Good to hear everyones responses, some really interesting points. As mentioned before, I am brand new to all of this so it is all very helpful. I guess I didn't realize that an Anamorphic lens was that much harder to make than a normal lens... In particular, I found it interesting to note a number of you were only really interested in lenses with a 2x squeeze.. I assume that most of the 'classic' films I associate with anamorphic have this squeeze? If shooting on 35mm film with Anamorphic (Panavision, Hawk, etc etc) are they all a 2x squeeze? It is mentioned above that film is in a 4:3 ratio, so this is different again to stills film of being 3:2?
Is the Arri Alexa the only camera that shoots in 4:3 mode? So the GH2 doesn't have a 4:3 mode, even though its sensor is closest to those dimensions and shoots stills in this mode right? What about the upcoming Blackmagic camera? Is that 4:3 or is it going to give the standard 16:9? If it is 4:3, would this suit a Anamorphic with 2x squeeze and therefore give the bokeh you guys are talking about? Does there exist an Iscorama that is a 2x squeeze and still has the Iscorama unique focusing ability and is competitive in sharpness, flare etc etc as those with a 1.5 squeeze?
Ok, sorry, lots of questions, look forward to hearing some responses back.
Results 11 to 15 of 15
07-17-2012 09:12 PM
- Join Date
- Jul 2012
07-17-2012 11:49 PM
I would be interested in something like this but having done the research and played with a variety of anamorphic designs I think it unlikely that one could be produced at a price and quality that would compete with what I have.
That said what I would want is:
-Either an integrated lens (negating the need for a taking lens) OR a focus through attachment (preferably focussing with the anamorphic with the taking lens set to infinity).
-1.5x NOT 2x (a 4:3 will become 2:1, the increasing common 16:9 becomes 2.67:1) we want to end up close to widescreen 2.35:1 and the bokeh is still vertically stretched
-Close focussing, 0.5m would be ideal but even the expensive ones struggle to get closer than 1.5m. I would be happy even with 2-2.5m if:
-A standard front filter thread for mounting diopters is essential. With a front filter thread a close focus distance of 2-2.5m would become acceptable if it reduced costs.
-A rotating clamp for lens alignment - it is crucial that the anamorphic be able to be easily aligned and kept securely in alignment once set.
-Option of coated or uncoated. It is inevitable that a commercial offering would feel compelled to multicoat the lens but most people turn to anamorphics first and foremost for the flares that uncoated lenses delivers.
I would comfortably be prepared to spend $1000-1500 if the optics were of a comparable standard. With all the above features included I would be prepared to sacrifice a small amount of optical quality for convenience. The most desirable qualities anamorphics are sought after for are vertically stretched bokeh, vertical resolution and horizontal flares. These are hard to convincingly fake. There are some cheap attachments and plugins that will approximate the look but those of us who seek out these relics find the fake look, well, fake. There is no way we would use them otherwise because they are a pain in the posterior to use in anger.
07-18-2012 01:24 AM
again, let's all be productive. whether it's possible or not and at what price...
please, can someone here think of the specs required of an optimal lens for 16:9 (1.5x, etc), as i don't know what other specs to think of..
and also an ideal price for a good product (500-1000$ ? - remember the Isco's were sold a lot cheaper a few years ago before the "gold rush"),
and then write down a general request Email we could all copy and send them. anyone? i'm not that good at formal English for those serious emails ;)
07-18-2012 03:44 PM
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
[QUOTE=roei - remember the Isco's were sold a lot cheaper a few years ago before the "gold rush"),
i sold a moller 1.5 a very special lens on ebay for 50 pounds i think 6 months before the gh1 came out..yes iscoramas where cheap on ebay because the super 8 film guys like me where not shooting 8mm or 16mm.
demand was created by gh1 and canons
the iscorama 54 was sold new in the 1990 at the wide screen centre london for 1500 sterling quite a lot in it's time.
the cheapest lens isco make now is 3000 without the additional magic optics.
the way you get the project to work is you forget about moller 1.5 forget about isccorama forget kowa bell howell quality.
you think in terms of the optex and if you are lucky the panasonic.
i want to date and nail scarlet johanhansonson the actress but i make do with the female version of jack black she is a lot cheaper than scarlet and less complicated.
i want a 1960s ferrari Muira but i make do with the bus.
Last edited by antiochuswilson; 07-18-2012 at 04:02 PM.
07-30-2012 05:38 PM
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
I'd certainly buy one or two, I don't expect a perfect lens, as per Egg Born Son above, I'd also sacrifice a small amount of optical quality for convenience. Around £500 for an adapter maybe more if it was built as an entire lens. Given SLR Magic make manual prime lenses they'd be better off doing an adapter for those people wanting to pair with zooms. I'd want 1.5x