Caleb Genheimer

Quality 2X lenses still need to happen IMO. The real enduring highlight here is once again the NX1. Don't get me wrong, SLR Magic have done a lot for the Anamorphic community, and their Rangefinder is the best thing since sliced bread. But when it comes to their anamorphics, they just don't fit what I'm looking for, and they really don't offer anything over a good projection Ana either. 2X is the whole point. With 4K so accessible, just shoot spherical with a streak filter and crop. Speaking of of streak filters, that's what SLR Magic's blue flares look like, and it's not a great look. Either clean it up with modern coatings or work some serious mojo into it. Tinting the whole shebang the same shade of blue is rather uninspiring. I'm pretty sure my Kowa is still the widest 2X Ana out there, outside of a few primes from Hawk/Panovision. The LOMO 35mm is probably about the same FOV as what I have set up, and I can switch primes and do the same on full frame too. I've used the Kowa on paid projects, and it really is a viable solution until there are new anamorphics available that can truly match its versatility. Anamorphic really shines when it is wide. It's not that longer lenses don't have their uses, they do. But 50mm 2X is not wide. 25mm/S35 would be the holy grail, Or 35mm, and a 3-4 lens set built on that (35/50/75/100). That's just my 2c on the matter. I know others love these lenses but for me they miss the mark especially at the price point. 1.33X is kinda half-heartedly anamorphic in the first place, and on top of that there's not a wide enough option in their 2X offerings. The flares feel forced/contrived, and that really makes them still feel more like SLR Magic's other prosumer priced glass. I hope they can truly graduate to playing with the big boys, but to my eyes, they're not quite there yet.

I have the Rangefinder for this same lens and it works great!

Does it cover s35?

Kowa 16-H/8Z. Very sharp, very wide. True 2X squeeze. It's the widest projection 2X out there, all it needs is clamps front and rear.

Brian, I just had a thought and I'm no optics expert, but does anamorphic feel like a "bigger" image in the same way that a SpeedBooster makes S35 FEEL bigger (more VistaVision), because they ARE essentially doing the same thing, just that anamorphic only does it in one axis? Is anamorphic the original SpeedBooster, but for horizontal only?

Also, Brian... SpeedBooster for Medium Format to Full Frame? I love this type of stuff that gives looks that are usually only Hollywood or pro photographic.

