New to anamorphic: Attachment Lens?

[magellan]

Would somebody be willing to explain what the necessary components are to run an anamorphic lens? I've found these "projector attachment" lenses on eBay that can be had for very cheap. What else is necessary to equip the lens with in order to shoot anamorphic? Sorry for my lack of knowledge - all help is appreciated.

[Hans Punk]

http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide/

[Dr. Verbel']

I customised these cheap lenses. My solution (not so easy, 6 kg with camera), but bearable

 

[Tito Ferradans]

if you don't wanna pay for the EOSHD guide, mine is free. (and better. hehehe)

www.tferradans.com/anamorphic

[Bioskop.Inc]

Stay away from the bright coloured cheap ones (gold, red whatever), as they are a waste of time - too big & really too much trouble.

Focus through - Century Optiks or Isco Widescreen 2000

Dual Focus - Kowa or Singer/Sankor

Single Focus - Iscorama

[ken]

32 minutes ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Stay away from the bright coloured cheap ones (gold, red whatever), as they are a waste of time - too big & really too much trouble.

Focus through - Century Optiks or Isco Widescreen 2000

Dual Focus - Kowa or Singer/Sankor

Single Focus - Iscorama

ISCO integrated lens is not big, basically same as 16H, and even sharper and less distortion.   There is some kind of trade off.  You get sharper lens, but loose flare.   You get flare, and come with blur too.  

I found the good flare lens actually is made of single glass, not doublet.  Like some vintage lens, or 1.33x lens.  So it is not so sharp in edge, or has strong CA.  Nowadays to produce flare is easy.  There are many way to approach.  I used a CPL lens or poor UV lens can make it.

[Bioskop.Inc]

31 minutes ago, ken said:

ISCO integrated lens is not big, basically same as 16H, and even sharper and less distortion.   There is some kind of trade off.  You get sharper lens, but loose flare.   You get flare, and come with blur too.  

I found the good flare lens actually is made of single glass, not doublet.  Like some vintage lens, or 1.33x lens.  So it is not so sharp in edge, or has strong CA.  Nowadays to produce flare is easy.  There are many way to approach.  I used a CPL lens or poor UV lens can make it.

I hate the fact that you keep peddling these shit lenses to people, they are a complete & utter waste of time & money.

To hell with sharp, as Anamorphic lenses are all about the defects they produce & a little about the flares.

My advice to the OP is to do some searches in this section of the forum, as we have gone over & over which lenses are good.

There is so much info here, it's stupid. Spend a while looking at different posts - you might have to go back a while to avoid all the bad advice that is handed out by this guy Ken.

Don't take offence Ken, but you really do hand out some really shit advice when it comes to Anamorphics.

[dhessel]

The main issue with any of the projector lenses besides size, some are huge, is the dual focus aspect of them. You need to focus both the anamorphic and the taking lens. Depending on the lens you need a way of mounting it to the taking lens or to supporting rods and one of the single focus solutions out there if you don't want to deal with the dual focus. To my knowledge there are 4 the Rectilux, Rextilux Core DNA, Focus Module and SLR Magic RangeFinder. Not all are available for every type of projection lens.

[ken]

1 hour ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

I hate the fact that you keep peddling these shit lenses to people, they are a complete & utter waste of time & money.

To hell with sharp, as Anamorphic lenses are all about the defects they produce & a little about the flares.

My advice to the OP is to do some searches in this section of the forum, as we have gone over & over which lenses are good.

There is so much info here, it's stupid. Spend a while looking at different posts - you might have to go back a while to avoid all the bad advice that is handed out by this guy Ken.

Don't take offence Ken, but you really do hand out some really shit advice when it comes to Anamorphics.

I sold my B&H and others, keep ISCO.  You need to compare the value and performance.  All these are dual focus lenses.

[Vladimir]

Main issue with ISCO is OOF character imo. Yes, thet're sharp, but almost like any other well calibrated ana atachment (personally i can say that about sankor-like ana,  rectimascope and NAPs which i have), but bokeh seems kinda rough/messy/gross to me and feels like a lack of anamorphic character (of course thats very subjective feelings but thats what i see : )

And i would not advise any of 1.33x solutions for anamorphic aesthetics. I'd rather advise some vintage spherical lens and crop) can add also oval apperture here

UPD ive tried to upload here some examples, but they're turned into a real mess...

