Vladimir

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.

definitely.
 
On a side note the stacking of two off the shelf 2x units presents quite a few limitations.  length of units dictate longer taking lenses or smaller sensors in order to keep field angles small enough to avoid mechanical vignette.  both of which have and adverse effect on dof - meaning the effects from the system don;t show up as much.  also the longer focal lengths require larger diameter glass to provide adequate transmission of light.  I expect a 135mm on full frame, in combination with two 2x anamorphics will result in no faster than f5.6 apertures - even with the taking lens set to f2.8, the size of the anamorphs are gonna limit things.  I think for the ultimate setup based on this concept using off the shelf parts you;d want a kowa b+h and a 120-135mm at f4 on full frame, then a iscorama 54 on the front.  that way dof, fov, transmission, iq, and used sensor real estate are all optimmally balanced.  
What will be rather mad is when something like a big rare Kowa 35 - 2x is partnered with a 75-85mm/f2 on a portrait orientated a7s, then OLIVIA SCOPE is installed up front.   16:9 aspect, with lots of oval defocus, incredible shallow dof, wide angles, efficient transmission and deadly sharp.
 

thanks, u can send me some and i will review them with finished setup) that can be my first review ever
 
i believe i do, but first im gonna do more test (thanks Louis, now i have every component i need). Actually i'm totally ok with sharpness i've already got

Hey there. Everyone is going to have to make their own determination for how much moire they can handle. I'm pretty forgiving because i know most viewers aren't going to think twice about (or even notice) minor instances. But I bought the Mosaic anti-aliasing filter for those times when it goes berserk. Their new design only takes seconds to pop in and out. And lately, I find myself just leaving it in and giving the sharpening a nudge in Resolve. If I wasn't up to my ass in work, i'd do a side by side to show the benefits/sacrifices. But I'm happy wth how it cleans up moire that I'd often see in hair and other fine detail. I don't know if this will help, but it's the only thing I've got (that i can show) that I shot with the anti-aliasing filter from Mosaic. Shooting with vintage glass here too.
 

u can doubt whatever u want. while i'm shooting
and u can sharper any lens u choose in cost of little loss on corners. In atached picture dreamy look is belong more to the nature of 55/1.2 itself instead of created by ana.

here some screengrab from 4x atachment and Nikkor 105/1.8 on a7s, mdf ~1.2m, far from perfect aligning)

SOLD

thank u, im glad someone like results. Have much more ideas to try, sadly always on low budget, so progress is slow)

im finishing my third prototype, need just rectilux to complete all, but already test it. And its great) i've used 105mm and there is no vignette, thats something between 50-60mm on hFOV. My luck there was a post on selling rectilux cdna now while its almost two month till next production of new units. Gonna pay today and waiting package from japan to complete my prototype)

I really like to shoot anamorphic and i spend a lot of time doing little researches, which leads me to invention that i want to introduce. I've learn a lot of information from this subforum, so i want to share my idea here. I believe it gonna be a second breath to independent anamorphic solutions.
So I came up with what anamorphic lenses was originally created for: using whole image sensor area with benefits. Back then there was a film and now we have a 16:9 standart for video and to use it properly id suggest a simple technology: stack together two anamorphic lenses and rotate a camera 90 degree. And then applied 4x coefficient to 9:16 sensor area that results in 2,25:1 ratio:

