Personal View site logo
SLR Magic 2x ANAMORPHIC lens
  • 804 Replies sorted by
  • @apefos

    Andrew already made it clear that it´s not a viable solution for his company to produce a cheap adapter.

    Adapter + bundled prime has a completely different potential usability than just an adapter. It is very simple. Maybe useability is not important for you, but for most film-makers it is.

  • any old panasonic and sony mini dv shooters will remember the panny,the optex and the century. b&h new york 15 months ago still had new old stock of the panny. 6-8 years after they where made only sold because of the recent craze. the optex sold out because the bbc purchased loads i know cos i purchased loads of them cheap 3 years ago. century sold off new old stock 3 years ago for 99 dollars each. the spare original stock was remounted and sold off as generic and soligor brands 1 production run soligor,century,generic and optex and it took 7 years to clear out all the new old stock. an anamorphic priced at 200-400 usd will sell a ton. more is cutting the market down. the people that are making the most noise here should give slr magic a lump sum up front if they are so sure of what will sell and what will not say 10 thousand dollars. this is not a cctv lens adapted for m/43 it is a big financial risk. panasonic dumped the entire anamorphic stock on 2 stores in new york because after 3 years sitting in storage they did not want them hanging around any more. century sold close out anamorphics for 99 dollars..go to bottom of page even then it took 6 weeks to clear stock. a hell of a lens for 99 bucks.

    http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-gl-series-dv-camcorders/18850-century-optics-16-9-widescreen-adapter-4.html

    anamorphics nearly wiped century out but they got saved by schneider. in and out inventory is the key i here warehouse space in hong kong is quite expensive. not to mention the mainland china copy cats who will also be offering real or fake slr magic variable compression anamorphics.

    great times for the customer i suppose. low price is the key to big sales and empty warehouses.or if slr magic make the lens like this

    then they can charge lot's more by going slow with good quality.

  • @redstan I'd be happy to take your baby Berthiot Hypergonar 1.75X :)

  • @ Redstan, amongst all the anamorphic options you listed with much sympathy, how many are truly usable out of box on an HD camera ? How many would be a perfect match to " A " or " B " or ... taking lens that one could purchase from store. The comercial demise of anamorphic adapters came as the result of quick shift of DV to HDV and consumer eating it up like hot pastry. Many prosumer HDV cameras came with lens built in and bad with low lights. God knows I tried to put my anamorphic adapters on them to no avail. You are making it like consumers decidedly turn their back on anamorphic in consumer level. Before that shift the consumer anamorphic was a dud because consumers were not able to enjoy their anamorphic DV on their tubes - conveniently, at the least as conveniently as it was on home 16mm - 8mm projectors.

    The only reason average Joe is attracted to anamorphic again is because of DSLR revolution and sensor sizes and of course the plethora of third party taking lens adapters.

    Make it convenient to use, give it OK quality, keep the price reasonable - people will buy. Unless we all shift to 4K in less than a year. That would be the repeat of history from DV to HDV.

  • you average joe is not gonna spend 800 bucks. this is a niche that will be only be shattered by a 300-400 dollar optic. how much do you think a new copy of the optex,century would cost how much would you pay. my guess you would pay 300-400 dollars new the cost would need to be 800 dollars easy. step up to the panasonic lens,then up from that the sankor,then kowa,then you hit iscorama. each stage costing more and more money. how many of you are gonna pay 5000 pounds not dollars for iscorama quality optic? clearly slr magic has a big advantage in they are not going to get ripped off as much by the massive mainland china factories. humans like cheap that is why i sell 1 clamp and other clamp dealers sell 5. all's i'm sayin is a revamp upgraded panasonic with more flexibility is probably the way it will go rather than a poorman's hawk or new zeiss copy. cutting cylindricals is much more difficult with lot's of wastage. one of the reasons some optex,century have problems is because of errors in the glass creating additional astigmatism problems. as most know stopping down heavily cures lots of problems. if slr can use an oscar winning designer who comes up with a revolutionary new designs using state of the art nano tech materials to drastically reduce cost it is gonna be tough getting a decent price for mega mass sales. maybe selling direct they can make it work saving on big middleman dealer mark up. whatever they come up with it will be very interesting and as optics people i am sure they understand the pitfalls. like the bmc i think getting people to put a deposit down is a nice way to really test how serious people are.

    stonebat i cannot sell my baby hypergonar as it would not sell on the open market because of my stupid market killing high price : )

  • The design of an anamorphic adapter is not so dificult to do.

    to add a negative lens in front of the main lens gives the propertie to put a wider field of view in the sensor.

    If it is designed for a camcorder with fixed lens it is more easy to do because the camcorder lens have the hability to focus macro.

