newbie questions / xt3 starter kit

[thephoenix]

1 minute ago, leslie said:

cropping anamorphic is not a bad thing its just something that has to be done. cropping to a desired aspect does give you some leeway to frame what is important in your footage as well. Newer 1.33 or 1.5  or the isco reds and ultrastars may give you a more clean or clinical look, any older 2x anamorphic you buy will have more character i think but its a very personal subjective  thing. check out as much footage as you can before you make a decision.

yep will do

1.33x i won't go.

yes cropping is not that bad as long as i can properly frame when shooting

[Caleb Genheimer]

Anyone telling you that you have to match your sensor aspect with the appropriate stretch factor is a lazy slob. Plain and simple. 1.33X is not a classic anamorphic ratio. It is from the awkward days of 4:3 CCD camcorders and people wanting them to be 16:9. They’re just tools for achieving that without losing resolution because resolution was so low back then. Now we have 4K. Now we have desqueezing monitors.

You may be able to use a 1.33X with a slightly wider lens than a 2X, but remember you are not increasing angle width by a factor of 2. You are increasing it by only 1.33X. The 2X lenses in most cases will gain back the difference once you do the math. A Panny LA-7200 1.33X (the widest anamorphic I am aware of) can handle a Tokina 11-16 on M4/3. But the optical quality is just exactly good enough for those CCD chip cameras... so not very good. On full frame it possibly gets as wide (after factoring 1.33X) as 16mm. But you’re better off using a spherical and cropping, because the 1.33X doesn’t look very distinctly anamorphic, and it will give you image quality headaches.

4:3 mode in-camera DOES. NOT. MATTER.

You know why? Guess what that is doing? It’s cropping the left and right off of your image to make it a different aspect. 

It’s the same wether you do it in camera, as if you do it in your editor, as if you do it by cutting the sides off of your printed image with a scissors. It is all the same. Doesn’t change a thing. If you want a 2.39:1 image from a 2X lens, you will be using a 1.2:1 ratio portion of your sensor, always. Doesn’t matter how you arrive there.

Yes, being able to record directly in a 4:3 mode in camera does have mild conveniences. Yes, if your 4:3 mode uses more of the sensor’s vertical area, you are gaining some sensor size. But it REALLY doesn’t matter. 

Are you wondering why people use vintage scopes? Or why they use vintage lenses behind their anamorphics?

New scopes are expensive, and still haven’t surpassed (or even caught up to) the quality of vintage projection scopes. The day they do is the day I switch, but it hasn’t happened yet.

Anamorphics work best through simple optics. High element count multicoated aspherical modern designs often don’t react well to having an old scope in front. I get by far the sharpest and richest results using good vintage prime lenses, especially pancake lenses. They just work best.

[thephoenix]

thanks caleb.

it makes pefect sense for the 1.33x vs 2x, as i said i won't go for 1.33 as it doesn't do much.

looks like 2x is the best option yes, and more versatile it seems.

thanks for telling me why vintage lenses are more used with anamorphic, i have a few so that's cool.

another question, how can i know in advance if i will be able to use an anamorphic lense with a lense that has a large front.

for exemple my vintage tokina 28-70 atx pro 2.6-2.8 has a 77mm filter thread. most of anamorphic lenses have a small one. will i get full image cover ? the fact that it is a ff lense on a s35 sensor might help.

budget wise, i think that when i will go for it i will probably spend around 2 or 3k for the lense, mounts and variable diopter.

[Caleb Genheimer]

That’s good to hear, for 2-3K you will end up with a very useable setup as good as anyone’s. 

Another thing that doesn’t work well with anamorphics is zoom lenses. There are some exceptions, but I would not start there. You probably already have good lenses for anamorphic just sitting around. 1950s-1980s primes anywhere from 35mm to 85mm are perfect candidates. They’re the one great budget aspect of anamorphics, as most people give them away. You become that person that everyone gives their old SLR kits to that have been sitting in grandpa’s closet for 30 years.

Different primes will give you different flares, different contrasts, different color rendering. It’s fantastic to be able to shoot anamorphic in a wide variety of styles. A box full of old primes provide a wide palette of stylistic options.

The one thing they hadn’t figured out back then was how to make good fast and wide lenses. Guess what? Anamorphic makes normal lenses wide. Problem solved.

It is easiest to have smaller diameter front elements on the lenses that you use, but not critical. I’ve seen a Sankor on a Canon 70-200 f2.8L. Looks ridiculous, but apparently works fine. You won’t vignette, but you may loose some T-stop (light transmission). f-stop should be unaffected.

My personal recommendations are:

Kowa 16-H, or Kowa 8Z, or Kowa for Bell and Howell

Redstan brand rear clamp with support bracket

Redstan brand front clamp or an HTN brand lock ring (this second option replaces the Kowa front housing with one that has standard front threads, as well as male outer threads for attaching the common variable diopters. It also locks the lens at infinity which you do when using variable diopters.)

Rectilux Hardcore DNA or SLRMagic Rangefinder.

SmallHD Focus monitor

Beyond that, a 15mm rod/rail setup will help keep everything rock solid and properly supported. That’s the best out there, and the core of what I would advise to have a hassle-free setup. Kit it out further per your preference with cage, handles, shoulder pad, follow focus, mattebox, filters, etc.

I’ll double down on suggesting @Andrew Reid‘s Shooters Guide. It will save you more money through its advice and content than you will spend on the guide itself. He has boiled it down to the noteworthy scopes and breaks each one down spec-wise, as well as including a lot of general guidance for using anamorphic lenses. 

[thephoenix]

thanks caleb

already have the monitor, ninja v, and cage and all that stuff. just need the anamorphic stuff, a few more primes, patience, money and probably a little luck

 

also, i tend to prefer the goldish flares to the really blue ones. i've seen tito's review about the kowa and not so sure about the flare color.

also, what would be a decent price for a kowa 16H ?

[Caleb Genheimer]

The three lenses I listed are all identical optics, but with different coatings. One of them has more gold colored flares instead of blue. I think it is the 8Z, but I’m not completely certain.

To be honest, I bought mine a long time ago so I haven’t had eyes on pricing lately. A good one is probably near $1,000? Minor cleaning scratches are pretty much expected for a lens that old with those coating types, but look out for internal haze from fungus or moisture, separation of the optical elements, large chips in front of rear elements, and poor body condition (corrosion/lots of missing paint etc.)

[thephoenix]

7 minutes ago, Caleb Genheimer said:

The three lenses I listed are all identical optics, but with different coatings. One of them has more gold colored flares instead of blue. I think it is the 8Z, but I’m not completely certain.

To be honest, I bought mine a long time ago so I haven’t had eyes on pricing lately. A good one is probably near $1,000? Minor cleaning scratches are pretty much expected for a lens that old with those coating types, but look out for internal haze from fungus or moisture, separation of the optical elements, large chips in front of rear elements, and poor body condition (corrosion/lots of missing paint etc.)

Problem with ebay Is that you lever see fungus on pics. ?