Of course if u shoot 4K RAW loosing some data is'nt a problem: u're still end up with proper resolution, color and details and even have nice possibility to recompose frame horizontally. But for 1080p recording cameras or 8-bit codecs loosing some data from sensor not the case, is'nt it?) So what do we have:
- 4320x1920 (for 1080p) and 8640x3840 (for 4K) de-squeezed interpolated image that can be downscaled to 1920x850(840) with some color and sharpness benefits
- stack of two anamorphic lenses required longer focal (about 150mm for sankor16f/rectimascope48 stack for FF) but with 4x it comes to pretty the same FOV as 85mm/2x on FF. It also requires smaller aperture to get same DOF. So it results in sharper image with same DOF (multiplied by lack of loss resolution in the camera). Of course increased number of glasses results in some lights losses, about 1 stop i think, maybe less.
- one of the nicest feature of my scheme: it kills rolling shutter effect. I develope idea of that anamorphic solution with a7s model in mind, it's a great camera which suffer from well knowed issue: terrible RS. But when you rotate sensor and applied 4x stack of anamorhic you decreased RS effect in the final image by 4 times (since RS effect appears on horizontal which is became vertical). From now on forget about RS)
- and one issue: its getting even harder to look at monitor: now its 4 times squeezed image. Honestly i always like to shoot anamorphic without desqueezing function that gives me some abstraction and somehow another vision of composition and im not suffering much from 4x squeezing to. Its hard to use monitor to nail a focus but easier with viewfinder. Actually i send a letter to atomos with asking for some cooperation here but got no respond (maybe a reason is my broken english, who know : )
Of course stack of two anamorphots is loosing any ability to focus, but it working well with diopters like usual combo of taking lens and ana - just set them all to infinity.
And im asking here for some help. Im already tested my prototype (later im gonna do post about it) with usual diopters and it worked. But to use it properly i need some variable diopters and for now i can afford only SLR Rangefinder, which have not very high perfomance. But since aperture at my taking lens starts with 3,5 it may work. I know here's a guy, Tito, with a lot of anamorphic stuff, i will ask him for test, but maybe anyone have opportunity to try it to?
PS I know my English is bad so i provided some pic for u guys)

something like that (also u can make some covering to avoid reflections and atached it to front glass)
 

Okay deal.

everyone believed in what they want in the end =/

scam is always like this, waisting your time telling you some "mom" or "sister" thing. I've dealed with one recently and it was same thing. Except only things i lost was my time and hope to sell my gear locally.
The only great thing about this topic is that community is reacted and trying to protect itself. Keep this topic and ask for confirmation of sending that rangefinder to anyone it was promised. Or everything that ull get will be another scam deal with the same rangefinder.
And correct me if i wrong but here's a thing to keep in mind - in many eastern cultures its a honor to fool someone (just take a look at their childrens fairy tails). ES themself is pointing on difference between his and "west" worlds.

if he wanted to protect his sister he would have confessed with ANY reason BUT his sister problem. Isn't that obvious? You are just scared him with that WU camera and now he's want to play more time. I do believe now that piece of family violence is going to see if there's actual cam. Maybe someone whos been scammed can ask WU corp for that footage from Egypt?

if he wanted to protect his sister he would have confessed with ANY reason BUT his sister problem. Isn't that obvious? You are just scared him with that WU camera and now he's want to play more time. I do believe now that piece of family violence is going to see if there's actual cam. Maybe someone whos been scammed can ask WU corp for that footage from Egypt?

scam is always like this, waisting your time telling you some "mom" or "sister" thing. I've dealed with one recently and it was same thing. Except only things i lost was my time and hope to sell my gear locally.
The only great thing about this topic is that community is reacted and trying to protect itself. Keep this topic and ask for confirmation of sending that rangefinder to anyone it was promised. Or everything that ull get will be another scam deal with the same rangefinder.
And correct me if i wrong but here's a thing to keep in mind - in many eastern cultures its a honor to fool someone (just take a look at their childrens fairy tails). ES themself is pointing on difference between his and "west" worlds.

something like that (also u can make some covering to avoid reflections and atached it to front glass)
 

NAP was my first anamorphic attachment i got. Just placed front glass on the rig and put rear int the lens hood. With that i could focus as close as i want, easiest modding ever and best what u can get in terms of IQ and possibilities of using fast lenses. Im using it in my 4x ana project and done a lot of experiments with it. Yes its built like tank and weighs the same, but "not sharp"?) Learn what "aligning" is)

Hello,
I`m new to this forum, but a long term reader, because it is the best forum for information about NX1 (which I own).
The Fuji got my interest for its pleasing colours.
I downloaded two original files from http://www.dkamera.de/news/preview-beispielaufnahmen-der-fujifilm-x-t2/
and discovered, that the codec implemantation may not be very good.
It uses a "High L5.1" variation of mp4 at 102 Mbps with no CABAC and no B-frames unlike for example Sony RX100IV etc.
One I-frame followed by 30 P-frames according to mediainfo and avidemux.
Just like smartphones, but at a higher bitrate.