    The anamorphic adapter for a camcorder can be an one element lens, very very cheap. it can be a negative lens designed in a cilindrical way, similar to a lens to correct astigmatism in human vision. when this lens is attatched to the camcorder, the camcorder needs to enter in macro focusing to get proper focus through this one negative element lens. This lens is similar to a wide angle adapter. the difference is the wide angle adapter is negative in a circular way and the anamorphic lens is negative in a cilindrical way. I can build a DIY anamorphic for a camcorder spending just 50 usd including the transport, the glass, the plastic body and the service to machine the glass and the body. this design will give some chromatic aberration because a single element lens makes the rbg light to divide in three slightly different directions, but it can be easily corrected in post, doing a small different amount of "horizontal stretch zoom" in each RGB channel.

    To avoid the chromatic aberration is not so difficult also. It is done with a two element design, both cilindrical, one negative and one positive, with two different refraction index. this way the less powerful positive lens with a different refraction index will correct the chromatic aberration and keep the negative result to allow the anamorphic properties.

    The challenge to design the anamorphic adapter for a DSLR is its lenses does not focus macro so when put the one/two element negative cilindrical lens in front of the dslr lens the image will be out of focus. to solve this issue a positive circular lens (also called diopter) can be fit between the negative lens and the dslr lens. this positive circular lens will also include some chromatic aberration to the system and to solve it the diopter can be an achromat, a two element positive lens made of a stronger positive and a weak negative, with different refraction index to cancel the chromatic aberration.

    So an anamorphic adapter for a DSLR can be made of four lens elements in two groups. the first frontal group is a cilindrical negative achromat double and the rear group is a circular positive achromat double. put a plastic body and it is done.

    So tell me, what is the difficult? why it need to be expensive?

  • maybe this 4 element 2 group design anamorphic adapter will need a focus ring to change the distance between the negative cilindrical and the positive circular elements or between them to camera lens, or both, to allow focus in different distances. or the manufactures can build two or three positive diopters with different power to allow different focus distances. but the main design concept is done, these focus speculations is just the final tweaking.

  • Ok, let us me to explain again. Idea is simple.

    Why people want a one lens solution?

    Pros 1) Best match for best IQ 2) Most compact design possible 3) Anamorphic portion cost is lowest due to least materials used.

    Cons 2) Cannot use existing lenses and you are practically buying one whole new lens

    Why people want adapter solution?

    Pros 1) Maximum compatibility 2) Can use existing glass in own collection

    Cons 1) The lens combo you use might not result to best IQ results 2) Adapter would either be bulky if it works with wide angle and you are using 50mm or more FL lens. It would also be unnecessary heavy. Large adapter when not needed means extra cost you paid that you do not need to use. 3) If adapter is compact then it will only work with longer FL length lenses (the most common issue with existing options). Much affordable option if matched with the right lens but if you try to use wide angle and it does not work then it means the money you paid for the compact adapter cannot be used and will cost you the most.

    I said many times but it seems no one can understand me. It does not matter how difficult it is to cut the glass. Larger glass is exponentially more expensive than smaller glass. You need large glass for large adapter/lens supporting wides and less glass for adapter/lens with longer focal length. More lens elements = higher cost larger lens elements = higher cost. What it means is A large adapter (Isco's for example) cost more than small adapters or lens using small elements. A small adapter (8mm ones?) will cost much lens than lens solution but the adapter will not work with wides. Maximum cost is of course lens solution with wide angle at the same time as it is the largest, longest, and use the most lens elements.

    I think the most simple example is diopters as we are all familiar with that. Finding a diopter (95mm or more in size) is very expensive for the LA7200. 82mm diopter is best for use on Isco's but everyone use stepdown ring to use 77mm instead. For smaller anamorphics we can use maybe 52mm diopters. The larger the more it cost. The smaller the less it cost. What everyone is pay for is really for the materials used for the product. A large element uses more materials and is much harder to process as well. I love giving examples. Sometimes it works sometimes not the best. Maybe a better example for processing difficulty is it is much easier to draw a cut a straight line with scissors 3cm long than to do the same for a 30cm straight line. Same materials, same tools, same job. And when it does not work you do it again then there is wastage and cost also increases. Does that make any sense? The earlier glass in an adapter sample is not comparable as the glass that can fit in an adapter is very small.

    If we feel we can meet the market expectation and demand we will try to offer a solution. If it is impossible for us to meet the the market expectation in terms of price and offering we are not able to offer any solutions.

    -Andrew

  • @slrmagic

    My feeling is that 2x is more for enthusiasts and 1.5x will eventually reach more customers. With the BMCC mFT I could imagine getting a wider field of view while keeping DoF would be very appealing to lots of people who aren't specifically in the look of 'true' anamorphic. Also I'd guess it might be 'easier' and less of a risk to develop a quality 1.5x lens than a quality 2x lens for a 'first time' anamorphic lens.

