Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
SLR Magic 2x ANAMORPHIC lens
  • 804 Replies sorted by
  • @slrmagic, I'm not sure how you interpret my points about ISCO-36 as discouraging. You are looking for suggestions and I recommended the ISCO-36 as a model. If you actually and successfully produce an anamorphic adapter + taking lens similar to ISCO36 for under $1500, you can put my name down for two of them.

  • @slrmagic I don't get why anyone would want more than 1,35x.

    Personally, I don't want to crop my footage. And above all I really don't want to lose THAT MUCH of resolution. This would be just nonsense. In this case the worsening wouldn't justify the betterment at all.

    I totally vote for 1,33x or 1,35x. Anything more won't be interesting for me.

  • @niGGo @slrmagic I agree with everyone here saying it should have a 1.5x squeeze. When we spend a lot of time building frankenstein anamorphic rigs it's not just about getting a wider image, it is also about getting a certain "look" (especially in the out-of-focus areas). Larger squeeze means more prominent look. The old cinema anamorphics usually had a squeeze of 2x, which was important for the classic cinemascope bokeh. Since we shoot 16:9 nowadays, 2x is probably a bit much, but 1.33x will certainly not give the correct look. 1.5x might be the best compromise then.

  • I agree with posters who favor a 1.5x anamorphic adapter designed as a replacement for the 1.5X ISCO adapters. As an example, the relatively inexpensive ISCO 1.5x Widescreen 2000 MC can often be found on ebay. This adapter can work without vignetting on prime lenses as wide as 28mm.

    To work with lenses of wider focal lengths, the rear element of the anamorphic adapter needs to be enlarged. I would recommend designing the rear filter ring mount to fit lenses with a 72mm front filter ring.

    You might also consider masking off 5% of the left and right vertical edges of the front element, eliminating the soft edges along with the excess frame width that would be cropped off anyway, to achieve the standard widescreen aspect ratio. Used on a 1920x1080 video camera, a 1.5x anamorphic adapter would need to be stretched horizontally in post-production to a 2880x1080 frame. This frame size would then need to be cropped by 5% on each side to produce a 2560x1080 frame for display on a compatible widescreen cinema monitor or projector. Here is an example of such a display:

    http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisions/cinema-219-gold-series-127-cm-50-inch-ultra-wide-screen-easy-3d-50pfl7956t_12/prd/;jsessionid=575BD040406CF3BDA7576E6FD2E6A08C.app102-drp3?t=specifications

  • 1.5/6, that's my vote. It'll be the best compromise between look and cropping in post.

    @au8ust

    I bought an Isco 54 NIkon mounted lens five years ago, or six, back when I had a 35mm Adapter and was still relatively new.... for 300.00 from a lens seller on craigslist in downtown LA.

    IT was before anyone even knew about these things, so maybe longer than that. And, because I couldn't figure it out (diopter) I took it back to the guy.

    Boy what a mistake that wasy.

  • @kholi that's the way of life haha.

  • @slrmagic I think I'd actually have to give my vote to 1.35x. I understand why people want 1.5x and 2x squeeze but more camera companies would have to get on board with 4:3 HD recording. 16:9 squeezed to 1.5 or 2 is too wide in my opinion and distracting unless displayed in a theater. People already have 1.5x and 2x anamorphics and yet most camera companies don't enable 4:3 recording.

    A 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm prime anamorphic set at f2.8 with a 1.35x squeeze and each lens priced at $1000 would be incredible. Hopes and dreams.

  • @LPowell: why as wide as 72mm?

    Funny story, kholi. :)

  • @RRRR To avoid vignetting, I believe. The wider the barrel of the adapter, the wider you can go with the taking lens.

  • @Xenocide38 A 4:3 aspect ratio is only needed for 2x anamorphic adapters. With a 1.5x adapter, a video camera with the standard 16:9 aspect ratio works fine. In post-production, you simply stretch the frame wider by 50%, and then crop 5% off the left and right edges. The result is a 2560x1080 video frame with square pixels in widescreen cinema format.

  • I am curious as to why, some are advocating a lense that produces 2.66 (2880x1080) when widescreen televisions (per @LPowell) are ~2.4 (2560x1080).

    As we have the opportunity to have the lens designed, would it not be more logical to produce in camera the desired squeeze and not crop by 5% either side in post?

    Hit enter accidentally:

    I hear the arguments about corner resolution .. cropping to compensate for the 'inadequacy' of a lens? ... I do not think should be designed into the lens itself.

    Edit: Here is the latest on the new AA from 'Lenzes'r'Us' .. While some may think this is a clone of the SLRMagic AA, this lens has optics of a higher quality than the SLRMagic AA, and because it produces a perfect Widescreen image, the necessity to crop in post is removed .. I don;t think you really want to be competing with that.

  • @kavadni Read the many posts earlier in this thread about the characteristics of anamorphic bokeh. An anamorphic adapter is not just for stretch, it's also for adding a certain cinematic quality to the footage. The less stretch, the less pronounced these qualities will be.

