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
  • Here are some more thoughts for @slrmagic, after reading further comments.

    1. Rear/front thread sizes if you make an "adapter" for use with various "taking" lenses: 72mm is the front thread I would suggest. The best circular diopter option currently is the Tokina ATX, which is 72mm. Any front larger than 72mm would risk vignette with the Tokina ATX. Also, I'm no rocket scientist, but I think if you were to make the back thread 72mm, the front thread would have to be significantly larger than that. I'd try to keep the rear thread a bit smaller.

    2. A unique approach that just might make everyone happy: 1.33/1.35X anamorphic lens with oval iris. Best of both worlds. I did some serious internet digging on the oval iris concept several months ago, and I'm pretty confident that it would be possible to make an adjustable oval iris (that is, it is not fixed aperture; it has blades and can be stopped down, remaining oval). Therefore, you could make an anamorphic lens with a 1.35X squeeze up front, and make up the difference between 1.35X and 2X out of focus "smear" via an oval aperture. What you'd end up with is an anamorphic that flares lightly but not too much, that desqueezes from 16:9 to 2.39 without the need to crop, and that still delivers wonderful out of focus smear 100% on par with that of 2X anamorphics.

    3. Also, I don't know much about them, but I don't think rear anamorphic elements have been mentioned yet. As far as I know, they don't flare at all . . . but it may be more cost-effective to squeeze the image with a smaller set of optical elements near the back of the lens, rather than with a large set of front elements . . . just something you could look into. Flares can always be achieved with a flare filter.


    Just the fact that as a forum community we are having this conversation with a manufacturer is incredibly cool. @slrmagic mad props.

  • @apefos I would not target the adapter at a plastic zoom lens, and certainly not one with a moving barrel.

    @slrmagic If you end up making an adapter with plastic elements, make sure that it still retains the proper anamorphic look. The flares on adapters like that are often a bit different than what you'd expect from a proper anamorphic lens. And you'd have to keep the general IQ in mind as well. Personally I would prefer an adapter made from glass (if you decide not to make primes), even though that would make it heavier.

  • (also, I'd reiterate what others are saying concerning lens mount. Providing it doesn't significantly effect price, a "Super 35/APS-C" EF-S mount lens will significantly widen your target audience.)

  • I would target the adapter at a plastic lens no problem. it all depends on its weight, moving barrel no problem for me either. i am on a low budget, so if the image quality is good and the equipment is safe so no problem at all.

    also the adapter for the 14-42mm do not need to cover all the zoom range. if it vignette under 20mm no problem, people can use it from 20mm to 42mm. this way it can be smaller and lighter

  • In any event. Someone who makes a very inexpensive anamorphic adapter will sell a ton. how many of us hunted out old Anamorphic and projection lenses for a lot of $$$. How many times did you actually use them? If you want to spend $300+ you can buy them on ebay. But a small light weight adapter for a Lumix lens that already has auto-focus is an untapped market.

  • @disneytoy you got the point! hope slrmagic get it too.

  • @apefos The problem with the extending barrel is not that it will vignet, but the fact that the whole adapter will be pushed forward as you zoom. That makes it very hard to use a mattebox and to fasten the adapter to your rails.

  • I do not use mattebox or rails. it is large and heavy to carry on a backpack. i use lenshoods or cardboard paper. And I dont care if my rig do not look pro.

    The rails let you to adjust the mattebox position or the camera position. you need to do it when you change lenses or zoom in or out.

  • To solve the problem of weight and avoid damages on plastic lenses the anamorphic adapter can have an aluminium base, a flat aluminium from the bottom of the adapter to the bottom of the camera and screw it in the camera tripod screw hole. and this aluminium base can have another screw under it to fit on tripod or in the rails/mattebox. this base can be removable and can exist different sizes bases for different lenses or it can have some kind of slider to make the adapter go front and back, also useful for zoom lenses when it extends while zooming. all problems can be solved with some imagination and design.

  • @B3Guy I have heard bad things about rear-element anamorphics, although those may only apply to read-anamorphic adapters, which do exist for some older cinema lenses. On the other hand, I have heard that some of the best professional anamorphics have the anamorphic element somewhere in the middle. I believe this is how the LOMO roundfronts and HAWK anamorphics were designed, although I could be wrong.

    Either way, that sort of design is certainly worth considering if a monoblock design is chosen. I believe mid-element anamorphics still flare, but differently and not as much. I could certainly be wrong about this, however.

  • @disneytoy I'm been looking for the lens, too. 8mm Berthiot S.T.O.P. "Baby Hypergonar". Some say there are only 50 units ever being made?

  • @disneytoy @stonebat

    Small lenses have vignetting. Do we want vignetting in post production or optical vignetting?

  • 15 votes only for the anamorphic squeeze. Can we do better than that?

  • @disneytoy @stonebat The berthiot hypergonar gives a great image from a handheld setup, it does need a 40mm taking lens and it would be nice to go wider, but the 1.71X looks good to my eye :) it would be great to have the opportunity of a new wider anamorphic that allows handheld, yes it can be tricky as it does need to kept horizontal to avoid any skew, but a handheld anamorphic Gh2 sure is a fun piece of kit!

  • Is the protruding front of a zoom really a problem though? Only if you plan to use a mattebox and zoom while shooting. Personally I´d never do the latter so it would not make much of a difference. Just the normal hassle of changing lenses.