    EDIT:

    just read your post, lens solution would be great, but honestly if there aren't at least three focal lenghts models to cover wide, normal and tele then I wouldn't see much sense in getting just one single anamorphic lens.

  • @stip

    the more the squeeze the less the quality. It is a fact. Just like ultra wide angle lenses has less resolving power than normal focal length lenses and ultra telephoto lenses will also not have as good resolving power than normal focal length lenses. When you go extreme the best you can do is to keep loss to a minimum. If we consider again a 1.33X will be better than 1.5X in quality. Artistic feeling is another story.

  • I got that and I'd love to see a quality 1.33x, but at least on this board I seem to be in the minority :) I still believe that once there would be samples out there that show what quality footage for example BMCC would produce with such a lens, people would be all over it regardless of any lack of anamorphic, artistic, feel. Like Charles Barkley says: 'I may be wrong - but I doubt it.' :)

  • @RRRR The main reason we say it is not a viable option to make it cheap because we do not have plans to make an adapter or lens with compromised IQ. It seems the gap in the market is one that is large and support wides and it may be the direction we should be heading for but it will not be cheap to be making a large one so we really need some time to think about it. We make it large and it would cost more and it seems people would rather buy the high ended options instead but are designed for longer FL and smaller lenses.

    There are affordable options on eBay and as some suggested they can DIY one for $50 or so only with the conditions labor and tooling cost is zero and materials can be bought for $50 only. That is definitely not the direction we are heading.

  • i said i can build a diy anamorphic adapter for 50 usd if it was just one glass element with a small amount of chromatic aberration to solve in post and it would work just for handycam camcorders, not for dslr, not for large camcorders. and this 50 usd would be the price to build it, to sell it i would need to charge some extra.

    to build it for a dslr would be another story.

  • @apefos The problem is we all know the cost for a "cheap" version. Then we want a good version. Manufacturers make a good version then the next problem is consumers think the price is too much as the price expectation is for the raw cost of the "cheap" version.

    For example, by making the cheap $50 single element lens you spend 1 hour looking for materials. 3-5 hours on grinding and polishing. $30 on tools. You end up spending 1 work day on it and the total you spend is $80. You try to sell it and people think it should cost $50 or less. However, for one work day I am sure you earn much more than doing all this as no one thinks you should be charging any extra for labor. You end up at a loss of $20 and 1 work day hours. Sometimes smaller manufacturers really need some support from the community for their offerings =)

    We made a really beautiful lens gear for our 12mm 1.6 lens because we received many emails we should make one as it is hard to rack focus with our lens. We listened and made some. If you look at the Noktor 12mm 1.6 forum the feedback we received is we priced too much for the lens gear we made and it is worth no more than $8 and it is taken out of an old clock for $0.69. With such feedback it is not possible for us to develop anything. If we knew this would happen we should never have listened in the first place. We invest and spent time on optional accessories and we get hate mail for selling it after completion =(

    So, it would be helpful if we can get some true feedback on if we do make an Anamorphic for $1200-1500 would people be going for the $4000 and $300 eBay options still or they will seriously consider what we have to offer. I will not mention which products but we do have 2-3 models in our product line where we received emails saying there is a huge market and after all people who gave feedback never bought from us to support our developments as they went for other options on eBay instead.

  • A quality 1.33x anamorphic adapter is the only size that makes sense for cameras that shoot 16:9. This will produce the standard scope aspect ration of 2.37. All this talk about anamorphic flare and anamorphic bokeh is utter nonsense. These are just artifacts. The only reason to use anamorphic lenses is to produce a wider picture WITHOUT LOSING ANY RESOLUTION. This is why anamorphics were developed in the first place. So, after you unsqueeze a 1.33x picture, you will have 2554 x 1080 pixels - perfect for digital cinema projection. It will fill an entire 2.37 screen, and you're using every pixel your camera is putting out. This gives maximum picture quality. Using an anamorphic adapter stronger than 1.33x requires you to shrink the entire picture to fit on a 2.37 screen. This reduces the vertical resolution (BAD) and also reduce the visual impact, because the picture won't fill the screen vertically (VERY BAD).

