Caleb Genheimer

Which is your favorite so far?

Very nice. SLR Magic is going to beat Voigtlander to having a set of superfast manual primes . . . and they're putting gears on 'em too!

If it becomes available soon and is what they claim it is, I'd consider it for the global shutter alone. My GH2 is incredible for most all other stuff, but shots inside a moving vehicle are jello city.

Andrew, thanks for covering this. I've been following it for a while, and Markus is really on to something here. Please keep in contact with him. I for one really don't want to see his project die out. He has a very strong potential solution to an anamorphic shooting problem. The fact of the matter is, for those of us who love 2X anamorphics, there is no good dual-focus solution. Even LOMOs are now very expensive, especially if you want multiple focal lengths.   I think there really is something advantageous about the projection anamorphics where you only have to buy the anamorphic once, and it can go in front of a set of less expensive non-anamorphic "taking" lenses in order to make up a set with various focal lengths. The Kowa for example that Markus is using (as you know) is incredible glass. The focus challenges that Markus is remedying with his project are the Kowa's only big hurdle in comparison to even the best anamorphics.   The fact is, even if his focus-ganging system ends up being expensive, it is likely still cheaper than a set of LOMOs, and Kowas are easier to find. It also doesn't require the strange custom support system like the LOMOs do, and it beats out the Iscorama in many people's books because it is a 2X anamorphic system. Add to that the potential for it to also be a wireless follow focus system, and it even begins to be uniquely attractive.   Please, as one of the more visible and influential anamorphic users, keep in contact with Markus, and let us know if he needs help to move his project along.

Zach, the main issue with a purely mechanical design is that the focus scales for various lenses are often variedly  nonlinear.

Thanks, Andrew. the sound track was my first suspicion as to the difference from film 4:3 to digital 4:3. The director/producer wahts to crop to standard 2.39 (or 2.40), but I will mention the 2.66 and see what he thinks. On all my own stuff, I find myself just using the full 3.55:1. It sure is wide, but it is beautiful. 

I will second the advice to go see Django Unchained even if you didn't like Inglorious Bastards. To be honest, I HATED Inglorious. Thought it was terrible. I wasn't able to buy into the story, and it wasn't particularly funny. It did feel like several different stories unsuccessfully rolled into one film. (Although, that is what he did so successfully in Pulp Fiction, so I'm not sure what went wrong). From the first moment I heard that he was doing another period piece to the moment a gun went off in the first scene, I was preparing to be dissapointed again . . .   But I wasn't. And it was awesome. Tarantino was at the top of his storytelling game. The whole film is very tight, and most reminds me of Kill Bill.    I'm super stoked for his next film which is starring Christoph Waltz and is yet another period piece: http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/new-tarantino-movie/n32896/ _____________________   Also, A question for you, Andrew . . . I am shooting 2X anamorphic on the FS100 soon, and I'm cropping to 2.39. But the 4:3 screen guides don't seem to match up with the crop from 3.55:1(16:9) down to 2.39:1(should be 4:3 . . . isn't?)

Go see it. It is amazing. The beauty of the anamorphic made me cry a little. just knowing that there's still a filmmaker out there who loves shooting film and anamorphic makes me so happy.

What can i say? I'm a 2X kinda guy, through and through. 

The Kowa 8Z/16H is distorted near the far left and right of its image coverage. at 90mm on a 5D, you're pushing the boundaries. That is some of the distortion. First, level your tripod, then do what others are suggesting with a flashlight for alignment. Your clamp can make a big difference too. Get a good one that is sized to fit snug. The anamorphic shouldn't be held in place by the screws. They should mainly just be used for tightening to prevent rotation/misalignment. 

It was buy it now for $800, that's why I gave the heads up. I have absolutely no money right now or I would've snatched it up then and there.

Not mine, just spotted it. Great 8Z with Redstan clamps and a Jupiter too!   http://www.ebay.com/itm/Kowa-8Z-16H-2x-Anamorphic-Lens-for-Canon-DSLR-5D-7D-RED-/160977511166?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item257b01e2fe

There was one on EBay a year or so ago. I almost bought it, but as it was an unknown lens and it would've been my first anamorphic purchase, I passed.

