Introducing Rectilux FF Single Focus Adapters (Rectilux 5FF, Rectilux 7FF & Rectilux 9FF Announced)

[Nikkor]

I think if I got it right, this method should be able to surpass the Iscorama, and it's also capable of giving variable stretch.

[JohnBarlow]

Nice project John.  Though i am a bit hesitant to believe your focus system is miles away from the patented Isco system... :ph34r:

 

Your stills look pretty good, but the video sample doesnt seem to show very much of that anamorphic quality we all want due to the fact that the shots dont seem to show any shallow dof or any proper focus pulls.  What aperture was your zoom set to?  I was surprised that even at 70-200 there was little infocus/defocus separation.  If I went out with my nex5n, a 135mm f4 and an iscorama the depth of field would be razor thin compared to what i am seeing here.

 

When you put these rather costly and heavy £3000 units up against a smaller, more compact £2000 iscorama36, (or £3000 vandiemen rehoused version!), be sure to show the capabilities between the two on full frame, with an 85mm f1.4 wide open.  This is the only way you'll be able to properly show the capabilities against the benchmark 'rama, which will deliver sterling results even wide open!.  

 

I love the look from 2x anamorphics but I think the main issue your anamorphics will struggle with when being put up against an iscorama 1.5x is the loss of resolution from having to crop away so much from the sides.  I believe selecting a higher spec Kowa 35 (1.5 or 1.75) would have been a better choice for usability in our current climate where resolution is very important.  Very few people have access to budgets to rent an Alexa Studio with its 4 perf sensor.  

 

I think it best to put these issues on hold until the shootout takes place. Then any discussion will be based on hard facts instead of conjecture on your part.

 

Oh, btw, to fully utilise the extreme bokeh from a 1.4/85mm , would require a scope with a rear optic port of 85/1.4 = 61mm

 

the EP for an ISCO36 gives an f/stop of 85/36 = 2.36

the EP for an ISCO'68 gives an f/stop of 85/30 = 2.83

 

thus it would be fatuous and a dirty lie to claim an ISCO36 or '68 can support a 1.4/85mm wide open, regardless of sensor size.

 

Regarding weight, the ISCO'68 weighs in at 400g in its original plastic mac, without the supplied low budget 2.8/50mm ISCOTAR triplet.

 

Whereas the Rectilux 3FF weighs in at 500g in its full metal jacket and of course the nice and thick 10mm front element plays its part. 

I would hardly call it heavy. 

 

A Van Diemann rehousing/conversion is heavy and not much in the way of additional functionality.

 

Ok, so lets adjourn this debate/discussion until the shootout.

 

best

[JohnBarlow]

I think if I got it right, this method should be able to surpass the Iscorama, and it's also capable of giving variable stretch.

Hi Bruno,

 

As mentioned earlier the Rectilux has similarity to how a zoom lens works, the focusing group, variator group, compensator group and the master group get transformed into the focusing group, the scope and the taking lens. Of course, as always, the devil is in the detail.

[richg101]

I think it best to put these issues on hold until the shootout takes place. Then any discussion will be based on hard facts instead of conjecture on your part.

 

Oh, btw, to fully utilise the extreme bokeh from a 1.4/85mm , would require a scope with a rear optic port of 85/1.4 = 61mm

 

the EP for an ISCO36 gives an f/stop of 85/36 = 2.36

the EP for an ISCO'68 gives an f/stop of 85/30 = 2.83

 

thus it would be fatuous and a dirty lie to claim an ISCO36 or '68 can support a 1.4/85mm wide open, regardless of sensor size.

 

 

 

 

No dirty lies here sir!  I think you misunderstand what I mean.  

 

I am well aware that the rear optic of the iscorama 36 or iscorama (non 36) is not large enough to deliver the 'light transmission' required to deliver exposures as you would expect from the 85mm f1.4 on it's own,  in order for that the rear optic of the iscorama would need to match that of the 85mm f1.4.  However, I am sure you're aware that the coupling of the optics will still yield the 'look' of a f1.4.  exposure will take a hit granted, but we're here for the 'look'.  even if there were 2 stops of light loss due to the limited transmission, we're still talking a f2.8 exposure which is still adequate.  At most I'd estimate maybe a noticeable loss of 1/2 - 2/3rd of a stop due to the limitations of the iscorama rear optic.  

 

Put an iscorama on the front of a 85mm f1.4 zeiss and it doesnt degrade the image very much at all (even wide open) thus in resolving power terms the Iscorama will support use at f1.4 as well as the fastest cinema anamorphics can!, but do it on a full frame sensor.  If you are charging similar amounts of money for your product, put it against the competition your price point dictates otherwise no one will buy them.

 

if you want to remove the loss of transmission effects and the cost of aquiring an 85mm f1.4 for testing purposes just stick a 50mm f1.4 lens on the back instead, on full frame and show us the comparison.  The iscorama rear optic is big enough to transmit enough light for a 50mm f1.4.   

