Jump to content

Close
Photo

Blog Comments - SLR Magic Prototype Anamorphic footage and feedback request

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply

#21
matray

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:00 AM

matray

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

There's also this from our friend in Brazil. Apefoscope.

Let me know your thoughts guys and gals...


Where is the oval Bokeh ? The sharpeness isn't great at all and again ? Where is the oval Bokeh ?! Only flares aren't good enough. An oval and strong bokeh is definiteively needed ! Flares can be faked like with the Atlantic filter, but not the bokeh. That's what matter the most to me.

#22
jgharding

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:21 AM

jgharding

    Director, Harding & Brookes - Creative Digital Agency

  • Moderators
  • 1,289 posts
  • LocationLondon & Cambridge
I like 2.66:1 plus it makes longer waterfall and more oval background, but I'd not say no to a 1.33 with no dual focus.. Dual focus is a pain, just getting to play with a Moller 32 now, looks lovely but it's slow. 2x stretch is bonkers, but you can just crop the edges off.

Screw Iscorama's old patent, they should just that method and use the money for the patent case when they clean up. Same goes with Kodak optical reducer patent, I mean those guys are flogging all their stuff, someone needs to buy that patent too. ;)

The SLR magic has OK flares, the Apefoscope ones are just too too much at the moment. There are times when you want a lot of flare as an effect, but those are all over the place and pin sharp, great work on the project so far, kudos for doing it too! those flares need some serious taming in order to be aesthetically balanced though. Also waterfall style oval bokeh is pretty essential to the look of anamorphic, I'd say moreso than the flares, it's what creates the milky depth...

HampB-LOGO-and-SIGNATURE-WEBGIF--SMALLER


#23
richg101

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:46 AM

richg101

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,091 posts
  • LocationBristol. UK

I like 2.66:1 plus it makes longer waterfall and more oval background, but I'd not say no to a 1.33 with no dual focus.. Dual focus is a pain, just getting to play with a Moller 32 now, looks lovely but it's slow. 2x stretch is bonkers, but you can just crop the edges off.

Screw Iscorama's old patent, they should just that method and use the money for the patent case when they clean up. Same goes with Kodak optical reducer patent, I mean those guys are flogging all their stuff, someone needs to buy that patent too. ;)

The SLR magic has OK flares, the Apefoscope ones are just too too much at the moment. There are times when you want a lot of flare as an effect, but those are all over the place and pin sharp, great work on the project so far, kudos for doing it too! those flares need some serious taming in order to be aesthetically balanced though. Also waterfall style oval bokeh is pretty essential to the look of anamorphic, I'd say moreso than the flares, it's what creates the milky depth...


What with Schneider owning Isco (and its patents) I imagine they would be pretty hard to fight if a patent were breeched. A patent is a patent. Why should some new guys (particularly a chinese company who are already annoying a lot of established and well respected pioneers with release of price undercutting products) profit from some very hard work done 40 years ago? Why should such companies be allowed to profit from others' work while also putting in jeopardy the future of these proper companies and the likelihood of new products? Anyway it's hard to modify a concept like this without it being very easy to prove where patents have been breeched. Copying a dyson cyclone technique leaves a lot of variables as get out clauses. copying and slightly modifying a set of lens elements in series, with one rotating for focus is a lot harder to do without it being obvious.

If SLR magic come up with a fresh design themselves it will hopefully change my blighted opinion of Chinese manufacture and 'innovation' into something more positive.

I get sore about topics like this because when a consumer aimed company (SLR Magic) might start to interfere with the profits of the high end established firms they end up watering down the overall top end innovation - consumers need to be patient and wait for this to trickle down to their level. Stealing just 1 sale a month from Hawk, Panavision, etc is a lot more damaging than people would think, and would be horrible to see if that sale was gained from the illegal use of intellectual property.

#24
Bioskop.Inc

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:58 AM

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK
I wouldn't hold your breath too long for an Iscorama copy, regardless of the patent problems. It would probably be very expensive to mass produce in order to get it perfect e.g. no breathing etc...
Andrew's comment about it being a sealed unit with a taking lens is probably a hint at where they will probably be going with this lens - at best it will be a focus through type thing.
The SLR magic anamorphic is looking good, but what are their plans for it - what's the focus system & what's the market?

Not really seeing the problem with dual focus systems or even monobloc fixed focus lenses - i have a lens i can rack focus with & still haven't found an instance where this type of shot would serve me better than another alternative.
Still not sure where this obsession with 'Rack Focus' has come from - i've watched, studied & written about so many films over the years and it just isn't something that is used in abundance. The most common usage is to rack focus from one talking head to another, but most filmmakers will not abandon the 'shot-reverse-shot' technique since they are taking into consideration audience identification processes. There are numerous shot types out there, you need to get to know them & stop being hung up on a very minor one - 'John Fording' will never go out of fashion (this is a close up shot, where an actor moves into focus) & is so much more effective, and easier, thus less time consuming to set up, than following the actor whilst trying to keep them in focus.

