Depreciation value with new anamorphics coming out

[elubes]

i guess the big elephant in the room for me is with these new 1.33x anamorphics from slr magic and letus coming out, whats the possible depreciation value of these old anamorphics?

i dont suddenly want my la7200 and maybe iscorama to be worth pennies in a year or so and become hard to resell.
esp for the iscorama (even though its 1.5x) is there a standard of quality that slr magic and letus you think just cant match unless they are charging what itd cost to buy one of these vintage lenses?

[Nikkor]

Well it will depend on price and performance of the new lenses. Since it doesn't seem to be the sharpest thing ever nor the look seems that great (you can't really tell from that footage, but meh) I guess it will just depreciate the la7200 if it's close to it's price. Only andrew knows ^^.

[Sean Cunningham]

You haven't seen the real look since the footage that's been posted doesn't have the coatings they'll be using.  Also, there's only one shot in the footage I've seen that really looks soft and the shooter has already said that was his bad, not the adapter.  He only had access to it a couple hours and wasn't comfortable with the close focus system yet.  

 

Let's see what Andrew shoots as I'm curious to compare the other video to him shooting this latest model and see what f/2 looks like.  I don't know what you would have to be stopped down to on the LA7200 at 35mm for anything close to acceptable sharpness but on the Century Optics it's at least f/4 if you're not using something like the Tokina doublet or stronger diopter.  The doublet appears to buy about a stop or so.

 

It's already much faster than either the Century Optics or LA7200.  It's sharper than the LA7200 and sharper than the Century Optics at the edges with less CA.  And that's shooting naked.   

 

Folks who can't make peace with the 1.33X pretty much made that decision well before this lens was introduced so it changes nothing for them.  They can have their tiny 8mm adapters and dual focus systems and then there's the lucky few with their LOMOs and big dog Iscroramas.  There isn't likely going to be any new product for them until mainstream cameras re-introduce 1.33:1 aspect ratio for video and they're going to need more of a reason to than some fringe anamorphic shooters with a bunch of old lenses.  Catch-22.  

[Nikkor]

To me all the footage he took is soft, I haven't tried the la7200 or the expensive iscos, I'm comparing to a small isco projection lens, which is super sharp but double focus.

[EeeCeeGee]

So you're talking about comparing a beta prototype with a proven model of a projection lens.. Let's wait for some footage first.

[Nikkor]

So you're talking about comparing a beta prototype with a proven model of a projection lens.. Let's wait for some footage first.

I'm comparing the footage we are talking about, that's all. Let's see what andrew has to say. Maybe he even does a real test, who knows.

[nahua]

You haven't seen the real look since the footage that's been posted doesn't have the coatings they'll be using.  Also, there's only one shot in the footage I've seen that really looks soft and the shooter has already said that was his bad, not the adapter.  He only had access to it a couple hours and wasn't comfortable with the close focus system yet.  

 

Let's see what Andrew shoots as I'm curious to compare the other video to him shooting this latest model and see what f/2 looks like.  I don't know what you would have to be stopped down to on the LA7200 at 35mm for anything close to acceptable sharpness but on the Century Optics it's at least f/4 if you're not using something like the Tokina doublet or stronger diopter.  The doublet appears to buy about a stop or so.

 

It's already much faster than either the Century Optics or LA7200.  It's sharper than the LA7200 and sharper than the Century Optics at the edges with less CA.  And that's shooting naked.   

 

Folks who can't make peace with the 1.33X pretty much made that decision well before this lens was introduced so it changes nothing for them.  They can have their tiny 8mm adapters and dual focus systems and then there's the lucky few with their LOMOs and big dog Iscroramas.  There isn't likely going to be any new product for them until mainstream cameras re-introduce 1.33:1 aspect ratio for video and they're going to need more of a reason to than some fringe anamorphic shooters with a bunch of old lenses.  Catch-22.  

@BurnetRhoades what's your opinion on mixing anamorphics?  I need to use the LA7200 for wides since I can only use an 85mm on my 5DmkIII (still vignettes on Sankor).  I can get 28mm wide with the LA7200, but I have to stop down to F5.6, more like F8 or F11 though.  Impossible to use well at night with those F stops.  Ideally I could use the new anamorphics and still get that look but with F2, that would be amazing.  Anyway, I don't want to get rid of my Sankor just yet, it does produce a lovely image especially for closeups with a diopter.  But the difference in image (1.33x vs 2x) is very noticeable...

[Bioskop.Inc]

This will probably kill the LA7200 & Century Optics - no diopters, sharp across the whole width, lighter, can use on FF & much much better F/T stop.

