Zalem got a reaction from Grimor in Rectilux Hardcore DNA to KOWA 16S
His front ring enables you to attach the HCDNA safely (75mm threads) AND it also locks focus on the Kowa which means you don't have to worry about torque. It's an amazing product for a good price. Very nice guy as well.
I assume the 16-S has the same front diameter as the 16-D. Amazing lens, very underrated.
Zalem reacted to Bioskop.Inc in Mumps with the Kowa 16h/8z/B&H
Yep, small & no moving parts.
Never seen any distortion with the Isco Widescreen 2000 or it's smaller counterpart the Isco S8/X2 - again, small lenses & no moving parts, as they're fixed focus.
Just got to remember that Anamorphics are completely different from spherical lenses - for the most part, you just aren't going to get this lovely pristine look. Most people who turn to anamorphics tend to like & want all the imperfections, what is normally described as a lens having character. They're not for everyone, that's for sure. If you just like the flares, then there are plenty of options out there - blue streak filters etc. Same goes for Oval Bokeh - you have options now.
IMHO it's sacrilege to want to make these lenses fit into a prescribed look. They have their own look, which a lot of people love & you adjust yourself for the really serious distortions (like the big fat heads in close ups). It's like that Lens thread that has been overtaken by certain people posting examples of newish lenses, which you can find examples of all over the net - it kinda ruins the whole point of why that thread was started in the first place. Love the vintage look, gotta love the imperfections.
Zalem reacted to Bioskop.Inc in Mumps with the Kowa 16h/8z/B&H
"Anamorphic Mumps" occur when you're doing a close up of, say, a person & was a common feature of early Cinemascope lenses, which was later fixed in some makes, but not all. The Mumps doesn't appear at longer distances. It's basically to do with the fact that at closer range, you loose the x2 squeeze ratio & when you go to desequeeze in post you get the mumps.
What @ken, said is probably correct - the fact that they were also projector lenses would have meant that they would hardly have ever been used to project at close range. Don't know if one Kowa branded adaptor is different from another, but am guessing that they won't be - I was always led to believe that the B&H branded ones just had better QC on the glass used.
So, I'm guessing user error/misunderstanding is to blame for the examples of the mumps that you've seen on the B&H, rather than one example being worse than another. This is common when people start to use anamorphics & is compounded even more by people using wide angle lenses with these attachments to do close ups. So many quirks, not enough time or energy to explain everything.
The mumps is summed up best thus:
"The Problem and the Fix... The problem was called "CinemaScope Mumps", in which the center of the image received less horizontal squeeze when the lenses were focused at short distances. When projected, the center of the image was expanded more than its original compression. In the early days of anamorphic photography close-ups were avoided. When they were deemed necessary, the actor was placed either to the right or left of center where the inconsistent squeeze would pose no problem. It is easy to see what Gottschalk and his team at Panavision were able to accomplish. The upper image is a close up taken with an early Bausch and Lomb CinemaScope lens and the lower image is a 35mm reduction print taken from the newly developed M-G-M/Panavision process. We can thank Panavision that this beautiful woman and all others photographed with anamorphic lenses don't look like broadcaster Cokie Roberts. This promotional photo was produced by M-G-M to promote the new system.
The difference between the two photos is at the same time accurate and deceiving. While the system did yield a CinemaScope compatible print without the distortions of contemporary Bausch & Lomb lenses, in fact the low anamorphic squeeze factor of 1.25x would never have created such distortion had it been applied to the B & L design. By the same token, the prismatic anamorphic design would also never create the distortion even if it was 2:1."
(above quote taken from) http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/wingup1.htm
And David Mullen's explanation:
"I don't know the exact mechanics but the squeezed bokeh is actually the byproduct of fixing a problem with early CinemaScope lenses, called the "anamorphic mumps". Basically what happened was that as you focused near minimum, like for a close-up on a 50mm anamorphic (the first focal length made for CinemaScope), the squeeze ratio dropped below 2X. But the unsqueezing is always a consistent 2X by the projector, so the end result was that faces looked slightly fat in CinemaScope.
Panavision solved this with some cams in the lens barrel that compensated as the lens rotated towards minimum focus so that the object in focus is always squeezed consistently by 2X -- but the side effect was that objects out of focus now got squeezed more than 2X and thus look skinny when unsqueezed by 2X during projection.
