Are there "poor man's" anamorphic lenses/adapters out there?

D

digifruitella

Active member
All I see is Iscorama all over - and while there's no denying its' picture quality - it is quite expensive for some of us. Is there anything out there that's a bit cheaper but gives you a decent anamorphic w/ decent lens flares? Or is there no such thing?
 
nearly every day old super 8 and 16mm anamorphic projection lens are for sale on ebay worldwide. sankor,singer,kowa,proskar these are small fit in the palm of your hand rather than massive.they go from 20 euros to 800.
the only thing you have to do is check min focus and find a way to mount it on your camera lens.
the iscorama is not expensive it cost 1000s when new and is the sharpest of it's type in fact i would say it is sharper than a lot 1970s scope lens when you use the isco with a quality back optic.
 
the only thing you have to do is check min focus and find a way to mount it on your camera lens.
Click to expand...

please elaborate, as I'm quite a newbie in terms of the technical aspects of photography. Check minimum focus? how would you mount to a Canon T2i, is there a standard mount for sale that goes with majority adapters?

I've seen quite a few videos demonstrating Sankor and Kowa adapters, where the image is waaaay too stretched across the horizontal. That makes me apprehensive. Again, I'm not technically savvy in that department so perhaps that effect comes with a combination of some lens or whatever. But I would like to get a cheap anamorphic lens that gives a nice 2.35 look...

another question I have, you mention Iscorama brand new may cost in the 1000s...that depends, Euro or Dollar. Because on Ebay I see them being sold for close to $2000.
 
There's also the Panasonic AG-LA7200G, which is an anamorphic adapter that fits on the end of all lenses. Try googling that, I think they run about $700-800



 
Yep, the AG-LA is the one I've also been eyeing, but with a price range like 700-800 it's still a little bit too steep for me right now might as well then add a bit more and get an Iscorama, still...i'm interested in getting my previous questions answered
 
but you are aware that shooting anamorphic 2.35 is pretty useless if you stay in video ? There is no support for such ratio and there is no way to display it.
The only reason you would go to anamorphic 2.35 would be if you translate to film or DPX
(and if you cannot spend more than 500$ on a lens , i doubt you plan for film transfer)
It should be way easier to shoot full HD and add the black bars, because at the end, that's what you will get.
 
Last edited:
Yeah but adding black bars is not true widescreen though. I mean, isn't it the whole point of anamorphic lens though? It gives you true 2.35. You are correct, I'm not planning to shoot on film nor transfer to film. I just want a lens or an adapter that can go with my HDSLR and that's all I'm looking for.

What would my choices narrow down to.
 
Okay, I teach this in my "Action Filmmaking" book. Crop your footage to 2.35. Then stretch the footage to where the footage takes up the whole space (you shouldn't seen the black bars now) render and output this stretched footage then create a new anamorphic timeline and bring it back in as anamorphic. It should work like a camera's squeeze mode.

-Nate
 
you can also look for a 1.5x Kowa adapter. They are more rare than the 2x but they will give you close to 2.35:1
 
Nathyn said:
Okay, I teach this in my "Action Filmmaking" book. Crop your footage to 2.35. Then stretch the footage to where the footage takes up the whole space (you shouldn't seen the black bars now) render and output this stretched footage then create a new anamorphic timeline and bring it back in as anamorphic. It should work like a camera's squeeze mode.

-Nate
Click to expand...

Lower resolution than working with an anamorphic adapter.
 
the point of having an anamorphic lens is just a workaround.
you can not convert all a film industry to a new film format by just flipping a bit in a codec.
so inthe film industry there is many tricks to use more space on the reel, like moving audio tracks between the film perforations, rotating the film, stretching it all the way you can imagine.

Quality wise, anamorphic 2.35 will bring nothing in standard video tool, in the contrary. Knowing there is no format to support 2.35 or display it, you can imagine the following scenario.