  • @kavadni A 1.33x anamorphic adapter would produce a 2560x1080 aspect ratio that would not need to be cropped. However, the visual effect of a 1.33x anamorphic squeeze is relatively mild, and doesn't produce very pronounced oval bokeh or anamorphic flares. The most popular anamorphic lenses have a 1.5x ratio, and it's a good working compromise. In practice, the 5% that's cropped off the 1.5x left and right edges is optically very soft and the cropped image looks sharper without it.

  • @LPowell and @mlysbakken .. thank you both .. understood .. not enough consideration before my reply

    Perhaps a better solution would be to produce a 1.5x squeeze, which throws away part of the image (an oversized element at some point?) ... projection would be wider than the sensor.

    I hope that is understandable .. I can visualise what the guts of a lens looks like but do not know correct terminology

  • Having tried many anamorphic ratios, I feel others might at least try cropping to 2.67:1 before committing.

    If you're thinking about projection, look into projectors gaining popularity.

    Panamorphic is Optical (AFAIK) and seems versatile, Cheaper 2K Samsungs do digital un-squeeze.

    From The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966 - Techniscope ®) 2.35:1 Blu-Ray:

    Cropped to 2.67:1                                     Original aspect ratio

    bbu_cropped.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 216K
    GBU235.jpg
    1920 x 1080 - 231K
  • @mlysbakken true but imo to design for 72mm thread as a point of attachment would be a bit strange - a 58mm thread for attachment and a larger diameter adapter would make more sense IMO, creating a look resembling LOMO round-fronts: http://www.flickr.com/photos/45352422@N08/4798935303/lightbox/

  • @RRRR Yeah, I guess that makes sense :) But I don't think it would be a problem to go for 72mm, though. I'd be more carefull about going too small than too big.

  • The comments regarding 1.5x bokeh vs 1.33x bokeh, have sent me off to try and get my head around what is possible if SLRMagic make an adpter vs what is possible if SLRMagic a dedicated Lens

  • @RRRR 72mm is a very popular filter size for wide-angle and wide-aperture lenses. It's not even the widest common size - many lenses take 77mm filters. The advantage to a 72mm rear thread size is that it's easy to adapt it down for use with smaller lenses, whereas fitting a small anamorphic adapter to a 72mm filter ring lens is problematic at best.

  • Thanks all for the input and experience sharing. So now we are to a point where we have decided a 1.35x will give us the 2.39:1 ratio that we all want but one thing we ignored is the bokeh characteristics. 1.35x will give anamorphic ovals that look more like circles but 1.5x will give a better anamorphic oval and it is worth the effort to crop out in post production.

    We have a new suggestion from the ideas we have concluded.

    -We need 1.5x-2x for the anamorphic look. -We want to have a 2.4:1 ratio -We all hope 4:3 Anamorphic mode will come one day (but it is now available by hack)

    How about a 1.8x anamorphic? With a future 4:3 Anamorphic mode in mind this would give 2.4:1 with good anamorphic bokeh.

    For the time being, it would turn 16:9 recording into 3.2:1 stretch and the user need to crop off the boarders to get 2.4:1 but it will guarantee good anamorphic oval bokeh.

    So something like a 25mm or 35mm f/2.8 Anamorphic with 1.8x squeeze for mFT sounds good?

  • @kavadni If we could make the corrections optically we will definitely do it. After a brief making with our lens makers it is not possible =(

  • @mobileavatar I will not discuss in details as it is not appropriate to discuss in this thread.

    To conclude what you have read on forums there are some points that were not made clear. Out of 20 or so volunteers from Steve Huffs workshop only two had a bad experience. The two users volunteered as beta testers. They were well informed there may be fixes that needed in the future. However, they choose to complain on forums. We are never able to resolve their issue as they would not send in the lens for servicing. Other beta testers had different issues as well but they were willing to ship the lens in for servicing and their issues are resolved. The lenses we are now shipping to not have the issues the beta testers had thus the point of the beta tester program.

    There are also people on this forum that were beta testers for us for the 12mm 1.6 lens. We offered a lens upgrade program for them and it is the best we can do.

    Hope we have answered your concerns.

    Kind rgds., Andrew

  • @slrmagic I would definitely buy a 25mm, and I would probably buy a 35mm as well! However, do you think it would be possible with a larger aperture, for instance f:2? Or would that send the price skyrocketing?

  • @slrmagic Also, are you sure about going with the m43 mount? Wouldn't that exclude a big part of the market?

  • @mlysbakken We read that the expected budget by many here is $1200-$1500. m43 mount is the only option within this budget for wide angle anamorphic lens with a fast f/2.8 speed.

    A general purpose adapter of 72 or 77mm size is versatile but it is huge. Huge lenses cost a lot to manufacture and and as @010101 said people looking for this can buy the Isco 54