  • @slrmagic If you make an anamorphic in the $1200-1500 price range that is wider than 35mm I will buy it for sure. I can't afford a $4000 lens, and I think this goes for a lot of the members here at personal-view, but I'm not satisfied with what I get for $300 either. The voigtlanders are good examples of expensive but popular m43 lenses, and I think a good anamorphic would sell well. (I'm no economy expert, though)

    However: It is rather important to me that it can operate at apertures lower than f3, since a too deep DOF would hide much of the anamorphic characteristics. The DOF of the wide FL also makes it all the more important with a stretch of at least 1.5x. Personally I don't know what would be the most attractive solution: a prime or an adapter. It is maybe easier to justify a high price for an adapter that can fit with people's exisitng glass, but the prime may have better IQ. Just remember that imperfections in IQ is often what gives a lens its special character ;)

  • 1440x1080 avchd is already in the specifications, it is sufficient that those who have the ability to turn that possibility, let him ... I think VK, LPowel, Driftwood, and the other gurus can do this ... sure to have a hack as the FM 2.2 or Apocalypse Now in 4:3, with anamorphic lens would be great ...

  • And @Ralph_B: When you speak of bokeh and flare as unnecessary artifacts you come off as quite ignorant. If you've followed this thread you know that those "artifacts" matter a great deal to the majority of us...

  • apefos you need to go work for arri zeiss they just spent 5 years messing with bent glass and all along you had it all figured out. those germans do tend to waste time for nothing they will do anything to drag a project out. you say it is easy to make an anamorphic yes it is. you are a better man than me yours you say cost 50 dollars my first prototype model cost me 120 english pounds. it was cheap and shit maybe good enough for some but not me. the optex,panasonic and century may look dumb and perform dumb but they are using rare earth high index materials not the shit you have used. if it is so easy let us see your website selling the apefos scoperama. i will destroy it with my 100 dollar 30 year old proskar. you see the proskar which was the cheapest 1970s optic is a mount everest. single element optics is one thing. high index glass even single element costs then you go to a doublet or a triplet big money leap. have you ever tried to cement a doublet or a triplet cylindrical cos you better start learning even if you did everything yourself. how many are you gonna make a day a week a year how much effort. what is enough money to make it work for you. have you tried x y adjustments for optimizing cylindricals that alone can take hours and send you mad. i send mine to Bernie O'Doherty cos i am mental enough. i think you should sell your 50 dollar lens. market it towards the old timers still using vhs and mini dv i am sure it will sell a ton if you maybe add 20 dollars a unit for your work 70 dollar scope rocknroll it would sell by the bucket load in fact sell it with a free bucket.

  • As someone who does not own any anamorphic lenses yet, I would much rather buy from SLRmagic than from ebay for a multitude of reasons. I dont have the time or desire to spend hours hunting around ebay for an old projector lens with possibly compromised IQ. If spending 1200usd is what it takes for an easy, compact, and non-frustrating product that offers anamorphic to the "masses" (meaning that they're easy to buy, and I dont have to spend days or weeks lurking ebay waiting for one to turn up) then SLR magic has my purchase.

  • And @Ralph_B: When you speak of bokeh and flare as unnecessary artifacts you come off as quite ignorant. If you've followed this thread you know that those "artifacts" matter a great deal to the majority of us...

    I honestly think this is NOT the case. Actually those who scream for 2x or the 'true' anamorphic look and feel are a rather small group when it comes to being actual customers for SLRmagic.

    As slrmagic stated, those who scream the loudest don't necessarily represent the majority.

    2x would be a nicht product, and SLRmagic might be left with a small target group who could eventually even go for other solutions when they realize a quality lens will be expensive.

    @slrmagic

    Don't know if it helps, I'd pay up to $1500-2000 for a quality 1.33x adapter.

  • @redstan thanks for your words, very encouraging. I stoped working with 35mm adapter manufacturing some time ago but if i have a free time i will think about to play with some experimentations in the anamorphic world.

  • @stip I definitely see your point, and maybe I was a bit harsh. But then again: to me an anamorphic lens sounds like a niche product in any case. I don't think most non-professional photographers even know what it is. @slrmagic: Maybe you should define your target group, so we get a better idea of your intentions with this product?

  • Prolly the same target group who like 12mm 1.6 and 25mm 0.95. You know those looking for the unique look.

  • I think the true advantage to a full anamorphic lens (not just an adapter), is that slrmagic will be able to deliver a guaranteed high quality image, due to the fact that the anamorphic and the lens will be designed for each other. Either way, to achieve a good quality image, it is going to need to be on the more expensive side rather than the less expensive side. With an expensive adapter, they run the risk of customer dissatisfaction when the adapter doesn't work well with the customer's lenses. With a full lens, the customer either likes the image and buys the lens, or they don't. But at least slrmagic maintains control over that image (and hopefully it is a really great image because they can tailor-design the anamorphic to the lens).

    Making a truly good quality flexible adapter I suspect would be far more difficult and more expensive than making a good quality complete lens. An adapter has to look good on many lenses. If you permanently mate an anamorphic to a lens, your only concern is how well it mates with that particular lens.

Start New Topic

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google Sign In with OpenID

Sign In Register as New User

Tags in Topic

Top Posters