Phillip Mosness

I took a pic of my 20-100 for comparison. All the above pics appear to have this same texture pattern I'm pointing to so I'm voting they're all the 20-100.

Here's a test of Lomo Square Fronts Hyperventilating:

Hey Matt. Even though I haven't used the specific lens you linked to, I'll toss in my 2 cents on this since I've been playing around with my projector lens set up for about a year and a half now. One of the biggest issues you run into is that these projector lenses need to be focused separately from your main taking lens. A few companies have a single focus solution for this. SLR Magic has their Rangefinder, There's one called the FM focus module, and The Rectilux from John Barlow in Liverpool. Without a single focus system, it's all pretty Rinky Dink. The Rectilux is well regarded in the 'DIY anamorphic community'. Especially the latest design -The Hardcore DNA. I've been using the first version Rectilux with a Kowa lens and I'm pretty happy with the results. I don't think anyone has done a side by side comparison between one of these mickey mouse set ups compared to the professional equivalent , but I suspect they'd be surprisingly similar. My Kowa projector lens paired with an inexpensive taking lens looks comparable to the characteristics of the Kowa Prominar anamorphics that cost $20,000 each now. You're seeing this method more and more in the professional world, so others are feeling confident in the results. Prices are going up on projector lenses now thanks to the demand as well. here's a youtube channel that will offer a ton of info: https://www.youtube.com/user/tferradans

Is it possible they are all the Cooke 20-100? I'm reasonably sure I read it was used on Eyes Wide Shut and it looks like that's the lens in photo #2, as well as the Full Metal Jacket pics. It's probably this one: http://stevediggins.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/IMG_1514.jpg

Thanks, James I'll give that a shot. It's a little disconcerting because I did actually tape the door, as I usually do. The door seems like the only place that it could happen, though. The distortion in the image is even across the frame and pulsates more quickly as the roll runs out, telling me that it got hit somehow from one side all the way to the core. I almost wonder if it's radiation?

I'm thinking one of my Arri 2c magazines has a leak since some footage has come back throbbing. Is there a method for testing this? Like closing a little light inside it and see if you can detect any light coming through in a dark room? Thanks!

Hello, I was wondering what the "Buckle switch" was referring too. It that the little switch that gets thrown when you lose the loop? It took me a bit of playing around before I figured that one out on my BL4.

https://www.sharegrid.com/sfbay/browse/cinema-lenses--4/?lens-type--4[]=anamorphic--4&sort=score+DESC

These seem like a bargain. Do they all have the same number of iris blades?

Out of curiosity, is your choice on the format an aesthetic one or more practical? Super 16 fits the HD aspect ratio closely with out much cropping, which is why many choose it these days, but if you prefer to shoot in 4 by 3 it was the standard for many decades. Also I don't know if that camera's a good candidate, but there's also Ultra 16, which is easier to convert on some cameras, and lets you use a lot more lenses, and keeps the optical center in the same place.

I've never seen one like that. I do have a vague recollection of 200' metal spools. Is that what this uses?

Not sure if they's ship to you but.... http://www.ebay.com/itm/BIRNS-SAWYER-HOLLYWOOD-CA-TRIPOD-HIGH-HAT-for-ARRI-35MM-35MM-MOVIE-CAMERA-/182296394777?hash=item2a71b63c19:g:igcAAOSwNRdX7J3T And a little different... http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail02.asp?productID=924&Cat=48&Cat2=49

Just before the trailer starts, there's a 5 second trailer for it. We live in interesting times.

here's a DIY cloud tank vid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_100958439&feature=iv&src_vid=RypKl8MJPRE&v=-qou5sDOO8k#t=47s Sounds like some people use dairy products/condensed milk, etc.

I was about to ask if there was a method to determine how much over-cranking for different sizes of miniatures, but there's a formula in http://minimodelfx.BlogSpot.com/

I've also heard that Panavision uses Nikon glass, but from an interview I read, some of the early Panavisions were using the same glass from the Bausch and Lombs cinemascope lenses that the industry was moving away from.

So far we've really only seen the 65mm in action and housings (mock-ups?) for others. Although the test footage looks good so far, who knows what a wider 40mm could look like. It's the focal length I would need first , though, and I hope it's up to the same standards. I don't know much about the designer, but I would think it would take years to design a lens as complicated as an anamorphic unless you took an existing one as the basis for rehousing. Not sure about patents these days. I read that 20th Century Fox realized too late that they only owned the rights to Chretian's original design but not anamorphic as a concept, so the other studios quickly got a hold of their own lenses to avoid having to licence from Fox. But I digress.

I'm definitely one of those guys that was surprised by the initial focal lengths. But as a novice I am probably mostly influenced by the lengths of the vintage sets I've been seeing for years. Almost anything that's been within reach for purchase have been 35/50/75, or 40/50/75 with a 100mm as a possible one to get down the line. In the interview he mentions 32/50/85 as in the works, and if I had the option of only one choice that would be set I'd get, but they've got their reasons for which ones to start with. Suffice it to say, I'm kinda over the moon that SOMEBODY is attempting to pull off lenses for this price range. There's clearly a market for this in the same way there's a market for those Rokinon Xeens. They must have seen some of us mounting old anamorphic projector lenses onto our cameras and figured it was time for another option. Why now, would I spend 5-15K on an Old Lomo when these are actually less expensive and possibly better in most ways?

http://www.newsshooter.com/2017/04/24/atlas-lens-co-orion-anamorphic/ According to this interview, they're hoping to produce some other focal lengths after the first three, a 32mm, 50mm, and 80mm. I kind of wish they'd started with those lengths. Either way I have high hopes for these, because there's such a big gap between the work-arounds like mickey mousing projector lenses, used Lomos and full prices name brands(Cooke, Hawk, etc.) If they're good enough for feature work, they'll be a bargain.

https://atlaslensco.com/ Anyone going to Nab might want to stop and see these. Pricing looks surprisingly affordable. I'd like to see some more tests, but if they perform as well as it appears these could be a big deal to those of us who've watched decades-old-Lomos get super expensive.

Hello, Very nice. can you tell us anything more about these? Maybe some specs? The horizontal flare seems more subtle than many vintage lenses. Are they multi-coated? Any idea what the price points are for this set?

There's an antique shop near me that got several from an estate sale. If you'd like to pm me I can give you the low down.

I'd forgotten about this scanner until I ran across this. At $30,000 It falls into an interesting niche of the market. Not cheap enough for most enthusiasts, but maybe not right for the bigger post houses either? I could see a few people pooling recourses, figuring it could pay for itself after a few short's worth of scans, though.

The starting point in crop factors is 35mm Full Frame still photography or sensors like the Canon 5d mark II DSLR The focal length of a lens doesn't change when the format changes. A 9.5mm lens will always be 9.5mm whether it's on a large format camera or a tiny super 8 camera, but changing formats will change your field of view. Having said that though, that 9.5mm was designed for that camera format and wouldn't work on a 35mm camera. The image circle wouldn't cover 35mm film and would vignette horribly. If you wanted to have a similar shot of your actress above with a 35mm or APS-C camera you'd probably grab an 18mm or 20mm lens. What the rental guy said about "twice the FOV of the actual focal length" is confusing.

This interactive comparison might help. https://www.abelcine.com/fov/