Tito Ferradans

​ highres, all of these are way too expensive. The 4.5" are cool, but it's hard to attach them to anything because they're too big and don't have threads. If you already have a solution for this problem, keep looking for better prices. I got a full set once for $60, used, with a bunch of fog filters and diffusions, with a metal case and all. The key is to look no only for the diopters but also 4.5" filter kits. I haven't heard from anyone about the quality of the SLR Magic's achromats. We've been asking this question here for quite a while and no one was able to provide comparisons. On paper they look awesome, low power, 77mm threads, achromats, not so expensive... This one usually goes on ebay with the bayo mount. There was a guy buying all of them and converting to 72mm threads. Good thing, makes your life much easier, but he was also overcharging for the "refurbished" filter. If it's anywhere near $50-60, the price isn't so bad, and quality should be ok.​ It's a single element filter, I'm 100% sure of that.​ This is a point which I think it's very important to talk about. We always praise achromats, but the only bad diopters I ever had were the $10 kits from china (+1, +2, +4, +10). Edges were bad, the filters look like a huge bubble, protruding out of the rings to provide the magnification, and this is the clear sign of a bad diopter. +0.5 isn't a "common" strength, so there are no cheap versions for it. They usually perform okay in terms of fixing your focus range, but won't improve image quality while doing so. Tokina is overpriced. I'm not able to say HOW MUCH overpriced, but the "rare" and "holy grail" status definitely won't help lowering the price. That's why I want to have faith in SLR Magic's +0.33. There's also a Minolta version of the Tokina, with a different name, you probably can find it somewhere in this thread. I'll never say "buy an achromat!" ever. Buy if you want it, but you probably CAN get away using a single element in 95% of the cases. If the user is new to anamorphics, there's no point in dropping a load of cash into a filter that he won't understand well for at least a couple of months! Double focus is always a pain, no matter the distance. The reason people seek +0.5 diopters is to be able to focus between 1 and 2m. Sankors and Kowas don't have that trouble, but image quality isn't the best while doing so. The diopter helps in the matter of keeping lenses close to infinity - check the first post of the thread, there's a decent explanation there involving diopters, maximum focus distance and image quality.​ Good points here. I can tell that the achromat makes a difference with the Iscos, but we're talking about two top quality optics combined.​ Daniel, look at Redstan's website (redstan.com), he usually has a front clamp specially designed for the optex. Not the cheapest thing around, but solves the problem of attaching diopters right away. They have 72mm threads, which is also the most common size for the filters. Another way is to find step rings that fit well around the front of the lens and tape them there so they act like filter threads to which you screw your diopters. Cheap and dirty solution.​ The optex will misbehave with your 85mm probably, because it's too long, and you'll need a diopter for it in this case, unless you wanna close down the aperture a lot. You'll end up losing infinity too. For the 50 and 35, should work quite well. Diopters will help you get into the 0.5-2.5m focus range, in which the Optex (and Century and Panasonic) perform quite poorly, no matter the aperture. ​Double focus is always a pain. No diopter in the world will fix that, but it might help you knowing the ranges. Check the first post, if you haven't done it before!

great looking stuff, man. To me, it felt longer than it actually is, and in this case, it's not a bad thing, because I wanted it to keep going. :D has a "City of God" feel to it, any inspiration coming from that movie?

Thanks solo! Weird stuff, I don't trust prisms... Did you check this seller's other listings? the guy is a total vampire indeed.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Anamorphic-lens-SchneiderKreuznach-vari10x15x-Anamorphot-Iscomorphot-bmpcc-/111594734358 anyone has any comments on this?

I think this uses a rear adapter anamorphic, so it kills all the fun. or, most of it.

