F35: Anamorphic tests

macgregor

macgregor

Veteran
In the past I've tried Lomos squarefront anamorphics and the results were a bit poor. But lately I've been playing with some Kowa anamorphic attachments and I've been surprised at how sharp you ca get them, so why not give it a try on the F35?

Disclaimer: I used very soft Russian spherical lenses for this test, since they're the smallest Pl mount lenses I have in hand. With decent glass, sharpness improves considerably.



Shot in ugly 1/24th sec because of the low light in the room.
Subject not necessarily in focus.


And here's the old lomo test:
 
Last edited:
Did you do the pushing the ISO to 2000 and then using neat video on this? As well as the super resolution plug in? This looks really good
 
I wouldn't write Lomos off completely especially if you need wider shots. I'm told 50mm is about the widest you can get from a Kowa front on super 35.

Sharpness of Lomo SF is all over the map. It took me quite a few purchases to get a sharp set of square fronts. Alexander Alexandrov (L.A.) has the sharpest set I know of. The stuff he shot for us was amazingly sharp - for anamorphic that is.
 
Nice! I actually like the softer look. I haven't played around with these old anamorphics. These were made for projectors correct? How do you attach them to your lens?
 
Just to add- I threw an LA7200 on my Sony 35mm prime and was really happy with the results. The diopter situation is a royal pain, yes the edges are soft and distorted, yes there's CA, yes there's color shift. But.. that's what makes it fun?
 
trafficn said:
Just to add- I threw an LA7200 on my Sony 35mm prime and was really happy with the results. The diopter situation is a royal pain, yes the edges are soft and distorted, yes there's CA, yes there's color shift. But.. that's what makes it fun?
Click to expand...

I agree. Sharpness is one factor but not the end all. Shouldn't the 'character' of the image be the decisive factor?

The F35 sensor size is very well suited to 1.33X but 2X not so much. It's a big set back to stretch the horizontal 1920 by 2X - effectively halving the resolution and then having to crop in about 20% after that in order to get back to 235:1
 
Rick LaLonde said:
The F35 sensor size is very well suited to 1.33X but 2X not so much. It's a big set back to stretch the horizontal 1920 by 2X - effectively halving the resolution and then having to crop in about 20% after that in order to get back to 235:1
Click to expand...

Objectively, I'd agree with you. But a couple of projects I shot on the F35, and one in particular - were too sharp no matter what I did. I had glass diffusions in front on the lens, I had nets on the back, I filled the interiors with haze, and still the whole thing just felt too sharp for the story.

So although I never got around to testing 2x anas with the camera, I don't think that resolution loss would have bothered me at all on the projects where 'sharp' and wasn't any kind of a priority.

Obviously that isn't the case with every project, but I could definitely see it working for some.
 
Grug said:
Objectively, I'd agree with you. But a couple of projects I shot on the F35, and one in particular - were too sharp no matter what I did. I had glass diffusions in front on the lens, I had nets on the back, I filled the interiors with haze, and still the whole thing just felt too sharp for the story.

So although I never got around to testing 2x anas with the camera, I don't think that resolution loss would have bothered me at all on the projects where 'sharp' and wasn't any kind of a priority.

Obviously that isn't the case with every project, but I could definitely see it working for some.
Click to expand...

I had a 50ft screen in mind but I could be wrong there too. I haven't tested it either yet and have to admit to maybe getting too caught up in the numbers game when actual picture is all that matters. So oh dang, here I go again: a 35mm master negative after all the copying processes is known to have a resolution not likely to be more than 1.2K.

Anybody in the L.A. area interested in putting my sharp Lomo on their F35 for a test? I'll buy the pizza.
 
Last edited:
Rick LaLonde said:
I had a 50ft screen in mind but I could be wrong there too. I haven't tested it either yet and have to admit to maybe getting too caught up in the numbers game when actual picture is all that matters. So oh dang, here I go again: a 35mm master negative after all the copying processes is known to have a resolution not likely to be more than 1.2K.

Anybody in the L.A. area interested in putting my sharp Lomo on their F35 for a test? I'll buy the pizza.
Click to expand...

What sharp Lomo?
 
macgregor said:
What sharp Lomo?
Click to expand...

I have the very rare OPF19-1, 40-120mm, T3, not to be confused with the Foton A. Technically it's an EKRAN CKBK not made by the Lomo factory.

