Anamorphic lens attachment for the HPX

G

grimrebes

Well-known member
Has anyone heard of, or does anyone know of, an Anamorphic lens attachment for the HPX? I know its natively 16:9, but if there was one, you could potentially push it to 2.35:1. I know Panasonic made one for the DVX.

If not, am I correct in assuming the only anamorphic option would be attaching a mini35 adapter and attaching an anamorphic lens to that whole setup?
 
Last edited:
You should be able to attach the anamorphic adapter for the DVX on the HPX....I'm going to go test this out right now.
 
I succesfully attached the 16:9 converter for the dvx on my HVX200. It worked out pretty well. Focus is a ***** though, it seems a tad to soft for HD. I haven't measured it yet since it's being repaired.

it seems you have to avoid being on either the wide or the tele part of the stock lens. You can't go to short as the adapter itself is showing and you can't be too tele as it tends to soften up quite a bit. This was done on f 2.8 holding the adapter in my hand in front of the camera.

I'll post some stills when i get it back.

By the way. Flares look awesome!
 
Thanks for the responses; I look forward to seeing samples of how it looks. Anyone with an HPX170 want to try this out and let me know what this looks like on that? The lens size is a bit smaller than the HVX200. I am curious how it works with the wide end of the stock lens on the HPX170.

On a side note, am I really the first one to ask about this or try this?
 
Wow, I didnt think that was possible to accomplish! It seems like the sensor in the HVX200a is too small to absorb the image projected from an 35mm anamorphic lens. According to Phillip Bloom

What type of mount did you use?
 
The lens being used was specifically designed for the 72mm mount on the DVX by Panasonic.
It is an anamorphic lens (meaning the resulting image is squeezed), but not a 35mm lens.
 
I just ordered the HPX170 to shoot only 2:35:1 for all projects. AGLA7200 fits perfect on front of HPX making cinemascope...cant wait to get started.
 
DavidP said:
I just ordered the HPX170 to shoot only 2:35:1 for all projects. AGLA7200 fits perfect on front of HPX making cinemascope...cant wait to get started.
Click to expand...

No, I've tried. It doesn't fit. Tou cannot screw the AG-LA7200 in front of the HPX because the rear glass of the lens touches the front lens of the camera.

It is not a good idea to try: there is not enough space and there is a great risk to scratch the front lens. There is the same problem wit most of additional lenses, too: if you want to try you nedd a threaded spacer

Regards

Gary
 
I own a DVX, an HPX170 and an AG-LA7200: I've tried and simply it doesn't fit.
It works with hvx200 (via 72=>82 mm adapter) but it doesn't work with hpx170. If you want I can make some photoes to show you because it doesn't fit and because you can damage your hpx lens

Gary
 
Just one word...

Why?

CinemaScope/VistaVision looks incredibly stupid on video and computers, it's so tiny. Unless you are projecting anamorphically, this is all just an exercise in mental masturbation, masking and cutting resolution. And if you are projecting, jeez, shoot with a better camera than the 170.

Don't get it. Are there that many wannabe John Fords and David Leans out there? The only way I give it a pass is if you are going to buy everyone in your audience one of the new Philips 21:9 sets, http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/when_your_169_tv_isnt_enough_theres_219/ then it would rock. But still, need something better than a 170 (and I say that as a huge fan of the 170) and as someone who has produced two documentaries on the history of VistaVision and Cinemascope.

Dan
 
puredrifting said:
Just one word...

Why?

CinemaScope/VistaVision looks incredibly stupid on video and computers, it's so tiny. Unless you are projecting anamorphically, this is all just an exercise in mental masturbation, masking and cutting resolution. And if you are projecting, jeez, shoot with a better camera than the 170.
Click to expand...

Haha, post of the week Dan! Unless it's for big screen projection or just for the flares an anamoprhic lens adds, this looks a little like a pointless endeavor (to me at least) since black bars up and down at 1080p is gonna give you the same resolution anyways... Unless I'm mistaken? Doesn't seem like it's worth the hassle though. And worth scratching the HPX's lens if there's a risk there.
 
Why?

Because I work in an environment where the landscapes are beautiful, and I get to shoot with a camera I enjoy and own. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of a local ARRI or Panavision location, or an Abel or Tamberelli, and frankly, sometimes great results come from cameras that aren't designed with the intent to produce such stunning images. I some of us may be experts of cinemascope or panavision, but when I am in Nepal in the fall, I might just want ten or fifteen pounds of gear on my back instead of forty, but still want the ability to shoot 2.35:1. Or maybe the DVX lens adapter costs a lot less than a mini35 adapter and anamorphic lens. Or maybe the lens flare interests me, since a comparable filter would cost far more than the lens. Or maybe I just wanted to know... Some of us live in lands far away from the mystical fairytale film city of Hollywood, and some of us like to push what the camera is capable of. Though, I suppose James Longley should have shot Iraq in Fragments on a Genesis or Viper, he would have gotten better results, no?

Clearly, if some of the readers here have the background I assume they do, you might understand that aspect ratio is more than simple resolution, perhaps more important that a technical element, its another tool in story telling. And if this technical detail works, then great. But since I am hearing contradictory responses, I am going to dig until I find a solid answer.

I am still waiting for a sample of the footage.
 
Gabriel Berube said:
Haha, post of the week Dan! Unless it's for big screen projection or just for the flares an anamoprhic lens adds, this looks a little like a pointless endeavor (to me at least) since black bars up and down at 1080p is gonna give you the same resolution anyways... Unless I'm mistaken?
Click to expand...

In theory, if you could get the adapter to work, it would provide full vertical 1080p resolution, whereas putting bars on a 1080p image robs you of effective vertical resolution. So, the actual image area would be higher-res if you use the adapter.

But I have grave doubts the adapter would work, 1) because it may not fit, and 2) if it does fit, it's designed for an entirely different camera with entirely different optics and chip shape.

Then, even if it does work, post and delivery will be giant headaches -- and most delivery options will pretty much render the whole process moot.
 
Im not worried. my screen tests projected have proven F%#@ing amazing results & I can't wait to shoot some movies this summer!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top