Ok, about my taste, I like flares, not too much - star trek like - but the normal ones, I like a wider frame that comes from stretching pixels. I don't agree with cropping because it's somewhat like burning money. You're making the whole frame look good, and then burning away something close to 30% of that. Oval bokeh is important. It's usually the first thing that you can spot in a movie in order to say if it's anamorphic or spherical. Texture, usually anamorphic stuff is softer than spherical. Many people see this is a downside, I think it's a positive thing. It makes the footage look organic and not so perfect as a Canon L lens would do. About being happy with the results of faking, if we were happy with it, I think this forum would not exist. Also, if you're interested in more elaborate ways to fake the look that are not only post-production based, check this: http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7283

it depends on your taste, not ours! if you are happy, then it works, dude! i don't like cropping and adding flares, because this is not anamorphic. Sometimes anamorphic lenses don't create flares, sometimes the flares are different, there's oval bokeh, there's a general softness, there's much more to the anamorphic aesthetic than just 'wider frame' and 'lens flares'.

Oh man, what a great way to start the day! Thanks a lot! ​ I'm already working on something new, but (unfortunately) it's not anamorphic. Still haven't got the guts to mix anamorphics and VFX because I'm still learning. Please keep me updated on your project, I'm eager to know more about it!

wrote a (very) small epiloge of what I have in mind for the future of this research - and no, I won't charge for it. hahah EPILOGUE - WHAT LIES AHEAD http://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7429 I'm also posting small anamorphic hints and tips about lenses on my instagram every day, so feel free to follow if that interests you! http://www.instagram.com/hoveringlights

procter, it works just the same as the FM. focus anamorphic to infinity, put it inside the rectilux, attach it to the taking lens, focused to infinity as well. attach this whole thing to the camera. was this the explanation you were looking for?

By far the most enjoyable and fun flare/bokeh test I've ever seen.

I'm curious about it. I like this kind of thing, made of bits and pieces from other things.

nahua, sorry if I misunderstood your point. I agree, shooting with these resolutions were a dream a couple years back, that's true. I enjoy very much the fact that we can do it now. I'm against 4k and the way they're selling it, but have nothing against the people who like 4k, or shoot 4k! It would be just rude, like someone turning to me and saying "shooting raw is stupid", to whom I'd say "that's up to me to decide, buddy! It might not be YOUR thing!". So, if I sounded like that (and I think I did), I apologize. Rich, good point there. I don't agree about the movies, though. It's not like there were more good movies back then, it's more like there are A LOT of bad movies today, but the number of good movies per year hasn't decreased. It's the ratio between good/bad that has shifted (this is me talking like the film history/production graduate I am).

Thanks a lot, Rudolf! I'm really glad you liked it! Hahahaha, the idea was to make a test-with-a-point, so I think it worked. Ok, no problem. I'll change the original chapter and add this version as well, so whoever's reading can choose what to believe. Even though the one there sounds more like a hollywood story, yours makes much more sense. Someone might pop up to confirm either one of the theories, or just add another one. hahaha. I'll be writing some more soon, but school has been hard and there's almost no time to enjoy the city (which is indeed a great place) so, even less time to write things down...

​Now that is something I have to agree. Whatever helps bringing people is good. I just don't like getting over technical about it for EVERYONE. Makes sense? hehehe And thanks for the compliment!

Hey ROMSPROD, 1) it depends 2) I like 35mm on the 5D, I have no idea of how that should be on the GH4. 3) 75.8% tall or 133% wide. 4) it depends. here's a couple links to help you About this kind of lens: http://tferradans.com/blog/?p=7204 About diopters: http://tferradans.com/blog/?p=7282 About workflow and post production http://tferradans.com/blog/?p=7370 also, there's the Diopter Thread here in this forum that will probably solve your questions regarding these auxiliary lenses.