So the price of $1.5k is actually really quite good considering everything. The legacy lenses, that are being sold, tend to be in really bad shape (fungus, mis-aligned etc...) & this one will get people spending, as you're getting a brand new lens which should be perfect.

I definitely think this will give most lenses a run for their money - the plastic 36 has a shelf life (they're old & won't last forever, unless you get them rehoused) & i never felt comfortable taking it out. I mean seriously how strong is that plastic? One too many bumps or the focus thread gets warn away...

 

The only problem is whether other lenses will work just as well with it - it is meant to be optimised to use with their lenses (not a fan & expensive).

 

As BR said, if you haven't or don't want to make peace with x1.33, then you never will.

However, if you can use one of Rich's oval aperture lenses with it then x1.33 isn't going to be a problem whatsoever.

[JohnBarlow]

This is a kind of FUD thread, so here is my contribution.

 

Firstly I would like to see the new efforts running with longer glass say 100mm. If they have trouble with these longer focal lengths then I am thinking that they could be a run off of the old Tokina generic molds made famous by Soligor and rehoused by Optex. The Soligor units sold for about £200 about ten years back and the Optex ones for about £600.

 

Two players in the 1.33x arena, should provide for more competition on price, which is good for the end user, but there are sharks in the water.

 

One such shark is Conurus, who quite conceivably could put out an anamorphic version of the speed booster, maybe as a 1.5x, which, in theory could be used with any lens. If this happened what would be the effect on SLRmagic and Letus pricing or production? More importantly would you like to be stuck with one of the latter when Conurus hits the ground running?

 

FUD works both ways :)

[Gábor Ember]

Anamorphic speedbooster would not be the same as a front anamorphic. You would not get the oval bokeh. I read that rear anamorphics do not produce these since the spherical elements are in the front.

[dahlfors]

I'm comparing the footage we are talking about, that's all. Let's see what andrew has to say. Maybe he even does a real test, who knows.

 

Compare the SLR Magic video (most is shot at f/2.8): https://vimeo.com/73139124

 

to the Letus Anamorphic: http://www.clintonharn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Scene1-unsqeezed.jpg

- Those are some soft corners for a $1700 adapter!

 

Also check out footage from LA7200 around the net, in corners they get very soft.

 

Then you can start to reflect on the fact that this $1500 SLR Magic anamorphic at f/2.8 - which hasn't gotten its coating yet - is already sharper (by a lot) than those two.

 

I don't like the current crazy flaring of the SLR Magic at all, but that will change for the better with coating.

 

I have a good sample of an Isco projection lens as well, and yes - it is very sharp, somewhat sharper than my real pre-36 Iscorama. I love the Isco projection lens for its qualities, although I dislike the unproportional squeeze it has. But when you consider the handling of it, it just can't be compared to a lens that you can just screw into the filter thread of the taking lens, that you don't need any special rig for, and that you can easily & quickly do single focusing with. All the hassle of the workflow disappears and you can focus on the shooting instead.

 

I'm thrilled to see the test footage of this lens by Andrew. Although what he has in his hands is a pre-production lens, I have a feeling you won't think it's soft after you see his shots with it :)

[Sean Cunningham]

@BurnetRhoades what's your opinion on mixing anamorphics?  I need to use the LA7200 for wides since I can only use an 85mm on my 5DmkIII (still vignettes on Sankor).  I can get 28mm wide with the LA7200, but I have to stop down to F5.6, more like F8 or F11 though.  Impossible to use well at night with those F stops.  Ideally I could use the new anamorphics and still get that look but with F2, that would be amazing.  Anyway, I don't want to get rid of my Sankor just yet, it does produce a lovely image especially for closeups with a diopter.  But the difference in image (1.33x vs 2x) is very noticeable...

 

They mix anamorphics in movies all the time, and mix anamorphic with spherical.  In fact, if you're shooting wide enough, like for an establishing shot, with most of the frame in focus there's little reason to not just shoot spherical and crop.  Wide scenics don't really play to anamorphic's aesthetic  unless you have objects in the foreground to cue its unexpected width for scale/depth character (and, of course, distorted bokeh).

 

You could, very realistically, since you're shooting on a 5D, shoot all or most of your non-CUs spherical but using ND to open up more than you otherwise would and then do dramatic CUs with an adapter, and maybe for compositions like overlapping medium 2-shots.  

 

Panavision films, during the optical days and then still, for a better part of the first decade of digital film scanning for visual effects, would cut to spherical footage whenever there were effects involved, either Super-35mm, which would be extracted and eventually blown up to go back into the surrounding anamorphic or VistaVision, if they had more cash, which would hold up better, sharpness wise, when put back into the surrounding anamorphic footage.  

