BrooklynDan

At a glance, this looks similar to what the FM lens and the Rectilux are doing, but far simpler, lighter, and less complex. And the price is a steal. Hopefully SLR Magic combines this and the Anamorphot 2x in a single housing. No one in their right mind would use the 2x without this. I'm excited. And even more so for the upcoming anamorphic prime lens. In my mind, I dream of having cheap second-hand Alexa 4:3s and inexpensive anamorphic lens sets. Here's hoping that five years from now, this becomes a reality.

From the limited image samples I've seen, it seems to have a slight edge over the FM Module in terms of sharpness and breathing character. Also the build quality and durability seems to be excellent. I still wish that someone would go for the big enchilada and build an all-in-one 2x adapter that incorporates the cylindrical group and the focusing group into a single housing, Whoever does that will win all the marbles (as well as my money).

There's no free lunch in optics. Light, fast, cheap. Pick two. Personally, even though the range is quite short, I think it's useful to have a zoom that can double as a variable prime. Many of the big cinema lens manufacturers (Zeiss, Cooke, Panavision, etc) bend over backwards to provide as many focal lengths as possible in this 24mm-35mm range. There's a reason why Cooke S4s come in 25mm, 27mm, 32mm and 35mm focal lengths. If you're very particular about your frame, a couple of millimeters makes a big difference.

Most short films made by manufacturers to launch their new cameras are very bad. The Canon ones were terrible, the Nikon ones were lame, and the Sony demos are usually just razor-sharp pictures of leaves and temples. I did glean from the behind-the-scenes footage that the director is some dude who works for Samsung. Possibly in a marketing capacity. I.e. not a filmmaker. No properly trained and experienced filmmaker who make a short that lame. My god, there's even a shot of the milk getting tossed into the trashcan! Ow my eyes! I wish that manufacturers would at least be imaginative in who they choose to direct these things. Find some up-and-comer, someone who might have recently had a short in Sundance or some other major festival. Trust me, most of these people are broke as fuck. They'd totally do it. Find someone with a distinctive imagination, toss 'em a camera and some money, and release a decent short. Just don't hire someone from the marketing department to direct your product launch video.

Wow. Canon is getting bodyslammed from all directions. Once Nikon puts 4K into its cameras, it's over.

​Because, traditionally, making a movie requires several different focal lengths ranging from wide to long. Shooting without a wide angle option can be both creatively stifling, as well as impractical if you find yourself in a confined space. Secondly, at least to me, something magical happens when you put on a wide-angle anamorphic lens, particularly around the 35-40mm range. Look at Wes Anderson's use of the 40mm Panavision C-series. Or the wide-angle 'Scope work in the films of John Carpenter or Brian DePalma. It's a look that you can't replicate with a spherical lens. A wide-angle spherical lens has a completely different geometry. On a spherical lens, lines recede into the distance and the edges are stretched out. On an anamorphic lens, the foreground bulges forward and the background wraps around as if it's being projected on a globe. This shot from The Royal Tenenbaums is a great example. Even though it's a wide angle lens (40mm), and the subjects are arranged in depth from front to back, they appear stacked as if it's on a telephoto lens. It's like multiple portraiture. It's an effect that can only be had in anamorphic.

The fact that it works with a 35mm on a speed booster is heartening. That means that it probably work on 35mm on a Super 35 sensor, and maybe even wider if cropping from 16:9. Getting a wide field of view was always a huge problem with anamorphic adapters. The flares and bokeh look great. With the single focus adapter added and the anamorphot locked off at infinity, it's gonna be even creamier and more stretched out. I can't wait to see the results.

​That is a bummer, but at least there's a front filter thread so that you can screw on NDs. I just hope that they engineer their new prime lens to have a solid front. The prototype looked like they simply put a taking lens, the Anamorphot 2x and the Rangefinder into a single housing. The focus ring is at the very front, which will make it very difficult to use with a mattebox. That's one of the biggest complaints people have about the Lomo roundfronts. Taping on NDs with gaff tape is not fun....

They've went even further than this and have announced an all-in-one anamorphic prime lens for full frame cameras with adaptable mounts: http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/06/06/cinegear-2015-slr-magics-rangefinder-and-full-frame-anamorphic-lens-prototype/ Prototype has 70mm focal length. Projected price is gonna be well under 10 grand. And the new Cine Rangefinder is the most practical single-focus conversion I've seen so far. Compared to the FM module or the Rectilux, it's compact, doesn't require lens modification, and has a big 77mm rear thread so it can fit to practically anything. Also, SLR Magic are advertising its use for auto-focus spherical lenses with fly-by-wire focus systems. Pop this bad boy on, and you have classic cine-style manual focus. Hell, it can apparently work with Nikon lenses to reverse the focus throw direction. Neat stuff. And reasonably priced.

