chris24g

Great info, Dan! I always wondered why the ring was red. Science! Magnesium explains that. I do happen to have a 50mm f1.4 screw mount Takumar and I did notice that it produced the halo with a bright enough source. It wasn't as prominent/obvious as the panys. The lens has yellowed some due the glass being radioactive, so maybe that affected it.

The 1.8x looks promising, but I do think 4:3 and other "square-ish" ratios will be available in the future. The other thing to consider is that people will still use film (16mm and super 8 will come back for short form productions). Non super 16 cameras and super 8 cameras would require the 2x compression. Super 16 could still benefit from 2x since you could safely frame shots without worrying about dirty edges (digital guys scratching their heads right now). I think 1.8x would definitely work in the short term, 2x would be future proof (since you cannot change the history of anamorphics). But if you're going to do 2x you can skip the multicoating, or just do a single coating like the old lenses. It has to flare. We can buy flags and black wrap and learn to control light better. Finally, there is one lens artifact that I have not seen reproduced by any "ownable" lens, and that is the prominent circular red halo around light sources (eg. The Thing (1982)). I can only guess that it is some internal relection/refraction in the spherical optical block behind the anamorphic, but maybe you can explain what it is and if it can be duplicated. I bought one of the very first speedboosters for my pocket camera, so I am very excited to see what you will come up with. speedbooster is a lens behind the taking lens which concentrates light into a smaller area, anamorphic is in front of the taking lens, so it doesn't get more light into the lens, just a wider horizontal fov.

the tokina 11-16mm does not need IS. at 11mm, it is extremely wide and is very hand holdable. unstable, handheld shots are not a crime. have a look at Children of Men.

This is my first post (although a long time lurker). Tarantino movies are fun because he is all at once so irreverent and a purist. He made this movie for film nerds like himself. But mostly for himself. Unfortunately, I feel the film was celluloid masturbation on his part. He had the power and the clout to make Panavision rescue some old glass, so he did. Good for him for saving those ultra lenses. I like vintage glass too. That's why we're here, no? But to shoot movie that is 95% interior in anamorphic 65mm is like using a 4x5 camera for passport photos. The panoramic shots he did get off were very nice, albeit a bit stark. Not his best movie, but Samuel Jackson with a Tarantino script is like chocolate unicorn malted milk. Whole milk, not soy or almond or that 1% bullshit. And in a tall glass. IMHO, he should have traded cameras with Alejandro Innaritu. I cannot even fathom how The Revenant would have looked in ultra 70. Don't get me wrong, I loved how he rocked that Alexa with the wide lens for most of the movie. sigh... Well, maybe Mr. Innaritu is eyeballing those nicely refurbished lenses now.