk II (+6.3) and surpass most Reds, too. The pocket 6k is a pretty amazing camera btw. But it feels noisier at 800 ISO to me than the Alexa or the Ursa.

Assuming you're going for a 2.4:1 aspect ratio, 2x anamorphic is designed to fill about 18mm of sensor height before desqueeze I believe, so with a 15.8mm high sensor you can factor in a 1.14 crop factor. Which isn't too bad. More crop on the pocket 6k. I think there's no right answer, it's totally subjective. I don't think the Iscorama has a strong enough effect to meet a client's need for an anamorphic look, but it does look really good and perform really well. In your shoes I'd probably get a 40mm Xelmus or Atlas I think (the Xelmus looks like it might be based on the vintage Panavision designs, so I lean toward that but rent both first) but it's a matter of taste... I'm still in the rent camp. The SLR Magic 1.3 stretch lenses with PL mount do a remarkably good imitation of true 2x anamorphic and have come way down in price, but I find them a bit bizarre.

Which Red do you have? If you have a Gemini the oversized sensor is going to make things easier.

Good point. For the price I suppose the S1 is the better option and not that different unless you really need C4K or the h264 codec.

Can you buy faster lenses? In general I like the S1H but I haven't tried the autofocus. Low light is excellent, maybe not best of the best but very very good.

Thanks again, I might try it (and look for a century 86mm +1.6) but I worry the deep threads would vignette on a Lomo 50mm square front and with the Raf adapter, but have no way of knowing. The lomo squarefront focuses to 1.5m I think, which is pretty bad (5 feet). With a +0.5 or +1 diopter do you know what the new range would be? Also it is not a good lens optically, it is not sharp around the edges to start with. So I don't know if that means it needs all the help it can get or if the cheaper diopters wouldn't make much of a difference when it's already so bad. Thanks again, I value and appreciate the expertise.

Thanks. Have you tired the Vivitar ones: They perform well here, but I would want neutral coatings like you describe. I wouldn't want green modern flares mixed with vintage lomo flares so much. Those are good suggestions. Leica makes a diopter, too, but it's a bit expensive... The 114mm and 138mm options are way more plentiful than I realized. Would rather find something smaller but those seem really useful. What about this: https://www.rapidotechnology.com/products/close-up-lens/86mm-achromatic-diopter-0-5

Thanks, Tito. I just missed a $60 Focar A on eBay. There are a few available with a Zoomar right now, too. But it sound like if they're just +1 and +2, the main advantage over the Vivitar 95mm is older coatings that match the character of older lenses? I was hoping the A would be fractional, or they would be doublets for the price. I was planning to use these with the 95mm Raf adapter on an old Lomo square front. There are lomo diopters that look higher quality on eBay for about $900 but you need to drill a hole into the front of the lomo lens I think? Do you have any recommendations? Maybe I only need a +1 after all....

Having difficulty locating 95mm Focar A and B diopters and was wondering how the Vivitar Macro pack for much less money at B&H would compare... What are the strengths of Focar A and B?

You have to post that just as I decided not to get a Leica R 35mm f2, don't you lol. That looks so good. This is why test charts are not a good metric of performance imo. I suspect the Leica is worse on a chart but the look of it overall imo is significantly better. And I really really like the Sigma 18-35mm as modern lenses go. It's a personal favorite. But the Leica is juts spot on. Looks good without any overt "vintage" feel, which I tend to chase excessively. I'm sending in an old 28mm f2 Contax Zeiss to get serviced and the technician tells me that even an apparently spotless lens will slowly develop invisible oil deposits as the helical grease ages over the course of a few decades. I wonder if part of the lower contrast "vintage" look is just oil deposited on the glass. Not always desirable when you're shooting film, but when you're shooting digitally it could take the edge off? What do you all make of this?

This is so cool. There's been lip service paid to a return to practical effects with a lot of recent features, and I think that's a step in the right direction, but imo this kind of thing achieves the same goal and it's forward-thinking and not just nostalgic. When you film with the background there practically, the specular highlights, fill light, etc. look appropriate even if you're massaging the background plate in post. Not the case with green screen where it can "feel" fake even with really high end material. And the shots are composed in real time (rather than on green screen with consideration for how you'll compose in post)–what you lose in flexibility you more than gain in terms of the shot being there. Obvious this tech isn't for everything and has its limitations, but it's super exciting to me.