You find an adapter and shoot 2.35 on full HD.
Already there you loose quality versus full HD since anamorphic adapter (as any lens add-on, but particularly these ones) don't do anything good to picture quality.
Then you capture. How ? most NLE are working with profiles and probably they will go only up to full HD. But just let imagine you got one that is able to edit in square pixel at full 2.35, or edit at full HD and monitor a streched picture.
So far soo good your project is over. You save it on a file to keep the format.
Where will you display it ? on a big lecd screen ? Sorry full hd only, the screen will display it as is, strechted, or you force it to correct aspect ratio and the screen is converting (with more or less luck, some scaler are pretty low cost) and adds black bars (or worse, cut the sides).
ok, let's consider big screen and projectors. At least this time you could use a PC to render at 2560x1600 pixel if you want... you just need to find a projector that support this resolution (and i doubt you find one with your budget).
Even better , let's go to the digital theater next door. Guess what ? their killer projector is like most of the ones you find in most digital theater , 2K, just few pixels more than full HD.

Each time you will need to handle such format, you will need a conversion, damaging your nice work. At least with letterboxed full hd, you can be sure that you image will be played pixel for pixel as you decided it.
 
Last edited:
anamorphics bring nothing so the epic threads on dvx and 5d forums are a waste of time that is rubbish.

anamorphic even with a poor lens can be very interesting if not bloody exciting visually..and gives you great separation from the brutal clean plastic reality of these new digital cameras...
iscoramas were last made 8 years ago the isco 54 at the time cost £2000 sterling,isco still make projection lens for digital dlp cinema the cheapest lens they do is £5000.


go on ebay look at the anamorphics ask seller what the min focus mark on the lens is and if it is less than 12ft and less than 200 pounds buy one if you like the look.
kowa,singer,proskar many other makes in the budget realm.
if you have a camcorder you hold it in front of your lens and focus both lens.
if you have a gh1 you focus your 50mm camera lens and the scope lens.
i am sure digifrutella is not planning a motion picture so all the stuff about post is not really that important,it becomes important later on if you decide to invest big money.

clearly the very talented people below did not get bogged down with squeeze ratios in post or if anamorphic lens are a waste of time or not.
they went out and played..

http://www.richlee.com/Tests/Isco_02small.mov
http://www.richlee.com/Tests/Isco_01bsmall.mov


http://vimeo.com/8274503
http://vimeo.com/11038199
http://vimeo.com/8474644
 
Last edited:
So what ? even vimeo and your quicktime links are playing the 2.35 in a 16:9 with black bars.
I could have shot that with my Ex1 and added black bars, you wouldn't see a difference.
and if you mean that the adapter is bringing some "personality" to the picture (flare, CA, fuzzyness, vignetting) yep i can do that too with a very cheap Wide angle adapter and still add black bars.
After all an anamorphic adapter is nothing else than a wide angle in only one dimension
and the "feature" you find in such adapter are nothing else than the distortion any wide angle brings to the picture.
 
Last edited:
nosys70 said:
So what ? even vimeo and your quicktime links are playing the 2.35 in a 16:9 with black bars.
I could have shot that with my Ex1 and added black bars, you wouldn't see a difference.





wow..
a very powerful man you are,with a great business idea.
make a test film clip using your bloomesque wellesian talent,take your wide angle lens and ex1.
patent the earth shattering post techniques you have..
go to hollywood and clean up..
vantage hawk germany panavision,joe dunton can all commit suicide knowing that the 50 thousand dollar lens that they make and rent out at 300 dollars each a day will have to be scrapped because they are just just single field wide angles and your powers have come to pass and have made them redundant..
call the film anamorph apocalypse behold the power of the wide angle spherical lens.

i feel most sorry for poor old joe dunton he has spent 40 odd years convincing the film industry that anamorphic optics are cool,what a waste of a life:undecided
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
yep, your are totally right, while you still miss the point.
the guys selling anamorphic lenses to film industry were only obliged to do that because they could not sell a new film format. They would probably choose to build a new film camera with new lenses and get royalties on all these patents, but they were realistic too. So they have to come with a solution that brings wider picture, building on the huge already existing equipement , from the camera to the projector. there is no such point here with video. You cannot expand your picture, you are stuck with full HD at best in consumer world, from blu-ray to LCD or projector.
So anamorphic is uselless in video, except if you are ready to project in your own theater using a projector with an anamorphic lens, and distribute your blu-ray disc with anamorphic glasses.
Now you found a meaning to your life, and you just need to convert the TV industry to make 2.35 screens and a new blu-ray specification. Hope it won't take 40 years.

you make me remember a friend who always justify everything by saying because everybody wants it, it must be good.
I always answered that yep, 1000000 billions of moth eats shi*, they can't be wrong , eat shi* too.

you can also read this
http://www.beinghealthynaturally.com/jokes/horsesass.php
most of it is urban legend probably, but it fits pretty well how industry works, reusing all standard not because they are good, but because it is cheaper and faster.
 
