Iscorama Anamophic Lens Test

Hello everyone,
I recently bought a Iscorama 36 & I am using it on my Canon 7D. Can anyone please tell me What & how to adjust my aspect ration in Final Cut Pro?? I see the aspect ratio slider under the motion tab, does anyone the number that belongs here? -50, -40, -33? I'm simply confused..

Thanks in advance

Hector
 
 
Last edited:
OscarWao said:
Hello everyone,
I recently bought a Iscorama 36 & I am using it on my Canon 7D. Can anyone please tell me What & how to adjust my aspect ration in Final Cut Pro?? I see the aspect ratio slider under the motion tab, does anyone the number that belongs here? -50, -40, -33? I'm simply confused..

Thanks in advance

Hector
Click to expand...

Squash the image so that it is 1920 x 720 (x1 - x0.666)
 
Still confused

Still confused

Lee,
thanks for the response but how do I do that in final cut pro? When I export or before the edit? I would prefer to edit in the correct aspect ratio.

Hector
 
OscarWao said:
Lee,
thanks for the response but how do I do that in final cut pro? When I export or before the edit? I would prefer to edit in the correct aspect ratio.

Hector
Click to expand...

I think it's around -30. But you can shoot the image of a circle on a piece of paper and then adjust the distortion by eyeballing it. I'm sure there is better math out there though than the human eye..
 
Guys,

Found the solution. It was given to me by someone on another forum. Though I'd share it.

You said the lens is 1.5x anamorphic.
So it scales the y by 1.5.
To come back to the original y you need divide by 1.5
1/(1.5)=0.666667. This can also be read as 66,67%
which equals 100% -33,33%
the latter is your Distort parameter.

This works guys. Thanks for all the help everyone.

Cheers.

Hector
 
The mathematic solution to resizing may not give a pleasing result to your eye. I've found that shooting a test chart with a perfect circle on it is a better way to get the best result. Just because a lens says it is a 1.5 x or a 2x doesn't mean it will be exactly that with every given A lens it is used with. Like a lot of things with photography, the markings on a lens are part science, part convention and subject to a lot of interpretation.
 
Jean Dodge said:
The mathematic solution to resizing may not give a pleasing result to your eye. I've found that shooting a test chart with a perfect circle on it is a better way to get the best result. Just because a lens says it is a 1.5 x or a 2x doesn't mean it will be exactly that with every given A lens it is used with. Like a lot of things with photography, the markings on a lens are part science, part convention and subject to a lot of interpretation.
Click to expand...


+ I like to leave a little bit of anamorphicisation** in the image - just a subtle bit of squash - it kind of hints at 'cinema-ness' to me, not enough to really notice, just enough for people to sense it is different.


**(is that even a word ? If it is, it is mine do not use it without my permission or I will sue your ass . . . . . anamorphicisation™ ©me 2009)
 
Hello everyone,

Just received my Iscorama 36 earlier this week. Went out and shot a super quick test. This is straight out of the camera with no color correction.

1080p, 24p, 1000 ISO, shutter speed 50, mounted on Nikon 50mm, Canon 7D

Please keep in mind I cut this in Final cut pro, made an iphone file that I could email to some colleagues, then I simply uploaded the iphone file. Soon I'll upload the original file from the sequence at a much higher resolution.

I love this lens, it is simply amazing. It is super sharp and very easy to use. This lens is worth every penny. Btw I was lucky enough to obtain two so I am prepared when my 1D arrives.

http://vimeo.com/8295642

Hector aka OscarWao
 
Jean Dodge said:
The mathematic solution to resizing may not give a pleasing result to your eye. I've found that shooting a test chart with a perfect circle on it is a better way to get the best result. Just because a lens says it is a 1.5 x or a 2x doesn't mean it will be exactly that with every given A lens it is used with. Like a lot of things with photography, the markings on a lens are part science, part convention and subject to a lot of interpretation.
Click to expand...

Good call.

I went and tested my Isco 36 and found that 1.422 pixel aspect ratio is much closer to accurate, at least for the centre of the image. It is probably more accurately 1.4. But what is most exciting to me is that it's possible to go to 1.35 pixel aspect ratio to yield a picture ratio of 2.4:1 and it still looks fine. Proper cinemascope ratio at a very convenient 1920 x 800 project size, and no cropping of the image.

In any case I find it best to edit in Premiere at 1920 x 1080 and just change the pixel aspect ratio, and leave the resizing til later - I use VirtualDub's lanczos resize.

EDIT: This works fine for the centre of the image but the edges of the image are well out whack, related in part, I suppose to the barrel distortion.
 
Last edited:
Are people really still paying upwards of 1k for these lenses? I've been interested from the the start of this thread, I guess I just never imagined that the value would remain so high. If anyone knows how to get one for a lower price I would really appreciate a PM. Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top