Sankor/Kowa Anamorphic Lens Discussion and Footage

Here's footage from my Sankor 16C....focus is a bit weird, but possible, and I tried my best on the final shot(bucket). I must note that this ISN'T with a 5D, but with an HVX-200 with an M2 adapter and a Soligor 90-230 f4.5.
http://vimeo.com/7086724
 
Please someone bring me up to speed.

Please someone bring me up to speed.

Can someone please bring me up to speed on this forum, I read through it all but it seems I did not come in with the proper knowledge nor knowing what it is everyone is trying to achieve.

As for me, I want 2.35 footage with the hvx200 with the m2 redrock lens adapter.

Right now when I shoot with prime nikon lenses, hvx, and m2 lens adapter, I get a 1.78 image. I want a 2.35 image without cropping, and to use true anamorphic lenses. What are these lenses I can use or how can I achieve this? Is this possible with the hvx?

I dont want to simply crop my image in fcp, is there a way to put true anamorphic lens on the hvx with m2 lens adapter?

Does anyone have a sample setup? With lens types?

When doing my research, I only find 3 types of setups,

1. The crappy videographer solution, which is a lens adapter, which I cant use a m2 lens adapter on. http://www.cavision.com/pictures/HVX200/HVX200.htm

2. These type of crazy solutions: (do they work?) http://owyheesound.com/anamorphic.php

3. A good forum post like this, which is a bit too advanced for me at this moment, unless I read through it like 5 more times, which I may just have to do.


So is this sankor solution a good one? Please advise, thanks.
Are any of these anamorphic lenses on Ebay usable?
http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=an...id=p3286.m270.l1313&_odkw=nikon+1.4&_osacat=0
 
Hey Clint:

Right now when I shoot with prime nikon lenses, hvx, and m2 lens adapter, I get a 1.78 image. I want a 2.35 image without cropping, and to use true anamorphic lenses. What are these lenses I can use or how can I achieve this? Is this possible with the hvx?
Click to expand...

I've never used the M2....but based on your description couldn't you just use mine? (A setup like this?)

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=182386&page=13

(See the second image...) I superglued a step down ring that is 52mm....so I can just screw it into any Nikon 52mm lens. (standard) I'm not sure about your sensor size, but that's why mine is on a zoom lens....this makes it VERY easy to frame the shot. The focus isn't as sharp as my Iscorama 36, ....but it also cost 1/10th as much! :) I hope this helps.
 
Thanks so much for bringing me up to speed on that. I saw your fooage, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQykrMBfCA, and am very impressed.

This whole idea of using 2.35 lenses on standard nikon lenses is new to me.

Heres another question if you dont mind.

I just want to clarify a few things.

So you are using a sankor 16c, which is a projection lens. Others are using other brands of 16mm picture projection lenses, correct. These all fall under $100 more or less.

Now when you guys mention the Iscorama36, is that also a 16mm projection lens? Or is that a real anamorphic camera lens? Made for a 16mm or 35mm film camera?

I see Arri anamorphic lenses on ebay for $1,500, is that comparable to a Iscorama or it is a different type that would not work?

I just wanted to clarify our types of anamorphic lenses, because they range from $10 to + $2,000

Can you please help me in classifying these so I can better be aware when making my purchases and testing the best lens.

A. $20 - $150 per used lens, 16mm anamorphic projection lens, use w stepdown ring on any still slr lens, (sankor, bell and howell, etc)
B. Iscorama ? Can someone help out? More info, what is? How can be used?
C. Arri Lenses, $1,000 - $3,000 on ebay, can use with stepdown ring on any still slr lens?
D. $15,000 - $40,000 per lens, 35mm anamorphic lenses. http://www.anamorphic.biz/
E. Cooke lenses, Zeiss? Will these work?

If you type in anamorphic lens in ebay, you get this, Im just trying to figure out whats what.

http://shop.ebay.com/i.html?_nkw=an...c+lens&_arr=1&_trksid=p3286.m270.l1313&_rdc=1
 
Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
Can someone please bring me up to speed on this forum, I read through it all but it seems I did not come in with the proper knowledge nor knowing what it is everyone is trying to achieve.

