The art of firmware update warfare

Illya Friedman said:
I have a question-

If someone were to make a 62mm 1.34x front anamorphic element, optimized for the GH1....

1) Would you be interested in buying it?

2) What would you be willing to pay?

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras
Click to expand...

for sure, the isco-54 is a bit heavy at a kilo (over 2 lb) but it would have to be as good as the german glass. 1.33x is perfect to get 2.39:1. Mine is 1.5x so I'll have to crop. I think anamorphic could be big with the GH1. Shallow dof was the last big thing.
 
yia said:
sorry guys... what is this thing firmware?... can some body please slowly explain what it is and what it does to me so I can be in the same page with you guys
Click to expand...

A 1.33x anamorphic adapter on a GH1 = cinemascope widescreen 2.39:1 not 16x9 (think latest star trek, apocalypse now, blade runner etc.) They screw onto the front of your prime lenses and squash the image 1.33, 1.5, or 2x then you stretch it out in post. It gives you a wider picture without cropping.

do a youtube search on anamorphic for some examples. You get really cool distortions and lens flares.

I've been doing a lot of research on anamorphics, I'll start a new thread with all the info/links in a few weeks.

I'd pay $500 for a lightweight 1.33x adapter with picture on par with the isco and better than the century 16x9 if that's possible.
 
Last edited:
pix2pixels said:
Ilya,

That would be a great addition at the right cost.
I have used an older model (Century) with PD150 cameras. The main issue was that it was limited to wide angle, almost anything past a certain focal length was out of focus.
Also, you could not zoom through.
There is one around, manufactured by Panasonic, selling for about 1150 aussie pesos, but I don't know if it is from the second generation, allowing zooming and shooting at the long end.
Click to expand...

D90 jack has the panasonic, he's said it's a bit soft. I picked up a lot of tips from super 8 and 16mm filmmakers who are using old anamorphic projector lenses as adapters. The isco I just got for 500 bucks used to sell new for five grand.
 
I really didn't like the old DVX100 anamorphic adapter when it was released (soft).

If I knew I could sell enough of them to make it worth the development costs, I'd look into building a custom 1.34 squeeze. I could do a rear element but it's likely more expensive than a front, and unless I chipped a electronic pass through you'd lose auto lens features.

I.

Illya Friedman
Hot Rod Cameras
 
squig said:
for sure, the isco-54 is a bit heavy at a kilo (over 2 lb) but it would have to be as good as the german glass. 1.33x is perfect to get 2.39:1. Mine is 1.5x so I'll have to crop. I think anamorphic could be big with the GH1. Shallow dof was the last big thing.
Click to expand...


I see this error all the time.

The math: 1.33x Anamorphic X 1.78:1( 16x9 sensor ) = 2.3674 > round up > 2.3700 = 2.37.1


I see figures of 2:35 - 2:40 -2:39... I actual called and spoke with the people who make the Hawk 1:33x to discuss this error in the spec sheet, they were even perplexed too why they have this error! LoL
 
Last edited:
Illya Friedman said:
I really didn't like the old DVX100 anamorphic adapter when it was released (soft).

If I knew I could sell enough of them to make it worth the development costs, I'd look into building a custom 1.34 squeeze. I could do a rear element but it's likely more expensive than a front, and unless I chipped a electronic pass through you'd lose auto lens features.
Click to expand...

Anyone who's really serious about shooting anamorphic wouldn't want auto anything.
 
yeah pappas I know the math is off but my point is 1.33x is closest to 2.39:1. you can always do some horizontal cropping to get it spot on.
 
squig said:
yeah pappas I know the math is off but my point is 1.33x is closest to 2.39:1. you can always do some horizontal cropping to get it spot on.
Click to expand...

My point was; why not call it 2:37:1 which it is mathematically correct, and not crop anything on the horizontal. The point of anamorphic is the increased horizontal FOV ( in this case .67x wider increase with 1.33x ) of visual info however the vertical untouched. Cropping anything on the side is leaning toward the defeating factor of anamorphic shooting. That's said Horizontal cropping would make it less wide: I think you mean vertical cropping. If you cropped a 2:35 it would be less than 2:35 getting you farther away from 2:39.

Anamorphic can be very enjoyable to frame a visual shot, and also be a pain in the a$$ too. I love to shoot with WideLux cameras, so this wider framing is where I feel at home most.




.
 
Last edited:
cropping on the side could be good if you want to get rid of an vignetting and softness at the edges. If you're not into that look then 1.5x would be perfect. I kinda like the softness and vignetting so I'm keeping my eye out for a 1.33x adapter to keep my 1.5x company. I fully expect it to be a pain in the arse shooting anamorphic but I just love the look.
 
squig said:
Anyone who's really serious about shooting anamorphic wouldn't want auto anything.
Click to expand...


Exactly, auto wouldn't be good. Anamorphic already is focusing in two planes as well.


The Panasonic isn't perfect, however it's a stellar performer for the price. I own a couple of them. It 's image holds up well mounted to very high res DSLR's. I also own the century's adapter too, and it sucks... It has more pronounced anamorphic flaring, however the panasonic is better and a bigger piece of glass.
 
do you have one of those anamorphic lcd hoods?

I'd like to mount one onto the GH1 LCD but I think it's a bit big for the GH1.
 
Last edited:
Ilya,
From what I remember, the 'behind the lens' adapter provides some significant light loss. Correct me if I am wrong but it's almost 2 stops; Never used one, heard only horror stories. I like that the Panasonic has 72mm diameter for the lens coupling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top