 

Then, of course, you have last year's The Dark Knight Rises, where most of the big action scenes switched over to 65mm acquisition.  And somewhere in there was likely the odd 5D stunt shot.  Mixing cameras and formats is done all the time.  It doesn't really matter so much if you can detect the change looking at the transition from a macro perspective.  What's important is getting the shot and how it affects the overall flow.

 

The only time mixed formats really bothers me is if there's a really drastic drop in quality.  For instance, I recently saw Pain & Gain and there are, a few times, what appears to be (poorly enhanced) old model GoPro shots with Wahlberg and The Rock driving.  It goes from Michael Bay to an episode of COPs in the space of one cut.  Bad.  Plus, really unexpected since he is fanatical about photographic quality and not shy to spend time and money on complicated shooting.  There was no reason to be lazy with the little cameras in this case.

[Sean Cunningham]

Also, folks shooting with a 5D should likely (borrowing from a comment I made regarding 1.33x anamorphics) make peace with operating in a crop mode, effectively shooting at a Super-35mm or MFT effective sensor size.

 

What little precedent there is for motion pictures shot in horizontal, 8-perf 35mm there's less for anamorphic in this size.  Where large-format anamorphic exists the squeeze ratios get smaller (think 1.25x in the case of Ultra Panavision).  2x is the domain of 4-perf 35mm with an effective aperture that's smaller than APS-C.  "Filmed in Panavision" means you're looking at an aperture that's between that of a 7D and the GH2, and closer to that of the GH2 (21mm versus 19mm).

 

In a big way, due to the width and shallower depth of field you get with a 36mm sensor, it's the 5D user who's the best candidate for oval iris inserts and streak filters.  

 

 

PS> an anamorphic speedbooster sounds terrible.  Just use a wider lens and crop.  All you get is width without character.  IMO, it's engineers creating an expensive, complicated solution to a problem that doesn't really exist (yay engineers).  It won't affect adapters like this in any way.  

[Sean Cunningham]

 

The only problem is whether other lenses will work just as well with it - it is meant to be optimised to use with their lenses (not a fan & expensive).

 

 

I think this has more to do with the overly cautions manner and confusing language they're using in the information they're allowing to be released.  There's no reason, really, to expect it to behave any differently with any other 35mm prime compared to their's.  There's no "magic" apart from in the title of their company.  I bet the image of Andrew plugging it into the 20mm Lumix ruffled some feathers over at the company.

 

Over at personal-view they seemed almost annoyed that Andrew mentioned shooting it at f/2 in his article, because they've been careful to only claim f/2.8 so far and that's all Edwin Lee was allowed (I'm assuming) to post or comment on.  That's the official company line, currently, on acceptable lower threshold of sharpness.  But it's like any other lens.  Their hyper-primes don't perform at wide open like they do somewhat stopped down but the difference is they market and depend their lenses being able to open up that far even if IQ suffers. 

 

They're just being overly cautious because the existing 1.33X adapters have such a bad reputation for sharpness and speed without diopters.  They're focusing only on its performance without additional help.  Likewise, they don't want to get into a situation where they have to contend with the vagaries of other lens manufacturers.  It's safer to just make sure their adapter works with their lenses and let end users work out any necessary step-up/down configurations or spacers for extra clearance with oddly bulbous front elements.

[richg101]

my opinion on the matter...

 

these new offerings wont touch the current ones for people like us.  it wont better a century or a la7200 since the guys developing these new lenses dont really understand the reasoning behind why people want anamorphic.  neither will they touch the performance of an iscorama unless they infringe on a patent.

 

their key failing is in deciding to rework a 'one size fits all' option instead of making people work with a proper solution that has limitations.

 

the letus option will have only been tested with Canon L lenses

the slr magic solution will have only been tested with slr magic lenses on m43

 

The key to success is to deliver a set of integrated lenses with no user options available.  each lens being sub 1.5k usd.  each being f2.8.  a 35mm, a 50mm and a 85mm.  each covering full frame to allow yielding of the speed booster for that magical f2..

 

the worst thing in the world is to create a one size fits all front solution that will in 90% of circumstances be fitted to the front of ghastly canon 50mm L lenses.  

 

Set maximum and minimum focus point for each focal length and optimise the anamorphot to suit.  

 

if anything i see these offerings as only a reason for my iscorama to increase even more above its actual value.  and id rather these people put their efforts into something that matched it.  all this computer power we have nowadays.  how can these people not better a 1960's design?

[Paulio]

I would say 70% of the test footage looks soft to me, but it may be operator error.

