Leaderboard

SAMPLES ! Sony A7 + Novoflex adapter ring + Nikon 50mm E Serie f1.8 + Redstan clamp + Bolex System Moler 16/32/1.5X anamorphic lens More samples and larger on my Flick'r : http://www.flickr.com/photos/43243778@N04/sets/72157638698522816/

More samples : :)

I've just received the final version of the SLR Magic 17mm T1.6 ! FULL RESOLUTION ON MY FLICK'R http://flic.kr/s/aHsjP5jhLd Here is a sample at full aperture on OM-D E-M5 :) (first in small version, second in full)

More samples from this morning :)

I shot this feature on a GH2 this summer. It will be out at the end of January. Here's one of the trailers.

V * AR * 1/SQ V= Vertical Resolution AR = Aspect Ratio (flat) SQ = Squeeze Factor So, for instance, if your target was 1080 lines of vertical resolution you would multiply that by 2.35 to get 2538. That would be your target, flat, widescreen image (2538x1080). To get to the squeezed horizontal resolution you multiply this by the reciprocal of the anamorphic lens compression ratio, 1/1.5 (use full precision on calculator) so that's 1692. 1692 x 1080 Knowing this squeezed aspect ratio makes it theoretically easier to arrive at a shorter calculation but you'll find that the mix of single, double and greater decimal precision at different steps can alter the result by several pixels, introducing quite a bit of slop. For instance, the above resolution works forward and backward through the original calculation, proving it's correct. That's not the case, however, if you were to use the aspect ratio of the frame we know to be correct. If you were to use the aspect ratio of the squeezed frame and the common accuracy of only two digits of floating point precision you would get the following: 1692 / 1080 = 1.57 ...a 1.57:1 aspect ratio for the squeezed frame. But that aspect ratio does not give you correct results, even for our starter 1080 lines of vertical resolution example: 1080 * 1.57 = 1696 ...and... 1696 * 1.5 = 2544 ...but... 2544 / 1080 = 2.36 Not a huge deal but it's something to be aware of, particularly if you're doing something for a client or for eventual DCP or any other application where "close enough" isn't good enough. When you really want to know use as much real information as you can like actual pixels, known compression ratios, aperture measurements, etc. and stay away from aspect ratio and crop factor short hand.

But wait... This is dual focus!!! -- quelle horreur !!! You can't follow focus - zut alors !!! You can't pull focus - quel dommage!!! nice images Seb - keep it up :)

So far I have to say it looks far better than the a77 or a99... not perfect but overall there seems to be a little bit more information and sharpness. I hated my a77 for being so super soft, just too soft sometimes. Looking forward to the vid!

Nice cat :)   Will you by trying it on the Blackamgic Pocket Cinema Camera? (The lens that is, not the cat)

From this morning :)

Really nice as always Seb!

Great stuff Seb. Thanks

all the moller needs is someone with a cinemascopic eye : ) lovely shots from a 1950s home movie lens that is sharper than many hollywood 1960s lens. great stuff.

wow. I am impressed. Actually I am on my way to get me a A7 cause here in Tokyo it's around 900EUR. (body only). How did you like to shoot with that cam? How could you judge the sharpness on that stretched image? It would be a dram come true if one day you could set the correct aspect ratio on a consumer cam.

There's a seller on eBay (helicoptersean) who prints custom delrin focus gears. Here's one of his listings: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Custom-Focus-Gear-Ring-for-Sigma-50mm-F1-4-Lens-/261286581672 He has now made two gears from spec for me that are much wider for use with anamorphic lenses. I've been pleased with the quality and the price (around $30 per custom gear). If you want to contact Sean directly, his email is helicoptersean@gmail.com.

Also remember that the glass on fader ND's is usually about one filter size larger than the thread size (to avoid vignetting). And if you're concerned about size at all, the 82mm Genus is going to be massive! Is it the Genus Eclipse you are going for? AFAIK they are the best ...

http://youtu.be/m8NKvHR1Kqk

Sharpness when shooting anamorphic is relative. It's not pin sharpe at F2 but it not too bad. F2.8 is perfectly usable in my option. For me F4 is very sharpe, but your prime will have an impact on this. Check out this video I shot with mine. Low light so it's shot between F2 and F3.2. Should give you a good idea if what to expect.

Pocket Raw sure does suck...