Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Blog Comments - SLR Magic Prototype Anamorphic footage and feedback request


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 bill g

bill g

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:10 PM

Slightly off topic, is the featured clip the right aspect ratio? The torch light Andrew raises looks a bit squished..

#42 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:12 PM

I'd only be interested in a closed system if multiple lens+anamorphic combos were offered. Being constricted by a single focal (well, two if used with a GH2) would be as much of a deal breaker as dual-focus. For instance, if they offered a 25mm setup, like being demonstrated in their video, I'd get that if they also offered something in the 12-14mm range. Then anything where I needed more than the 25mm with the ex.tele converter on I could grab my Century + 105mm Nikkor or something like that.

Something perfect for me, assuming a closed system with fast prime mated to anamorphic, would actually be three models, with a focal length falling somewhere in these ranges:

1) 11-18mm
2) 24-28mm
3) 75-85mm

...perfect would be models based on their 12mm and 25mm hyperprimes as well as an 85mm in the same ballpark for speed. These would be magnificent compromises that didn't feel like compromises. One model with one focal, not interested. Not unless it's a super-wide. That'd be useful to me.

#43 EOSHD

EOSHD

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 3,293 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 10:23 PM

It is in the right aspect ratio. Bokeh remains squeezed with anamorphic optics.

#44 Xiong

Xiong

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts

Posted 16 November 2012 - 11:43 PM

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.


I agree.
As someone that likes the look, Ive never shot with one, so having a entry level for the new guys might be a good thing. Spending 1000+ and not really knowing exactly what your in for can frighten off new comers like myself, even with knowledge, this seems like experience>knowledge.

#45 richg101

richg101

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 905 posts
  • LocationBristol. UK

Posted 17 November 2012 - 12:56 AM

Grab a century, have some fun. after a few months you will know if it is worth upgrading or not.

as stated, slr magic need to aim these at the hire sector. make a front element that can handle large sensor and wider apertures and stick it on a selection of matched taking lenses. or a straight 2.8 35-70 zoom. There are not enough people willing to shell out over £1000 for one lens. but plenty would hire a set meaning plenty of hire companies will buy them.

#46 Caleb Genheimer

Caleb Genheimer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:12 AM

The ideal anamorphic for me would be 1.33X glass squeeze with a rounded-blade aperture shaped as an oval (I've checked, this should be 100% feasible), to bring the bokeh stretch into 2X territory. The anamorphic would be "dual-focus" so as to not infringe on certain patents, but the set of primes would have synched focus mechanisms and a focus coupler similar in concept to the way a LOMO anamorphic front is linkable to certain LOMO primes. To keep cost down, they'd probably be for APS-C/S35/M43 sensors but not for full frame.

This type of lens would provide real anamorphic flares, proper 2.35:1 from 16:9 (which minimizes resolution loss), avoids Isco patents and gives fantastic stretched bokeh, all while minimizing cost through the one-anamorphic-many-primes concept.

Alternatively, someone should just make a brilliant 35mm prime that is synched to the KOWA lenses and comes with a coupling mechanism. The only thing holding back the KOWA is having to focus both lenses.

#47 Ben Holden Sentient Cities

Ben Holden Sentient Cities

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 01:21 AM

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)?


Single focus is top of the list for me. The flare looks pretty good and you can shoot in low light so that's two important things checked off my list (they were shooting on their prototype 25mm 0.95 at f2.0 I believe).

It would be good to know what the minimum focus distance is. Andrew said he was standing 1.8m away, but how clost could he have gone?

I'd spend $1000 if it had single focus, yes.

#48 Kandre

Kandre

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 04:23 PM

I can't understand that people would want to use an anamorphic lens like this in anything else than music videoes. Those horizontal flares kills the image for me. It would take me right out of the story! Looper was a fine film, but those flares annoyed the hell out of me.

There is alot to like about anamorphics. The scope and extra resolution are all good, but the horizontal flares... its ugly IMO.

#49 matray

matray

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:03 PM

Are you referring to Apefoscope? I prefer image quality from the SLR Magic.

Yes I am :)
The SLR Magic looks better but can be improved I think, especially at F2.0, it doesn't look that impressive (even if the sharpness is !)

#50 matray

matray

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:11 PM

I'd only be interested in a closed system if multiple lens+anamorphic combos were offered. Being constricted by a single focal (well, two if used with a GH2) would be as much of a deal breaker as dual-focus. For instance, if they offered a 25mm setup, like being demonstrated in their video, I'd get that if they also offered something in the 12-14mm range. Then anything where I needed more than the 25mm with the ex.tele converter on I could grab my Century + 105mm Nikkor or something like that.

Something perfect for me, assuming a closed system with fast prime mated to anamorphic, would actually be three models, with a focal length falling somewhere in these ranges:

1) 11-18mm
2) 24-28mm
3) 75-85mm

...perfect would be models based on their 12mm and 25mm hyperprimes as well as an 85mm in the same ballpark for speed. These would be magnificent compromises that didn't feel like compromises. One model with one focal, not interested. Not unless it's a super-wide. That'd be useful to me.

I agree with that.
12mm F1.6 or F2.0
24mm F2.0
75mm F2.0
Single focus
Bottom line is price range :) and diopter !
1000$ each ?

#51 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:52 PM

I can't understand.


Fixed that for you.

#52 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:53 PM

I agree with that.
12mm F1.6 or F2.0
24mm F2.0
75mm F2.0
Single focus
Bottom line is price range :) and diopter !
1000$ each ?


Yes, if they worked like this I'd be there with bells on for $1K each, single focus, fast and with a really wide option.

#53 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

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.



Couldn't just let this go...I tried, just can't.