FWIW, my Small-HD AC7 can do 100% custom scaling. Mind you, when you push it, the unused areas of the screen get some crazy digital garbage, but I've desqueezed my Kowa at 2X and cropped it to 2.76:1. Setting up for a non-standard squeeze is just as easy, just some basic maths. Not every monitor an do this, of course, but it is possible. I'd say go for it one way or another. For whatever it's worth, in a year or two I'm hoping to step up to a better anamorphic solution, something between $2-3K. If you've proved one thing with the SpeedBoosters, it's that you don't f*ck around when it comes to designing optics. I have a Kowa with a Rangefinder, and the single-focus has already made a night and day difference, and has reassured me that anamorphic really can be useable in 4K and on professional projects with the right lens setup. I just this week used anamorphic on a paid shoot for the first time, and while it went well, there are a few things that could still use improvement. 1. Field of View. I'm getting about a 35mm FOV horizontally, and that on APSC/S35. While this is decent, it's right at the sweet spot for portraits and just a touch shy of feeling wide. It's so close I can almost see it, but something just under 30mm would produce truly stunning landscapes and establishing shots. What's more, this is just out of reach with projection adapters. Break the "FOV Barrier", I think there's a real gap in the market there. 2. Flares. There was a long phase with the anamorphic hobbyists where it was all the rage to hate on flares, and there's still a negative stigma around it. Good or bad, flares with the current options for lower budget anamorphics are a big hot mess. Some of the projection anas have ok flares, but the new SLR Magic offerings just look strange. What's more, the single focus adapters can't seem to make up their minds. The Rangefinder is tack sharp, but for some reason it has pseudo-vintage blue coatings which put strange blue haze spots in the image. Whatever you do with flares, be decisive. Either nail a vintage look with rich thick flares, or clean it up 100% with modern coatings and keep it all about the bokeh. 3. Lens size. Of course, any anamorphic worth it's price tag will be no pancake lens, but stack a UV filter on a Rangefinder on a step ring on a front clamp on a Kowa on a rear clamp on another step ring on a pancake lens on a lens mount adapter, and you've got a portrait prime lens longer and heavier than a 24-70. I would hope that an integrated anamorphic could be made a bit smaller and more compact than this, especially with the help of modern optics. 4. Lens support. This is a HUGE deal if you go the "front adapter" route. Seriously. I'm considering getting my Rangefinder modded to have a rod lens support, because it's just needed. Let's face it, all the projection anas are a decent size and weight once rigged on front of a lens. There are ALWAYS a lot of parts to get it all hooked up end-to-end. Mine shifts around when I turn the Rangefinder focus ring, causing alignment wobble. Include a way to easily bolt the focus adapter to some rails, so that torque applied while focusing doesn't affect the rest of the setup behind it. Alternatively, this is my prime reason for wanting to move to an all-in-one-housing lens. All the various parts and pieces provide no end of possible failure points. My ideal anamorphic would be a 30mm S-35 in the neighborhood of 2X squeeze (anything significantly less and why freaking bother? Shoot spherical.) Alternatively, 40/45-ish full frame. I'm serious when I say that anything beyond f/4 would be welcome but not required. Because of the way anamorphic renders out of focus areas, I've consistently found that f/4 is not only adequately shallow... It is also sharp and manageable. You want to see the smear, not obliterate it in completely out of focus mush. Around the $2-2.5K mark would be my sweet spot, with of course a 50mm and something longer like 75/85mm also available eventually to fill out a 3 lens set. Again, I'd be most enticed by a wide in the standalone lens department, because anyone these days can grab a projection ana and shoot >50mm stuff. Being able to tell clients that "yes, I have a full three lens set that is reliable and we can shoot anamorphic" is an entirely different ballgame and the wide is what makes a new set better than (for example) a set of LOMOs, along with modern sharpness and usability/reliability. I think wide FOV is a defining characteristic of cinema anamorphic, every bit as much as bokeh, flares or lens distortion, and that's why the projection anas always feel like they just fall short a little. I would leave the single focus adapters to SLR Magic and Rectilux, unless you can beat SLR Magic in quality for the price point. It's a very capable adapter for anyone in the market for a solution to their projection lens woes. Anyone hell-bent on using a projection ana on a high quality level will shell out for the Rectilux. There's a huge hole in the "real anamorphic" prime lens market, basically anywhere below Hawk (and obviously way below Panovision). Go for that sweet spot, kinda like the Xeen lenses. More serious than plain Rokinons, but not quite bank-breaking like CP.2s. Catch the top end of the hobbyist market, and the everyday working stiff profesionals who until you came along hadn't even considered anamorphic.

perfect description of their color science. It shouldn't be so difficult to wrangle into something pleasing to look at.

Their first camera with a good codec plus their variable ND will sell like freaking hot cakes. Doubly so if it is full frame. Variable ND is really the ideal/ultimate way to handle exposure compensation, and putting it in the body as an electronic system is just bonkers-awesome. Unless Samsung come back with a vengeance, my next camera will be a Sony. There's something about their color science that bugs me, but at the rate they're going, I'd be willing to deal with that in favor of other advantages.

Unless someone has the exact same setup, it'll be hard for them to give you exact numbers. Play with the custom scaling. First, crop the correct amount off the sides by stretching it out, then compress it vertically until the image is the right aspect. You need to know what portion of the original image should be showing, and which parts should be cropped off. Take your target aspect ratio and divide it by 1.5 in order to determine this.

Yeah that's where I'm at right now, just using a wide prime by itself. I guess I'll stick with that.

Does the Pentax extend when zooming?

Well I'm at 40mm on APSC, so right in that "50mm FF" FOV range. Would I be able to squeeze the ff38 in between the Ramgefinder and Kowa?

