Julien416

21 hours ago, photographer-at-large said:

Vazen 28mm

That's a pretty interesting lens. It equals roughly a S35 40mm f3 image wise and bokeh wise which is pretty cool especially considering its small size. Image looks really nice, even though I kind of regret the saturated blue flares that looks like a cheap knock-off of Panavision primo's flares.

Vazen guys would be really smart to work with some dop's and directors to find a better look. Anamorphic is about the look, it's a very fine line that separates a bad lens from an organic, desirable one. They really need some inputs from pros. Also the non swappable lens mount is a major turn-off as the M43 mount seems in jeopardy on the mid term horizon.

Good job nonetheless. 

21 minutes ago, androidlad said:

It's really easy to find out using the published specs.

I guess I didn't try enough ? Thank you for you answer though.

21 minutes ago, androidlad said:

In S35 mode it's all 1:1 readout, including the 4:3 mode, which is 3328 x 2496,  or 19.67 x 14.79mm window.

Beware because I believe S35 and 1:1 readout are different ! 

However, if the anamorphic S35 mode is indeed a 1:1 readout, my take is that it's most unfortunate. It's a 20% crop compared to the academy size or even the Alexa. A 40 becomes roughly a 50, etc. I can't make up my mind reading the specs on the panasonic site, it isn't crystal clear, really.

I can still use the FF anamorphic mode and crop obviously but it would be a lot simpler to have a dedicated legacy mode to match it with academy  anamorphic size or even the slighly cropped Alexa's 4/3 sensor size (23,76x17,82mm).

Hi, 

A question to s1h owners. Disclaimer : it's going to be a tedious one.

I havent' been able to find what is the anamorphic crop factor. 

I believe you can shoot anamorphic in either s35 and FF modes. But what are the windows size? I guess in FF it justs removes the sides to create a 31,7x23,8 window. That is pretty good and unheard of. 

Now the tricky part. It's not that clear for S35. Is it a 4/3 window cropped into the 16/9 S35 modes (24.89x14mm) ? In that case it would make a 18,66x14mm s35 anamorphic mode. 

For instance academy anamorphic mode window is 24.89x18.66mm. If that's the case we'd have two modes that do not correspond to the legacy anamorphic size. That would be a bummer. I like a 50mm to be used a 50mm.

Or I am completely wrong and the s35 anamorphic mode is more of less the academy size window and in that case Panasonic deserves to be worshipped until the end of times ?

I'd be delighted to know. If someone can clear this for me, he'd be the real winner here. Thanks. 

There is no free lunch mate.

@Emanuel it's a gear forum. An anamorphic gear forum. Of course people will get heated and talk about silly and useless details. What honestly did you expect? 

2 hours ago, kye said:

I suspect that shooting anamorphic because you want the flaws is a low budget thing (and because at low budget you can't get sharp well-behaved optics so there's no choice).

It's like saying that people only shoot FF to have shallow DoF.  Or MFT because they want a small camera.

You might make the point that Hollywood cinematographers often like vintage glass because of the softness and rendering, which is true, but there's also a large segment of Hollywood that have the attitude of capturing things in the highest quality possible (meaning highest resolution and most neutral rendering) so that they can push the image around in post later on.  It's not a POV you hear a lot, but lots of big movies are shot with this principle.

Let's agree to disagree. On my shootings, I can get any optic I want and will always go with those with aberrations. I am not bragging, I am not directing crazy stuff with dozens of millions, but it's big enough so that optic prices are not a consideration. I am not talking about crazy Lomo style aberrations obviously. But I want lenses to bring textures and imperfections. Of course I only represent myself but I consider myself part of a larger trend. I talk to Dop's, to directors, all the time. I am not so different from them.

Open any american cinematographer issue, the vast majority of Dop's going for the anamorphic look will talk about imperfections and texture with wine tasting terms. Arri master prime anamorphics are the most boring lens you can imagine. It basically looks like a clinical spherical lens with an oval aperture. Some may like it. But the fact that Arri eventually created a "flare set" to try to dirty its look (badly) will tell you enough about how successfull it was... If I want a clean look, i'll go with spherical, end of story. If I want texture, I'll go with anamorphic. Why do you think it even still exists ? There is NO point with today's camera to keep squeezing twice the width of an image. None. 