As for me, I want 2.35 footage with the hvx200 with the m2 redrock lens adapter.
Click to expand...

The simple and straight is that so far we're using 1.5x and 2x adapters...these are the only solution for a perfect(well close) looking end image. These give us a 2.66 and a 3.55 ratio(respectively). The Isco 1.5's are what most of us want, and in order of of want it is Isco42, Isco 36, and Isco54. Some of the rest of us are using less expensive 2x adapters such as Bausch and Lomb, Kowa, and Sankors. Still even a few use are using the Century or Panasonic 1.33x adapters which give an end image of 2.35, but these give a soft result on the end image.

So the straight forward is that you can't have a great image at 2.35 without cropping with the adapters we're using....you can have 2.66 without cropping with an Isco, but they are selling at quite a premium now.

The only other option is buying very expensive anamorphics, having them custom made, or perhaps trying to build your own anamorphic lens(which I'm looking into now).

At the moment, I personally am using a 2x and plan on cropping the sides....the end result looses some OVERALL resolution, but end image rez will be exactly the same(since the top and bottom are smaller then a 16:9 frame anyway).....I think the Isco IS the best choice, as you gain a little rez where it is, even if you crop to 2:35....we're all hoping and praying for an inexpensive high performance 1.33x anamorphic...but I wouldn't hold my breath, lol.
 
True anamorphic

True anamorphic

Thanks Nick, can I ask you about a certain thing you said.

"So the straight forward is that you can't have a great image at 2.35 without cropping with the adapters we're using....you can have 2.66 without cropping with an Isco, but they are selling at quite a premium now.:"

So are the sankors and other projector 2x adapters croppping the top and bottom for me?

An Isco does not crop the top or bottom? And neither distort the image but just ad 1.5x or 2x horizontally?

Would it be easier for me to just add a 2.35 matte in post over my original 1.78 footage?

I want true anamorphic, are these adapter techniques giving true anamorpihc or are they just cropping on the fly, doing the same as I would in post? Am I losing or gaining anything by using a sankor (2x), isco(1.5x), or using the original 1.78 footage(1x)?

What would be the different scenarios?

Did they just put a matte in post here? Any plus, minuses to that? Save money, but what about image quality and such? Isnt it amateurish to throw a matte on in post as opposed to true anamorphic? Cant you tell the difference?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3f9irdDX7iw

Thanks.
 
So are the sankors and other projector 2x adapters croppping the top and bottom for me?
An Isco does not crop the top or bottom? And neither distort the image but just ad 1.5x or 2x horizontally?
Would it be easier for me to just add a 2.35 matte in post over my original 1.78 footage?
I want true anamorphic, are these adapter techniques giving true anamorpihc or are they just cropping on the fly, doing the same as I would in post? Am I losing or gaining anything by using a sankor (2x), isco(1.5x), or using the original 1.78 footage(1x)?
Click to expand...

OK Clint...here are some base principles as far as anamorphics go. This may be a review for you, so if it is, please excuse me.

Anamorphic lenses like the Sankor 16C were implemented with an interesting goal in mind. You see, people who used these lenses were typically shooting on 8mm film. They wanted to have a "wide screen" look. So...what to do? The solution was rather interesting. Why not use glass that compressed or would bend the image. If you look at pics of anamorphic lenses you'll see that they look "elliptical" right? Funny....because if you look at the other end, they are NOT. They're just round. (The glass its self is curved) But that is the Anamorphic Effect. it takes something that is (in this case) "round" and "squashes it" or compresses it. This makes people look skinny, narrow, etc. The purpose was (originally) to fit wider imaging onto the same width 8mm film. OK...but it looks weird right? So...they would use the SAME LENS on their projector to VIEW the film/footage. This effectively "decompressed"/"de-squashed" the image to its original width. In this way, they were fitting wide screen aspect ratio on standard width film.

