Tito Ferradans Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 So, it's kind of weird, since I've had the lens for over a year now, but always felt the 1.5x stretched odd. Yesterday I took a couple shots with it, and when processing them, tried the 1.33x stretch. Everything looked more natural. Below are the pictures, in both stretches. Would you guys comment in which you think are correct? hahaha (the screens in one of the picures are 4:3, not widescreen) http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/674-back2/ http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/675-backlight/ http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/676-fundo/ http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/677-fundo2/ http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/678-key2/ http://www.eoshd.com/comments/gallery/image/679-keylight/ I know about the round-thing test, and I'll do it today, this thread is just so I can get a second (and third, and fourth opinions) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gábor Ember Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 For me the 1.5x look better. Well actually something in between 1.5 and 1.33. 1.5x seems just a little too wide, 1.33x is too tall. It's hard to judge because I don't know how the person on the image looks in real life :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 Yeah, its a 1.5x not a 1.33x - you can stretch it to 1:2.66. However, i have recently taken a picture with a 1.5x and it looked odd, like everyone had been squashed, but the next picture was fine. So, i do think depending on what angle you shoot your subject at, in relation to your camera (i.e. not straight on), can produce some strange effects. Can't remember what this is called, but its something to do with capturing people towards the edges of the frame & its definitely made worse by wide angle lenses. Also, women in dresses always look fatter with anamorphics & they don't like it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 Also, women in dresses always look fatter with anamorphics & they don't like it! HAHAHAHA! I shot it using an 85mm, on a 5D3. not wide, I'd say. You mean barrel distortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 I looked at them now and 1.33 stretch felt SO wrong... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 You mean barrel distortion? No its called "Anamorphic Mumps", but you do get barrel distortion on wider lenses towards the edges - 35mm taking lenses produce this the most. Also noticed that my Focar diopters also create some distortion that is really only noticeable when you pan (mostly the +2 or both in combination). My bad, the Focars don't produce distortion, but in extreme close ups they really reveal the "Anamorphic Mumps"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julian Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I have a strong aversion against incorrect aspect ratio's ;) The 1.33x grabs definitely look wrong. Tito Ferradans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhessel Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I had a similar issue a while back with a projection lens that was a 2X but turned out to be more like 1.8X. In my case it was caused by the lens being offset from the taking lens. I was using a vid atlantic clamp and the further the anamorphic was from the taking lens the less stretched it had. I would recommend shooting footage of a circle straight on and using that as a guide for determining what the actual stretch is. I shot a circular object, brought a still into Photoshop selected the circle using the elliptical marque then cropped to my selection. You can then use the dimensions of the image to determine the factor. Example: W x H = 516 x 1003 the the factor is H / W = 1003 / 516 = 1.94 I know about the round-thing test, and I'll do it today, this thread is just so I can get a second (and third, and fourth opinions) EDIT: Sorry I missed this but I left my post up as reference for anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 I too have a strong aversion to mismatched aspect ratios. This was an odd case. I'm almost cured. hahaha Oh, I thought the Iscos didn't produce mumps. Never had them in anything before... I was using a Minolta +0.4 acrobatic for these. by the way, if anybody finds a pair of Focars, please, give me a call. I'm in need of them! (for a decent price, of course) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I too have a strong aversion to mismatched aspect ratios. This was an odd case. I'm almost cured. hahaha Oh, I thought the Iscos didn't produce mumps. Never had them in anything before... I was using a Minolta +0.4 acrobatic for these. by the way, if anybody finds a pair of Focars, please, give me a call. I'm in need of them! (for a decent price, of course) Maybe wrong about the Mumps (only thing that i could think of to explain it), but something strange happens when i pan with a 35mm taking lens, the 54 & Focar B (+2) on extreme close-ups. Check out ebay Germany - prices for most things are really decent. I'll keep my eyes peeled for you - they will be invaluable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tito Ferradans Posted September 4, 2013 Author Share Posted September 4, 2013 Maybe wrong about the Mumps (only thing that i could think of to explain it), but something strange happens when i pan with a 35mm taking lens, the 54 & Focar B (+2) on extreme close-ups. I had the same feeling using the Kowa B&H on 58mm at 5D3. The corners of the image would really warp. It was at the edge of vignetting. I'm watching it already, but didn't have any luck recently. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bioskop.Inc Posted September 4, 2013 Share Posted September 4, 2013 I had the same feeling using the Kowa B&H on 58mm at 5D3. The corners of the image would really warp. It was at the edge of vignetting. I'm watching it already, but didn't have any luck recently. :( Try searching for "Voigtländer Zoomar f2,8 / 36-82mm" as they were originally made for this lens - came with a step-up ring, UV filter & the Focar A&B. I found mine in a Google search listed as Focare about 10 pages in! Tito Ferradans 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.