SLR Magic 2x Anamorphic - my footage and first impressions

[Nikkor]

Ehem,you can also have 2.35:1 by using less negative height (cropping) but you will loose resolution, so they used the hypogonar to gain negative space.

[OzNimbus]

Glad to hear the news. Definitely interested!

[ADC]

I read somewhere (and please correct me if my recollection is wrong) that 2.39:1 is the standardised anamorphic ratio in cinemas today and there is a technical reason for that consistency recommendation which is pertinent to theatre systems. If that info is true then it would be useful to have an optic that fits those criteria for those embarking on an indie feature film.

 

I was very impressed by SLR Magic's 1.33x although like some others I felt it lacked the subtle je nais c'est quoi that 2x brings. Other than the benefits of the 2x stretch, I hope it retains the characteristics of the other lens, such as the agreeable flare it produces.

 

Is there any reason why the new lens would cost more than the 1.33x; would the 2x cost more to produce? If it's in that ball park then I'd confidently pre-order. 

 

Personally, I'd want to shoot raw at 4k with this but I don't know of any affordable options since 2x requires a sensor other than 16:9 (BMPC and Kinefinity being affordable).

Although, after seeing 'Road to Paloma' I still think the 5DmkIII with raw cuts it.

 

Thanks for posting, Andrew.

[Caleb Genheimer]

Anamorphics were designed for shooting wider aspect images without loosing resolution, Andrew is correct. Film was 4:3 (4-perf), and they didn't want to change the film width as that would mean new cameras. And they didn't want to crop down to 3-perf as that would be


A loss of resolution.

So they created anamorphics.

[Damon Mosier]

Is it just me or do the out of focus people look a bit... smeared... in that video?

[froess]

Yes but at that time there wasn't that much tought of resolution, they just created the lenses to show movies in a new way, to escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring back people to the movies. That and because cinerama was way too expensive and complicated.

[Leepatterson]

Hey ADC:) you're correct, scope sizes for DCP are 2.39:1 (2048x858 or 4096x1716)

I love my 1.33 'phot;)

[Andrew Reid]

Yes but at that time there wasn't that much tought of resolution, they just created the lenses to show movies in a new way, to escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring back people to the movies. That and because cinerama was way too expensive and complicated.

 

Nice theory, unfortunately you're wrong and you really need to do some research. Anamorphic was designed to avoid cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio.

[Andrew Reid]

Hey ADC:) you're correct, scope sizes for DCP are 2.39:1 (2048x858 or 4096x1716)

I love my 1.33 'phot;)

 

Old scope was 2.35:1, then there was 2.39:1 and now Red seem to say 2.4:1.

 

Confusing isn't it!

[Caleb Genheimer]

Old scope was 2.35:1, then there was 2.39:1 and now Red seem to say 2.4:1.

 

Confusing isn't it!

Well, what the projectors prefer is what I'd call "standard". Per the wikipedia page on DCP (Digital Cinema Package), 4096x1716 is a common standard, which is on the narrower side, weighing in mathematically just a hair below 2.39:1. RED should really stop pretending like they're the trend-setters ;-)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Cinema_Package

[JohnBarlow]

faec7198d1e8d1ef425d86c3c03817a8

[richg101]

 

Interesting article Andrew and thank you for sharing.

 

I realise this is only just a prototype, but factually observe the strong CA and LOCA displayed in this unit. The shot below illustrates it pretty well with cyan, amber CA quite visible which of course will be 3x more pronounced at 1080p  --- and for close ups well….. 

 

 

I suspect the use of H-K9L glass is being used here (a very popular glass in China) as I recognise its signature.

Perhaps we shall see some improvement along the product development cycle?

 

 

 

 

I'm not seeing particularly bad CA to my eyes.  particularly when you consider how strong a 2x anamorphic is in terms of 'wide angle conversion', and on full frame + 55mm f1.8.  assuming this was the camera/lens it was tested on?    You should factor in that the end delivered edit from a 2x anamorphic will rarely show the results at the edges of the frame of a 36mm sensor width - unless a 4:3 sensor of 36mm width is ever released and if so, it certainly wouldnt ever see use with this lens!    