I think you're victim of a typo. Try 8640x3840 instead of 8540x3840.
I tried it with a 3D render in AE and it worked fine ...even better than I expected.

did a quick test with second prototype, shot with a7s/shogun: 
frame1: 100mm/1.8 wide open, close focus at 1.2m end up 16:9 ratio - will fix that with rectilux (when i can get it :), graded with lumetri in premiere (curves, wheels, lut - mixed all that to test out how grading posibilities is changed with 1/3 additional data - and it feels like it changed noticeably), there is visible lightened areas on top and bottom - thats because front stack of two glasses is poped out of current housing
frame2: closed down to something between f2.8~4 and still missed a focus, so think of it as RS effect test aaand... just look at it
 
and here's a part i totally screwed up - u can clearly can see what's happened) i was so busy nailing focus so didn't notice i forgot to change mode, but still u can watch it as rough background rendition/dof test (wide open, focus at 1-2m, no grading): 
 

im using my sony a7s for two years and havent any issue since the moment of buying. And worth to mention im no carefull user)
Sometimes when i needed to charge two batteries at once ive used a usb port to. No problem with that.

Apologies in advance if this is widely known.  Personally, I've never found a really good explanation of why front anamorphs produce oval bokeh and rear anamorphs don't, despite reading my fair share of patents, technical papers, internet gossip and the like.  Feeling that my own understanding needed some firming up I finally set up some paraxial models and went through the math in gory detail.  It all boils down to how front and rear converters alter (or don't alter) the f/#, and basic DOF type circle of confusion calculations.  It has nothing to do with higher order aberrations, or the shape of the front lens, or various mechanical aspects of the lens.
Briefly:
1) A front anamorph is just a special case of a front afocal attachment, and as a result it preserves the f/# of the lens its attached to.  With an anamorphic front lens the focal length is shorter in the powered axis than in the non-powered axis.  For example, consider a 2:1 anamorph attached to a 100mm f/2 spherical lens.  In this case the net focal length is 50mm in the powered axis and 100mm in the non-powered axis, but in both cases the aperture remains f/2.  If you venture into the weeds to do circle of confusion calculations for a given object-space defocus you discover that a de-focused point source evaluated at the image plane is an ellipse with an aspect ratio of 4:1.  However, you only need to de-squeeze the image by 2x to correct the in-focus geometry, so you are left with de-focused ellipses with an aspect ratio of 2:1.
2) A rear anamorph is just a special case of a rear-mounted teleconverter, and as a result it *does not* preserve the f/# of the lens its attached to.  In particular, in the powered axis the aperture becomes slower.  For example, consider an 50mm f/2 spherical lens with a 2x rear anamorph.  Here the net focal length is 100mm in the powered axis, but the aperture has dropped to f/4, and is still 50mm f/2 in the non-powered axis.  When you do the circle of confusion calculations with object-space defocus you find the on-sensor defocused image to be an ellipse with a 2:1 aspect ratio.  When you desqueeze by 2x this defocus ellipse becomes a perfect circle.
Bottom Line:  Rear anamorphs have circular bokeh because they *don't* preserve the f/# of the spherical lens in both axes, while front anamorphs have elliptical bokeh because they *do* preserve the f/# of the spherical lens in both axes.

if u just rotate a camera then RS still there just in other direction. But if u applied anamorphic and desqueeze in post u got 3.25x/4.2x (for 16:9/2.35:1 ratio) less RS, which is pretty nice i think