Russell Anway

Apologies, but I had to make this private because this was invited to a film festival and they're interested in premiere status etc. Sorry for the busted post/link. Mods, feel free to delete, or I'll amend later after festival announcements have been made and etc. Thanks.

This is a short documentary I did this past summer about a mushroom farm here in Minneapolis. https://vimeo.com/156486010 I shot this on my a7s with my Lomo squarefronts. The 50mm was the workhorse and I mostly switched between full frame and s35 to zoom in and out a bit. The 35 did some work as well and I dollied the 80 for a few of the mushroom "money" shots. I have one more segment like this shot (urban bee researchers with bee hives (apiaries!) on rooftops around the city). The plan is to shoot four or five more of these and edit it into a feature. The mushroom farm was the tester to see if this project was feasible and if I could execute the concept, or if a feature was a pipe dream (I'm working alone on this, no budget). In general I do think this came off pretty well. The biggest change I'd make is that I feel like I missed a lot of good stuff, and kismet was really against me in some ways. I shot the large majority of the non-interview content in one day, and my approach was to talk over the day with the farmers at the start of the day and have them give me a heads-up when something was going to go down, or when they were going to move on to a new task. I would shoot the b-roll and beauties when I felt I had enough of whatever the task at hand was. But the realization there is that the subjects don't necessarily have a good idea of what will make good contributions to the doc (nor could I expect them to), so they might think something is boring and not give you a heads-up when in fact the thing they're doing is using a fire extinguisher to knock a wasp's nest off the back of their tent and then running away like maniacs, and I'd definitely like to get that. So in the future I think sticking to the subjects like crazy for one full day without breaking away would more substantially fill the film's need. Then the second day could accommodate interviews and beauties. That's what I'm thinking moving forward at least. Anyway, let me know what you think.

Anyone know anyone know if video assist does a de-squeeze? I couldn't find any mention, and that's usually a no. Firmware maybe? Probably? I don't know if Blackmagic has a history of implementing that feature or not.

This isn't really a lens solution, but I'm sure you could return it. I see that it's listed "no returns," but that doesn't apply if the seller told you something that is materially false. Buyer protection extends to messages, not just the listing. If he's telling you that he misspoke, then you have it in writing that you were furnished with false information, and in a way that made the lens seem more valuable than it was. If you could get it in writing from a lens tech that the anamorphic block is damaged, and pair that with the message saying the anamorphic block is perfect, I don't think you'd have a hard time winning a claim including cost of shipping and return shipping (but be sure to require a signature on the return). Also, have you just calmly asked this individual if, since they misspoke, and since, on the basis of that information you purchased the item, they would consider taking a return, or issuing a partial refund? I've done that in the past and people have been surprisingly decent about it. Not everyone is trying to do you over; a lot of people are just not expert in what they are selling. But since this person suddenly had clear documentation of the damage as soon as the auction closed it makes me a bit suspicious that he was. Good luck.

It's true that the 50mm and the 80mm will cover the full frame sensor, but its also important to understand that the areas outside of the super35 image circle weren't a part of the quality control process. So the image there will be more degraded, sometimes extremely so. My 50mm is basically sharp wide open, but it vignettes significantly between T2.5 and T2.8, but if its on a full frame instead of apsc, the effect is extreme, and obvious to the naked eye. That might be fine in some shots (a portrait or other lock down shot), but panning across a white background at a wide stop on FF would be a grave error. Just something to keep in mind.

Check out the diopter thread my man! It's pretty much the most comprehensive discussion of large diopters for anamorphic lenses on the whole interwebs. Only a few links above this one! 100mm is pretty big though, so "affordable" is going to be tough!

Yeah, they are nice glass. Mounting them is an issue still and at the moment the plan is likely to superglue a 95mm thread onto the back. Not elegant but I have a project to shoot soon and there isn't time to keep screwing around with filters much longer. I did negotiate a little discount on them since they weren't as described but I'd honestly have been a lot happier if they'd just been 95 and simple. I spent months hustling before I worked something out with redstan, and spent another month sourcing about 20 different parts to buy the diopter in trade, so I feel your pain!

It might be worth emailing redstan. I emailed him when he was sold out but still was able to secure a +.25 82mm in trade that was not officially for sale (someone bailed on paying him after begging to reserve it so he sold it to me since I had money in hand).

Thanks for the response, I did find that thread as well, it's definitely not 107 on the back, but could be the diameter of the front. I may have to do something insane like busting the glass out of a big uv filter and super gluing it onto the backs of the diopters. That would be real sad though. im still hoping the cavision thing was somehow non-standard.

