JohnBarlow

Be prepared for lots of SA :P   Regarding Medium Format, there is enormous scope for 'blads and SK angulons, digitars etc because there is acres of space due to the large FFD and the booster would not be restricted to a 4 element design.   Great news for big lens formats.

Whilst I am not a patent lawyer, I think Metabones may be in the clear on the SB. Looking at the Kodak patent US5499069.pdf, all the claims are to do with SLR in the wording or implied. Of course mirrorless cameras are not SLRs and they may have a clear path on this technicality.   From what I see it is a 1.4x teleconverter mounted backwards and the beauty of the design is the excellent correction of spherical aberration. Nevertheless there will be copies (using different lens prescription) from third parties which may include Canon themselves for future expansion of the EOSM system. 

If you want your final image to be 2.35:1, (810x1920), you should horizontal scale the image from the camera by 150% and reduce vertically by 75% and then crop to 1920 wide from the resultant image. This means you are discarding 33% of the image width (you have to sacrifice something for your art) PS you can use a 33% wider focal length if the crop is in the center because you will be discarding any vignetted parts.

The clamping solutions available for legacy anamorphics tend to work by having a fixed screwed connection between the anamorphic and the taking lens. This type of design tends to proclude lenses that have RFE and also the more modern lenses with plastic barrels like the hybrid AF/Manual override L glass from Canon and G glass from Nikon which no doubt would suffer from having a heavy adapter on the end. They also require extra work when changing lenses since the adapter has to be realigned vertically everytime.   For lenses with RFE you could using a rotating filter mount (like that from an old polarizer) provided you have some means of locking down the anamorphic. On ebay I recently saw such a clamping system which combined with a rotating filter would work pretty good and also save time aligning things vertically when changing lenses.   Having separate support for the anamorphic is preferable for modern hybrid lenses with plastic barrels and is especiallly useful for focussing with a dual focus system -  just set the focus on the anamorphic and half press the shutter for focus on the taking lens and adjust from there using hybrid AF/Manual overide.

You should remove all traces of the old helicoid grease using lighter fluid and an old toothbrush and use a modern synthetic grease from say ebay - use sparingly.

There are two more combinations by rotating the inner tube 180 degrees, giving 8 combos in total with the guides. Try this first before messing with the glass.    As for fungus, get to step 5 and use cotton swap dipped in PONDS cream over affected area. Leave overnight and rinse off with zippo lighter fluid.   Dont rub too hard - the inner coatings will rub off = be warned

+1 but nano degrees is a gross assessment.   1 milliradian accuracy is sufficient

Before messing with the glass, get to step 4 and swap the guides over and/or rotate them - total 4 combinations, they may have been taken out before and put in the wrong way. Take a picture after each combo and decide.

My first advice is - don't do it   but if you want to proceed these are the steps for complete disassembly only, remember to mark things and take photos!   1. Unscrew front lens hood anticlockwise 2. Remove three grub screws and unscrew focus retaining ring 3. Unwind focus ring - it unwinds toward rear of lens (mark where helicoid comes apart) 4. Remove screws from brass guide rails and remove rails from guide slots 5. Part inner tube from outer tube 6. Using lens wrench remove front lens retaining ring, shim and rubber seal if present 7. Using lens wrench remove rear lens retaining ring, shim and rubber seal if present 8. Apply acetone to rim of lenses to loosen glue 9  Push lenses out from the inside using a makeshift daub, if stubborn repeat from step 8.     You may not need to go beyond step 4 if the guide rails are worn, either replace or run a trace of solder along the edges to fatten them up.   The rest is up to you. YOYO  = You're On Your Own :P        

The great thing about digital is that you can do aperture pulls at constant exposure by floating the ISO.   The great thing about Anamorphic aperture pulls is that you can go from deep focus to a squishy background which can look pretty cool.   If you have some to show, please share :P    

@Caleb   Since SuperHate Tony has dropped my name into the hat, you might well indeed consider a refund and here is why:   Many Kowas/Sankors have a small lens hood that can be unscrewed anti-clockwise revealing a standard filter thread. For example in the Kowa/Sankor 16c, its 52mm x 0,75mm.   So all you really really needed was a $2 step ring.........  

The Hawk V series go down to 25mm with a horizontal FOV of 92 degrees.    see here: http://www.vantagefilm.com/en/equipment/hawk_anamorphic.shtml   If you want to see the full range of Hawks in action - mostly wide open, check out this movie which is a Hawk showcase   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1297919/technical   Jason and Paddy clean up the east end of London...