Russian documentation says it resolves at 70 lines/mm at center for F=40 and 50 lines/mm at center for F=50.
 
Rick a quick google on that lens and I think I found your ebay post :grin: That'll be one helluva day when you manage to sell that thing.
 
Yeah, That's mine. Affectionately known as Natasha. I'll suffer from separation anxiety if she ever goes. Wonderful images on the RED.
 
Must admit the image from the lens is just beautiful!...what camera did you shoot on...the lens looks in excellent shape too...personally would just hold on to that one...
 
fboonzaier said:
Must admit the image from the lens is just beautiful!...what camera did you shoot on...the lens looks in excellent shape too...personally would just hold on to that one...
Click to expand...

The image you're looking at is pretty compressed too. Problem is I'm caught between loving this lens and the need to for finishing funds for our feature.

I do want to pursue 1.33X ana on both F35 and F23. The project we have in development needs a deep focus style as well as 2.35:1 format. This is difficult and expensive with 2X ana but I expect test with 1.33X to show promise. On F35 the LA7200 will cover down to f16 which will get us there, I'm sure. On F23 it's safe bet. Just need to see what kind of CA we're up against at the edges. Softness doesn't worry me too much. If anyone has experience to share I'm eager to hear.
 
I'd love to see some full res grabs from Natasha.

The LA7200 is a weird adapter. Quirks galore and some strange ghosting at times and unpredictable flaring. I suppose it really depends on which lens you mate it with. The closer the distance the front element of the taking lens is to the rear element of the adapter is generally going to give you better results. This disqualifies a lot of primes off the bat if the front element is seated too deep in the housing. For this reason, the new sigma cine zooms are money with it.

Starting at :25, this was done on a C300 mated to the sigma 18-35, no diopters: https://vimeo.com/188724388 -- IMO the CA/softness at the edges is innocuous though pretentious and clinical-visual-seeking forum jockeys will tell you otherwise. You should probably frame your shot better if you need 100% sharpness in the corners and at extreme edge of frame. I've grown to love the mild barrel distortion even on landscapes- the earth is round, remember? Hehe. Completely straight lines are for twerps.

IIRC, I think on the C300 S35 chip it starts to vignette below ~22mm. On the F35, throwing on ND gets fun. I think I may be one of the few idiots left with a Cinetactics soft matte box made specifically for the LA7200. It allows 4x4s and 4x5s. You'll probably want diopters for anything >50mm or when needing close focus <24in. Again, much of this depends on the taking lens and iris setting.

My impression with using the LA7200 on smaller sensors (BM pocket/S16 for instance) is that you're effectively using a smaller portion of the adapter's glass so any aberrations are going to be magnified, even though you're still technically using center meat of the lens. However, spreading the LA7200's relatively large front element onto an S35 chip seems to capture the 1.33x squeeze as intended, and has given me more acceptable results if I'm really pixel peeping.
 
Straight line twerps - I love it. You voice my sentiments exactly. My eye never goes to the edge of the screen. It seems strange to me that any composition would draw the eye there. I like Hitchcock's view that the eye goes to the sharpest point in the frame. But bad enough CA would draw my eye to it so, yes, within reason.

Really nice footage, thanks for posting. I didn't catch any CA. Will have have to look harder. The distance between the front element and taking lens comment makes sense. This must have to do with why longer focal lengths don't work? I saw a short with good image quality using Tokina 11-16 with LA7200 on BMCC. Sharpness was very good and depth of focus was surprising.

Whenever we get back into post I'll have some full res images up on a new thread.
 
Hah,right on. Hitchcock was also obviously a master editor and really understood what would service the audience's capacity for narrative comprehension.

While I'm still heated since I watched it for the first time last night, I absolutely reviled GONE GIRL for its crystalline image quality (among countless other decisions). It felt like watching a movie being made instead of experiencing a story unfold. Same story with REVENANT. Contrast those two films with the ultra-ballsy visual style of POST TENEBRAS LUX and I'm well aware I've got a bias for odd lensing. Keep me in the dream world!

I also threw the la7200 on the notoriously "bad" canon 24-105 and found some longer focal lengths acceptable. I am certainly no glass expert but I believe the farther the lens elements travel from one another makes diffraction harder to control.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top