Spherical 35mm (non-anamorphic) became more prevalent than anamorphic for two reasons: laziness and cost. Period. Super-35mm produces inferior release prints (not that that matters now) as an acquisition format. It's cheaper and arguably slightly easier to manipulate in post production, optically and digitally. Slightly. That slight edge in post throughput has been shrinking all the time and by now would be negligible.

The math is a little easier with camera tracking and match-moving, in a digital FX environment. Realistically though, even before the age of digital FX these kind of special shots were more often acquired with an 8-perf 35mm system (VistaVision...the difference between VV and normal movie film is like the difference between shooting with a GH2 or 7D sized sensor and that of a 5D).

You cannot recreate the composition of an anamorphic scene by cropping to the scope aspect ratio. Anamorphic photography captures a scene with entirely different spatial characteristics, within the 2.35:1 (or wider) two dimensional space, compared with standard, spherical photography. It's not just about flares and oval bokeh. Those are the cherries on top, not the main course.

And none of this has anything really to do with projection. I don't understand why you'd even bring that up, other than you likely don't understand how any of this works. Movies have been acquired anamorphic and released flat for years (70mm release prints of Blade Runner anyone?) and spherical/non-anamorphic acquisition have come to theaters as anamorphic release prints.

Oddly enough, the earliest digital projectors in theaters were 4:3 systems with anamorphic lenses, due to resolution limitations. Nowadays there's no need with 4K systems being very common, if not the most common. Acquisition and projection have always been two different issues with different concerns. The move away from anamorphic acquisition was one motivated by cost, without concern for the aesthetic ramifications. Thankfully some filmmakers refused to drink the corporate kool-aid.
  • EOSHD likes this

#54 Bioskop.Inc

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:32 PM

I thought one of the benefits of using an anamorphic lens was that it makes the focal length wider - hence widescreen.
So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go?
I know most of you have gone the MFT route, but there are more & bigger sensors out there too!
So what happens when you drop 1K on a lens that you'll only ever be able to use on a MFT & you buy/rent a camera with a bigger sensor? Cause lets face it, things will move on & so will you - the glass you buy should be adaptable for the future.
Furthermore, the only cameras that have been used in films so far are the 5D & 7D, not the GH2.

If SLR Magic were sensible they wouldn't sell an anamorphic just for one camera/sensor size - so i've changed my mind, they need to make an anamorphic lens that is adaptable to different primes (re. Andrews recent question), but is that possible to do & make it a single focus system?

#55 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:43 PM

So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go?


Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic.
  • galenb likes this

#56 Bioskop.Inc

Bioskop.Inc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 494 posts
  • LocationBristol, UK

Posted 17 November 2012 - 08:47 PM

Same reason some folks are contributing to this topic.


I've got this image of people sitting in the corner of rooms & saying to themselves "I can see the whole room, cool!"
LOL!
  • richg101 likes this

#57 Sean Cunningham

Sean Cunningham

    Pixel Cowboy

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 965 posts
  • LocationAustin, Texas

Posted 18 November 2012 - 06:59 PM

After further consideration, Andrew, even if this were a one off, 25mm hyperprime + anamorphic, single-focus system I'd be keen to buy it. In fact I'd pre-order one immediately based on this video and faith in the quality of SLR Magic lenses.

I could use my Century for wider, mostly out-door (and thus stopped down) establishing shots as well as on longer, CU/ECU lenses where diopters aren't potentially disruptive. This would likely be my go-to lens that would also be easier to deal with for an AC. I look forward to seeing how this project progresses.

#58 tony wilson

tony wilson

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 484 posts
  • Locationlondon

Posted 18 November 2012 - 08:51 PM

for dem folks who is new to der tecnography of widescreen filmin.
my actor friend steven seegal from der navy cook filum gives a master class in techerneeks.


#59 Arturo Sánchez

Arturo Sánchez

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:03 PM

Nikon f-mount please and FF(24X36mm) image coverage would make it suitable for a wide range of systems.

#60 matray

matray

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts

Posted 18 November 2012 - 10:17 PM

I thought one of the benefits of using an anamorphic lens was that it makes the focal length wider - hence widescreen.
So why the obsession of wanting a 12mm or 24mm anamorphic lens - how wide do you really want or need to go?
I know most of you have gone the MFT route, but there are more & bigger sensors out there too!
So what happens when you drop 1K on a lens that you'll only ever be able to use on a MFT & you buy/rent a camera with a bigger sensor? Cause lets face it, things will move on & so will you - the glass you buy should be adaptable for the future.
Furthermore, the only cameras that have been used in films so far are the 5D & 7D, not the GH2.

If SLR Magic were sensible they wouldn't sell an anamorphic just for one camera/sensor size - so i've changed my mind, they need to make an anamorphic lens that is adaptable to different primes (re. Andrews recent question), but is that possible to do & make it a single focus system?

I really don't agree with that. I owned a 5D and switched to a GH1 with no remorse ! better image, codec, antialiasing, less rolling shutter, etc.. But apart from that, the Black Magic camera's sensor is almost Micro4/3's sized, the Digital Bolex also. I don't know about Red's or Alexa's because they're out of my league, but the full size sensor from the 5D isn't the futur to me ! Canon need to work hard to get close to this, even with the D300 which isn't as good as the BMC looks to be !
So if they work with micro4/3 sensor size in mind I don't think they're closing any doors for the futur.
That being said I do agree about how wide we need to go. I recently shot a short film and I only used an old 28mmF2.8 and a 50mmF1.7 from pentax with the ALGA7200 and honestly, it was wide enough. And again I think a 2,66 ratio (1.5X factor on a 16/9 sensor) could also reinforce this... Just my two cents ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users