Jump to content

Some time with the SLR Magic Anamorphot 1.33x - 50


Sean Cunningham
 Share

Recommended Posts

Any chance you could give this thing a whirl on a 12-35 and/or 35-100 Panasonic?  Even a "works" or "looks good" from you would set my mind at ease.

This is my test video with my GH3 + 12-35 X + SLR Magic Anamorphot + Tiffen Vari-ND.  Sean is right, mostly used around 20-25mm wide end, and a few 35mm.  Everything shot with AF on Face Detect, so you can see it going in and out of focus.  Not the best way to use AF, but it was just me doing this.  Anamorphot was slightly mis-aligned, but overall AF worked very well.  Sorry about my ugly face in all of this.

 

 

Edit: I did Fast Color Corrector and some Film Convert for WB adjustment and added a little grain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not really a "to each their own" case.  Discounting what I said in favor of a single aesthetic at the expense of all others on a production says you've never been in that position, working with real actors, or under those kinds of pressures.  You have the luxury of having that kind of naive position to take (edit: not being pejorative here).  I have to think practically and make choices based on knowing everything is a compromise.  
 
So I'd want to be a principle on production that isn't going to constantly be saying "no, we can't do that," or always slowing down setups more than camera department will be blamed for anyway.  I'm not going to impose something that will possibly incur more takes because there is now no flexibility with actors hitting marks.  Not only would this be wasteful and fatigue inducing it will also potentially lead to animosity between talent and myself, and I don't want that.
 
Not to mention, most narrative work is wider, not longer focal lengths.  You've got it backwards.  Dynamic movement and flexible blocking trumps preciousness in close-ups for most of the running length of a motion picture.  
 
edit: But even considering all that, on something like the GH2 a 50mm is the equivalent to shooting on an ~82mm lens in anamorphic 35mm terms.  This adapter allows full fluency of cinematic focal lengths, barring super-telephoto.  The key is to find the right taking lens to pair it with.  The 24mm corresponds to ~40mm in anamorphic 35mm terms, the lens most of Django Unchained was shot on and, I believe, many of the signature shots in Rushmore.


I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actors are used to waiting around for ages while shots are set up with stand ins. That's one reason they have trailers and canvas chairs with their names on the back. There's an awful lot of hanging around and waiting on a film set while the various crew members light, practice camera moves and focus pulls etc because it needs to be beautiful. The truth is that most anamorphics wouldn't end up on a professional set. The SLRmagic is one of them as is the bolex.

Now as a case of 'each to their own' we're here because we're enthusiasts. We're experimenting With these lenses for the most part as an aside to our bread and butter. That's not to say we won't use them in our work because we probably will in some way. I met someone using the bolex for a doc for example. Its just I'd personally rather spend the time to work with the sumptuous bolex than the SLRMagic which aesthetically leaves me cold. Each to their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but you're wrong. Actors are used to waiting around for ages while shots are set up with stand ins. That's one reason they have trailers and canvas chairs with their names on the back. There's an awful lot of hanging around and waiting on a film set while the various crew members light, practice camera moves and focus pulls etc because it needs to be beautiful. The truth is that most anamorphics wouldn't end up on a professional set. The SLRmagic is one of them as is the bolex...

 

 

You're still talking nothing but hypothetical.  You've just said a bunch of stuff you learn from making-of books and television shows and assumptions about what the process is like.  You're also conflating all types of productions with the public's assumption of how Hollywood movies are made, which is understandable if you've never actually done what you're talking about.  And none of it addresses any of my concerns above.  You don't have the experience to have the discussion you're trying to have.

 

We're both anamorphic enthusiasts, true.  That's where our similarities end.  You're a lens enthusiast interested in making films.  I've made films and am interested in some lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're still talking nothing but hypothetical.  You've just said a bunch of stuff you learn from making-of books and television shows and assumptions about what the process is like.  You're also conflating all types of productions with the public's assumption of how Hollywood movies are made, which is understandable if you've never actually done what you're talking about.  And none of it addresses any of my concerns above.  You don't have the experience to have the discussion you're trying to have.

 

We're both anamorphic enthusiasts, true.  That's where our similarities end.  You're a lens enthusiast interested in making films.  I've made films and am interested in some lenses.

Oh dear... Why are you being so defensive? I have to admit that I haven't worked on any full on hollywood movies, but I started my working life as a PA on films that featured Rutger Hauer, Robin Williams, Sean Connery, Michelle Pfeiffer, RIchard Gere, amongst others (Tactical Assault (they never did come up with a decent title but it's a shit film anyway - but was fun to make!), Jakob the Liar and First Knight). For the most part I was PA to the actors and you really get to know the nuts and bolts doing that. They spent a lot of time waiting; in their trailers (sometimes waiting with the PA girls - no names mentioned!) or on the seats with their names on. A lot of the crew spend a lot of time waiting. Mainly because the film has been budgeted to achieve a certain production level and they can afford to make things look and sound beautiful. That's just how it is. Perhaps the professional productions you work on are different - perhaps TV soaps - they're more about churning material out (but have no use of anamorphic) - which is what you seem to be suggesting..? Anyway, since my early PA experience I've worked on several fiction and doc films - although most of my bread and butter is as an editor. However - I recently shot an edited a feature doc on Thai music that is currently being completed by Technicolor in Thailand (and sadly it seems it's the last film that will pass through their doors...) Anyway I'm not going to waste any more of my time on this thread when you just pathetically lay into people for using the phrase 'each to their own'. It's all horses for courses after all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if rocky roads  sean cunilingus or whatever his name is is such a slick cinematographic willy his studio tour above shows he was having a bad camera day.

bland gear

bland tour

more slr magic cod salesmanship

and cock wars for anyone says a bad thing about made in china bland cheap optics.