I started out as an unpaid intern. I would have killed for $100 a day. If you ask me, that's the real problem. Exploitation of unpaid labor.

I don't think that Super 35/APS-C will be going anytime soon. For photography, maybe, but for motion pictures it is by far the most developed format. It's the perfect equilibrium between sensor size, lens size and depth-of-field. And while full-frame does have a tremendous range of optics available, it doesn't have the specific range that's desired by professional filmmakers. Look at the Leica Summilux primes. From 16mm to 100mm, all super-fast at 1.4, all the same exact size and with an identical front diameter. The Master Primes go from 14mm to 135mm, all virtually the same size and weight, at 1.3. This is something that would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in full frame format. I've never seen a full frame lens wider than 20mm that's faster than T2. Ditto for a full frame lens longer than 85mm. And for people harping about depth-of-field, 1.4 on Super 35 is about equal to 2 on full frame. Hell, if you really got a hard-on for shallow depth-of-field, pick up the new Vantage Ones at T1 for large-format style razor-thin DOF craziness. Either way, the options are there in Super 35. And I haven't even gotten to all the other types of glass. An entire universe of zooms, macros, tilt-shift, periscope, vintage, anamorphic, and all other manner of specialty and custom glass. Spend ten minutes browsing the shelves of Panavision and see how much is available to you in Super 35.

It definitely can't hurt to have a 4K camera. Despite the fact that we're still largely in a 2K world, in 5-10 when 4K becomes universal, it will prove beneficial to have a 4K master backed up. However, a little knowledge can be dangerous. I know for a fact that those same producers who demand that you use a 4K camera, even a cheap one like the GH4 or Black Magic 4K would gladly take an Alexa, even though it shoots 2K ProRes (I know it can do Arriraw but practically nobody under a seven-figure budget does). Because all they need to know is that it's the camera Avengers was shot on. Status is everything.

Considering that the cover image is a Hawk V-Plus and the bulk of coverage revolves around Vantage Film and their work, I can venture to guess that this is a prelude to the official announcement of the Hawk 65 large-format anamorphics. Start saving your pennies now, people! These lenses around probably gonna be in the six-figure price range.

​I went to Arri CSC recently. They had an Arri D21 for sale for 6 grand, 10 grand with an S.Two recorder. It's got a 4:3 sensor based on Arri's laser film scanner technology, so it's designed to emulate film's exposure curve as closely as possible. Ready to go for anamorphic. Spinning mirror viewfinder from a 435. Not saying I wasn't tempted, but especially with the S.Two hung off the back (an EOL piece of gear), it's a heavy beast, but hey, you won't find Arriraw available for less. I'm just looking forward to the day when Alexas hit the four-figure price point as well. We're just now seeing first-gen Alexa EVs touch 30K. It's got all the mojo you could ever want, but it's a bit more practical than the first generation of digital cinema cameras (F35, D21, Origin, Genesis, Viper). One thing Arri learned from the D21 program is that users wanted internal recording. Thus the SxS module on Alexa (and now the Codex inside the Alexa XT). And of course the F35 also requires a solution, somethings besides that giant SRW-1 that usually comes with it.

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor. This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates? That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

​To me, the new Veydra project is a valuable experiment. It really shows what the bargain basement price would be like for an anamorphic prime lens. It's the first real bridge between the lower-end dual focus adapters (SLR Magic and Letus) and project lenses and cinema primes. Nothing like it has ever really existed in that price range, aside from the assorted vintage Lomos and Kowas. And of course, it's only built for the micro 4/3-size sensor. Building an anamorphic prime lens in PL mount for Super 35, even to Rokinon-quality standards would easily cost double. And we don't even know if VeydraScope will be any good. Could be a Hawk V-Lite Jr. Could be an out-of-whack Lomo. Gonna have to see the lens tests to find out. Adapters are cool and all, but useability and flexibility declines at a stronger squeeze ratio. Despite all the different options of squeeze ratio, 2x is really the look. At 1.3x, you can fit wide angles. But 2x, you lose your wide angles unless you build a massive unit. And even then, you'll probably be soft on the telephotos. And building a 2x adapter that actually works with a wide range of lenses is probably impossible. I'm picturing something like Andrew's super-rare 2x Isco Centavision, except on steroids, with maybe a 114mm front diameter and a rear element least the size of the Isco 54. Probably larger. How much would something like that cost? A metric fuckton, I'm thinking. Despite everyone's dreams and wishes, I don't think that decent quality 2x anamorphic glass that's single focus and has a wide range of focal lengths (whether it be an adapter or a series of primes) will ever really reach DSLR price levels. It'll never be as cheap as an L-series lenses, for example. We will not have droves of photographers picking up scores of cheap 'Scope glass at the local photo shop or video store. Just not gonna happen. The difficulty and expense of grinding those cylinders while keeping down distortion and aberration is simply too great. Veydra, however, is a step in the right direction.

