Some Galileo action going on

[Bold]

@Cosimo I applaud your work.Thank you for sharing, and contributing. For me and many others, experimentation is the cornerstone of learning about anamorphic. Non-conctructive criticism of other people's work seems petty and antithetical to the anamorphic community. Ignore the haters, and keep doing what you are doing!

[rokkimort]

11 hours ago, leslie said:

 If it doesn't please you go someplace else.

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

[Cosimo]

 

1 hour ago, rokkimort said:

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

To be honest what Dan Sasaki from Panavision says is much more valuable to me than what you wrote.You can read my private conversation i had with him. These are only DIY prototypes  and there is no hacksaw involved, even a child would know that these would of course benefit from a new housing , but since I am not selling it or launching anything on the market I am not worried. But most of all  please do not worry at all about my children, I am the father. How dare you! 

[leslie]

 

11 hours ago, rokkimort said:

Sorry, I did not mean to sound mean. But this is not how internet works, I am free to voice my opinion. I see a BS post and I call it out. OP pretentiously talks about "galilean action" and "horizontal artifacts", yet the images are highly uninspiring home shots with some of the ugliest flares I've seen. Then he proceeds to post lenses that look butchered. It seems he just took a hacksaw to some schneider cinelux lenses, then butchered some other lenses and randomly paired elements until he got a useable image. Using pseudo scientific terms to describe this process does not make it anything different. Just pure lens hacking. Pointless exercise, because no self-respecting DP will use something like this to shoot anything remotely important. Sure, if you want to learn by destroying lenses – go ahead. They don't make them anymore though.

But what really worries me is that I see at least 4 different kids in these shots. I don't know how old OP is, and I don't want to assume their gender, but this is not normal. 

I know of no movie or story that hasn't been embellished or exaggerated at some point. Any creative person tends to wax lyrical or poetic about things, its human nature. When they stray too far, well i call that click bait. 🙄  Getting back on topic if some dude from panasonic whats to call it some type of galilean action i'm fine with that. I presume he knows more about such stuff, more than i do anyway.

I have a stack of my brothers kids photos hanging up around the house. I have met those kids precisely twice in thirteen years. Does that make me a pedophile ? My parents live with me, grandparents tend to like grandkids as a rule. so i ended up with a bunch of photos of kids that arent mine.  Since most parents are justifiably proud of their kids and have photos, it doesn't bother me that cosimo combines two interests ( kids + anamorphics) Kids make for cheap talent if anything, a meal at macas and its all good 😀

What isn't normal is that you come into this thread and cast slurs and aspersions on some dude. Your either a troll or idiot or both. Cant really see how the forum benefits from having you around  @Andrew Reid  your the boss, whats your take on this ?

[Cosimo]

Cinemoller 1.6X with 50mm f1.4 FVD on 5d3

[tweak]

Tinkering with lenses and hacking together stuff is what makes anamorphic fun to me, I think some people totally miss the point of why many of us do it.

[Vladimir]

im in. this is from 1.6x scope, first test with 50f2:

 

[Cosimo]

34 minutes ago, Vladimir said:

m in. this is from 1.6x scope, first test with 50f2:

Hello Vladimir, so glad you made one 1.6X scope, looks good man! 

[Ian Edward Weir]

On 6/15/2020 at 3:10 PM, Cosimo said:

Cinelux front glass/ Moller 32 rear glass 1.6X with Lomo  block 75mm on FF sensor. 

Stunning shot glass wizard. 

[Caleb Genheimer]

I’ve done a decent amount of front/rear group mismatch pairing. What I’ve found is this:

1. you can often find mismatched pairings that function at equivalent quality to their matched arrangement.

2. mismatched pairings are not able to be focused, meaning that they are in focus only at infinity. (This is different from what anamorphic users refer to as “dual focus.” The anamorphic is infinity only just to be clear.)

3. The maximum angle of view is determined by the front element group, and cannot be changed. (Note a key distinction however that the squeeze ratio changes, which DOES change which taking lens focal length will be associated with the unchanging angle of view. This also means that the vertical field of view changes as well.)

4. the source-point flare comes from the rear element group, the secondary mirrored flare comes from the front element group.

To take all of this and give a specific example, let’s say I’m trying out pairings with the front element group from my Kowa 16-H. On my Blackmagic PCC4K, lets say my favorite lens to use with it stock is my Canon FD 24mm, which also happens to be the widest lens I can use if my final delivery is going to be a tasty, vignette-free 2.39:1. 

Let’s move on now to the (imaginary) mismatch pairing. I have an old B&L CinemaScope kicking around, and I pair the rear grouping from this scope with the front grouping from my 16-H, in front of my 24mm, which is set to infinity. The B&L elements are nice and cozy right up against the 24mm’s front, but things look blurry. I move the 16-H front grouping in and out until I get a nice sharp image. Neat! If I focus the 24mm on something closer, say, my C-stand at 5’ from camera, I can’t seem to achieve anything sharp no matter what the distance is between the Kowa and B&L element groups. Oh well... infinity it is! (That’s what variable diopters are for anyway, right?)