Looking for a little help on some diopters, hoping someone has the info I'm looking for. I just bought a pair of Angenieux diopters. These specifically http://www.ebay.com/itm/281716858980?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT I contacted the seller to find out what the thread was and he said they were 95mm, so I bought them, and bought this http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/981558-REG/cavision_art105_95_threaded_adapter_ring.html The goal here is to build a filter mounting system with thread size of 95mm that can be mounted to rails which could be used with lomo squarefronts. The problem is the cavision thing does not thread onto the diopter, it seems to be too small. So basically i'm wondering if anyone knows anything about these diopters, are the threads actually 95 or was seller guessing and they're 96mm, that's an oddball thread size and would be hard to make a filter system around (where am I going to get 96mm ND's and polarizers?) The threadsize is larger on the front than they are on the back, and I might be able to make it work if either thread was something standard. Problem is they're obscure enough that I can't find specs on these anywhere. It would be great to find some kind of official specs for these (thread size of the zoom they were designed for would do but as best I can tell they were for the angenieux 12-240 zoom and the only thread size I can find associated with that lens is 72mm, and that is definitely not correct for this), otherwise I'm basically just buying crap off amazon to see if it threads, or returning them, and I'd much rather get them working than send them back (projects are coming up and big diopters like these for an affordable price are not that common!). Just can't make any sense of the 20x12 20x15 markings. They look like nice glass, but if I can't get them in front of a lens they're not very useful. Any help is appreciated!

I'll second ceico7. Stuff I've got from ebay from untested sources has nearly always proved to be a waste of time/money. So I just pay for that good polish stuff now. The one thing I'll point out is that if the pin is out of alignment it won't matter on the foton-A like it does on other anamorphics. Normally, for example any of the OCT19 lenses, it would skew the image, but that won't be an issues with the foton since it is a two piece lens and the anamorphic portion is aligned to the rails, and not to the mount. So the spherical will be "out of alignment", but the anamorphic part will be aligned, so you won't be able to tell. If the lens is out of alignment and it's a single piece, you can also always loosen the PL and then spin it to alignment and then re-tighten. You just have to be sure and get your back focus correct.

Wait waaaah? Both of them? I know the one in the first picture is an oct19 but what about the one in the back left of the photo of your collection with the after-market metal ring, mounted on rails? Is that really not a conversion?

Who did the conversion of your oct18 35mm to single piece? Recommended?

I don't totally follow your workflow, but the first one looks 100% correct. Moreover, in premiere it's easy to check, there are percentages beside your pixel number, and if you are finalizing in a 1080p frame (and why would you final in anything bigger when nearly no one's monitors can display that added detail?) your aspect ratio really doesn't matter, there is no standard for web. So if the percent value of your height is half of the percent value of your width then your desqueeze is right. Pixels are sort of beside the point, since you are really after the ratio. That's it. I usually do something close as needed (a little zoom and reframe here and there is all good) and then use a cine scope overlay to cover my creative dalliances.

I've never used the minolta diopter specifically, but I can vouch for the minolta glass of that vintage. I have a 24mm, a 58mm and the 35-70 zoom and their all really nice lenses, as is their reputation. It's older so I'm sure standard older glass warnings apply, but i've read on DP review that its a good diopter. I think its not a terribly prized diopter just because its only 55mm thread (almost all the minolta lenses from back then are 55) and that's pretty small for today. But if it works for you I'm sure its a fine choice.

It's unfortunate they haven't responded. But I'm like 99% sure it doesn't do it. A bunch of people online seem to be noting the lack of feature. I can't find anything in the official literature, but that's not terribly surprising since "Not included features" isn't typically something you find on a press release.

No worries. I appreciate it. Some of this info is really hard to come by and this thread is still the best resource on diopters/anamorphics I'm aware of.

Tito, Do you know if I put a doublet on my lomo squarefronts if I'll be able to shoot them down to T3, or maybe T2.8? Right now they're good at around T4. I'm thinking about buying some large achromatics but they're pretty expensive and I'd like to know how much image improvement I can expect before I drop the cash. The Tiffen's you recommended are nice for close focus but I'd love to be able to open the aperture up a bit. I'm asking you because you're one of the few on here with experience with squarefronts. Any guidance is much appreciated! Thank you!

This is sort of a demo video/just for kicks piece with some footage I've shot this year. I think I'll be out shooting a few more times in the next month to add to it and I'll update it here. I shot it with a lomo 35mm and 80mm squarefronts. It's a mix of gh1 and A7s (lets see if you can notice the difference ;) I do a fair amount of hip-hop stuff and just wanted to put something together that had a different style and flavor than your typical 60 second promo. And shooting on anamorphics definitely affects the way you can work on these sorts of things. At the b-boy show I did 3/4 of the day with a canon and zooms and then the last couple hours with the ana's and the footage is very different in style and feel. So I thought I'd try to mirror that with the edit. (For comparison's sake, here is the (very well done) promo video I was hired to shoot for. The above video is made from a lot of the extra's from the same shoot (there were about six shooters on the day) )

I'll second this. I can't find the info either. Anyone?

Turn it on! Tell me if it's 2x! Blarg!

That mustHD actually looks like it might be a really solid choice. I'm having a hard time finding its full specs though, do you know if it does a 2x squeeze for aspect ratio? I saw a video of someone flipping through settings, but didn't think I saw an exact 2x but rather a 2.35:1.

