Caleb Genheimer

I got my NX1 just this week and I'm already loving it. The H.265 as Andrew has said, is a bit of extra hassle, but I anticipate that being temporary. Sooner rather than later, H.265 should be the norm, and then it will make things much easier. Storing master files certainly is I've gotta get adapters for my zeiss c/y though. After watching this, that Nikon is lovely! The AF from the kit lens is astounding, and will be invaluable for my gimbal work, but nothing beats some good vintage glass. your film captured a certain sentiment towards cities... Especially New York, that I think everyone feels if they've lived there. It's a real struggle. I love living in the woods on a river in northern Minnesota, with my dog and my woodstove. But there's no video work here, I have to drive to the twin cities for that, and it makes finding work difficult.

AJA has been making 90% of that camera for years, minus the sensor. I'd be pretty confident they know exactly what they're doing with codecs. and I went to an AJA Cion demo, the rep pretty much indicated it uses the same sensor. Someone asked if they use the same sensor, and the rep replied to the effect of "Cion uses one of the best scientific sensors, and it is spool at sensor". They tested lots of sensors, found the best one and consolidated their already existing tech behind it to make a camera. but for the physical aspects, I'd have bought a Cion right then and there. But as Andrew said, the batteries are big, and they're very long-bodied cameras. Many great cameras have this issue, and I wish they didn't. It makes it hard to put on a gimbal or even to shoot in tight spaces. Like it or not, but DSLRs have changed the way we rig our cameras. Ursa, FS7, Cion, Amira, etc. need to get with the program, IMO.

Andrew, do I understand correctly that focus is done by the taking lens, not the anamorphic? If so, what is the minimum focus in "normal" mode? Does this mean that AF lenses can actually autofocus "through" this lens?! Also, you say it's not so great on fullframe, but what about APSC/S35? (I just grabbed an NX1 because I'm tired of 2x crop factor) thoughts?

Not to turn this into a 4K debate, but I find it difficult do dismiss the benefits that 4K brings to anamorphic. Like it or not, these days 4:3 is a rare bird, which means that when you shoot anamorphic you have to crop... Loosing resolution. I have 4K TV and monitor, and 4K on the delivery end of things is soon going to be a no-brainer (though that doesn't rule out a quality upscale from 1080). We're getting beyond the point of affordable 4K, into the territory of QUALITY affordable 4K. I was at a Cion event yesterday, and that cam is a beast for the price. Everything has its place. I'm 100% of the belief that a lens doesn't have to resolve 4K to look good. But 4K still serves to capture the character of such a lens in more nuance. Ive also found that with a good projection anamorphic, you get the advantage of being able to alter the lens' characteristics by changing up the taking lens. You can always make a sharp ana softer, but you can't make a soft one sharper. That's why I'm curious as to which projection lens might be the best all-rounder, considering Diameter length sharpness aberrations distortion resolution field of view compression ratio contrast flare color @JohnBarlow maybe you could weigh in some, seeing as you've worked with a wide variety of projection anas for Rectilux. Any personal faves? Tried any on 4K?

I really wonder how far off we are from a 100% original single focus adapter. Projection anas are basically two elements, and the FM/Rectilux focus systems are two elements (AFAIK). That's four elements total . . . Albeit specialty elements, but still... The FM Module has internal diameter size limits because they apparently feel the need to encase the projection lens. It is also quite long, so that shorter anas probably sit far inside it, prohibiting the "taking" lens from being close to the rear of the ana. The Rectilux sits more on front, but is a permanent addition to your Ana. Why can't these be thread on attachments, in the neighborhood of, say, 85mm?

There's also the question of 4K. above-HD recording is now common, and fast becoming the norm. Within a few years, it'll be the norm on the delivery end of things too, and nobody has done an in-depth re-evaluation of all the options with 4K in mind. Anamorphics that hat used to be barely useable at 1080p are likely now garbage on 4K (Century, Optex, etc.), and the wide range of 2X projection lenses that were all excellent for HD work may not all be created equal when it comes to 4K. Resolving power is a big factor now, and it may trump other factors like FOV, weight, size, and minimum focus. For example, the gold anas, which Andrew's guide ranks fairly low (long FOV, Distortion, hard to focus), it turns out have excellent resolving power, and focus just fine with an FM Module. But is it sharper than a Kowa 16-H/8Z, one of the better projection anas according to the guide?

Hi, all! I personally would like to have a space to discuss new developments in anamorphic lenses, how they compare to tried-and-true options, and perhaps even where things may be headed in the not too distant future. My copy of Andrew's Anamorphic guide is, I think, up to date, and yet it simply doesn't touch on some of the newer stuff that's come out. (Andrew, if you're reading this, get your hands on an FM Module, and a Rectilux, and push SLR Magic for some info on their 2X Ana.) The FM Module seems promising: works well with Schneiders, but the Schneiders themselves have some distortion problems . . . may yet work even better with other projection anas. The Rectilux looks to be more or less the same kind of optical solution as the FM Module, albeit bespoke, and I suspect higher quality too (though at the moment mostly vaporware). Andrew wrote one article on a 2X from SLR Magic, and I have not heard anything since. And honestly, I wasn't impressed with their 1.3X (nor were others. They seemed to be quickly resold by early adopters, same with the VanDemien ISCO. There are several on the 'bay already.) So what do people think? There are of course the old faithfuls: Iscoramas, LOMOs, and a smattering of vintage single-focus options. How does it all stack up? I'll start things off by saying that I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of 2X Anamorphics

Actually . . . Just measured the 16-H, and it's darn near 71mm. I'll try and get ahold of some digital calipers and check accurately. The grip on the focus ring and the very front part of the lens might be just a tad oversized, but both could probably be machined down a tad to within 71mm. Anyone with the FM Module, how tight is the 71mm? Is that exact?

Yeah, this is unfortunate. They shouldn't have advertised it as compatible with Kowa/Sankor lenses. I was hoping to put it on my Kowa 16-H (8Z), as it is a very sharp and wide projection ANA, without the distortion that comes with the ISCO/Schneider "gold" style lenses. I may still if others confirm that it's possible (with modification), but for now, I'm going to sit this one out. The 16-H/8Z is the sweet-spot of anamorphics, other than the fact that it is double-focus. You can eek by with as wide as 50mm on full frame (if cropping to 2.35), and it has smooth blue flares. It can look crisp, clean, dirty, Hollywood or Russian depending on what taking lens you use. If someone proves that it's doable, I don't see why not. I mean, once you get a lens set inside the FM, there's no reason to remove it. But all this disassembly malarky is rather disappointing.

Well I'm on the list, but I have a Kowa 16-H. It was my understanding that they had solutions for all the various projection lenses, because they listed them as compatible. Truth is they don't yet. I asked, and they said I can wait until their Kowa solution is available, and they'll still honor my discount. IMO they also need to sort out the rail mount. 1/4-20 is a crap way to do it, no way to keep the lens parallel with the rails.

I'm gonna get one and do a review, but I only have a Howa 16-H. Depends what the damage is after discount, but I'd like to pick up a Schneider too.

Cool beans, can hardly wait!

Yeah, the more good people tests we get, the better. Medium and closeup shots in decent lighting. Doesn't have to be fancy, even just go out during magic hour with a bounce or something.

Avoid Veil flares by using a longer FOV lens :)

What do you mean? Rack focus is the whole point of the FM

Depends on your definition of "too wide" :) It is a sort of internal "flare"/optical imperfection. But if we're talking anamorphic, optical imperfections are a bit of a grey area (pun intended). It's not too wide, it has image corner-to-corner. But when it gets hit with light, flares in a sort of grey "vignette". Even the "real-deal" lenses from Panavision, etc. can do this. In the land of anamorpnics, I think "everything in moderation" is an excellent rule of thumb. I've seen this optical nuance used both well and poorly, just as I have with horizontal flares.

Yeah, no kidding! Where are we at with the whole discount thing?

It's among the best animorphics. Only the Ultrastar-type lenses are sharper, and they can't go as wide FOV-wise.

Also, what's up with the flare hate around here?! Everything in moderation, fellas :) Just because the new Star Trek had too many flares doesn't suddenly make them bad, just like everyone and their mum shooting on DSLR didn't make shallow DOF a bad thing either.

Really, it's a bit apples and oranges. Sure, they do similar things, but not altogether the same things. I think as Rich pointed out, DSO is PERFECT behind an Iscorama. The 1.5x is more practical, but its effects less pronounced, and that's where the DSO lens can help with its oval aperture. I'm very happy this FM lens is a possibility though, because (as Rich said), the cinelux are very sharp, and it'd be a dream to single focus one of those bad boys on front of my C/Y Zeiss glass and one of those new 4k cams

Not to bash DSO, though. If there ever is a full set of lenses from DSO, I'll be the first to buy 'em

There's some mojo there in the real thing that can't be faked. Squeeze is varied throughout the focus range, there's some interesting compression and decompression as a real anamorphic racks focus. Also, I don't care how fancy your streak filter is, it doesn't look anything like a real anamorhic flare. There's a real hassle to working with the real-deal lenses, but we do it because it can't be faked. Hopefully sooner rather than later, there will be practical animorphic solutions. There are lenses from SLR Magic, as well as focus units for use on projection lenses, from Rectilux and FM.

Count me as interested

Well, what the projectors prefer is what I'd call "standard". Per the wikipedia page on DCP (Digital Cinema Package), 4096x1716 is a common standard, which is on the narrower side, weighing in mathematically just a hair below 2.39:1. RED should really stop pretending like they're the trend-setters ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

Anamorphics were designed for shooting wider aspect images without loosing resolution, Andrew is correct. Film was 4:3 (4-perf), and they didn't want to change the film width as that would mean new cameras. And they didn't want to crop down to 3-perf as that would be A loss of resolution. So they created anamorphics.