 

 

re. weight.

A 100g increase in weight, as well as what looks like a 1/3rd length increase (before the diopter is at full extention) is a noticable difference once hanging off a prime.  Those rectimascopes are pretty long as standard from that I recall.  Have you used an Iscorama before?  On a helios 44 it's pretty damn compact and doesnt need any rails.

 

I don't mean to piss on puddings here, but as an Iscorama user, and enthusiast I felt compelled to come in and query constructively the product since there is suggestion that it will be a possible replacement for the iscorama.  If this is the case then that's awesome. 

[Nikkor]

Actually if you put a smaller aperture in front of the lens and not too far away, it will act like stopping down. So it doesn't only take away light transmission, it also widens the dof. You can try this out.

 

Let's see what John comes up with, he got the guts to do it.

[Caleb Genheimer]

Don't listen to the low-squeeze heretics, 2X squeeze is where it's at :-)

I'm really excited, but I need to see how well it holds up at wider apertures, with shallower DOF, when pulling focus.

Could this be adapted to other projection anamorphics? If so, the Kowa 8Z/16-H is IMO the best 2X out there. It goes the widest, and is very clean and sharp.

Also, if you can, a more professional-looking clamp/rod riser setup would be awesome. I'm not saying yours is bad, but I'd definitely drop a couple hundred dollars extra for a premium setup. I've always thought that it'd be cool to have the anamorphic mounted to the rods on its own riser, with a nifty little elastic drawstring cloth at the back that goes around the front of the "taking" lens to block out light.

Also, PM me if you want advice on electronic follow focus devices. I've sunk around $1K into building a wireless follow focus from scratch, so I've got some experience.

[JohnBarlow]

No dirty lies here sir!  I think you misunderstand what I mean.  

 

I am well aware that the rear optic of the iscorama 36 or iscorama (non 36) is not large enough to deliver the 'light transmission' required to deliver exposures as you would expect from the 85mm f1.4 on it's own,  in order for that the rear optic of the iscorama would need to match that of the 85mm f1.4.  However, I am sure you're aware that the coupling of the optics will still yield the 'look' of a f1.4.  exposure will take a hit granted, but we're here for the 'look'.  even if there were 2 stops of light loss due to the limited transmission, we're still talking a f2.8 exposure which is still adequate.  At most I'd estimate maybe a noticeable loss of 1/2 - 2/3rd of a stop due to the limitations of the iscorama rear optic.  

 

Put an iscorama on the front of a 85mm f1.4 zeiss and it doesnt degrade the image very much at all (even wide open) thus in resolving power terms the Iscorama will support use at f1.4 as well as the fastest cinema anamorphics can!, but do it on a full frame sensor.  If you are charging similar amounts of money for your product, put it against the competition your price point dictates otherwise no one will buy them.

 

This is very easy to resolve. Place some newsprint on the floor and pull out a length of retractable steel rule. Then shoot three photos of the same focus point on the rule ; one at F1.4, F2.0 and F2.8 and post them here so that we may evaluate any change in DOF and light transmission between them.

 

if you want to remove the loss of transmission effects and the cost of aquiring an 85mm f1.4 for testing purposes just stick a 50mm f1.4 lens on the back instead, on full frame and show us the comparison.  The iscorama rear optic is big enough to transmit enough light for a 50mm f1.4.   

 

You seem to forget that I own a '68 which does not support a 1.4/50 wide open

 

re. weight.

A 100g increase in weight, as well as what looks like a 1/3rd length increase (before the diopter is at full extention) is a noticable difference once hanging off a prime.  Those rectimascopes are pretty long as standard from that I recall.  Have you used an Iscorama before?  On a helios 44 it's pretty damn compact and doesnt need any rails.

 

 

I am not entirely sure where you are going with this. Maybe you think I just store my '68 in a spotlit trophy cabinet next to my fabulous collection of Faberge eggs?  Then again have you ever put your ISCO on the end of a 75-150 zoom lens?, did you ever listen to those little M2 screws in your camera mount creak and groan under the bending moment?

Sure the Rectilux is a little longer but have you noticed that for a given lens size, 2X Scopes tend to be a little longer than 1.5X, with the 1.3X size being the shortest?

Also how long and heavy does the ISCO become with that deliciously expensive Tokina 0.4 hanging off the end of those plastic screw threads. Metal grinding against plastic after repeated screwing on and off - there can only be one winner and it isnt the plastic threads.

Here is a photo showing the entrance pupils

 

 

I don't mean to piss on puddings here, but as an Iscorama user, and enthusiast I felt compelled to come in and query constructively the product since there is suggestion that it will be a possible replacement for the iscorama.  If this is the case then that's awesome. 

