SLR Magic 2x ANAMORPHIC lens

zsound

Hi everybody, a friend of mine has given me a Hypergonar 16st, i can't find information of the web, is it a good lens ? Thanks

Implicit

Nah its no good, give it to me ;).

If i'm not mistaken, it should be able to focus down to 1m and has a 49mm back thread. I just saw one go on ebay for nearly £200

christianhubbard

So... What's the conclusion to this thread? They're making a 1.33x cine lens set?

slrmagic

We are working on a 1.33x lens design that has anamorphic characteristics like a 1.5x-2x lens. As mentioned before it will take a lot of time to come up with a design and it is not something we can have results in weeks.

thepalalias

@slrmagic Best of luck. :)

B3Guy

@slrmagic you're doing some stellar work thus far. I'm seriously considering your new 35mm lenses. keep it up and you'll have some loyal customers.

Kautto

Please consider making it Single Coated and not MC! The flares is another trademark of anamorphics!

footcandle

@slrmagic Truly amazing to be having this discussion with a lens manufacturer. I bought the 12mm and while it isn't perfect, I think it is an extraordinary achievement for a company of your size. I absolutely love the fact that you are considering bringing anamorphics to the masses. It shows how much you listen to the community. Affordable anamorphics is like the holy grail of the digital filmmaking revolution.

However, for your own sake, I plead with you and your board to reassess the actual demand for a single, one-off FFL anamorphic lens. I just don’t think it will sell in enough numbers to make you a profit. Not unless you build a cheap 300 GBP max lens. There is no market for it.

We are all extremely passionate about anamorphic. We all have our ideas about what is important and desirable in a lens. But who of us is going to actually pay a lot of money for a one-off anamorphic lens? People here who are saying “I vote for a single lens”, or "I would pay up to 1,000 GBP for it". Why? To shoot what? I too would pay that money for a quality ana in M4/3, but only if I could buy the matching mid and tele lenses.

Andrew, instead of asking the question “what do you want from your anamorphic lens”, you should be asking “what are you going to use it for?”.

Anyone who says they just love anamorphic and they want to shoot lots of anamorphic footage and put it online for people to see, and they want their footage to be filmic and have oval bokeh and horizontal flares etc etc, will, when it comes to the crunch, not pay much more than 400 GBP for this lens I would bet.

Anyone who says they want to shoot their film with it, a short, a feature, a promo, a commercial, anything at all with an intended audience… will not pay anything more than a couple of hundred pounds for a one-off FFL anamorphic lens, regardless of quality. They simply won’t, it has no practical use.

You just cannot shoot anything with a single focal length ana that would earn you any money, and this makes it by definition an amateur’s lens. People can get as angry as they want by being referred to as “amateurs” or “hobbyists”, but the only people who would be interested in a one-off FFL lens are exactly that. Conceivably, you could use footage shot with it in a video-art installation, in an experimental film or in a music promo. But not more than once. It is a gimmick. You can’t use it as a regular lens in a professional kit. One lens will not shoot a whole project. It’s way, way too niche.

Like it or not, the only market demand is for an adapter or a matched set of anas, and even these markets are niche when you break them into individual price points.

A matched set, using the full resolution of the sensor (ideally your tantalising 2x desqueezed to 1.33x, otherwise only 1.33x), with excellent IQ, focus gears and a clickless aperture, accurate barrel markings, minimum of three focal lengths, covering wide, mid and tele, with a lens speed no slower than T3.5 would be of massive appeal to professionals. A small but passionate number of professionals, businesses, small rental houses, owner-operators etc, would probably pay up to around 1,500 GBP per lens, or 4,000-5,000 GBP for a ticks-all-the-boxes, usable-in-a-professional-environment anamorphic adapter. Impossible? Probably. But to have a (relatively) affordable and professional anamorphic solution in your lens kit would be awesome, and I would certainly give you my money.

Either option would have to be good enough for theatrical distribution. You’d be competing with the Iscos and ancient Lomos, closer focus, wider angles, faster etc. There may be a small profit at this price point. However it doesn’t sound like a matched set is financially viable for SLRMagic at the moment. So an adapter would seem the only option with a big enough demand.

Any solution costing more than 1,500 GBP per lens and you’re entering a realm where the only people who could afford it can probably afford better, and would not be shooting on M4/3. Anything under 400 GBP and you’re really looking at ‘toy’ lens markets.