More info is needed, please!
  • richg101 likes this

#25
Germy1979

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:15 PM

Germy1979

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts

the adjustments done on panasonic,optex and century where all configured for small sensor


That's funny... I always look at LA7200, or the Optex adapter footage and think, "why are the edges so blurry all the time? These things look almost useless on anything under an 50mm on the gh2.." ...and then i remember they were designed for the old 1/3 inch sensors and such.. Lol. Seems like those 2 should be excellent choices for anamorphic, since you simply focus through...

I usually only bring 2 lenses with me which are a wide and a long. So if i were requesting here, that's what i'd like.. I love a 35mm on any sensor.. Don't ask me why, no matter the crop factor, it just looks like it hits the sweet spot. The other would be an 85mm, just simply for tight shots or dialogue... like a dialogue scene at night, locked down with a city backdrop where the oval bokeh can be pulled closer. Those 2 focal lengths are pretty universal..

#26
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 01:43 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,086 posts

Where is the oval Bokeh ? The sharpeness isn't great at all and again ? Where is the oval Bokeh ?! Only flares aren't good enough. An oval and strong bokeh is definiteively needed ! Flares can be faked like with the Atlantic filter, but not the bokeh. That's what matter the most to me.


Are you referring to Apefoscope? I prefer image quality from the SLR Magic.
  • richg101 likes this

#27
richg101

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:12 PM

richg101

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 1,091 posts
  • LocationBristol. UK
as suggested by Bioskop.Inc in past posts, a wide prime with a series of matching diopters to get closer would be nice. an f2.8 35mm monoblock and a set of diopters (+0.5, +1.5, +3.5) would be a nice little package. 35mm is a nice all round length. and for closer shots where you want a bit more of a portrait feel a +1.5 diopter from 1.5mts away on a 35mm focal length would give lovely close face shots with nice bokeh.
  • Bioskop.Inc likes this

#28
Bioskop.Inc

Posted 16 November 2012 - 02:55 PM

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK

an f2.8 35mm monoblock and a set of diopters (+0.5, +1.5, +3.5) would be a nice little package. 35mm is a nice all round length.


That would be very nice - one system & just stack the diopters when needed.
Probably room for 50mm as well?
Lets hope they don't just feed the MFT market & forget about all the other cameras/sensors out there!
Would be very short-sighted not to plunder the whole market place.

#29
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:58 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,086 posts
Thanks for all the feedback guys.

In order of importance what do you think is most critical to you?

Single focus barrel (not dual focus like Kowa) OR adaptable to different primes?

If the adapter cost for example around $1000 (I just made this up, nothing to do with actual pricing as this is not decided on yet) and was dual-focus would you buy it? With dual focus you cannot rack focus during a shot and it takes longer to confirm focus, is trickier too.

How much would you be prepared to spend on a high quality single focus anamorphic (like the Iscorama)?

#30
Stunko

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:02 PM

Stunko

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
Not quite sure why indie shooters are still using these anamorphic lenses? When professional film cameras are using non-anamorphics and just crop for Scope. And good luck finding a DCI-class digital cinema projector w. an anamorphic lens attachment. They also just crop. In fact, I had no idea that anamorphic lenses were still being made, with new models coming out now. Amazing.

#31
haarec

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:27 PM

haarec

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • LocationEurope
New design of anamorphic lens or converter is a realy nice. I have read about it couple of days ago and I liked it right away assuming I can afford it :)

My tips:


1. No dual focus
Sedulous design:
2. Sharp images full of tiny datails.
3. No barrel distortions (can be seen of a video - streetlight on the right)
4. Not to much anamorphic flares
5. 21:9 compliant. upcoming standard 21:9 is 2,35 (2540x1080). In this case may be little more than 1080 to crop it in post production but not less. In a 1920 world it should give 1920 x 820 rather than 815 - no 2 pixel wide letterbox in 21:9 screen.
6. Affordable. normal lenses price in mind.

I don't realy care about oval bokeh

#32
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:31 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,086 posts

New design of anamorphic lens or converter is a realy nice. I have read about it couple of days ago and I liked it right away assuming I can afford it :)

My tips:


1. No dual focus
Sedulous design:
2. Sharp images full of tiny datails.
3. No barrel distortions (can be seen of a video - streetlight on the right)
4. Not to much anamorphic flares
5. 21:9 compliant. upcoming standard 21:9 is 2,35 (2540x1080). In this case may be little more than 1080 to crop it in post production but not less. In a 1920 world it should give 1920 x 820 rather than 815 - no 2 pixel wide letterbox in 21:9 screen.
6. Affordable. normal lenses price in mind.