​I doubt it's literally the FM glass. Maybe in the mock-up, but I'm sure the finished product will have custom glass. All it proves is that Veydra is using the familiar variable diopter focusing method. The view down the pipe of a Hawk V-series, Cooke anamorphic, Cineovision or JDC lenses is very similiar.

​Fair enough. To be straight up, this isn't the first time I've seen PV glass for sale. Their lens division does a lot of custom work for people. Once in a while, you can find a PV-converted telephoto lens, or rehoused prime lens set for sale. They've re-barreled a lot of glass over the years. The Panaflex, on the other hand, I just can't figure out. I'm 100% sure that Panaflexes were never sold. And from what I've seen, old and damaged Panaflexes are destined for the grinder. How do a couple just slip out? A rift in the time-space continuum?

And for the nostalgically inclined among us, a Panaflex camera to use with your new Panavision lenses: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Collectibles-PANAELEX-SUPER-PANAVISION-3-PERF-PFX-367-G-W-O-LENS-Or-Aces-/181700515641?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a4e31d739 Where the hell is all this stuff coming from?

I don't really understand how this could possibly be, since Panavision doesn't sell their glass, and patents prevent it from being in private hands, but nonetheless, here it is: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rare-Panavision-Auto-Panatar-x2-Anamorphic-Prime-Lens-Set-40mm-50mm-75mm-BNCR-/321707812572?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4ae747a6dc A three-lens lens set of original pre-C-series Auto Panatars. And it can be yours for only $33,000! Whoever picks these up is gonna be the coolest kid on the block!

I recently had to give my laptop in for repair. It's going to take about two to three weeks. I had been working on a feature film screenplay at the time, and had started on a second draft, but the work was proceeding very slowly. Browsing the web and watching stuff was what was taking up the majority of my free time. I don't have cable in my house, do not have a smartphone, and my computer was also my DVD player. Without it, I have essentially been sent back to the 1950s. So I order to stay productive, I decided to continue working on my script....longhand. And writing it out on paper without the benefit of instant rewrites or having the first draft in front of me has really boosted my productivity. I write more pages per day, and think about things very carefully before putting them down on paper. Because if I want to rewrite something, I have to remove the page, and rewrite all of the stuff on it. I have a growing stack of rejected pages in the folder of my binder. Then, after I finish writing, I go to the gym (something else I was loath to do with a Netflix Instant account constantly in front of me), then I retire with one of the many books I have on my shelf that I was meaning to read but never bothered to before I lost my computer. It's a true creative's life. That said, I will hug and kiss my laptop when I get it back from repair. This little vacation from the world of electronic devices was fun, but eight hours of web-surfing is one of the few things that makes me forget about my stresses. It's like a bottle of liquor or a joint. It helps you escape reality. I just hope that I maintain at least part of the discipline I have developed.

I agree, and not just because of the customs issue. When it comes to brick batteries, it's absolutely worth it to stretch a bit and get the name-brand stuff. Li batteries can be very volatile. You're packing a lot of energy into a small rectangle. Well-established brands like Anton Bauer, IDX, Switronix and Bebob have the proper cut-off switches and over-charge detectors both in the battery and in the chargers. You can leave them on blast overnight and not worry about them exploding. Many a house/hotel room/camera truck has been destroyed by unattended overseas Chinese knock-off batteries left on recharge. You can go ahead and cut corners on rigs, rods, matteboxes, follow focuses, stabilizers and other things that won't explode. But for V-mount or AB mount battery, buy from the top shelf. Safety first! (I'm aware I'm being a total jewish mom right now)

​That's great to hear. In the distant future I hope that FM evolves into a system like the old NipponScope design. A single anamorphic group with the focus ring and a selection of taking lenses with the iris ring, and a hard locking mount in between.

The SLR 2x seems to really sing with the 35mm, especially with the diopter attached. The 50 and 85 don't seem to fare so well, even at a 5.6 And I'm still not clear, is this a dual focus or single focus lens? It seems to have inherited the zone focus set-up of the 1.33x, but I can't imagine that you can just set the range on the anamorphot and just rack focus with the taking lens. The astigmatism inherent in a 2x system to way too high. Even the vast majority of fixed-focus 1.33x adapters had issues keeping focus across the frame, so with a 2x, constant dual-focusing seems to be necessary, unless you add a variable diopter.

The quality is superb. Maybe even better than when using the FM + Cinelux with regular primes. Employing the actual backing projector lenses just makes everything gel together beautifully. The look is more than a match for any vintage anamorphic prime lens. You'd be hard-pressed to get better sharpness with a Lomo or Cineovision, especially at T2. I wish that FM would actually go and make an anamorphic element specifically for the module, as well as a line of backing lenses. Make a complete system.