I think a low-to-mid-range adapter is your only viable option. A 500-700 GBP adapter that caters to the “amateurs”, and those amateur “professionals” who are not professional in the sense of making a living from filming, only in the sense of their intended end-viewer. Zero-budget filmmakers. Aspiring cinematographers and directors. Shooting on their 5Ds, 7Ds, GH2s and soon their BMCs etc. A better-than-LA700 adapter that could be used with most legacy glass. 1.5x or 2x squeeze. Able to go on a lens at least as wide as 28mm. Focus-through with the taking lens. That adapter at that price point would fly off the shelves like something smelly off something shiny.

Andrew, you’ve made it clear that you are looking at this as an M4/3 lens only. Until the BCM, I would have thought anamorphic lenses on M4/3 to be unprofitable as anything other than a cheap plastic gimmick in the 200 GBP range. However, I think the new camera will change everything, not just by itself but with the inevitable reaction it will provoke from rival camera manufacturers. Shooting RAW in 24fps on 2.5K resolution, with 13 usable stops of latitude (13!!! Goodbye clipped whites, hello textured shadows), and at sub-2000 GBP??!! And they have released it with passive M4/3-mount.

People who shoot film on 5D, on RED, even on the AF101 and C300, will now be looking at the BCM. It, or later cameras that offer RAW, 24fps, 2.5k, will hoover up both the aspiring filmmakers who bought the 5D, and the pro-sumers and low-budget pros who buy or rent lenses in the 800-2500 GBP per lens range.

GH1 and GH2, and any further models in M4/3 format, has the lower end covered.

M4/3 looks here to stay. DSLRs will survive, as professional stills cameras with video capability, just as they were initially imagined by Canon. But M4/3 will flourish as the answer for low-end users who can afford a GH2 and some legacy lenses, and for mid-level users who can afford to buy or rent the BCM and some high quality glass to put on it. For that reason, someone, sometime, will produce a full set of quality affordable FFL anas in M4/3 mount, I’m sure. But if that’s not to be you, you’d be better serving your company by concentrating on stepping up as one of the major drivers in the quality M4/3 lens market.

slrmagic

@footcandle thanks for your input. You do have a point but at the same time Anamorphics may not be the lens for you. In fact, believe it or not all lenses ARE niche lenses in my opinion. For example, when I was a wedding photographer many years ago the 16-35 was my best friend. The 70-200 was also my best friend for portraits. When I moved on to be a sports photographer the 70-200 and the 400 was my best friend. When I stopped being a professional photographer the 24-70 on full frame or 17-55 on APS-C was my best friend for leisure photography. Now that I am into street and portrait photography anything that would give me a 50mm 0.95 equiv on full frame is my most used lens. On APS-C I use the 35mm 0.95 and for mFT I use 25mm 0.95. Looking back I have NOT used my 16-35mm, 24-70mm, and 70-200mm for over 10 years now. It is babied in my dry cabinet and enjoying retirement. 10 years ago I thought 50mm 0.95 equiv lenses were niche products that no one would ever use. I never thought one day that would be the other way around. But look on this forum how many 25mm 0.95 lenses owners there are? I know many would not agree with me but ONLY people who do not use a certain kind of lens consider a type of lens as "niche". I do notice many people here are experts at a hack job modifying legacy lenses to tilt shift and adapting cinemascopes onto cameras as anamorphic lenses. Those are truly professionals IMO but we try to provide more options for people who are not professionals in that area.

Well, back to the main topic. Yes, we too believe mFT is here to stay. Compared to the other cinema camera offerings it is the most light weight. I was out shooting with Andrew Reid for hours in Cologne and it was tiring to be caring a mFT camera along for the whole day. I really cannot imagine carrying anything larger without a camera crew. This is why we plan to have a dedicated mFT Anamorphic lens solution. We are still in the design process. It slowed down recently as we just returned from our National Holiday.

I did notice recently in many films and TV adds the anamorphic format on HDTV in Hong Kong. To be honest I did not pay too much attention to that before this thread began and I can already see a market for it. When we made our 50mm T0.95 lens we were also told there is no market for it and no one would buy it. We made the first version and Steve Huff said it was not good in IQ and we need to improve. Improving on it meant larger size and higher cost but we still did it anyway. Right now, we cannot even meet the demand for the lens! The CINE lens is on 2 weeks wait and the LM lens is on a 8 month wait. We get emails everyday to speed up on the supply.

Just curious, what do you think is the missing lens in the BMCC MFT system? Maybe you can PM me about that.

Thanks for your feedback though! I know you are just telling us to think twice before going into this project and you signed up for an account just to tell us that!