 

still waiting for the slr road movie rocky.

 

NOBODY IS GONNA BE MAKING A MOVIE ON THIS CHINA ANAMORPHOT.

 

jokers talking about iscorama and panavision c in the same breath need to have a red nose on and be in a circus rather than in pretend hollywood studio tours

in 1 year it will be interesting to see what the resale value will be of letus and slr magic.

 

these optics are clinical and dead owing to the use of single element china glass which is a rip off of recipes from schott zeiss germany and ohara japan.

 

what a crock and what a cock defending a bland optic with the ugliest flare in show biz.

and lookin for a fight any chance he can get.

even though he has only ever had or used shit anamorphic  optics

i am rocky and i nose more than you wanna fight  blah blah blah

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Er...Tony...I'll be making a movie on this China Anamorphot or one just like it...15 minutes of messing around run and gun is EXACTLY what we needed to see from day one with this thing, and we need to see more of it from other adapters.  

 

 

when someone says movie i think of movie.

i repeat nobody is gonna make a movie motion picture with this new optic.

why would you.

it does not make any sense.

if your making a 1000 dollar movie ok maybe.

but that is not gonna be a film a movie a motion picture.

that is gonna be a you tube clip.

 

with the new cookes coming companies like hawk are gonna have to take a price reduction on rentals.

if you are making a cinema movie and you have a budget you rent the real magic stuff.

not the fake stuff with the name magic on it.

and plus no director is gonna wanna work around that ugly broke back flare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart, I see you've met Gollum.  He wants to talk to you about his precious.  He might actually have less practical experience than a babysitter working under the 2nd AD and so he clicks "like" and takes his opportunity to commit irony.  He must have been lost in trance, staring into his collection of glass.  I expected his emergence from the shed earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@tonyw

 

Those blue flares aint blue flares mate. They be blue ghosts :) Internal reflections and all that...

 

Yeah, Blue ghosts, which makes this the perfect adapter if you wanna make a PacMan movie. No kidding.

 

Andrew Chan must be cringing if he has seen this, no comparison to the shorts put up by Sebs and elubes 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sean cun

what are you.

you build up something like this thing like  it is the second coming and you produce bilge complete and utter visual bilge.

 

did you destroy all comers no.

you counter attack with words to try to diminish cos your bland visual style is made for this rather cheap optic.

keep the words cumin fella and leave the visuals to seb : )

 

i only came back here to give you a slap girly cos you are really quite horrid to people.

and you lecture folks based on years of using an optex century.

 

get back to your film set big boy leave the amateurs to polish nice proper glass.

or should i say film studio tour of a film set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that lens footage. I was thinking of selling all my projection lenses to fund an anamorphot. But I am a pure hobbyist, and for me visuals >> everything. Take away the flares and it just looks like cropped footage tbh. And the flares... well... I'll let Tony carry on  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're certainly entitled to your opinion but saying it's the same as cropped video is like saying GH2 is like 5D footage.  It's the same principle.  This is related to why 2.40 Super 35 looks and feels nothing like anamorphic even if you try and match FOV.  It's not just about bokeh and flare.  Most people don't get it.  

 

I have to laugh about comments regarding compression ratio though.  They all show an unenlightened appreciation for anamorphic photography in general.  What folks who shit on 1.33x are saying is that films like Ben Hur, or How the West Was Won  and the other handful of Ultra-Panavision films are somehow degraded by using 1.25x optics.  It's the same thing.  Those people were idiots and should have just cropped, is what they're saying.  They're trying to justify a hater attitude.  Smart people will see through it though, I hope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Ultra Panavision format gets away with the lower compression ratio because it's designed to still deliver something like 3:1 ratio (from the original 2.2:1 65mm frame), and even at f11 the in and out of focus separation is incredible due to the fact that a normal lens for that format is 80mm.  Crop 65mm film to 2.35:1 and it looks almost anamorphic - I've only been able to do this on medium format and 6x9 still photos, but the concept works.  it may not be bokeh distortion but its the combination of wide while still being shallow if you want it to be.

 

When we talk normal sensors such as the modern s35 / aps-c and smaller they require a lot wider lens to obtain the same fov, and thus the in and out of focus separation is less pronounced and so is the bokeh distortion.  I imagine if the slr magic can deliver good results on full frame, wide open on a 50mm f1.4 and a 85mm f2 the bokeh will be more visible.  But I am yet to see footage shot on the slr magic where it's pushed hard in this way.    I still believe from the footage i have seen, it's more the lack of elements in the slr magic design than the actual smaller squeeze ratio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What folks who shit on 1.33x are saying is that films like Ben Hur, or How the West Was Won  and the other handful of Ultra-Panavision films are somehow degraded by using 1.25x optics.Those people were idiots and should have just cropped, is what they're saying.  They're trying to justify a hater attitude.  Smart people will see through it though, I hope.

 

Straw man bollocks. If it doesn't look good, it doesn't look good. This does not look good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...