      So, where is it?  If its such a big deal why is it not for purchase?  Why have you not brought it to market? What focus range does it support?  Which scopes does it support?  Do you have some photos we could see?     Sounds like you are out of ideas...     I am glad you brought up the patent. The most current US patent that I can find for that ISCO is http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3002427.pdf which cites the 57 patent - ISCO basically puts a shifting diopter system in front of a custom afocal 2x scope design. I cant find the 1.5x design in the short time I looked, but its probably generic or lapsed.   This is what I see - the focus is done through racking the front element, everything else including the prime taking lens is set at infinity. The lens scheme is shown in Fig3 and the lens prescription is at Table II. The spec says it can focus from 2m to Infinity, so that shifting dioptr goes from 0.5D to 0D.    I can't see any achromats among the shifting dioptr can you? The index of those two front elements look like crown glass. They probably thought, as I do, that achromats are unnecessary for this dioptr range.       Seems to me like you are fishing or clutching at straws. I wish I could show you something sooner, but I have to wait for the paperwork to come through, you know how it is.      Are we done?  

@ wilson     Reverting to type I see

NIce

Further to my post above, it appears that the Pana was designed for 2.5m distance which is of course -0.4D   So when you add a +0.4D close up, it cancels out    0.4D -0.4D = 0D   If you were the one to discover this then Kudos to you, nothing to do with achromat BTW :)

It is well known that achromats are specific to the correction of CA. See this reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_(optics)#Chromatic_aberration   Basically the flint glass corrects the dispersion caused by the preceding optic, tightens up the rays and causes them to land on the focal plane together. So the blue-yellow and magenta-green CA is diminished. For weak dioptr < 1.0 there is little dispersion and no significant CA to correct so no need for achromat. It is not wrong to use an achromat but it is not essential. Alternatives are high Abbe glass   So why does  a 0.4 close up improve a Century/Optex/Pana over a 0.5? The fact that it is 0.4 power is the answer, it just happens to hit the sweet spot   The Century/Optex/Pana is different from conventional anamorphics  - it is designed to give best results at about 3m hyperfocal distance, which is a compromise based on the average hyperfocal distance for a range of f-stops and focal lengths of a 1/3 inch chip camera. Move out of this range and the image falls apart, I seem to remember with the PD150 - don't zoom more than 5x   Adding a 0.4 D just makes it afocal and better performance at longer distance. It is equivalent to slightly increasing the distance between the front and rear elements

Mr Wilson, I congratulate you on returning this thread to a more civil tone, which I wholly support.   I stand by my previous comment on the need  for achromat below1.0 dioptr, so no need for a theoretical treatise.   If your concern is quality then yes, you get what you pay for and I believe the current favoured solution in Motion Picture and TV is the Schneider water white optical glass single element solution   https://www.schneideroptics.com/ecommerce/CatalogSubCategoryDisplay.aspx?CID=1662   Personally, I use Zeiss T* Proxars on my sweet little sixteens. I love the bayonet quick change.......       Referring to SLR Magic, I was not upset but took a firm stance on why he was sending me PMs but blanking me on the forum. Funny thing was, he was asking about close ups as well. I do not take SLR Magic seriously however and have yet to see any photos OF his prototype so who really knows what was used in the production of the photos he posted. "if it ain't on the page - it ain't on the stage"   As for proving people wrong, that's not my gig, they are well aware of the written word.   I will make you aware of two products I will be releasing in Q1/13 when a Press Release will be sent out. One is related to scopes and the other related to cine lenses.      

Oh yeah   Stroke my Hawk    its really friendly once you get to handle it

Whats this?     "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"   youre kiddin me right?

Ok    Now we are in the guilt phase followed by more insults ?? :)       " Only people who think in wider than 2.35:1 allowed! "   Get it?

Are you in for a surprise! :)      

I will not descend to your level by returning your personal insults, but I will remind you of the banner at the top of this forum which reads The Anamorphic Shooter's Forum     The place to discuss all things anamorphic. Lenses, workflow, cameras - it all goes here. Only people who think in wider than 2.35:1 allowed!       Lets just repeat the last sentence just in case you missed it    " Only people who think in wider than 2.35:1 allowed! "   Get it?         Quite clearly you don't, so....Seems to me  - you're a gatecrasher :)     I will not descend to return your insults

  I dont believe I am in the wrong Forum unless you speak for Andrew.   Anamorphic Cinemascope is and always will be 2x including flares, stretched Bokeh, and 2:1 elliptical aperture reflection   Anything else is a small format cheapskate pretender to the real deal. Like a Porshe 944 hairdressers car :)   just sayin'

  The best way to improve the sharpness on those adapters is , IMO, is to remove them and simply crop the image. Those adapters were designed for the format change from 4:3 to 16:9 and not for their scope properties.    Back in the day I had an Optex on a PD150 and it was a pain to use zoomed in.