Kind rgds., Andrew

jokieone

I know this is kind of of-topic but do you still produce or sell your extension tube? :)

footcandle

@slrmagic Thanks for your reply. You're quite right of course, all lenses are niche to a point. I must confess I don't understand why people would buy just the one lens, but as you say, it's just not right for me. And you will have given far more thought to the market than I have. I'm sure it will be as successful as your previous lenses, and I cannot wait to see the results (particularly if you can realise that 2x/1.33x desqueeze, that would certainly make people sit up and notice). Whatever you produce, it's sure to have a knock-on effect on future anamorphics, and that is something to be very excited about.

In terms of the BMCC MFT system, I think you're perfectly positioned with the 12mm and 17.5mm. Something even shorter would be good, to give an approximate FOV of an 18mm, and it doesn't need to be anywhere near as fast (who shoots super-wide in pitch black?), IQ would be far more important. Voigtlander owners will have that Nokton lens glued on most of the time I would imagine.

But for me, I don't care about focal length or speed, thanks to the versatility of MFT there are hundreds of good options out there. The real dream for me would be 'budget cine' lenses. I want higher resolution and lower contrast. I love the footage I get from my old 50s/60s Zeiss and Lomos, but they're a nightmare on set. If someone designs a set of lenses, any stop under 3.5, and focal length of 50mm or less, giving a MFT-sized image circle, with quality IQ, gorgeous bokeh, dampened focus gears, clickless aperture, T-rated barrel markings, for around $1000 per lens, I will be first on the waiting list. From what I've heard, you have already shown with your new LM 0.95s that you can get a cine lens spectacularly right, but obviously that lens is in a different price range. I just want an alternative to hunting down old, quality cinema glass. It's time-consuming, unreliable, and impractical on set. But it is affordable.

Anyway, best of luck with the development. I'll be eagerly following the updates. A lot of DoPs I know talk about you guys as the ones to watch. Several of them also plan to use the BMCC as a 'B' cam on Alexa shoots. Exciting times for MFT. And for anamorphic.

JohnBarlow

@slrmagic

Much earlier in this thread you acknowledged the existence of a vast number of 2x projection anamorphics. Most of these units have a minimum focus of between 3-5 metre. To get closer you need CU dioptres with the rare 0.5 dioptre most sought after even by those with Isco 54's.

There quite clearly is a need for close focussing attachments and I was thinking specifically of a variable focus close up. Below is a simple design schematic for such a focussing adapter which is afocal when closely grouped and has 0.6 D when spaced. The spacing could be adjusted in a helicoid and this would make the projection anamorphics very desirable.

Your thoughts on manufacturing such a unit ?

tyleire

@slrmagic Andrew I know I'm very late to the party, but I just wanted to throw in a note of gratitude for what you've done and how amazing it is to speak directly with a lens maker in the planning stages of one of my greatest passions... anamorphic lenses.

As a previous owner of what is considered to be one of the best anamorphic lenses on the market, the Iscorama 54, I can honestly tell you that as much as I was in love with that lens, I simply could not use it in a professional or even semi professional production environment. The greatest problem with the Iscorama is its limited focusing capabilities. In this day and age of the constantly moving camera, you MUST be able to focus your lens near and far with reasonable precision WITHOUT close focus filters. Everyone buys anamorphic adapters but people rarely shoot anything with them and they end up on ebay again for this reason. No director or DP will ever take seriously a lens that requires them to keep their actors and camera more or less stationary for every single shot. If you must make an adapter, it really needs to be able to focus to a minimum of 3-4 feet.

Moreover, anamorphic prime lenses have bent glass custom tailored to each focal length. This is of course not possible with adapters so you end up with squeeze ratios that vary according to the taking lens. This irregularity is such a pain to deal with in post as some actors are wider or skinnier from shot to shot depending on what lens you shot them with!

We simply need anamorphic primes.

slrmagic

Just some updates. Here is a test we did this evening. One is a photo taken with our SLR Magic HyperPrime CINE 25mm T0.95 lens at T2. The other is with our prototype x1.33 Anamorphic attachment with the lens at the same T2 setting at 1.8m minimum distance on the GH2.

It is close to the best we could do so far. Any feedback?

RRRR

@slrmagic, looks pretty interesting.. could you show us how it would look wide open (even if blurry)? and if possible a shot @ infinity. (can be stopped down to f5.6 or so) It would also be interesting to see a tele setup with the adapter (similarly, wide open, around t2 and around 5.6)

Sorry for asking you to do more work. :)

Comments for this though; it seems like the squeeze has most effect on 1/4th of the edges (not necessarily accelerating towards the extremes), a bit like a double pinch. Did you pursue the idea to attempt for a 2x bokeh in a 1.3 squeeze? Pleasing bokeh on the 25.

JohnBarlow

@slrmagic

Just to be clear, are you dismissing my question above or are you in the process of formulating a response?

slrmagic

Well, we noticed the focusing mechanism changed the squeeze ratio a bit. As many noticed I am not that "fat". So, it is good news. With more squeeze factor the ration will look normal again and the anamorphic ovals will look more pronounced.