A quick look on this chart that was posted in your topic should tell you enough. 

Basically the number one is a clean as fuck spherical lens, and the number 2 is a 55 years old anamorphic series featuring about every single aberrations anamorphic can bring. Tells a lot about the dichotomy of the market.

The genesis is basically a f35 with a panavision logo on it. Nobody uses it anymore. 

The rent quotes aren't that high, at least where I live. I've worked a lot with them and they indeed are the best of the bunch.

Older pana anamorphics are supposedly rebranded minolta / nikon or cookes glasses with from god know where anamorphic glasses (I've read that shiga provided some of them) 

1 hour ago, leslie said:

thats just like trippin without the mushrooms  ?

Well what can I say ? That's anamorphic. The sole principle is already an aberration. Ask David Fincher about anamorphic, he will punch you in the face and will start talking about the insanity of putting a bent glass in front of his camera.

People love anamorphic because it looks weird and funky, not because it looks precise and well corrected. The master prime anamorphic are the not very popular amongst most DOP because of their sterile look ie. a spherical look with elongated bokeh. No breathing, no aberration. A perfect - and boring - look. 

46 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

And personally... I like the image just fine. Most of us are shooting 4K these days... soon 8K will come. Things are going to get more crisp and clinical. Sometimes you've gotta let go of clinging on to what you know, feels familiar and embrace some of the new. Film has always evolved. Whether black and white... color... HD... 4K.

You have every right to like it. It's just not my cup of tea. Of course I do not pretend representing anyone else than myself but I believe I also have the right not to like. Can I ?
And in a world where 90% of theatrical releases are still 2K, 8K sounds silly to be honest. The same world where the new it lens of the moment is the Arri signature, in short old rehoused  hasselblad large format lenses. It seems people are clinging on familiar things...  

DOP's and directors are looking for textures and look. Even if I reckon the audacity and novelty of Sirui's lens, I find this lens lacks for these two factors. But I am glad it exists nonetheless !

The Vazen 40mm looked a lot better (or worse optically), and hopefully Sirui presence will help bringing their prices down. Also the Vazen 28mm looks to be much smaller and manageable for most people. Let's hope the price follows.

37 minutes ago, Rudolf said:

Sorry I really don't get the point of that lens except it might be cheap (if you only want to shoot at 50m). The image is so dull and boring to say the least. Don't get me wrong Tito: You are really into what you are doing and very dedicated but as a long time "vanilla" hobbyist I am - I would not waste my money for something like that. I liked your video but honestly subtract slowmo and music and just judging on the image you'd be better of with a more beautiful spherical lenses. If you cannot afford a better looking lens or don't have the patience and dedication to cope with other solutions better don't bother. I mean honestly if you are willing to spent 2,000 for an Iscorama you get the most versatile best looking image you can dream of for that cheap. Still such a bargain compared to this! (Sorry for moaning and coming up with the "iscorama-prayer mill"  )

I am with you on that one. It looks like all the people suddenly forgot why they were shooting anamorphic in the first place. It's for the look and the imperfections ! Barrel distortion, uneven waterfall bokeh, internal reflections, raimbow artifacts, blooming. That is the anamorphic look everyone has been trying to mimic over the years. 

I mean, if I am looking for a sharp and precise look, i'll shoot with a spherical lens and that will be it. I understand this lens serves a purpose in the grand scheme of things, but no need to overhype it.

1 minute ago, Tito Ferradans said:

So far, every time I brought the subject of synchro focus up with lens techs and manufacturers, everyone was horrified. The main issue is the focus curve isn't linear for both lenses, so travel for each lens is set differently and controlled by a "master" helicoid, which is the focus ring.

I saw some russian who 3D printed a double helicoid adapter to fit his projection lens and a taking lens. Worked very well but it was bulky as shit, and made the combination look like a tank. It's no magic. Especially if you do it from scratch. Proof is that Sirui did it for their first lens...