[bzpop]

On 2016-07-20 at 1:32 PM, Bioskop.Inc said:

 really shit advice when it comes to Anamorphics.

and Century Optics is not a shit advice, lol;

ISCO ultrastar is an amazing anamorphic lens, tack sharp, beautiful bokeh, plenty of character; weaker, more settled flares, but this is matter of preferences.

my favorite taking lens is FL55mm 1.2, paired with my ISCO ultrastar - pure magic!

[ken]

On Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir said:

Main issue with ISCO is OOF character imo. ...

I don't understand it.  why?  Comparing with which lens, can you explain more?  Thanks.


 

[Bold]

magellan, welcome!

There's really no one piece of advice that's going to fit everyone's needs.  The best way to decide on your first anamorphic is to research, research, research.

Tito's Anamorphic blog is one of the best starting points.  And you won't find a larger collected body of anamorphic knowledge than this forum.  Search it deeply!  Also look at test footage on Youtube and Vimeo of various lenses to see if a particular brand of lens produces an aesthetic that really appeals to you.

Ultimately there is no perfect anamorphic solution.  Every choice has benefits and drawbacks.  The only way to know the best choice for your is to list our your needs, search through the options, and find the type of lens that most closely matches your needs.

Once you find a lens or two that falls within your budget, search EOSHD and other forums to see what others have built to get the most out of those lenses.  You'll find that there are different strategies to mounting them... from 'bailing wire & bubble gum,' to buying specialty parts, to custom-fabricating parts on your own, and many options in between.

Here are some other thoughts, in no particular order:

1.33x adapters don't have the sharpest image quality and don't do well in low light, but are often the easiest to use.  They tend to be lightweight and adapt easily to taking lenses.  Usually good flares but less oval bokeh.  They are relatively easy to acquire and will run you between $500-800.  Not a bad choice for starting anamorphic.

Big projector lenses will give you that nice 2x oval bokeh, but vary wildly in terms of flare and image quality.  They are invariably heavy so they require a certain amount of adaptation and support (which adds even mre weight).

Although I don't have one, there are some dual-focus lenses that appear to deliver great images.  But dual focus seems to present another set of headaches if you're shooting something with lots of movement.  Probably not something you want to take on as a beginner.  Dual focus owners can speak better to the learning curve and the time involved to get good focus during dynamic/complicated shots. 

Watch some films shot with anamorphic.  I just rewatched the original Mad Max, and realized there are some shots with horrible aberrations at the edges, and the film has barrel distortion throughout.  But you know what?  It doesn't matter.  What matters is how the images made me feel, not how razor sharp or technically precise they were.

On 7/20/2016 at 10:32 AM, Bioskop.Inc said:

To hell with sharp, as Anamorphic lenses are all about the defects they produce

What Bioskop said. It is okay if your anamorphic images aren't perfect - they aren't meant to be.  

Most importantly, MONEY = TIME.  If you save money buying a cheap anamorphic, the more time you'll have to spend getting it to work.  So they key the questions are: what's your total budget, and how much spare time are you willing to spend building your rig?

I saved money buying some B&H's, but the time it took me to get them to where I needed was enormous.  If I had to do it over again, I might have chosen a different route.  Then again, I learned a LOT in the process.

I hope this helps!

[ken]

I just uploaded some photos, guess what anamorphic lens used.  https://flic.kr/s/aHskFDZaXB

[bzpop]

I can try to guess if you tell if it's 2x or 1,33x

[Hans Punk]

16 hours ago, ken said:

I just uploaded some photos, guess what anamorphic lens used.  https://flic.kr/s/aHskFDZaXB

Looks like isco ultrastar or similar...nice and sharp, but maybe a bit lifeless for some tastes (high contrast).

If I had to wild guess - it would flare a muted green streak? (i can see a hint of coating fringe on a couple of shots)

[ken]

1 hour ago, bzpop said:

I can try to guess if you tell if it's 2x or 1,33x

2X for sure.  1.33x does not have so wide ratio for 3:2 Cmos.

BTW, no any process, resized only.

[bzpop]

6 hours ago, ken said:

2X for sure.  1.33x does not have so wide ratio for 3:2 Cmos.

BTW, no any process, resized only.

he he, i though you might get tricky and just crop it 2x, amazing shots, i'd say Ultrastar, but it's really hard to tell without seeing flare

[Vladimir]

On 8/2/2016 at 4:20 PM, ken said:

I don't understand it.  why?  Comparing with which lens, can you explain more?  Thanks.


 

its just every footage i saw on youtube or vimeo is lacking of "character" id like. Had no first-hand experience so cant say it for sure, but that was i saw so far in every source i've met. Actually thats surprise me a lot, didnt thought 2x anamorphic atachment can have different effect on OOF rendition property at all)