OK...with that in mind...here's how it works for you. You shoot your footage with the anamorphic adapter. Most of our sensors are capturing 16:9 natively. So...with the adapter on the front of your lens, it's going to add additional curvature to the image. (It looks narrow, slim, etc) You'll take that footage and resize it (squash it)....this will take away the narrow appearance, and your ratios will be proper...by squashing it, it will now look "cropped". It's actually NOT cropped... (You haven't thrown away any pixels.) Those pixels are reshaped now, in my case with the D90 is actually helps with some "jagged edges" because they are shortened from a height perspective. (Another lame story for later.)

...the point is: This is how anamorphics work!

Summary:
1. Anamorphic glass compresses the image. (Tall, narrow...and yes you can go the other direction if you want)
2. You "resize the image" to return it to its proper aspect ratio (in post).
3. No need to crop out pixels because the resizing adds a void above and below the image by nature of the resize.

I hope this helps! :)

NOTE: Sometimes people will actually crop out pixels and resize in different increments. You pointed out one of my quick and dirty videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsQykrMBfCA

... (this was holding the adapter in my hand in front of my lens). That is actually NOT properly re-sized. It's actually not been completely "de-squashed”

This video is actually mathematically resized properly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG7CzO7RZY8&feature=related

You'll notice that it's VERY VERY WIDE. Many would say it's too wide. (Almost unusable.) So...some people are zooming into an image like this, (effectively cropping out the sides)...but leaving a more usable (taller) image. Another reason why people are resizing differently is to crop out vignetting. Full frame sensor add another dimension to be considered, but the point is that there are many different approaches one the anamorphicized image has been captured.
 
Last edited:
Liszön! said:
If you have any progress in this, please let us know! Even the preparation/source researching is intresting!
Click to expand...

Too many projects...not enough money, lol. I have about 4-5 different experimental projects in front of this one, but to stay abreast of any info I find, prototypes, field tests, or stuff that others do(I really hope someone else will try their hand at this as well), check in here : http://vimeo.com/groups/anamorphic/forumthread:9234 from time to time, as well as just the anamorphic group in general there.
 
Clint Nitkiewiz Hernandez said:
Thanks Nick, can I ask you about a certain thing you said.
Click to expand...

I concur on what HHL has said. With these basics in mind when 8mm users had their original aspect ratio of 4:3(1.33 times as wide as it is tall{we get this by dividing 4 by 3}) and used 2x adapters they DOUBLED the first number there...so it's 8:3, or if we divide 8 by 3 we get a 2.66. In the same vein, since we're using 16:9 sensors(1.77 times as wide as it is tall) when we use a 1.5x we get 24:9(2.66)...and when we use 2x adapters we get 32:9(3.55).

Now all anamorphics can do is
1. give you a different look by giving you an odd focal length in one dimension
2. give you cool flare
3. give you a wider(or taller) aspect ratio

It sounds as if you want number 3(which is where most of us are)....you have to make some tough decisions here...it isn't cut and paste decisions...if it were, then this wouldn't be an Art, but just a formula.

If you want true anamorphic from beginning to end, that has the most amazing image possible, then you need to look into a Red One camera at minimum, with a minimum of some good glass from someplace like this:
http://anamorphic.biz/

You'll also have to find what the total workflow is and in what way you can deliver footage.

Now if you are trying to figure crap out like the rest of us, and only possiblly bringing this equipment on set, EVENTUALLY/MAYBE.....then get an ISCO 42, 36, or 54...or if you don't wanna play with the INSANE prices that ISCO's are going for, then get a cheaper 2X anamorphics.....a full list of different anamorphics can be found here:
http://super8wiki.com/index.php/Anamorphic_Lenses

basically, no matter what....your gonna have to cut off some pixels from the sides if you want a kick ass looking 2.35....personally if I was on a micro-budget shoot and looking for a WIDE look, I'd use the budget on an ISCO 42 and just present in 2.66.
 
Last edited:
So what´s the difference between sancor C and D?
From all the projector adapters that you have tried, which one was the "best"?
 