I don't realy care about oval bokeh


Nice list and good point about 21:9 standards. There's already a Philips TV with that ratio isn't there?

#33
Leang

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:38 PM

Leang

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 290 posts
  • Location─░stanbul

Not quite sure why indie shooters are still using these anamorphic lenses? When professional film cameras are using non-anamorphics and just crop for Scope. And good luck finding a DCI-class digital cinema projector w. an anamorphic lens attachment. They also just crop. In fact, I had no idea that anamorphic lenses were still being made, with new models coming out now. Amazing.


there's more to it than just cropping for ''scope.'' in the new era of digital cropping in general is convenient, but that really has nothing to do with the optics. the dof of the image plus light hitting the glass has a special effect you don't get with ordinary 35's. projection systems for anamorphics was a popular culture in cinema. not too sure about the current high end protocols, but something to look into

#34
Andrew Reid

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:40 PM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,086 posts
Don't feed the troll :)
  • Sean Cunningham and richg101 like this

#35
Sean Cunningham

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:50 PM

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 979 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

We don't want focus through like LA7200, that doesn't work at fast apertures or with a shallow depth of field. We need the Iscorama style focussing method of prime at infinity and one focus barrel, no breathing. Agree dual focussing is a deal breaker (for me at least) and have made that clear to SLR Magic. I want them to package this as one lens with the prime and anamorphic focussing as one unit. Focus more important than having it as a stand-alone adapter in my view. Have a Kowa for that and don't use it because of the dual focussing.


Is the patent still in a stranglehold on the Iscorama though? That'd be great if it functioned like you're saying but I hadn't even considered it because of the patent.

#36
AaronChicago

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:54 PM

AaronChicago

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 364 posts
I was listening to the commentary for Looper, and director Rian Johnson said something interesting that I had never heard about anamorphic. He said since the lens is not aspherical that you can go really close and wide angle on someones face without having barrel distortion. It gives a cool effect that other lenses will not provide.
I dont know anything about anamorphic but that seemed very interesting to me.

#37
galenb

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:56 PM

galenb

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 338 posts
  • LocationPortland, Oregon

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

In order of importance what do you think is most critical to you?

Single focus barrel (not dual focus like Kowa) OR adaptable to different primes?


Oh no, do we have to pick either or? I though if it was an attachment that just screws onto a prime, that would it work just fine. Is that not the case?

If the adapter cost for example around $1000 (I just made this up, nothing to do with actual pricing as this is not decided on yet) and was dual-focus would you buy it?


No I don't think I would. While I realize that LA7200's are about $1200-$1400, but I was hoping SLRMagic would make an entry level anamorphic adaptor for us indy-filmmakers. I would actually much rather have it be a little less sharp and pay a lower price. Maybe we are really talking about two different products: One that is for entry level cheapskates and one that is for those who demand the highest quality? I can totally understand if you had already bought tons of anamorphic lenses and you just want the one that will finally be the best of all of them, that you would pay a premium. However, I don't have deep pockets.

#38
Bioskop.Inc

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 582 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK

Thanks for all the feedback guys.

In order of importance what do you think is most critical to you?

Single focus barrel (not dual focus like Kowa) OR adaptable to different primes?

If the adapter cost for example around $1000 (I just made this up, nothing to do with actual pricing as this is not decided on yet) and was dual-focus would you buy it? With dual focus you cannot rack focus during a shot and it takes longer to confirm focus, is trickier too.

How much would you be prepared to spend on a high quality single focus anamorphic (like the Iscorama)?


Difficult one there Andrew.
People would be more willing to spend money on a Single Focus system, but not at the Iscorama price range (I don't think they'll ever hit the quality of an Iscorama, so why price it as such).
The idea of it being a closed system would appeal - lens & anamorphic combined.

No one would pay $1000 on a dual focus system, as there are too many good cheap ones out there already.
  • OzNimbus likes this

#39
haarec

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:58 PM

haarec

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts
  • LocationEurope

Nice list and good point about 21:9 standards. There's already a Philips TV with that ratio isn't there?


Dell U2913WM UltraSharp 29 Inch Monitor
LG's EA93 29 Inch too

#40
tony wilson

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:00 PM

tony wilson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Locationlondon
well if anyone is in london and is slick and has shot with anamorphics i have a rack focus dual anamorphic that seems to work pretty well.

i should imagine it is more flexible than slr magics one now and has pretty interesting focus range it is 1.33x..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users