robbing

Part of a short movie I´m working.
Hope you like it.
 

Hi,
At this time just I see everything in CinemaScope.
Would like to share some of my test and evolutions:
With 550D and hypergonar 4 years ago:
 
Bolex 16mm Kodak Vision 2 with the front part of a Lomo square front,3 years ago:  Blackmagic Pocket with front part of Lomo square front:
 
 
 

Hi,
At this time just I see everything in CinemaScope.
Would like to share some of my test and evolutions:
With 550D and hypergonar 4 years ago:
 
Bolex 16mm Kodak Vision 2 with the front part of a Lomo square front,3 years ago:  Blackmagic Pocket with front part of Lomo square front:
 
 
 

I see,
 
Very complex thing. Need perfect distance with rear attachment and prime to the front one or astigmatism comes as hell.
There are other way: Fix the taking lens to the rear ANA and make a mechanism that the block move in-out of the camera. This is how anamorphic Lomo primes works.
Still very complex because the taking lens only need move a few mm from the sensor (Lomo´s focus ring have a pin that make this little move to the spherical block), and the cylindrical rear lens need move too much. 
 
good luck

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

Visual concept for future project:
 
BMPCC,Lomo 35 Square front with 14mm and 50mm

Hi,
If someone want one:
I found this one in Ebay.
http://www.ebay.es/itm/Lomo-Anamorphic-Block-35-10-3-F-35-1-2-5-/191647965185?hash=item2c9f1be001&clk_rvr_id=878482198961&rmvSB=true
I have the same one and I use it as adapter because I missing the focus mechanism of his prime.
Perhaps is a good opportunity.
Using this Lomo as adapter is the only one ANA x2 that can use very wide angle lens,from 28mm or 24mm to tele lens in APS or 4-perf 35mm film gate.
Close focus to 1m. 90º focus ring turn from 1m to infinite. Panavision like flares.
The ironic is that front ANA get better result with modern primes than his own spherical prime.
THE ISSUE: double focus. (Until someone develop a focus module for this Lomo. if this happens,I´m done...no more anamorphic lens searching,a huge ANA set just with one adapter)
 
Artifacts:
Barrel distortion
Chromatic aberration on the edges. (More noticeable using wide angle primes)
very Mump effects
very blue flares.
.....Anamorfic...you know.
 
 

A little CGI short with Blackmagic Pocket and square front Lomo anamorphic as adapter.
 

A little CGI short with Blackmagic Pocket and square front Lomo anamorphic as adapter.
 

I don´t know about other people,but I would like to see a real,physical product and some test done by professional photographer before pay for this.
If also I can suggest something for the design..
I think this modules should be black matte paint,dented ring for follow focus,distances scale feet and meters and 90º ring turn. 
Right now,the CGI looks like a toy.

In flickr I have many anamorphic and Xpan photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29238162@N04/
My 2 cents.

I don´t know about other people,but I would like to see a real,physical product and some test done by professional photographer before pay for this.
If also I can suggest something for the design..
I think this modules should be black matte paint,dented ring for follow focus,distances scale feet and meters and 90º ring turn. 
Right now,the CGI looks like a toy.

I don´t know about other people,but I would like to see a real,physical product and some test done by professional photographer before pay for this.
If also I can suggest something for the design..
I think this modules should be black matte paint,dented ring for follow focus,distances scale feet and meters and 90º ring turn. 
Right now,the CGI looks like a toy.

John,
I wrote you a PM a month ago and never get response from you.
 

It's more an aesthetic choice than anything. While you can fake the look (poorly) using string and an oval aperture cut-out, the flares, distortion, and character of the image don't really look the same. Then again, eBay adapters don't really look like Panavision anamorphic lenses, either.
But it's always been an aesthetic choice (at last in recent history). Look at how much was shot in 2.35:1 two perf as an alternative to anamorphic in the 90s and oughts. Michael Bay is an interesting example... shot Bad Boys II in 2.35:1 spherical then moved to anamorphic exclusively until he switched to shooting on both digital and film. Some DPs don't like the unnatural look of anamorphic lenses (Roger Deakins never uses them, while he does shoot 2.35:1 at times); some directors just like the nostalgia (JJ Abrams). There's a bit more resolution, sure, and a finer grain structure on film, but it's primarily an esthetic choice, rather than a technical one, and has been for decades.
When digital became popular, it was difficult to shoot anamorphic because of the 16:9 sensor size resulting in a 3.5:1 image, so shooting anamorphic became rarer on digital formats and perceived as more "high end." Every element of anamorphic has a totally different look, from the bokeh, to the distortion, to the flares, and some directors (Anthony Mandler) even embraced the 3.5:1 look. Meanwhile only the Alexa Plus has a 4:3 sensor so between renting that and anamorphic lenses you're spending a lot of money. So it's a way to make your production look high end... check out the new Total Recall (Epic) and Ninja Turtles movies to see digital anamorphic photography on high end CGI-filled features. Check out the Lego Movie (or, Wall•E) to see an anamorphic look on pure CGI... total aesthetic choice here, but it makes it look more "real" and more high end. The weird lens artifacts take off a bit of digital sterility.
On the ultra low end hobbyist side, the Iscorama (still hoping to buy one) seems particularly nice because it gives you 2.6:1 and lets you focus and use a variety of lenses, but we'd all rather be using an Alexa Plus and Panavision lenses in theory. But anamorphic could give you the right look for the right project. If I'm doing a Spielberg 80s homage like Super 8 or something I'd much rather be shooting anamorphic. If a director wants it you should be able to provide it. If you're the director and you don't care, yeah, pass. I think the 1.33:1 adapters seem odd.
Treat it as an aesthetic choice, not a technical one. Ultimately, every choice is.
Fwiw, a lot of anamorphics are decently sharp at t2.8. And sharp isn't always the goal. 1080p is enough resolution to let you focus on texture and grain, not just crispness. If you watch the Dark Knight blu ray (not my favorite movie, but whatever) you can see that the IMAX portions are way sharper than the anamorphic portions even at 1080p! But the anamorphic photography has a good look. Very organic. Those are some nice looking movies. Kaminski doesn't shoot anamorphic (at least not much that I know of) but he softens and distorts the image in a really organic way through other means while still getting a sharp enough image for projection and blu ray.

Awesome!
Tried with tele adapter on a Sankor 16D and it works too.
Thank you so much for this thread!
 
I think just need a wide or tele converter with 2 components,the wide and the diopter,dissasemble and use the wide one to get in focus.
I would like to do this with my Lomo square front too. So,the issue is get a huge lenses with the same power (in opposite?) -10 and +10 for example,right?
Perhaps here:
http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/optical-lenses/cylinder-lenses/