Someone raised a question at bmcuser. This gives 2.35:1 and they say we should do x1.35 to give 2.39:1 that is the new anamorphic format. We did suggest this initially but it seems the x1.35 ratio was not so popular in the vote. Any input on this?

@JohnBarlow actually we are first working on the anamorphic lens before working on the anamorphic lens accessories. One step at a time. But it is a good suggestion thanks.

au8ust

Looks nice!

fredfred27

The reason that they want 2.39:1 is because of the digital theatrical release standards. The DCI specification for "scope" DCP packages is 2048x858 pixels. This is a ratio of 2.3869:1. The BMCC has a raw file size of 2432x1366 or a ratio of 1.7804:1. This camera would need an anamophic adapter with a factor of x1.3407 to have an image, after resizing, with no cropping needed for DCI specs. When dealing with sensor recordings at 1920x1080, which have a ratio of 1.7778:1, you would need an anamophic adapter with a factor of x1.3426 to fit the DCI spec, after resizing, without cropping.

Summary:

BMCC 2432x1366 - 1.7804:1, DCI 2048x858 - 2.3869:1, Factor=x1.3407

HD 1920x1080 - 1.7778:1, DCI 2048x858 - 2.3869:1, Factor=x1.3426

With a x1.33 Factor: After resizing, the top and bottom would need to be cropped for DCPs.

With a x1.34 Factor: Resizing alone would be sufficient.

With a x1.35 Factor: After resizing, the sides would need to be cropped for DCPs.

This assumes that everyone would like to use the entire image recorded by the sensor.

slrmagic

Are there any EVF or LCD with HDMI input that supports x1.34 or x1.35 mode?

As mentioned in the very beginning we were for the x1.35 crop factor. As many already know we are a small company and cannot afford to be making mistakes in terms of a product launch. The feedback we got earlier was we should not go with a non standard x1.35 (x1.34 seems to be non standard as well).

To be honest I am not a filmmaker and do not know how it is in post. I just know VLC player offers aspect ratio mode for 2.35:1 and 2.39:1. The EVF Pro that many use has x1.33 mode but no x1.34 or x1.35 mode so it makes more sense we go with x1.33 to be more universal.

As there are many "cropping" options out there with x1.5 and x2.0 we have decided to go with a non cropping option for the market.

fredfred27

A little anamorphic history concerning monitoring. You can ignore this paragraph, but I hope it might be interesting. My background is in studio films. I am a video assist operator and have worked through the film to digtal transition. Back in the day, to display an anamorphic image from the NTSC or PAL video tap on the film camera, we had to lower the vertical height on CRT monitors to "unsqueeze" the image. This meant openning the monitor and adjusting the pots. We pointed the camera at a circle and made it look round. Very low-fi. With the advent of digital studio cameras, if a film was to be released in widescreen (scope), the recordered image was just cropped. The displayed image on set needed no adjustment. Now with the advent of using anamorphic lenses on digital studio cameras, we are back to needing to "unsqueeze" the image. But since we are in the digital world, the camera can do this before it outputs the image for monitoring.

You say that there are no EVFs or LCDs that support x1.33 modes. My reply is that people using the anamorphic adapters only care about what the release format will look like. If your market is for people who display their films on the internet, x1.33 will be fine. If your market is for people who plan theatrical releases, then x1.34 is what they will want. In the end, it is such a small difference.

Finally, thank heavens you aren't going to go for x1.5 of x 2.0!

johnbrawley

1.33 x also works great for 16x9 monitors that have an anamorphic mode

It's the right choice.

jb

JohnBarlow

@JohnBarlow actually we are first working on the anamorphic lens before working on the anamorphic lens accessories. One step at a time. But it is a good suggestion thanks.

...without a focussing adapter then you will be designing a device which will need to be focussed on the anamorphic as well as the parent prime. This is an inescapable law of physics which cannot be obfuscated.

My pockets will not be stiimulated to purchase such a device

stip

@slrmagic

the image looks very nice!! Didn't expect you to come up with such a decent quality after that short time?! Promising indeed!

thepalalias

@slrmagic I haven't had a chance to really dig in and pixel-peep, but the sharpness is certainly quite good in that example (so that aspect seems to have been taken care of). Looking forward to the continuing work on the squeeze factor.

Did you say the minimum focusing distance is 1.8m?

The 1.33 vs 1.34 vs. 1.35 ratio question seems complicated - but it would not be a significant factor in my purchasing decision. The difference is small enough that they could all work.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters