JohnBarlow

I like it! I have a 2x rollei tele converter. very good quality. I will try it backwards.. :)

I wonder how it would work with a lens designed for a bigger area such as a hasselblad zeiss lens.

Be prepared for lots of SA :P

Regarding Medium Format, there is enormous scope for 'blads and SK angulons, digitars etc because there is acres of space due to the large FFD and the booster would not be restricted to a 4 element design.

Great news for big lens formats.

Whilst I am not a patent lawyer, I think Metabones may be in the clear on the SB. Looking at the Kodak patent US5499069.pdf, all the claims are to do with SLR in the wording or implied. Of course mirrorless cameras are not SLRs and they may have a clear path on this technicality.

From what I see it is a 1.4x teleconverter mounted backwards and the beauty of the design is the excellent correction of spherical aberration. Nevertheless there will be copies (using different lens prescription) from third parties which may include Canon themselves for future expansion of the EOSM system. 

If you want your final image to be 2.35:1, (810x1920),  you should horizontal scale the image from the camera by 150% and reduce vertically by 75% and then crop to 1920 wide from the resultant  image. This means you are discarding 33% of the image width

(you have to sacrifice something for your art)

PS you can use a 33% wider focal length if the crop is in the center because you will be discarding any vignetted parts.

There are two more combinations by rotating the inner tube 180 degrees, giving 8 combos in total with the guides. Try this first before messing with the glass. 

As for fungus, get to step 5 and use cotton swap dipped in PONDS cream over affected area. Leave overnight and rinse off with zippo lighter fluid.

Dont rub too hard - the inner coatings will rub off = be warned

+1 but nano degrees is a gross assessment.

1 milliradian accuracy is sufficient

Before messing with the glass, get to step 4 and swap the guides over and/or rotate them - total 4 combinations, they may have been taken out before and put in the wrong way. Take a picture after each combo and decide.

My first advice is - don't do it

but if you want to proceed these are the steps for complete disassembly only, remember to mark things and take photos!

1. Unscrew front lens hood anticlockwise

2. Remove three grub screws and unscrew focus retaining ring

3. Unwind focus ring - it unwinds toward rear of lens (mark where helicoid comes apart)

4. Remove screws from brass guide rails and remove rails from guide slots

5. Part inner tube from outer tube

6. Using lens wrench remove front lens retaining ring, shim and rubber seal if present

7. Using lens wrench remove rear lens retaining ring, shim and rubber seal if present

8. Apply acetone to rim of lenses to loosen glue

9  Push lenses out from the inside using a makeshift daub, if stubborn repeat from step 8.

You may not need to go beyond step 4 if the guide rails are worn, either replace or run a trace of solder along the edges to fatten them up.

The rest is up to you.

YOYO  = You're On Your Own :P

The great thing about digital is that you can do aperture pulls at constant exposure by floating the ISO.

The great thing about Anamorphic aperture pulls is that you can go from deep focus to a squishy background which can look pretty cool.

If you have some to show, please share :P

The Hawk V series go down to 25mm with a horizontal FOV of 92 degrees. 

see here:

http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/equipment/hawk_anamorphic.shtml

If you want to see the full range of Hawks in action - mostly wide open, check out this movie which is a Hawk showcase

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1297919/technical

Jason and Paddy clean up the east end of London...

watch this space mr barlow i did a variable focus diopter last year.big deal.

@ wilson

Reverting to type I see

NIce

Further to my post above, it appears that the Pana was designed for 2.5m distance which is of course -0.4D

So when you add a +0.4D close up, it cancels out 

0.4D -0.4D = 0D

If you were the one to discover this then Kudos to you, nothing to do with achromat BTW :)

It is well known that achromats are specific to the correction of CA. See this reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)#Chromatic_aberration

Basically the flint glass corrects the dispersion caused by the preceding optic, tightens up the rays and causes them to land on the focal plane together. So the blue-yellow and magenta-green CA is diminished. For weak dioptr < 1.0 there is little dispersion and no significant CA to correct so no need for achromat. It is not wrong to use an achromat but it is not essential. Alternatives are high Abbe glass

So why does  a 0.4 close up improve a Century/Optex/Pana over a 0.5? The fact that it is 0.4 power is the answer, it just happens to hit the sweet spot

The Century/Optex/Pana is different from conventional anamorphics  - it is designed to give best results at about 3m hyperfocal distance, which is a compromise based on the average hyperfocal distance for a range of f-stops and focal lengths of a 1/3 inch chip camera. Move out of this range and the image falls apart, I seem to remember with the PD150 - don't zoom more than 5x

Adding a 0.4 D just makes it afocal and better performance at longer distance. It is equivalent to slightly increasing the distance between the front and rear elements

Mr Wilson, I congratulate you on returning this thread to a more civil tone, which I wholly support.