@nahua and @Cosimo, if the idea is downscaling, then I'd rather have a superb 1080p camera than shooting 4k. I'm currently attending a 3D/VFX course and the thing they tell us the most is "no one but you and your family is gonna take time to watch this even in full HD. 720p is more than enough". I can't agree more. I mean, a shortfilm should look superb in HD. The resolution doesn't matter so much after a certain point. Also, our eyes have physical limits for resolution depending a lot on the size of the screen and the distance from it. If you're more than 2m away from a HUGE screen, you're missing the 4k fine detail ANYWAY. (reference: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/) I love raw, I love the intricate process of it, and I agree not everyone would shoot like this (heck, most of my time I'm still shooting h264). 4K is something that should be used when you're ABSOLUTELY sure that your product (ad, short, feature, whatever) is gonna be played on a huge movie screen at festivals or something (and that isn't even near as common as people wish it was). Then, I agree, 4k is cool, but not even Hugo (2011) was shot 4k, no one cared, and it still won the oscar for best cinematography, so... I agree 4k is a good testing procedure to see how much can a lens resolve, and 4k tests should be standard, yadda yadda.

Thanks! I was midway through a brief post on my blog regarding the exact subject of this thread. a LOT has come out since Andrew's guide and some more (bringing great changes) has came out after I wrote my essay. I wanted to cover SLR Magic's anamorphot, FM lens, that little moondog labs thing for iphone, the new cinemorph that works in the back of the sigma 18-35, john's rectilux, and maybe move on to reviewing more expensive ones (hawks, anyone?) for real if I have the chance now that I'm not anymore in Brazil. hahaha. I'm gonna need a better camera to test this resolving power stuff, though. hahaha. I don't like 4k - I feel like it's being pushed down on the users, but it's not such a great deal - , but that's something for a whole different talk. hahaha

Rudolf, thank you very much for the comment! I know it's harsh, and this was one of the few pieces of the whole article I considered taking out, but well, if I did, I wouldn't have learned this just now! I don't remember where I got that from, still! hahaha. Thank you very much for this, do you have any link, video, magazine, whatever, where I can go more in depth on the subject? I'll be more than happy to fix that. Regarding the achromats, I didn't know they existed until a couple weeks back, when some popped on ebay and I was able to grab one. HAHAHA. Had NEVER heard of them before - and I spent quite some time looking for both things before writing the paper (Iscoramas and achromats). The only reason I was able to afford the gear was buying weird lenses and reselling them on the brazilian market. The profit from that eventually was enough to match a unique opportunity to grab the Foton-A. The other LOMO was just blind luck, no other explanation. Paid $800 for it! One thing I took from the process was: the more fucked up the lens, the more you'll learn by trying to fix it up (true for the Foton and Iscorama). One more thanks for your comment, and I hope you enjoy the episodes!

As a full frame owner - 5d3 - I'm way happier with anamorphics than I was with standard spherical. I also took time (and money) to get Iscoramas, and 50mm taking lens plus 1.5x stretch is wide enough for almost everything I ever needed, covering the whole sensor and getting 2.66:1 aspect ratio. MagicLantern also allows us to shoot 4:3 raw, using the sensor's full height and get the best out of 2x anamorphics, My goal is not to have the best lenses available, but achieve the best balance between cost and picture quality. Some day, if I win the lottery, I'll go after LOMO roundfronts. hahaha

Got the final chapters done, but can't edit the main post! Are we gonna be able to edit stuff again, or is this a permanent change? c ) WORKFLOWhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7370 CONCLUSIONhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7371BIBLIOGRAPHYhttp://www.tferradans.com/blog/?p=7372 *weirdly enough, I was able to edit THIS post...

the problem is all the screws to disassembling this lens are on the back and, from what I understood at the first post, the adapter is stuck to the taking lens, right? I don't know how to help, you gotta find out the correct screw size to replace the missing one.

Canon 5D3 + Iscorama pre-36 VD + Helios 44-2 at f/4 Canon 5D3 + Kowa B&H + Jupiter 9 at f/2

it looks like it's made out of concrete!

Thanks guys! Gotta find time to finish the last pages and end this thing so I can move on to newer experiments!