What's fascinating, is that no one has done it before. The fact that the anamorphic ratio varies means that the lens is very simple optically. Just synced heliocoids, and no fancy optical elements to correct the mump effect. It's basically an off the shelf 50mm formula mechanically linked with a x1.33 element à la SLR magic. Feels like 1955 all over again in terms of anamorphic history (minus the X2 ratio). 

I really don't get why SLR magic never bothered to produce such a combo. They had the lens and the adapter after all. But well done Sirui nonetheless, that's a great first step. Hopefully there will be more.  

I am not so sure about the Sirui effect. SLR magic was supposed to do that but didn't.

But as soon as somone will make an affordable X2 lens, this market will indeed start shrinking I reckon. But greed (the good ol' "anamorphic lens are expensive to make") will probably stop people from going under the 1K bar before long.

@Tito Ferradans x1,33 is no x2.

Two very different ballpark. The sirui is pretty nice but to many it's a glorified spherical lens with a flare set... A nice one. But anamorphic is more than flare, you know that very well.

I am not sure people will stop buying the best projector lenses to get a sirui instead. 

1 hour ago, mercer said:

In your opinion what is a good price for a very good to mint condition copy of:

Kowa 16a, 16d, 16s

Kowa B&H

Kowa 16H/8z

Elmoscope II

Thanks again, I appreciate your guys' help!

That's a tough one. But a mint Kowa 16a/d/s will cost you around 250-350 dollars

A mint 16h/elmoscope/B&H will cost you aroung a 1000 dollars. You might pay a couple hundred less if you accept a few scratches here and there.

For the last two months, I've been looking to get a blue coating 16h, but because I already have a Kowa B&H and a yellow 16h, I wasn't ready to pay a lot. Finally bought a chipped lens for 250 dollars. It really was for the sake of having them all (the Pokemon way, I am hopeless). Turns out, the chipped part barely impacts the image (actually brings a nice flare with extreme bright spot lights). What I mean is, don't necessarily go for the perfect lens, otherwise you might end up paying a premium price. A few scratches really do not impact image quality up to a certain point.

The largest you can have in full frame with projection lenses is, according to my findings, around 50mm with a Kowa 16h/8z. It will have funky distortions on the sides and will vignette heavily. 55/58mm would probably be the safest width. But anyhow, a single focus solution will be limited to around 75mm in full frame with the rectilux, and probably a few more mm with the FVD 16.

Use Tito's excellent anamorphic calculator, it's a time saver.

Honeslty, the Sirui is quite impressive as long as you crave 1.33 anamorphic. Flares are pretty nice and lens looks sharp as hell. It's a fantastic first step in the right direction, which is affordable anamorphics.

Since Chretien's invention of hypergonar in the... 20's, nothing much has been invented in the anamorphic world, yet, for obscure reasons, everytime you look up for an anamorphic lens, its price is in the thousands of dollars range. I guess it's about to change ! Hopefully.

Don't get on your high horse @Emanuel, I was talking form factor wise. It's just not my cup of tea. I do not pretend representing anyone else than myself. Different needs, different solutions. 

I do not want a crane. I just want a run & gun solution to go with my already clunky anamorphic lenses. The s1h looks divine on paper. With a little polish it could be the perfect camera (for me). 

2 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

Guys, nothing, really nothing beats Blackmagic Pocket camera series... as simple as that ; ) You should all know it! : -)

Ibis is missing, camera is clunky and battery lasts 15 minutes. I know there are workarounds and the image is absolutely gorgeous, but I just want something that works straight out of the box without hiccups and additionnal gear. 

Just now, deezid said:

Renting the Pocket 4K atm for almost every shooting atm while the S1H stays home. ?

Every new panasonic cameras have shortcomings when released. There's a lesson to be learned there. Don't be a first buyer. I am keeping an eye on the S1H myself. But at the moment it really feels unpolished, especially at the asked price. I'll wait a bit. 