Would anyone who shoots Lomo squarefronts care to shout out what they use for diopters? I know Tito mentioned it, generally, at the beginning. But the 35mm is giving me a really hard time. I had been using series 9 tiffens (thanks for the original recommendation), but when I switched from a Gh1 to the A7s the increase in sensor size has made the series 9 super borderline. Even if I didn't care about money and was prepared to buy $2k diopter I don't think schneider even makes (or made?) a 138mm +.5 achromat. I know that sounds like a tall order but that's essentially what I'm looking for. Or even something in the 95-105mm range would get the job done I think. And foton-a's really just don't seem like an option for many reasons. I just looked at the redstan diopters and that 82mm .25 sounds amazing and I wouldn't hesitate a second except I just don't think it's quite big enough, i think its almost the exact same size as the series 9. It would be perfect for the 80mm or the 50mm but it is just too much money for something I can't use on the 35mm. At the very least I'm giving up a lot of freedom with my crop, which could possibly still be worth it except.... I've never had access to an achromat diopter. I would love to be able to shoot these lenses around 2.8 in certain circumstances (I consider the 35mm sharp at T4, and the 80mm at T5.6). If the right diopter could make that happen then I'd say it would be well worth a significant investment. My understanding is that the worse your optics are the more pronounced the improvement the doublets will have and I'm just not sure where the lomos fall on that specturm. Has anyone with experience with squarefronts had any success with achromats? Report your findings? If they don't get that job done then there isn't much point in worrying about achromat's for me anyway, and I would just get some big old singlets. Which would be so much simpler. Any advice would be great! Thanks!

I mean when you shoot anamorphic you tend to literally place the camera further back than you would if you were shooting spherical. Though I think this is mostly because anamorphic ends up being 2.4:1 or so (after crop), instead of 16x9 for most other applications. If you were cropping to cinema aspect ratio and shooting with sphericals I'd imagine you'd tend to back up a bit also. Also, http://www.eoshd.com/2010/10/the-anamorphic-miracle-filter/ What you're describing is normal. It is just fairly rare to find something that covers the key bases of, achromatic, affordable, very low power, and big. But a +1 should be fairly easy to find. It's under .5 that are really hard to come by.

dwijip, That diopter you're linking looks suspicious to me. A couple things, it doesn't have a brand so there's no way to know what kind of glass it is. It's in a rotating housing, which is incredibly pointless. It makes me think its homemade, and someone popped the a polarizer out of its frame and put this piece of glass in. The other thing is that this guy seems to be saying that even though this lens is a singlet it's just as good as the doublets aka achromat's. In a doublet each of the lenses are coated with different types of chemicals, and when light passes through each of these it has the effect of correcting chromatic aberration because science. So saying a singlet is just as good as a doublet is just not possible. They were each designed the way they are for a reason, doublets for quality, singlets for cost. All that is to say that 70 seems astronomically high. You can get some good Tiffen series IX diopters for like 10-20 each if you're patient. And if you need the threads you can get a holder/converter thing that will put your lens into 77mm threads. Here is a (hugely overpriced) example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Tiffen-series-9-Diopters-for-SLR-Magic-Anamophot-1-2-3-Diopter-Holder-/161490633136?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN&hash=item25999781b0 At this point it is worth noting that the beginning of this thread has a ton of great suggestions. The other thing I'll mention is that you seem to be saying "I can't afford/find the Tokina +.4, so how about this canon +2?" And also you're asking if these would be good for portraits. Firstly, you don't need any diopters to shoot portraits (unless I'm badly misunderstanding your rig and you have a min focus of like 3 meters, and even then I'd imagine a 135mm taking lens would be close). One convenient thing about anamorphics is that even though they have poor close focusing, their wide frame means you will likely be further back from your subject for almost everything So for that type of shot, assuming min focus is somewhere within a normal range, you wouldn't want a diopter UNLESS...You were using the Tokina to try and clean up some issues in your image. Understand that a big part of the reason for the Tokina's appeal is that, in addition to giving you some close focusing, it's low power allows you to put it on a lens and then, in many common shooting situations, you can use the lens as normal with the benefit of the Tokina's achromatic properties (please, someone yell at me if I'm wrong). There is a convenient symbiosis here because many of the common optical issues with anamorphic lenses and with diopters are the same, and the Tokina, since it's designed to correct dioptric optical problems, conveniently corrects anamorphic issues as well. But, because the primary use of diopters is close focus, and very low power diopters are of limited usefulness to the people who buy most of them (stills photographers for Tokina), there's just not that many options. Now, compare the Canon +2 to the Tokina +.4. The canon will put your infinity focus at a half meter, while the Tokina will put it at 2.5 meters. That's the main difference. So even though the effect that these will have on the quality of your image will be similar, the amount of things that you can do inside their useful range is very different. Meanwhile, if you wanted to shoot a very close shot of your actor's eye, or pull a shot of a text message off a phone so it takes up the whole frame, then you'll need the +2. That's really what it's for. Point is, it seems like you're a little confused about what some of this is for, and it seems likely that you're just getting into anamorphic and read you need diopters so you're getting diopters. My advice would be to borrow/rent a few diopters and try them out. Then, consider what situations you need to cover with them, and then decide what you need to buy. For example someone a few posts back said they got a Leica 55mm achromat. That is a sweet piece of glass. But its only useful because of the size of the rig its going on, so for them its perfect. For a lot of other people, useless. Anyway, good luck.