What brand would you suggest? The Cavision look pretty hefty, which in my mind indicates there's some decent glass going on there, but I don't really know.

Rangefinder, yo. Taking lens stays at infinity!

Works well! One that is on my list to try is the Pentax "stack of primes" 35-105 f3.5. If it works decent, it might just stay on my Kowa/Rangefinder. It always looks best nearer to f4 anyway, on S35/APSC, 35mm is wider even than I can go by a little bit, and 100mm should me more than enough long end. It's an early zoom lens so no crazy complex optics, so I'm thinking it might work ok.

The FS5 on paper is as near an ideal camera as I could imagine, and by far the best in its price range, no contest. But it needs a few things fixed nonetheless. For one, Sony needs to work on their color science. They also need better codec as Andrew pointed out. 10bit with macroblocking is a shame. All-I or at least clean 10-bit. I'm also with Andrew: why can't this brilliant new ND be used for auto-exposure?! That's the first and most obvious use for this new technology and there's no way the folks at Sony are so dumb that they overlooked that potential.

I shot this in an afternoon with my friend, and used it as a chance to test my anamorphic setup in a tricky scenario: green screen. It's at f4, and locked off but even so it produced great results considering it was lit with four practicals from the hardware store. It does contain Star Wars spoilers, so consider yourselves warned ?

I'm with you on the NX1, Andrew! It has captured striking imagery with an astonishing success rate for me compared to any other camera. It might not sit atop any specific quantifiable ranking of cameras, but what it's capable of is just short of miraculous. On the Ronin, that AF system is a dream come true, and paired together in the right hands, most any shot is possible. It handles extremely well, is reliable as heck, and it has good tech specs where it counts.

Interesting. So for my purposes, I need a focus-through/afocal WA adapter. For everything closer up, the 40mm with anamorphic is wide enough. My main hope is to get that extra 30-40% wide for shots at infinity, mostly for establishing shots outdoors or in large interiors. I have to admit, I was inspired by a few shots from Hateful8 promo footage. Those anamorphics are not an extreme squeeze, but still, they get a wide shot that feels both expansive and intimate all at once (this above all is what draws me to anamorphic in general.) Im getting about 24-28mm non-anamorphic equivalent with my current setup, which is just on the verge of a true wide shot. I'm going to email Cavision for some more details, perhaps they can help me make an informed purchase or at least steer me clear of any expensive mistakes.

The Cavision is the same filter thread size as the Rangefinder, whereas the DSO WA is a much smaller rear that I'm sure would vignette. Great for use on the TRUMP system, but not for my purposes. Cavision has WA adapters and WA Converters. They seem to be emphasizing the fact that these are NOT the same thing, but I can't for the life of me understand the difference. One "only works with your camera in macro mode" whatever the crap that means. My fear is that they mess up infinity focus or something... Or worse, that they vignette pretty hard core, and "macro mode" = zooming in.

Simply amazing. I know there's been a bit of hullabaloo about Rectilux vs Rangefinder, but I'm shooting 4K on NX1, and the Rangefinder holds up great. It's actually my taking lenses that I'm finally starting to give more thought to, now that I can focus the darn thing. Does anyone know if Apple's Motion could do this desqueezing stuff?

Yep I'm aware of that, but with the Rangefinder, it stays at infinity, so the changing squeeze with focal point doesn't happen.

I'm on NX1 at the moment, probably will be for a while yet as weddings are my main bread and butter, so no RAW unfortunately. I've got some whiz-kid computer friends, perhaps they can whip up another converter solution or a plugin or something.

Yep, exactly what I was asking about, thanks! I was even filming checkerboards yesterday while trying to sort this out. Of course I don't want to completely flatten out the lens barreling, as that's one of the trademark traits of anamorphic, but this goes beyond average barreling along the far edges, it really is a squeeze ratio thing. It is very obvious when panning especially. So I guess only advanced graphics programs will be able to do this? I'll have to dig around some more.