I stand by my previous comment on the need  for achromat below1.0 dioptr, so no need for a theoretical treatise.

If your concern is quality then yes, you get what you pay for and I believe the current favoured solution in Motion Picture and TV is the Schneider water white optical glass single element solution

https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1662

Personally, I use Zeiss T* Proxars on my sweet little sixteens. I love the bayonet quick change.......

Referring to SLR Magic, I was not upset but took a firm stance on why he was sending me PMs but blanking me on the forum. Funny thing was, he was asking about close ups as well. I do not take SLR Magic seriously however and have yet to see any photos OF his prototype so who really knows what was used in the production of the photos he posted. "if it ain't on the page - it ain't on the stage"

As for proving people wrong, that's not my gig, they are well aware of the written word.

I will make you aware of two products I will be releasing in Q1/13 when a Press Release will be sent out. One is related to scopes and the other related to cine lenses.

mr barlow..

you are clever i believe..

 

if you have not got single element or achromatic doublets  or the time to do some tests with anamorphic and double element single element close up combos.

 

 

do it in zemax software.

input single element information then try a  doublet design.

see what the results show..

 

 

i remember you got upset because slr magic did not take your technical advice probably was good advice but do something with your concepts and ideas.

do it yourself and prove everyone wrong.

 

i have many double element close up's.

+0.3..

+0.4

+0.8

and +1

they are all superior to any single element i have.

maybe it does not matter if you are viewing clips on an iphone.

i think you will find  maybe many companies did not make them because of hassle and cost. 

 

and the old method of stopping down as a solution for correcting error.

 

companies like ikegami,fujinon,cooke,isco,angenieux,pentax,elcan leica canada,pacific optical all made low power doublets.

for tv and military contracts.

clearly industries where quality trumped price point.

 

are doublets vital no.

but the very nature of the design requires more care and attention during manufacture.

no cuttings corners here.

china sells a shit  4 dollar single element close up every 10 secs so who got the math correct clearly china.

Oh yeah

Stroke my Hawk 

its really friendly once you get to handle it

Whats this?

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

youre kiddin me right?

Ok 

Now we are in the guilt phase followed by more insults ?? :)

" Only people who think in wider than 2.35:1 allowed! "   Get it?

Are you in for a surprise! :)

Muppet

You're spurting ignorant things my friend.  I'm unable to shoot on an Alexa studio, and unable to shoot on 4perf 35mm film meaing for me, 2x is too much squeeze.  Most people here are in the same boat as me.  But we make do, and actually create things on our 'cheapskate pretender' rigs.  You on the other hand create nothing and instead just come here to stir up trouble with ignorant statements.  

 

As far as hairdressers cars are concerned, you're comparison is pretty dumb.  I'd rather a hairdressers car than no car at all.  

 

Go start a topic on the forums for real cinematographers and leave us cheapskate pretenders alone.  We are not worthy

I will not descend to return your insults

You're in the wrong forum then. i think everyone here knows that cropping the image will yield sharper results. degradation of sharpness is a sacrifice everyone here is willing to make. even without the oval bokeh, the la7200 and century still provide the real flares and a organic look that cannot be replicated in software.

the tokina sharpens the century very well

I dont believe I am in the wrong Forum unless you speak for Andrew.

Anamorphic Cinemascope is and always will be 2x including flares, stretched Bokeh, and 2:1 elliptical aperture reflection

Anything else is a small format cheapskate pretender to the real deal. Like a Porshe 944 hairdressers car :)

just sayin'

Those diopters wont apply any improvement to the sharpness and CA on a century or la7200.  the tokina achromatic actually sharpens them overall.  even at near infinity, the tokina +0.4 improves the century when used on aps-c.

The best way to improve the sharpness on those adapters is , IMO, is to remove them and simply crop the image. Those adapters were designed for the format change from 4:3 to 16:9 and not for their scope properties. 

Back in the day I had an Optex on a PD150 and it was a pain to use zoomed in.