@WashingtonIrving It's POINTLESS to make it in PL mount.

There is only one full height sensor camera right now that can shoot with it, the Alexa Studio.

A regular vanilla Alexa, RED, EPIC, F3, BMCC WON"T work with 2X without a substantial and pointless crop.

jb

@stip

type '>' (without quotes) then simply copy - paste the text you want to quote.

Thanks!

@slrmagic I would certainly consider it.

And I would be very interested in the idea above by john barlow (if possible) to make it decoupleable to 2x with proper mount (and use the same as attachment to lens).

@stip

Sorry not lens related but how does everyone reply with the blue bar and the quote like you did?

I would want 1.33 either way

I would :)

Make the lenses 2x. If they're under $1k each people will buy them like hot cakes. And see how long it takes camera manufactures to add a 4:3 'anamorphic' recording mode to their cameras once customers start screaming for it. My guess is that the BMC will have this before the M43 version is released in december.

Don't cave to camera manufacturers before you even start, make a good product and they'll adapt to you.

Also, ideally they'd be PL mount and cover S35 frame. But hey, M43 will work for me too.

I'm in favour of a T4 prime set. 12mm, 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.

@B3Guy

Basically yes, but for clarification see below

The scope adapter scheme is A---------d1---------B---d2---C

d1 & d2 are seperation distances (air gaps) of the cells A, B & C

A & B are ana cells which combine to give 2x FHA, C is an ana cell rotated to make the total adapter 1.33x FHA

The terms 2x and 1.33x refer to the in focus field. The out of focus Bokeh field will be different, for the same reason that a standard scope still leaves the Bokeh field vertically stretched (oval Bokeh)

The R&D experimental rig should test for optimal values for d1 & d2. It may turn out that three adapters (combinations of d1 & d2) are best catering for wide,stadard and tele primes. Varying d1 & d2 will also affect focus and compatible focal length primes that can be used.

Optical design is very much a Black Art and much experiment has to be undertaken. No one can promise that a design will work based on theory and paperwork alone. Even the top flight ray tracing and modelling sofware has difficulty modelling out of focus rays.

Other considerations include weight and light loss and cost. Maybe moulded plastic cells could help with weight and cost.

@slrmagic

We were told people like pancake lens and anamorphic oval aperture shape before.

I thought people don't like pancake because it's not easy to do FF on a tiny lens.

@JohnBarlow Well, as I've said, I'm not an optical engineer (although I've been thinking about taking a class or two in that). I'm fascinated, though - I'll have to do some reading for sure.

@slrmagic Excellent! I'd love to see what sort of results you get out of it, even if it doesn't end up as the final design.

Does anyone know if such a thing has been tried before?

@jackdoerner @JohnBarlow

We had been working on this idea actually since a few days ago as it is better than digital crop or oval aperture disk.

@JohnBarlow Wouldn't the prime have to be in the middle though? Otherwise it might as well just be a standard 1.35x anamorphic. The anamorphic bokeh is caused by light passing through the aperture after undergoing a 2x squeeze, so if you desqueezed it before the aperture, the net effect would be nil. For optical reasons, the aperture would have to be in the prime, so you'd have to have one anamorphic on each end to achieve what you describe.

NDs are a very important cinematographer's tool, because (assuming you follow the 180 rule), the only other options for lowering light intake are stopping down the lens or changing the ISO. Changing either of these things will also change the aesthetic (aperture cahanges DOF, ISO changes noise). ND offers another way to change your light intake, but ND in front of the lens changes the aesthetic also. It cuts flare.