Ok, so we have our trusty 24mm. We have a Frankenstein of glass from two scopes in front of it, and it’s nice and sharp (at least at infinity,) so what now? Well, let’s shoot a chart, pull some footage into an NLE, and figure out what the squeeze of our new Frankenscope happens to be. A quick stretch of the footage to where the chart looks normal reveals..... 1.75X! Neat! Now, there’s definitely some vignette, but that’s ok, we’re after 2.39:1 delivery. Let’s crop in until the vignette goes away, shall we? The result? vignette free when cropped to 3:1. That’s cool, we could probably go a little wider with the spherical lens.

A quick scour through the camera bag unearths a LUMIX 21mm lens. Let’s ditch the 24mm and try the 21mm. Abracadabra, drop some 21mm footage into the timeline, desqueeze and crop out the vignette: 2.39:1. There now exists a 1.75X scope that can go as wide as a 21mm taking lens! That’s a wider taking lens than the Kowa could handle stock! 
 

Or is it? A meander through the maths:

21/1.75=12mm lens equivalent horizontal
24/2=12mm lens equivalent horizontal

BUT!!! (You may say, and you’re correct) there is no vertical squeeze factor here, so vertically, the 21mm is STILL wider than the 24mm. Yes. You are using a wider focal length lens, but your horizontal field/angle of view remains unchanged. The two scope configurations both are and aren’t equivalent to each other. Oh the joys of anamorphic. This is why anamorphic lenses are said to have two focal lengths (one horizontal and another vertical,) and it’s why we get oval bokeh too! 

The final kicker is when we add our variable diopter of choice: an SLR Magic Rangefinder. The stock Kowa is now choked to a maximum of 28mm, and the Frankenscope can only do 25mm. It turns out that in practical application, the limit of all wide anamorphic adapter setups is the variable diopter, not the scope. The new Rapido FVD-35 is right at the limits of the very widest anamorphic adapters. What’s more, a bigger diopter setup to squeeze out those last few distorted degrees of angle-of-view would be laughably gigantic. The FVD-35 is 134mm in diameter. That means it already sits only 2cm above a 15mm LWS rod setup, so unless you want to go full 19mm studio rods and use 6.5X6.5 mattebox for filtration, the FVD-35 will do “just fine.”

Why, then, would anyone bother to Frankenscope? Well, because lenses are so much more than the numbers. Even by the numbers, you might prefer a novel squeeze ratio. You might want beautiful mixed gold and teal flares. You might want the thick, lush flares from an old scope with some added sharpness and contrast from one more modern. You might want a unique look, that’s all your own, completely custom. Besides that, the experimentation is really fun! 

A quick look at remotely reasonable anamorphic offerings reveals: Xelmus has a 40mm and Atlas has a 32mm, both of which only cover a standard 35mm open gate. The FVD-35 is right in this ballpark in any case. Unless you find an exceptionally rare 22mm LOMO, or rent some top shelf glass, you’re not going to go wider... never mind that depth of field becomes so deep when this wide that the differences between spherical and anamorphic are difficult for most people to differentiate. As someone who hacked scopes apart to try and go wider, here’s my conclusion: do what works for you, but you’re gonna need a big variable diopter, because that’s the bottleneck. After that, find your wide scope of choice, Frankensteined or stock, it’s just preference. 

I had some awesome results from very humbly priced pairings. I bought a half dozen or so scopes off eBay, and did my level best to spend $100 or less on each. A great trick is taking big/long adapters meant for 35mm projection, and pairing their front element groups with rears from shorter 16mm projection scopes. As a general rule, this seems to significantly shorten the scope’s length, and reduces the squeeze factor. There are a plethora of theoretical 1.8X, 1.75X, 1.5X, and 1.33X custom scopes out there for anyone with the willpower and funding to go on a mix and match bonanza.

 

[AndreasK]

Didn't see this topic before. Beautiful images as always and I love you chat with Mr Dan Sasaki!!

[Caleb Genheimer]

It’s worth noting that the new Rapido Technology FVD-35NP will allow us to shorten long scopes, reducing the squeeze factor... but also gaining angle of view.

[au8ust]

On 2/23/2021 at 11:09 AM, Caleb Genheimer said:

It’s worth noting that the new Rapido Technology FVD-35NP will allow us to shorten long scopes, reducing the squeeze factor... but also gaining angle of view.

Somehow I don't get this. By reducing the length of the scope, I get that it would reduce some amount of the vignettes which means no sides cropping needed, thus more FOV? But then you lose 20% of 2x squeezing factor, that's from 2x to 1.6x. So how could you gain more FOV after losing 20% of the squeezing factor?

Any explanation would be great, thank you!

[PannySVHS]

gem. bump:) reread a bit. didnt understand much of the techincalities. still fascinated. beautiful stuff. thanks for posting this back then! @Cosimo