Last edited:
i got excited for a minute with the link thought i was going to see some of your earth shattering wide angle sony footage..

actions speak louder rich lee did 2 little clips, just by playing around your mission is easy do something similar with your set up and we can judge if anamorphic lens are a joke compared to your sony lens...
 
Whoa fellas, the heated debate.

Personally, I have no inclination to make an sell a film with my DSLR and an anamorphic adapter that I want to get. Secondly, all this talk about wide angle and adding black bars vs true anamorphic really puzzles me. I'm not a tech whiz but I've always thought that an anamorphic lens gives you "true" and much more "unique" widescreen picture than having a wide lens with added black bars.

You're cropping in wide angle, while anamorphic just stretches (?, regardless, it doesn't crop anything) the image.

for example here's a video that is cropped in post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUiKQnOUYGY&playnext_from=TL&videos=Mdgpq50D3bQ

and then look at that same Rich Lee video http://www.richlee.com/Tests/Isco_02small.mov or any of the links posted by antio. You DO see a difference in picture. Yea, the flares, and the unique stretch around edges. Not to mention the most important thing we're forgetting to include here is that more area is covered with an anamorphic. Such as seen here in this comparison video http://vimeo.com/11267227

Moving on.

Also I'd like to know what are the differences between the Iscorama 36 and Iscorama 54 ?

and going with a cheaper anamorphic lens - what would you recommend I go with? I found a few on ebay but I'm not sure of their quality and if they will go with a Canon T2i ?

some help? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=280514640944&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=230482155111&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT
 
It's not about the format anymore, it is about the look.

nosys70 said:
and if you mean that the adapter is bringing some "personality" to the picture (flare, CA, fuzzyness, vignetting) yep i can do that too with a very cheap Wide angle adapter and still add black bars.
Click to expand...

Pics or it didn't happen. There is no way a cheap wide will look like footage shot through an anamorphic lens.
 
The look of an anamorphic is very different from spherical. There was an example I read on another board (forget which, but I think it was from David Mullen)...

Look at the trailers for Black Hawk Down and Blood Diamond. Both have similar scenes with exquisite lighting and cinematography. They look different because Black Hawk Down was shot with spherical lenses, and Blood Diamond was shot with anamorphic lenses.
 
digifruttella, do the homework, a search here for anamorphic and read every thread as well anything you can find online, cinema 5D, cinematography.com on the subject before dropping any cash. It will take a few weeks, but the learning curve is rewarding. Yes, the Isco's are pricey but I have seen deals go on obscure anamorphic lenses and Isco's over the last few months.

http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/anamorphic.html

This link will give you a good beginners guide to the lenses as most of them are from the super 8mm era......

and watch the movies from new Park Chan's Old Boy trilogy, Gaspar Noe flicks to good old Leone and Shaw Bro's kung fu...... anamorphic is no doubt true cinema!

and David Mulllen ASC gave this reply to a question on anamorphic digital filmout:

Depends on what format you want to master to. I'm assuming that the point of this special anamorphic is to squeeze a 2.40 image onto a 16x9 recording.

You could make a 16x9 HD master in the D.I. session that is letterboxed, not squeezed, to the 2.40 ratio, and then they just record the picture area to 35mm anamorphic, adding the standard 2X squeeze in the film-out by basically doubling the horizontal lines to create an image with a 2X squeeze.

Or you could make a 16x9 HD master with the squeeze built-in, full frame image, and let the film recorder handle the conversion to 2X 2.40 anamorphic. In that case, either you just go through the D.I. session watching the image with an odd squeeze to it, or you figure out a way for the display system to temporarily remove the squeeze.

But eventually you are still going to want to make an unsqueezed/letterboxed 16x9 HD master for HD and SD versions.

Since you are not shooting on a Log camera, but a broadcast HD (Rec 709) camera, you'll probably be just doing a standard HD color-correction session and letting the people doing the film-out deal with the Rec 709-to-Log conversion. At that point, the only difference between that and a D.I. might be the type of room you're in (HD monitor versus large projector screen) and the type of color-corrector they will use (DaVinci/Pogle versus Lustre/Baselight, etc.) though all of that is merging these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top