 

 

Richard, I am not out to diss the ISCO. It's just that people will want to know how the Rectilux 3FF stacks up against the 'most desirable Iscorama (Wiki words)'

 

Tell you what, when all my tests are finished, I will be selling my top condition ISCO'68 complete with original Iscotar together with a specially matched 3.5/70-150mm zoom lens. I will give you first refusal on the package.

 

Rectilux is not awesome, it is simply the most significant development in the history of anamorphics, the ability to revisioneer any projection scope into a follow focus cinematographers tool.

[JohnBarlow]

Don't listen to the low-squeeze heretics, 2X squeeze is where it's at :-)

I'm really excited, but I need to see how well it holds up at wider apertures, with shallower DOF, when pulling focus.

Could this be adapted to other projection anamorphics? If so, the Kowa 8Z/16-H is IMO the best 2X out there. It goes the widest, and is very clean and sharp.

Also, if you can, a more professional-looking clamp/rod riser setup would be awesome. I'm not saying yours is bad, but I'd definitely drop a couple hundred dollars extra for a premium setup. I've always thought that it'd be cool to have the anamorphic mounted to the rods on its own riser, with a nifty little elastic drawstring cloth at the back that goes around the front of the "taking" lens to block out light.

Also, PM me if you want advice on electronic follow focus devices. I've sunk around $1K into building a wireless follow focus from scratch, so I've got some experience.

 

Yes I have a solution for the KOWA, Contact me at my website when you want to go ahead on this.

 

If you have a sketch of the kind of support you have in mind just send it over as well.

 

PM sent

[JohnBarlow]

I set up the blog today

http://www.rectilux.com

Over time I will be adding news and posts on how to setup the Rectilux 3FF with various taking lenses and how to operate the Floating Zone Focus.

[OzNimbus]

Looks promising, but at 2950 UK, that translates into roughly $4400 Canadian.... just a little too pricey for my tastes.  I'm sure you've put a ton of research into it & I do wish you the greatest success with it.

[EeeCeeGee]

Wow, looks really promising indeed, and using zooms… crazy!!

[JohnBarlow]

Looks promising, but at 2950 UK, that translates into roughly $4400 Canadian.... just a little too pricey for my tastes.  I'm sure you've put a ton of research into it & I do wish you the greatest success with it.

Thanks Oz,

 

Theres none cheaper unfortunately ;)

[JohnBarlow]

Wow, looks really promising indeed, and using zooms… crazy!!

Thanks EeeCeeGee !

[Liszon]

Thanks Oz,

 

Theres none cheaper unfortunately ;)

 

I'm really not looking to split hairs, but you can get an Iscorama (not the 54) between £1500-2000. Although if you need the 2x look, this could be a good option.

 

(Edit) And this being said, I wish you sell enough to keep you in business. I'm sure it's not easy to run a micro-enterprise like this, and anyone who's looking to make new anamorphic lenses should be respected in my opinion

[JohnBarlow]

@Liszon

 

I can understand what your saying and I also thank you for your kind words.

 

When setting a target performance in the design stage of the Rectilux I was looking at this Angenieux zoom below on the basis of aiming very high and if I pull up a little short then it would stilll be good.

 

The Ang is very much a pricey lens at over 20x the price of Rectilux 3FF

http://cvp.com/index.php?t=product/angenieux_56-152f

60,000 UKP including tax

 

Sure the build quality of the Angenieux is neat but when it comes down to optical performance with similar close focus capability, this is what I get when I put a £30 Tamron 3.5/70-150 zoom from ebay behind the Rectilux 3FF (click the image for full 1080p size)

 

 

Can you say the Angenieux would produce a shot which is 20x better? How about 10x? 5x? 2x?

 

Do folks want quality or cheap?

[JohnBarlow]

Recticlips are short ungraded clips illustrating a feature or an operational aspect of the Rectilux 3FF

 

This one shows a finger touch focus pull

 

[Caleb Genheimer]

Yay focus pull on a 2X adapter!

What's the ballpark $$$ to get a lens that I already own converted? (I have a 16-s)

[JohnBarlow]

@Cal

I left it at 32:9 so you could see my fingers performing the focus pull :)

 

The vignette disappears when cut to 2.35:1

 

I have the revisioneering prices for the KOWA 16S on the website

 

http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/rectilux-3ff.html

 

Perfectly matched optics, smooth and light 10 start helicoid, centricity accuracy <0.1mm, focus throw 195 degrees and Floating Zone Focus for crisp closeups down to 0.65m (2ft) comes as standard

 

Angenieux like performance at 1/20th of the price and it works with primes as well as zooms as proven.

 

I also have a KOWA 16-S available from stock today.

[Lucian]

Sounds promising, I look forward to seeing more tests as the stuff on vimeo isn't real exciting.

[JohnBarlow]

just getting warmed up, James Bond comes later   ;)

 

 

Meanwhile here is a follow focus test