I'd be up for helping him out a bit. If anyone else is, maybe we should get together and let him know. I have an identical Kowa and would love to buy and/or get instructions for how to build one of these. The Kowa is pretty hard to best quality-wise, and dual-focus is quite frankly the only difficult thing about it (obviously this system solves that problem). I only wonder how noisy it is.

Is that for BMCC/GH2 I assume?

Maximum FOV/taking lens focal length?

No, it is electronic coupling with a computer, that is what he means when he says you must calibrate it. It will work with any lens he can manage to fit it on.    I have a few ideas for him to make it very easy to change the rear lens quite quickly. If he integrates the anamorphic clamp with the anamorphic support system, ha can then attach the anamorphic parts of his electronics directly to that support instead of to the rails. Once he as done that, the anamorphic and everything related to it attaches to the rails via the support, making it easy to move the whole assembly forward or backward in order to change the "taking" lens.

Hi. I use a 37mm MIR-1B f2.8 with my Kowa 16-H (8Z is the same lens), and I love it. Very Russian, and a rectilinear flektagon copy, so it doesn't add any distortion to the image (keep in mind the Kowa still will, though). I also use Sedna, but everyone has been praising Driftwood's new Moon GOP1 setting, so I'm switching to that. Some other former Sedna users really seem to like Moon and think it is similar but grades better. (Note: I haven't actually tried it yet.)

Thanks for the rundown! I kinda suspected all that stuff about rear-anamorphic lenses not having all the "loved" anamorphic attributes, but nobody has ever confirmed that.

I'll second that, Andrew. Kowa 8Z/16-H is absolutely killer. Darn those Iscoramians for patenting their single-focus design. I think if Kowa had been allowed, they'd have surpassed Isco in the single-focus category.

Don't take this the wrong way, but these look as if you've got either the Kowa or the prime focused incorrectly. Getting both right can be tricky, because until both are fairly close/in the ballpark, it looks out of focus. The scale on the Kowa is approximate, and isn't always exactly right depending on the other lens. My first question is, what kind of clamp are you using/how are you attaching it to your "taking" lens (the 50mm)? Secondly, have you tried it (even just held by hand) in front of any other lenses? You should scrutinize those two things before determining that your Kowa is bad.    What you are describing seems very strange to me. I have the same Kowa, and they are built like a tank. I struggle to imagine one that simply doesn't focus. I assume they have a helicoil/coils, and as they are metal construction, it would be tough for these to quit working. It would seem far more likely that your lens elements are either out of alignment . . . or one is missing entirely. Even if the lens were failing to move the elements . . . you should be able to focus at whatever position it is stuck at.   What does the view look like through your Kowa (just naked eye)? Because these projection anamorphics are just adapters and do not have apertures, you can look straight through them quite easily. My good copy looks crisp and clear, just for reference. I can see clearly  and with detail through it.    Don't buy a diopter expecting it to fix this. There is a chance that it might, but don't count on it.   EDIT: I se you have experience with the B&H, so I assume you've learned how to focus these properly. Bummer, as that means there is certainly a bigger problem :/

Why do you assume it will breathe heavy? Is it a LOMO through-and-through, falsely stickered as ARRI, or is it ARRI glass with a LOMO rear anamorphic adapter?   I've been unable to find any good examples of footage from these LOMO (or other rear anamorphic) zooms, and in theory they've intrigued me quite a bit. Do they still exhibit the strange compression of out-of-focus areas and oval points of light? It would make sense that they don't flare nearly as much due to the anamorphic not being on front, but I could take or leave horizontal flares, TBH. Particularly the 20-120mm LOMO zooms that shows up on eBay have tempted me because of their f2.5 aperture. That's a pretty good aperture for a zoom, and 20-120mm is no range to be scoffed at. 20mm is wider than most other anamorphics (except for the DV ones), and 120mm is certainly a telephoto focal length. 

Did you try email? When I wanted one, I emailed him with some questions. He responded quite quickly. (I believe I just used the email that is on his site.)    Love the Redstan stuff. Superb quality.

I'll just mention that I now use this all the time. Once you set it up, it is just there, but it is incredibly nice to be able to watch my clips desqueezed straight from the camera, no rendering, no converting. Once I've dumped a card to my drive, I just open all the clips at once. That way, it loads them as a kind of "playlist" and it holds the modified aspect ratio from clip to clip so you only have to set it once. This simple little trick is a major time saver when you add it all up! Thanks again for the tip!

Yeah, I saw those too. We can dream, right?