 

I'm excited people are pushing to make new anamorphics, I can see this depreciating LA7200 and Century Optics.

Doubtful it will have any affect on the prices of kowa's, iscos, lomos and other squeezier adapters.

 

Looking forward to Andrew's footage since he knows what he is doing.

[Rudolf]

Yesss... this is becoming a hot thread: Shall I sell my Iscorama... I don't want to loose all the pennies.

This could cause the forum to overflow with even more "For Sale..." threads  :(

I tried the LA 7200, the Optex and did not like them. Especially when it comes to motion picture (S8/16) they are useless.

Of course you could achieve the silly/compromise-HD ratio but further more the degradation of the image is not acceptable.

(The resolution of Super8 is up to 1120 lines and that is fine for HD-telecine). Isco developed their system for 35mm and adapted it

for Super8. This was the best you can get and was influenced of the experiences with the Bolex Möller. And what most people forget: Anamorphics were never built to have character or flares or ovals! That was just a sidereffect. (OH MY GOD the latest STAR TREK IS TOTALLY INSANE ANNOYING!)

Filmstock is a much better way to create a look and a lot of fun. 

These SLR Magic and Letus people are just doing what the "Zacutos" around the world did before: They are creating products for

DSLR-enthusiasts....

Exactly as Isco and Möller did it for the Super-8 enthusiasts some time ago

There is one difference: Craftsmanship. SLR Magic and Letus have the computers but I doubt they have such a long tradition and knowledge like Möller and ISCO. It is the glass!

And finally: Astonishingly there are still some plastic Iscos flying around... probably ten times as much as 54's? 

How did they survive all these crazy Super-8 guys? Probably they were just too anxious to use them?

 

[nahua]

They mix anamorphics in movies all the time, and mix anamorphic with spherical.  In fact, if you're shooting wide enough, like for an establishing shot, with most of the frame in focus there's little reason to not just shoot spherical and crop.  Wide scenics don't really play to anamorphic's aesthetic  unless you have objects in the foreground to cue its unexpected width for scale/depth character (and, of course, distorted bokeh).

 

You could, very realistically, since you're shooting on a 5D, shoot all or most of your non-CUs spherical but using ND to open up more than you otherwise would and then do dramatic CUs with an adapter, and maybe for compositions like overlapping medium 2-shots.  

 

OK thanks this is good insight.  I like the idea of using NDs for wide shots using spherical.  I just wish I could get a true anamorphic wide lens like the 20mm Panavision used in the remake of Total Recall (of course they said only 1 exists in the world).  But I guess I'm dreaming...

 

In that case it's all in the planning and how to make the look of the film work.  I've been using my LA7200 for the wides, but at times it just looks like regular spherical shots especially with the wide depth of field at F8 (most of the time).  I'll try your suggestions and see how I can edit it.

[nahua]

Also, folks shooting with a 5D should likely (borrowing from a comment I made regarding 1.33x anamorphics) make peace with operating in a crop mode, effectively shooting at a Super-35mm or MFT effective sensor size.

 

What little precedent there is for motion pictures shot in horizontal, 8-perf 35mm there's less for anamorphic in this size.  Where large-format anamorphic exists the squeeze ratios get smaller (think 1.25x in the case of Ultra Panavision).  2x is the domain of 4-perf 35mm with an effective aperture that's smaller than APS-C.  "Filmed in Panavision" means you're looking at an aperture that's between that of a 7D and the GH2, and closer to that of the GH2 (21mm versus 19mm).

 

In a big way, due to the width and shallower depth of field you get with a 36mm sensor, it's the 5D user who's the best candidate for oval iris inserts and streak filters. 

The only reason I'm using my 5DmkIII is because of the RAW hack.  I can actually shoot 3:2 at 1920x1280 and have a 1:2.66 ratio, although I crop it to 1:2.40.  If we could get true 3:2 or 4:3 shooting with the GH3 I'd use it more often.  But having to crop a 2x lens on a GH3 means a lot of the frame cut off and also loss of resolution.  Not necessarily a bad thing, but still I'd like to use the whole frame.  I just wish Blackmagic or Panasonic would just let us make custom frame sizes so we can shoot anamorphic.  The ML hack is the closest we can get to doing that.

 

I'll look at Dog Schict Optics (sp?) and their custom Helios for the oval iris, and maybe the Vid-Atlantic streak filters?  I forget which ones have the filters for oval stretch bokeh.  I wonder if that would help with wide shots, then that would make 5DmkIII footage match with GH3 and 2x Sankors.

[dahlfors]

LOL Rudolf. I love that vintage Iscorama advertisement you attached with your post! Very cheesy :) Never seen that one before.