Wendy Sanders McDonlad

Still looking to part ways

Still looking for an interested buyer.

Up for sale my Iscorama 2001 MC( Nikon F mount) with +0.5 Diopter Bought it Christmas last year from Japoni Camera Price: $4,000 USD Payment: Paypal US or in person in Mexico City Shipping: worldwide at buyers expense Condition: Clear glass with 2-3 specs of micro/tiny dust. One knick on the side the body, and some abrasion off the bottom of the Nikon taking lens but can be easier replace for vanity purposes... Description: Personally, I do not think the horizontal flare is anywhere fitting for any photography that is aimed to tell a ( non-scifi ) dramatic story, and I wanted an anamorphic lens for 35mm film photography, and I absolutely hated using adapter scopes that mounts over a clamp over a rail, over a lens support, over a cheese plate and a million other accesories for lens support... hence the Multicoated Iscorama was my only choice, unless you can prove me wrong... All the attached photos are in 2:25:1 aspect ratio - 1.5 stretch off of an 8 perf 35mm negative without a single hair of crop.. I can show you more examples for those who are interested... no tire-kickers please... Only reason I'm selling is that I need the money... due to max photo size for the forum, you can see all the pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1hOTj7jYWiTxDUNJIL1d5St_W77U6WhT6?usp=sharing

I've had similar problems, but not as bad as yours... somebody told me it's because I loaded the film looper too tight(short) and it's creating vertical streaks?? then I sold it...

I metered at iso 1.6 or so... I like it but 2383 handles underexposure very badly... you have to really nail the exposure, otherwise it has very little room to work with and everything will turn out blue AF.

I'm eyeing on an Iscorama 2001 MC, (uniblock in Nikon F mount) But I dug up some old post saying the contrast is very very low, however I'm wondering if anyone has real hands on experience with this lens or any footage/ photo for me to see them as a reference. The only ones I could find off the net is for Iscorama adapters(36, 42, 54) and a scarce few off vimeo of a 2003 with Pentax K mount version. Thanks in advance.

I was doing some tests on my rooftop which has these garden foot lights, and it created these very prominent flare/ghosts that I don't know how to get rid of. Yes, lens hood did nothing. :( https://ibb.co/3RHsMrt https://ibb.co/XY1TbkM

I have done it and still been doing so with 2383 ( the 35mm equiv?)

well, I still don't quite get your argument.. so basically, any focal lens is close to the human eye? This statement of 50mm is close the human eye has been said many times, and I'm only taking it for face value: the fact that looking through a 50mm lens on a full frame camera with one eye, objects in the shots looks more or less the same size as what I see in the other eye. But this is not entirely what I am asking here, but the point that people had put this statement in the context of full frame cameras, however Bresson and Ozu had obviously been shooting 3/4-perf but still making the same claim, appears to be very inconsistent. In other words, they are saying a 75mm on a full frame looks closer to what human eye sees. ....

So, I took a lot of still photos with 50mm lens on full frame film cameras such as the Nikon FM series. And I'm a big fan of Robert Bresson and Ozu as such. However, I stumbled upon a few articles presumably states that Bresson used 50mm lens exclusively and then claiming that it is the closet focal length to the human eye. Now wait a minute........ Were they all film on 4-perf film with soundtracks back in the day? So by motion picture standards, a 50mm is more or less a 75mm? How can that be said about being closet to the human eye???? What did I miss???? PS: Bear with me, as I'm still learning. Read them here: https://blogs.iu.edu/aplaceforfilm/2018/11/15/robert-bressons-surrealist-affinities/#:~:text=The 50mm Lens&text=He is famous for always,how the human eye sees. https://www.rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/call-me-by-your-name-single-lens/ https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/features/notes-from-cinematographer-leonce-henry-burel-on-robert-bresson

I think I'm ready to abandon this post. I think I got all the answers I can, from the internet. Thanks everyone.

Oh, I understand that, "they" will make and take whatever makes money, and this has always been the case in the history of man-kind, about movies or not. But what is the standard Hollywood way?

I'm beginning to realize that. My short, 25min long is really more of a set piece, and I'm working on coming up with something under 10 min, after reading replies from this post. Thanks for the headsup.

1) Yes it matters to me. My end goal is not to make a living off it, but to realize my ideas. This is why I do not hop on the scifi, horror, or whatever wagon that is trendy at the moment of discussion. 2) I think nobody knows the future of the industry at any given point in history, let it be 20 years ago, right now, or 20 years later. 3) Yes, I'm looking at only fully funded programs. If I had money to pay film school, I will obviously make something with the money instead.

but then what?... I'd seen some mediocre films made by some youtuber with a large following, and got millions of views... it made me cringe. If the eyes and praise are from those teenagers on the couch, it'd be pointless to me. My goal is to move forward, not to hear from other people's congrats... :'''( Another plan is to use this short film to apply for a fully funded film school, so as to buy me some more time...