1 minute ago, deezid said:

Thinking about selling my stuff and get a pocket 6k again...

Mate, you should really think about renting gear...

14 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Do not touch the Kowa Prominar 16s (I think that's what it's called, it has a narrow protruding rear element which is silver/metal) - it's not suitable at all, as its for super16 & vignettes like crazy. I mention this as some sellers try to pull fast ones with people mistaking it with it's bigger namesake.

I think there is a mistake right here. According to my knowledge (an having a 16-S), it's almost exactly the same lens as the 16-D. The listing you linked even says they have the same rear diameter (43mm), as for the front diameter, they are the also the same as HTN front adapters to couple it with rectilux were compatible between 16-S and 16-D (I also have one). The second listing from @heart0less even states they share the same weight at 290 grams. 

To sum it up : Kowa 16S and Kowa 16D are almost the same exact lens.

13 minutes ago, mercer said:

Do you know how the 16S compares to the 16D? They seem similar but the 16S are a little cheaper. I guess the Bell & Howell is the jewel of the Kowa lineup?

You can't go wrong with either Kowa 16, S and D are essentially the same.

The Bell and Howell is indeed the most expensive of all, yet, it's exactly the same lens than the 16h, the 8Z and the elmoscope 2. Same Glass, same flares, some older 8z and 16h have purple coatings that will make them flare like the 16s and the D. Otherwise the B&H and its siblings all have yellow coatings. they cover the largest field of view and look really great.
 

16 minutes ago, mercer said:

I can't even imagine shooting with those Panavisions. I get excited when I shoot with my EF modified Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L. Haha, I probably wouldn't even know what to do with the Panavision. 

You would learn really fast. They aren't that complicated

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

And as far as sharpness goes, most films are shot around F4 - 5.6

Well I wouldn't be so sure about that. In the film days, it was the case, but in 5 or 6 years of anamorphic shootings, commercials or narrative, we are more than often around 2.8, 2.8 and a half. We go up to 5.6/8 only when shooting large establishing shots outside. 

12 minutes ago, mercer said:

What camera do you use? That's pretty cool that you can intercut the Hypergonar with Panavision lenses. I think they used a Panavision 32mm in Jaws.

On the show we shot with 2 Alexa mini. For the inserts and establishing I used my GH5s quite a lot. Dop wasn't that enthusiastic at the beginning, but he loved the Hypergonar and was satisfied enough with the GH5s images in the grading room.

As for Jaws, I think they actually used a panavision C series : 35 / 50 / 75 / 100. Formidable lenses. The bests I've ever used obviously.

1 hour ago, heart0less said:

You could always try renting your setups to get some money back, if you don't mind other people fiddling with gear. 

Oh, I'd fear some scratches or worse. These are personal toys after all. And I am still not done, I am contemplating the idea of buying a new housing for the Kowa 16d. And those voiglanders would sure look fine coupled with the rest...
But you're right, I'll probably rent them to the production company of the next season of my show as a B set for insert shots. 
 

12 hours ago, mercer said:

What's your set up?

It seems that the C/Y Zeiss 85mm will be the cleanest, most cost effective solution if I want to go with a Rapido housing. Actually, it's quite possible my Rollei Zeiss 85mm is pretty close in dimensions to the C/Y version... I think they're the same lens optically with the Rollei Zeiss lacking the T coating.

Also, I noticed some folks use the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm 1.4. I have the 50mm and am pretty impressed by it, so maybe that's an option as well if I have to purchase a lens.

I have several front housings with Cinelux, Kowa 16h, Hypergonar and Dyaliscope 16
And four taking lenses housings : Jupiter 9, Helios, Contax 50 and 85.
and a rectilux to focus them.

I just switch back and forth between those, creating different looks, from very clean to vintage fest depending on my mood or what I am planning to shoot. I used the Hypergonar / Helios combination on a TV series last year for close ups that I matched with Panavision glasses, worked pretty well but I felt stuck with the vintage look (figured out later that my Helios was a lemon). That's why I went for the "choose your look" route since then with different options.

I know. I am sick.