John Hora explains it in the ASC Manual. It has something to do with the fact that the vertical plane of focus is spherical and thus focuses at a different point than the horizontal plane of focus which comes from the anamorphic elements. Using two astigmatizers and counter rotating the anamorphic elements when focusing, Panavision kept a constant 2X squeeze on the subject but caused out of focus objects to get more than a 2X squeeze. So the squeezed bokeh effect is more obvious as you focus closer and when shooting at wide apertures, which is why the lens breathes as you rack focus."
(above from) http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?99606-ANAMORPHIC-ARTIFACTS-amp-SQUEEZE-RATIO-QUESTION/page2
Zalem got a reaction from DirectorCH in Rapido Technology FVD-16A, all the jackets, Moller 32/2x, and Helios 44-2
Avoid the Rangefinder at all costs. Shooting anamorphic requires a lot of work and attention to detail (relatively speaking) and you don't want to have blue blobs ruin your footage shot on amazing vintage scopes. One thing I've learned is never take the easy way out with anamorphic or it'll come back and bite you in the azz.
I cannot speak on the Rapido, though it looks much better than the Rangefinder. I can tell you this however - the focus ring on my HCDNA was very stiff at first but it loosened up after a couple of uses and now it's perfect. It might be the case with the Rapido as well. Though I haven't copped any Rapido products, Jim is seriously amazing in terms of communication so he can surely help you out with this. Cheers.
Zalem got a reaction from DirectorCH in For Sale: Elmoscope-II (same as Kowa 16-H) with Redstan Clamps
Selling my Elmoscope-II with Redstan front clamp and Redstan front adapter for HCDNA* for $780 + shipping. Same lens as Kowa 16-H, 8-Z and B&H. The Elmoscope-II is in good condition and produces beautiful images. +$90 for the amazing rear two-piece adapter (clamp) from Redstan.
The rear glass shows some scratches and tiny specs of internal dust which can be seen under a light source (barely visible to invisible otherwise). The front glass is in perfect condition aside from a very small stain at the very edge of the glass that is barely noticeable. I haven't seen these defects have any effect on the image quality as I was able to get sharp and beautiful results from it. Willing to share sample footage.
The Redstan front clamp fits snugly and is very useful as it gives a 72mm thread and the ability to attach filters. The Redstan adapter gives 72mm to 75mm threads, enabling you to attach the HCDNA very safely.
DM or comment if interested! Cheers.
*I am not selling the HCDNA.
Will post new pics with the date and eoshd written on a piece of paper if I get any response.
Zalem reacted to Justin Bacle in Anamorphic Flares Comparison shots
Here is a quick comparison between the anamorphic lenses I have.
The goal is to compares the flares and sharpness.
Hypergonar Hi-Fi 2
Singer/Sankor 16D (uncoated)
All shots with :
Mitakon Lens Turbo II
Focused to infinity, using a +1 close up diopter (Hama) except for the cinelux which used the Rectilux Hardcore DNA
(Sorry for the misaligned Cinelux shot, didn't see it until edit.)
Shot in Raw 3:1, edited and graded in Resolve. Applied the same color correction to all the shots.
I chose this lens, so that every anamorphic adapter would not show vignetting.
Equivalent focal length is 58 (Helios 44-2) * 0.72 (Lens Turbo) * 2.88 (BMMCC) = 120mm (FF)
The flares from the Hypergonar and Dyaliscope are just epic.
I really like the subtle flares of the Elmo I
The flares of the ultrastar and cinelux are very muted, as expected.
The Singer (Sankor) 16D shot is just to show what happens if you want to uncoat your lens
What do you think ?
Zalem got a reaction from valery akos in Rectilux Hardcore DNA to Kowa 8z 16H
Hi, thanks for sharing the information.
However, do you feel comfortable tilting down with the HardcoreDNA simply screwed onto the Kowa 16H/8Z? Is using just the provided screws absolutely secure? I am afraid the Rectilux will unscrew and fall to the ground but maybe I am overreacting. Thought about buying an HTN adapter. Cheers.
Zalem got a reaction from valery akos in FS: Isco Ultrastar Plus 2.1 with Redstan Clamps (Ready for Use)
Not for sale anymore as I need it for a shoot... Cheers.