ken

1 hour ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

Well... first off the -Hypergonar Baby 1.75x is going to be hard to find. You will have better luck taking a picture of Big Foot. 

 

The Hypergonar Hi fi 2 has a lovely cinematic image but is very cumbersome from what I hear and a beast to use. Might be worth it.

 

-Hypergonar mini STOP 2x - There is a nice one on eBay now with a descent price. I almost want to buy it. Have to many. It's addicting.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/HYPERGONAR-CINEMASCOPE-16-m-m-BENOIST-BERTHIOT-ANAMORPHIC-FRENCH-LENS-H-CHRETIEN/322250633294?_trksid=p2050601.c100607.m4280&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D37338%26meid%3D57e14076fc5b4103807253a616f6344e%26pid%3D100607%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D1%26sd%3D322250633294

There are also mounts available and videos on line as you know.

 

I went crazy for two years until I got my hands on a Baby Hypergonar. I will be taking it to the grave. I'm sure someone here might dig me up for it  Get what you can and use it and keep an eye out.

 

Cheers!

 

 

How are the front and rear diameter?

6 hours ago, Justin Bacle said:

Thanks for this usefull tool  

I just have a (stupid) question, are the schneider cinelux and isco ultra-star considered long scope or short scope ?

IMO, they are in between.  100mm taking lens in FF is safe.  Using 85mm with close focus and wide open aperture is ok.  Since Schneider has larger glass size, reducing vignette has a little bid advantage.   

IMO, this is second widest cheap lens besides 16h.  But the rear size is too small (43mm or less).   So better used for APS-C or smaller CMOS.  

1 hour ago, funkyou86 said:

Another lens porn, here:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dream-Lens-1-Moller-Moller-Anamorphot-Anamorphic-32-1-5x-not-16-32-1-5x-/131925033731?hash=item1eb7584303:g:~aUAAOSwMgdXxJQ7

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dream-Lens-2-KOWA-Prominar-35mm-x1-5-Anamorphot-Anamorphic-Cinemascope-/131925086098?hash=item1eb7590f92:g:WrMAAOSwxg5Xxyqg

better investment, than gold.

Are they single focus?

10 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

For anyone else interested in the Singer 16D don't listen to Ken. 50mm works fine on Super 35mm with the Ursa Mini. No vignetting. Not sure why he was so confident it's "impossible".

What I said is based on FF, nothing wrong.  According to TITO's calculator, comparing with 16H, you can see how much difference.  

By the way, IMO, without vignetting, must be focus at infinity with small aperture to test.

57 minutes ago, AaronChicago said:

I've been searching everywhere online but cannot find this answer. What are the front/rear diameter dimensions of the Schneider ES Cinelux 2x?

70.6mm standard rear thread, as all the big 35mm film projector lens.

1 hour ago, AaronChicago said:

Really? When I ordered my clamps from Vid Atlantic they made it sound like 50mm would work on Super35mm. They even have this photo with a Nikkor 50mm (granted its a 5D)

http://www.vid-atlantic.com/lensshop/sankorsinger-16d-lens-kit-w-extras

Impossible.  That is why you need 

16D needs 135mm or over on FF.

16H can go below 85mm on FF.

45 minutes ago, liamlumiere said:

I have a similar question to the OP so thought I'd ask here instead starting a new topic.

I'm mixing 4K anamorphic footage with normal 16x9 4K footage from an a7rII. I'd like to know my maximum resolution I can export without scaling up.

My project settings in FCPX are 2880x1080 which will give me an aspect ratio of 2.66:1. I've stretched out the ana clips and scaled the 16x9 4K to 150%, chopping off the top & bottom.

Is my max res output at this ratio 3840x1080?

 

IMO, only need to squeeze on vertical pixels.  Because "4K UHD is a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines (8.3 megapixels, aspect ratio 16:9) " from Google.

Hi, I just used two different 2x front and rear lens and got at least 2.8x ratio.  But looks like it needs much longer FL taking lens to use.

P.S. Image taken by hand hold front lens, 3m distance, resized only.

filter thread added.

First time see this lens: http://www.ebay.com/itm/131898924430

It is a big lens.  So I am not interested in it.  Do you think how much it is worth?

1 hour ago, bzpop said:

I can try to guess if you tell if it's 2x or 1,33x

2X for sure.  1.33x does not have so wide ratio for 3:2 Cmos.

BTW, no any process, resized only.

I just uploaded some photos, guess what anamorphic lens used.  https://flic.kr/s/aHskFDZaXB

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir said:

Main issue with ISCO is OOF character imo. ...

I don't understand it.  why?  Comparing with which lens, can you explain more?  Thanks.


 

I bought this lens just curious about the 1.5x~2x.  But when I saw the distance scale are different from other anamorphic lens(longest is infinity).  Then found it is as SLR rangefinder(shortest is infinity).  So realize it contains a focus module.   I tried to set prime lens in focus distance, won't get clear image.  Must set to at infinity, then focusing by anamorphic lens only.  The closest focus distance actually can go under 4M.     

5 hours ago, HellVideoRazor said:

No. They vary in coverage as also flares. But they are pretty close.

Do you think Möller & Rathenowerwhich which lens's flare is better? 

I have Möller lens only, the flare is very good IMO.  

2 hours ago, HellVideoRazor said:

Well, until now it was a secret.

http://www.diehroptic.ch/essays/2016/04/single-focus-for-moeller-rathenower-64-x2/

Are Möller & Rathenower the same lens in optics?
 

4 hours ago, IshootbeforeItalk said:

Lens looks gorgious. Looks like an adjustable stretch with those markings.

Yes.  

Believe or not? Found another new world.

This is the quick test video, used as 2X.

Did any one know about it?

Mine is $50 off, $650 ship. 
 

Any one knows this lens?  http://www.ebay.com/itm/291823809693

How come it looks crooked?

 

9 hours ago, airfox said:

still have the 8z/16H? price? condition?

US$700 including shipping

9 minutes ago, airfox said:

still have the 8z/16H? price? condition?

16H, front glass excellent, rear has very light cleaning marks.  Market price.

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I hate the fact that you keep peddling these shit lenses to people, they are a complete & utter waste of time & money.

To hell with sharp, as Anamorphic lenses are all about the defects they produce & a little about the flares.

My advice to the OP is to do some searches in this section of the forum, as we have gone over & over which lenses are good.

There is so much info here, it's stupid. Spend a while looking at different posts - you might have to go back a while to avoid all the bad advice that is handed out by this guy Ken.

Don't take offence Ken, but you really do hand out some really shit advice when it comes to Anamorphics.

I sold my B&H and others, keep ISCO.  You need to compare the value and performance.  All these are dual focus lenses.