Tito Ferradans

First three episodes of the SLR Magic series! Next one is about the achromatic diopters and then variable ND! ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - SLR MAGIC EP01 - ANAMORPHOT 1.33X-50. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8330 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - SLR MAGIC EP02 - ANAMORPHOT 2.0X-50. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8331 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - SLR MAGIC EP03 - RANGEFINDER. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8332

It's waaaay bigger than the Panny's front element. I once had a bunch of 4.5" diopters, but this price is absurd. With A LOT of patience you can find them for $50 or so.

I got that too since I liked the other two so much. hahaha

they are doublets. my review about them is coming in two weeks. I bought THE EXACT same ones you did. It was a great price, right? Too low to let it pass for two doublets.

Well done, man! +0.25 is hard to get! I have this minolta, it's almost the same as the Tokina +0.4, except it's +0.33 http://www.ebay.com/itm/111827493087

I have never used the SLR Magic lens before so I don't know if its image tends towards the cleaner side or the artifact side, and that's what's gonna make the decision for you. One can't go wrong with the Helios 44, it's so simple and cheap and with so many tests out there that you know exactly what to expect out of it. I suppose the Nikon goes along the cleaner side, since it's more modern and has more/better coatings. So you need to evaluate how clean is SLR Magic's image and flares and go with it!

Bold, I'm not sure everyone will agree - or even you - but selling one of yours for $100 just to undercut him doesn't make you a profiteering a$$hole. There is a HUGE difference between both cases, even if the lens is exactly the same: he is just sucking out the knowledge and making a profit. You gave the community back so much along these threads that "fair price" is a very vague concept. In my opinion, ours is such a niche market that the price can be adjusted according to supply and demand. Do you think $3k for an Isco is a fair price? I don't, but people are paying it anyway. All anamorphics are overpriced because there's too much interest in them and people are willing to pay. It's impossible to stop them and try to drive the prices down. It won't be you alone, selling a great mod for a low price that will change that. It's very likely that if you put the price too low somebody would grab it just to resell for profit. I won't lie: I've done it before because I needed the money and because an Isco for $1750 is very hard to pass. So... what do you think of this?

Rich, I've seen them on ebay once, but was only able to get the +0.5, It's a doublet indeed.

Would you consider selling the diopters separately?

ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - VAN DIEMEN CINE-ISCORAMA CONVERSION. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8186 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - RECTILUX EXTREME LOW LIGHT TEST. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8292 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - RAPIDO CLAMPS. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8311 Some unusual and new gear reviews. SLR Magic's reviews are coming soon.

I'm not set yet since I haven't tested the others yet, but the Rectilux didn't let me down on anything I tried so far. Talking to John about the f-stop value, as long as the lens is wide open, the math is simply dividing the focal length by the anamorphic's rear element diameter, so the 50mm is still at f/1.2 (50/43 = 1.16), and the 85 is actually (85/43 = 1.97) around f/2. Once you start closing the iris, the math is different and I didn't get to that yet. I don't think that affects the sharpness of the resulting image, though, but definitely affects vignetting. I had some issues with the Isco Pre36 paired with Contax Zeiss 85/1.4, which has a huge front element. These issues aren't noticeable when I pair it to the Jupiter 9, which is f/2 and has a much much smaller front element (65mm vs 45mm). There's also a way to determine the fastest f-stop of any given focal length based on the front element diameter - which is why these super fast lenses tend to have much larger front elements.

It's not a possibility. It's a certainty. The back of the anamorphic is ~43mm, but I don't know exactly how this math works out. Is that a simple division? Why did I always think this was much more complex? Plus, how would the math work out if I wasn't actually shooting wide open? Sorry for the questions, it's just that I always wanted to understand this and never quite got around it. hahahaah

thanks Frank! hahaahha Thanks Julian! This piece of glass is amazing. Now I guess I gotta do the same with the Iscoramas, hehehe!

dis wud b an xtrem test wit de rectilux n canons wide open @1.2

Kowa B&H, but close enough!

So I took my Halloween night to shoot some f/1.2 Rectilux footage with Canon's 50 and 85mm. I really liked how it turned out, even though I fucked up alignment in some several shots. Also pictures of the rig there. (: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8292

added both SLR Magic Anamorphots. It has been a while! haha. Bold, these charts are awesome, man, so easy to fill in the data and images. Great work indeed!

It depends on what you want for your final aspect ratio. If you want the entire 3.56:1 frame, then a 50 would do. If you just need a 2.4:1 crop, you could go around 35, I guess.

nice photos of the lens! I took them. hahaha

ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - DSO EP01 - FLAREFACTORY58. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8135 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - DSO EP02 - TRUMP 58. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8137 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - DSO EP03 - OPTICAL ATTACHMENTS. http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8140 ANAMORPHIC ON A BUDGET - ISCORAMA 36 (PRE36, CINEGON) http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=8183 went over all of DSO's gear and now the classic Iscorama 36.

I'm with Bioskop! Just go for a decent lens, it's already hard enough dealing with usual anamorphic quirks, there's no reason to add some more to the mix.

We're now fancy at www.lens-yclopedia.com . Still the same thing until a good soul shows up with some web skills to adapt the information into an even prettier shape of a website.

Can I get aboard that too? The key, in terms of narrative, is to justify the bizarre ratio inside your plot or concept, not loosely but in a way that the audience thinks it couldn't have been done any other way. About the number of views for the music video, Taylor Swift's piece has 6 minutes while Avatar has 162, plus one is available for free online while the other people had to pay in order to watch, so I think these factors make a difference. It's not that they accept it, it's more like they don't really care if it looks cool. The absolute majority of the audience (I'd risk 99% of it) doesn't have a clue of what the hell is anamorphic. People just want to enjoy it, not dissect it and analyze it. That's what WE do (and love), so when we see something that brings both elements together (entertainment and technical finesse), we flip about it. Now... I don't even remember why I started to write that.

Also, for general information, for free, you can check my blog at www.tferradans.com/anamorphic

mine works great... mmj as well.