    There would definately be a market for a cheap plastic adapter. For me? Don´t know, would depend on the IQ.

  • @slrmagic You should aim to make it as free of vignetting as possible. Vignet can be easily added in post, but not easily removed.

  • @slrmagic We most certainly want any vignetting to be in post production if at all possible. It is easy to add a vignette to footage, but much harder to remove it if it was put there optically. A vingette is effectively removing information from the image. If we want to remove information, we can always do it in post. However, we can't get any new information in post, no matter how hard we try. If left with a choice, always take the option that yields a more "perfect" or neutral image on the sensor.

    If people really want optical vignetting, it could easily be done with a vignette filter (I don't know if anyone makes such a thing currently, but imagine an ND Grad with a vignette pattern), or maybe even with some empty filter rings that stick out far enough to enter the edges of the frame.

    In spite of what @disneytoy and others say, I think a cheap plastic adapter is a bad idea. Yes, no-budget filmmakers will love it, but no one else will, and anyone who has actually tried to acquire a decent anamorphic lens will know that finding one that covers S35 is nearly impossible at any price point. Projector lenses will, but they're not designed to be used on cameras and it shows. There is a HUGE gap between the plastic lens/toy camera level and the next practical anamorphics ($5K - $10K range). Yes, there are a few lenses that cover that gap - mainly the ISCOs - but all are extremely rare and, by this point, quite old.

  • I made an account specifically to reply to this thread!

    Things I would like to add:

    1) I think what @B3guy said would be ideal

    "...Therefore, you could make an anamorphic lens with a 1.35X squeeze up front, and make up the difference between 1.35X and 2X out of focus "smear" via an oval aperture. What you'd end up with is an anamorphic that flares lightly but not too much, that desqueezes from 16:9 to 2.39 without the need to crop, and that still delivers wonderful out of focus smear 100% on par with that of 2X anamorphics."

    This seems very complicated and I reckon would require a lot of capital for R&D. Something a small manufacture (slrmagic) might not have.

    2) If number 1. is too complicated, I think a 1.5x squeeze will be the best of both worlds. I think keeping the aspect ratio under 3:1 is best, as 1.8x/2x is too wide for monitors/TV and lose too much resolution by cropping. And that is where ultimately it will be played on most, monitors and TVs.

    3) I know its early stages, but choosing whether it will be an adapter, add on lens, or full on lens will help us. @slrmagic, which would be easiest/most realistic for you too make? I know you could make all of them given the time, but I would rather you make 5 anamorphic adapters in a month than 1 anamorphic full on lens.

    4) I would like it to be lower than £500. What @Vitaliy_Kiselev said about making cheap sub $500 anamorphic lenses is really interesting.

  • @jackdoerner I agree about a cheap plastic adapter being a bad idea. It would be downright silly to have a cheap and flimsy solution for the hobbyists on one side of the spectrum and an incredibly expensive pro-solution on the other side of the spectrum, but nothing in between for the semi-pros and the low budget professionals. The need for anamorphics is huge in the middle range right now, not in the lower range! I don't see many hobbyists screaming for anamorphics...

  • I have multiple anamorphic lenses available to me, la7200, bolex moller, and a ISCO 36. Having used all of these on multiple cameras, I would prefer a prime or a set of primes over an adapter.

    These should be circular front single coated anamorphics. Streak filters come no where near duplicating the results you can get with a single coated front anamorphic. You could include a multi-coated UV filter for those worried about too much flaring.

    Rear anamorphic is useless, mid anamorphic is ok, but front anamorphic is optimal for accentuating the visual benefits of shooting anamorphic. The lens should also be able to focus to .5 meters without a diopter. At macro focus distances you cannot tell the difference between 2x and 1.33x bokeh. 1.33 assures no loss of resolution when going to 2.35:1 or 2.40

  • @slrmagic Slight vignetting is ok to me... but not too much. If you guys are planning to make a fixed focal length anamorphic lens, I'm pretty sure it can be as big as Nokton 25mm 0.95. In fact the size doesn't really matter as long as it can be easily controlled with follow focus. Just make sure it has m43 mount :)

    Also I don't think anamorphic lens has to strive for optical perfection, but it must have its own unique characters and good center sharpness :)

  • @plasmasmp +1. No adapter. A set of anamorphic prime lenses would be great.

  • Certainly, you´ll in time need to decide and assess what you can - cannot do. Either you go the cheap route and make a lens/adapter that performs well for the money (could be with a prism, plastic elements or whatever) or you go the "cheap" high end route and think about what you need to achieve to sell lenses / adapters for that market category. In the first instance, build quality is secondary. You will have customers as long as there´s a desire for an anamorphic look. In the second instance you can´t cut corners anywhere and you´ll need to work long and hard at it, but if you succeed you will no doubt have a solid base of customers since there is so little competition at sub 5k price point..

  • I would say just make an la7200 copy and make it cheap... Then I'm in.

  • when i talk about an affordable price adapter i do not mean plastic or toy design. If there is plastic, it can be just in the housing. The lenses must be glass and coated, no vignetting, no soft corners, no barrel distortion, no chromatic aberration. IQ is a must. I think it can be done at 300 usd price range. Lets say, not consumer, not professional, but prosumer... like GH2 is.