 

I'm interested to see how you have come to the conclusion that this optic is using a particular brand and flavour of crown glass.  Since this anamorphot likely has a minimum of 4 elements, some of which will be flints - almost definitely of Chinese origin as you seem to be hinting as a negative aspect of the design.  Though I think it's a little irrelevant to bring the origin of the glass up in this topic due to the likely rrp being in the respectable sub £1000 mark.  In this case no one would expect ohara or schott.  Believe it or not, the quality of CDGM (China) glass stocks is very good, and based on my experimentation and development of the wide angle adaptor (FF38), of which the critical elements are of Schott origin, the difference between the schott and cdgm variant leaves me wishing i'd just gone for cheaper cdgm and saved a whole lot of money!

[Andrew Reid]

That shot was cropped from full frame, so I think the corners are a bit beyond what the lens was designed for really. If you want to avoid C/A in the corners, simply use a smaller sensor or a longer focal length with it.

 

The LA7200 has a lot more C/A than I've seen on the SLR Magic.

 

What's the signature of the H-K9L glass and does it have a certain colour bias?

[Andrew Reid]

 

I feel I have opened Pandora’s Box somewhat when I released Rectilux, an original design, to the world on 26 August 2014, so as well as being the first with Rectilux, we are now seeing the hugely mysterious FM Lens of unknown origin on 2 September followed by SLRMs contribution on 21 September. Having said that, I am not for one moment suggesting or implying that you may be ignoring the elephant in the room.

 

 

I don't know what you are suggesting there John! SLR Magic have been working on the 2x prototype for a while, it didn't just pop up within the month.

[Damon Mosier]

Yes but at that time there wasn't that much tought of resolution, they just created the lenses to show movies in a new way, to escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring back people to the movies. That and because cinerama was way too expensive and complicated.

 

Nice theory, unfortunately you're wrong and you really need to do some research. Anamorphic was designed to avoid cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio.

 

I might suggest that you are actually both saying the same thing with different words. If I may:

"To escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring people back to the movies, while avoiding cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio, they designed the anamorphic lenses."

At least, that's how I took both of your comments. One was describing the "why" and the other the "how."

[froess]

Nice theory, unfortunately you're wrong and you really need to do some research. Anamorphic was designed to avoid cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio.

 

Nice theory? It's called history of cinema ;). I think you need to do some research before saying such claims. Yes, in the 1920's people tought of resolution and cropping images like we do now...

[froess]

I might suggest that you are actually both saying the same thing with different words. If I may:

"To escape the 4:3 aspect ratio and bring people back to the movies, while avoiding cropping to achieve the wider aspect ratio, they designed the anamorphic lenses."

At least, that's how I took both of your comments. One was describing the "why" and the other the "how."

 

Thank you Damon, I agree with you as we know the reasons of shooting anamorphic nowadays. Those reasons are different from the ones when the cinemascope method was invented.

[Andrew Reid]

The reasons to shoot anamorphic are the same they've always been. Maximise vertical resolution and recording area, obtain wider aspect ratio and benefit from other characteristics and stylistic traits of the optics like flare, stretched bokeh, etc.

 

Our scholar froess here is an annoying troll. If anyone wants to learn and not take the bait, click here -

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_format

[froess]

wikipedia, great source Andrew  B) . Keep up the good work.

[froess]

according to your article in wikipedia:

 

"Anamorphic widescreen was not used again for cinematography until 1952 when Twentieth Century-Fox bought the rights to the technique to create its CinemaScope widescreen technique.^[1] CinemaScope was one of many widescreen formats developed in the 1950s to compete with the popularity of television and bring audiences back to the cinemas. The Robe, which premiered in 1953, was the first feature film released that was filmed with an anamorphic lens."