But ISCO lenses are 50mm ?Anamorphic isnt so visible on them,especially if theyre 1.5, with 35mm lens and 28mm thats another story and picture looks like big budget.
I tried 2X with 50mm lens on 7D sensor cropped to 16:9 in video and anamorphic perspective is just starting to be visible and footage has rounded corners a bit when you shooting straight lines.
Depends what you want from anamorphics.Sometimes 50-100mm anamorphic doesnt look any different than cropping regular 50mm or 35mm lens.
Macgregor i guess the best would be the one with biggest rear glass.But the ones which have biggest glass are for 35mm projectors and you can only focus on infinity with them from what i heard.With the ones that have 43mm rear glass(for 16mm film projection) you can use 50mm lens and cant focus on infinity but you can step down the lens to f8/16 and you have infinity.
This option looks decent on 5D,dont know how wide it would be on 7D because 28mm isnt so wide on APS-C.
http://vimeo.com/5680250
I like perspective on 1:12 and 1:45.
 
Last edited:
so you were right at the very beginning of this thread

In my opinion they look so similar. I have bought the Kowa 8Z with a 50mm 0.75 thread and ordered an adapter from 55 to 50 I hope it works on my Yashica ML Lenses (55f1.2,28f2.8,35f2.8,135f2.8)
I'm thinking about buying the Sankor 16D, too, but I think they are very similar and I think one with a wider thread would be more sensible to buy?
by the way does anyone have both of them after all?

But there are so many out there I think almost anyone should work and as a general rule the wider the thread and the shorter the length the better to adapt.
 
Last edited:
OK i modified proskar lens for 16mm projection and it can focus on infinity now too, so im now fully happy with it.One problem is that you have to focus both lenses.
But its still better than lens for 35mm projection where you have only infinity if you dont have diopters.With the one i have you can focus from about 1.5 meter to infinity.Ill try to modify it more so i could focus closer for nice closeups with DOF.
 
Since I now have the Iscorama 36, I don't use this lens (Sankor 16C). I decided to shoot some quick footage of my Christmas tree. I used a Nikon 50mm f2.0. Most of the footage was shot at f2.8. As you know, close-ups with these lenses are IMPOSSIBLE....unless you are using diopters. I am using +1, +2, +4, +10....and various combinations of all of them. I am using the Nikon D90. CS4 Premiere for editing, AE for compression for YouTube. I did color correct for brightness +20, and contrast +20 in Premiere.

Here's some pics...I'll most the link when it is done loading to YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUB-Qmdhq3M


ScreenShot1.jpg


ScreenShot2.jpg


ScreenShot3.jpg


Hopefully I'll get some time to post some more footage with this lens. I'm actually rather impressed with how it performed today. I'm sure with a little more familiarity a person could shoot rather well with this lens. (I know it is WWWAAAAAYYYYY TOOOOO WWWIIIIIIDDDDDEEEEE!!!)....but it's still a fun lens to shoot with.

PS....Merry Christmas you guys!
 
Last edited:
HHL, thanks for posting your pics and they look quite nice. Make sure you have the lens oriented correctly because it appears the Christmas balls are not quite round. This sometimes happens if the Anamorphic is ever-so-ever slightly off from vertical.

This thread brings back memories before I got my DVX100B (which I later sold and bought my current cam Canon HV20). I couldn't afford a DVX back in 2002 so what I did was basically put a 2x 16D anamorphic onto a PAL DV camera. I threw out one of the fields and was left with a beautiful 2.66:1 image that was 25p. I then slowed the footage down to 23.976 and slowed the audio down as well (preserving the pitch while I was at it). This was a great poor man's 24p and provided a really nice wide 640x240 24p picture. Lots of vertical detail. I was consistently amazed. I eventually gave this up because, let's face it, 240 lines is not up to snuff in the 21st century. I'll look through my archives and post some screen grabs.

I would recommend this to anyone with an old PAL 4:3 camera. Its certainly fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top