Watch Max's YouTube videos, it's the three screws you tighten to secure the black metal ring to the Iscorama body before placing the focus ring over it. You need to adjust them to make sure they're smooth. It's not a big deal, just takes some trial and error. I'm doing more research before posting more. Max has made a really good product, I think the issue is unique to my lens or I'm mistaken about it. Just need to find a day off to try things out more rigorously. Still trying to figure it out but I don't want to dissuade others from using his product, it's very good and I recommend it to you. I can't think of a better option currently available.

Hi Max, thanks for getting back to me. Without taking the lens apart, this is the clearest example I have of the problem. I am sliding my finger past the threads of the adapter (while touching the front of it) and as you can see the vignetting is caused by the front threads. This is with a 32mm Zeiss standard speed Mk1 with no step up or step down rings. If you want I can repeat this with the original housing, but as you know it took me quite some time to get the focus smooth by adjusting the three set screws (which worked great, no complaints there, you were right it was just trial and error). If this looks normal lmk and I will try again to A/B it tonight with the original housing. I remember a slight amount of vignetting when I used this lens before with the original housing so it's possible you're entirely right. But my adapter has had some dodgy repairs to it so it's possible it's been collimated in an odd way to increase vignetting, too. I have noticed less of a problem with retro focus lenses.

Thanks. Where do you enter that the lens is anamorphic for IBIS to behave correctly with it? I feel like there are three different settings I need to independently change when I shoot anamorphic. I need to set desqueeze in the viewfinder to 2X to get a correct preview (which, to be fair, I really appreciate having, as most cameras lack this it seems), I need to set the record mode to 4k anamorphic 10 bit, and I need to set the IBIS to anamorphic separately? I shot something with a 50mm anamorphic lens with the IBIS set at 50mm (actually 55mm I think, oops) and it looks really bad (worse than a 5mm change would indicate). IBIS is amazing on this camera btw. Just... confusing. I actually think I like that all these options are there... for instance the anamorphic mode isn't as large as some lenses cover so it might be advantageous to shoot 6k and crop... but this camera is too much camera for me.

I think in general... I don't want to slander a good design. This is a really brilliant rehousing option. It also depends on the lens, though. My experiences are follows: 32mm f2 standard speed on 16:9 S35 (23.04mm X 12.96mm sensor size stretched by a 1.4 factor)–a lot of vignetting, unusable. I vaguely remember that with the original housing this didn't vignette, or it was at least a LOT less vignetting. But I haven't A/B'd directly recently. 35mm f2 lomo standard speed on 16:9 S35–less vignetting, still unusable. 35mm f2 nFD well go figure, next to no vignetting. 50mm f2 standard speed on 3:2 full frame (36X24)–next to no vignetting, but a hint more than I remember there being (I remember none). Cropped to 2.4:1, I found it usable. So it's not that bad. Oddly, retro focus designs seem to have more coverage. I have no idea how the small 30mm rear element of the Iscorama works better with the larger retro focus front elements (which are like 40mm in diameter and yet it still seems to be f2) and yet even right up against the lomo's front element it's vignetting more... weird... Still, I'd love the option of a shorter focus ring that was milled down. I get that it's long to accommodate a follow focus gear as the front moves, though. This is a good product, just frustratingly not perfect for my needs. However I am going to try a series of 35mm f2 retro focus still lenses and live with it as my main camera is S35. Edit: where this is weird is 32mm and 50mm should be equivalent between S1H FF cropped on the top and bottom at 50mm and S35 cropped at the sides on 32mm (or even 31mm) but no... advantage FF. Unfortunately my main camera is crop.

I assumed it was from the web compression.

This is not so bad. I don't think you did anything wrong, it might be a half stop underexposed but not that bad. Those strings are a bit tricky though... If you were to reshoot, I would rate the camera at around 160 ISO, whatever the lowest ISO is before highlights clip. That will get the shadows super clean and a nice thick image to work with. Cinema cameras generally don't apply denoising to the image (or look like garbage if they do) so you can get a much noisier image from a C300 MK II than for instance an A7S. Buy Neat Video, watch a few tutorials, and apply it before the key. It will slow your render down and cost $100 or something but it will also solve these problems. You will probably want to regrain after keying even. The data you need is there, you can get a clean key. Or try setting Keylight to "intermediate result" and using the spill suppressor plug in set to advanced and colorpicker green. It can look a bit less noisy but won't solve a dancing key.

Finally got this installed but I'm getting more vignetting than before. Did I do something wrong? Is it something with my lens (which has a bit of a weird old history it seems)... is there any way to address this? Otherwise it's really fantastic.

That can be a pretty noisy camera, if you underexposed just a bit it might be just that. Try using neat video. Might help a lot.