Reevaluating the Options

[Caleb Genheimer]

Hi, all!

I personally would like to have a space to discuss new developments in anamorphic lenses, how they compare to tried-and-true options, and perhaps even where things may be headed in the not too distant future. 

 

My copy of Andrew's Anamorphic guide is, I think, up to date, and yet it simply doesn't touch on some of the newer stuff that's come out. (Andrew, if you're reading this, get your hands on an FM Module, and a Rectilux, and push SLR Magic for some info on their 2X Ana.)

 

The FM Module seems promising: works well with Schneiders, but the Schneiders themselves have some distortion problems . . . may yet work even better with other projection anas.

 

The Rectilux looks to be more or less the same kind of optical solution as the FM Module, albeit bespoke, and I suspect higher quality too (though at the moment mostly vaporware). 

 

Andrew wrote one article on a 2X from SLR Magic, and I have not heard anything since. And honestly, I wasn't impressed with their 1.3X (nor were others. They seemed to be quickly resold by early adopters, same with the VanDemien ISCO. There are several on the 'bay already.)

 

So what do people think? There are of course the old faithfuls: Iscoramas, LOMOs, and a smattering of vintage single-focus options. How does it all stack up? 

 

I'll start things off by saying that I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of 2X Anamorphics

[Cosimo murgolo]

Hi, all!

I personally would like to have a space to discuss new developments in anamorphic lenses, how they compare to tried-and-true options, and perhaps even where things may be headed in the not too distant future. 

 

My copy of Andrew's Anamorphic guide is, I think, up to date, and yet it simply doesn't touch on some of the newer stuff that's come out. (Andrew, if you're reading this, get your hands on an FM Module, and a Rectilux, and push SLR Magic for some info on their 2X Ana.)

 

The FM Module seems promising: works well with Schneiders, but the Schneiders themselves have some distortion problems . . . may yet work even better with other projection anas.

 

The Rectilux looks to be more or less the same kind of optical solution as the FM Module, albeit bespoke, and I suspect higher quality too (though at the moment mostly vaporware). 

 

Andrew wrote one article on a 2X from SLR Magic, and I have not heard anything since. And honestly, I wasn't impressed with their 1.3X (nor were others. They seemed to be quickly resold by early adopters, same with the VanDemien ISCO. There are several on the 'bay already.)

 

So what do people think? There are of course the old faithfuls: Iscoramas, LOMOs, and a smattering of vintage single-focus options. How does it all stack up? 

 

I'll start things off by saying that I'm cautiously optimistic about the future of 2X Anamorphics

​For my humble experience I can only speak for the FM, which is working great for me, not only with the Schneider, but also with few others anamorphic lens like: the Sankor 16D, the Isco ultra star, the Hypergonar, Isco animex s8/2x, Proskar Ishico.

I agree with you about upgrading the  Andrew's anamorphic guide, I am also looking forward to see some rectilux footage soon.

I haven't heard that much about the SLR Magic, it will be interesting to find out more and hear people  opinions about it.

[Caleb Genheimer]

There's also the question of 4K. above-HD recording is now common, and fast becoming the norm. Within a few years, it'll be the norm on the delivery end of things too, and nobody has done an in-depth re-evaluation of all the options with 4K in mind. 

 

Anamorphics that hat used to be barely useable at 1080p are likely now garbage on 4K (Century, Optex, etc.), and the wide range of 2X projection lenses that were all excellent for HD work may not all be created equal when it comes to 4K.

 

Resolving power is a big factor now, and it may trump other factors like FOV, weight, size, and minimum focus. 

 

For example, the gold anas, which Andrew's guide ranks fairly low (long FOV, Distortion, hard to focus), it turns out have excellent resolving power, and focus just fine with an FM Module. But is it sharper than a Kowa 16-H/8Z, one of the better projection anas according to the guide?

[nahua]

I also think the guide should be redone.  Maybe a combination of Andrew's and Tito's guide.  Both are excellent!

The 2x or 1.8x look will always be the preferred anamorphic format.  I think the new options are very welcome and open a lot of doors for everyone.  Unfortunately at this point you have to buy and experiment yourself to find the right options.

[Tito Ferradans]

Thanks! I was midway through a brief post on my blog regarding the exact subject of this thread.

a LOT has come out since Andrew's guide and some more (bringing great changes) has came out after I wrote my essay. I wanted to cover SLR Magic's anamorphot, FM lens, that little moondog labs thing for iphone, the new cinemorph that works in the back of the sigma 18-35, john's rectilux, and maybe move on to reviewing more expensive ones (hawks, anyone?) for real if I have the chance now that I'm not anymore in Brazil. hahaha.

I'm gonna need a better camera to test this resolving power stuff, though. hahaha.

I don't like 4k - I feel like it's being pushed down on the users, but it's not such a great deal - , but that's something for a whole different talk. hahaha

[Caleb Genheimer]

I really wonder how far off we are from a 100% original single focus adapter. Projection anas are basically two elements, and the FM/Rectilux focus systems are two elements (AFAIK). That's four elements total . . . Albeit specialty elements, but still... 

 

The FM Module has internal diameter size limits because they apparently feel the need to encase the projection lens. It is also quite long, so that shorter anas probably sit far inside it, prohibiting the "taking" lens from being close to the rear of the ana. 

The Rectilux sits more on front, but is a permanent addition to your Ana.

Why can't these be thread on attachments, in the neighborhood of, say, 85mm? 

[nahua]

@Tito You would rethink 4K if you could shoot 4:3 or 3:2 like I'm doing with my GH4.  And you can always downscale 4K to 1080P if you want.  So much less hassle than ML RAW.  File sizes are so much smaller and I can do real time previews too.  If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with you.

[Cosimo murgolo]

@Tito You would rethink 4K if you could shoot 4:3 or 3:2 like I'm doing with my GH4.  And you can always downscale 4K to 1080P if you want.  So much less hassle than ML RAW.  File sizes are so much smaller and I can do real time previews too.  If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with you.

​Raw is nice, I love it, but my computer it is struggling,  I agree with Nahua, I would love to have smaller file size and an easy way to process and I think the gh4 with 4:3 would be a good choice.

[Tito Ferradans]

@nahua and @Cosimo, if the idea is downscaling, then I'd rather have a superb 1080p camera than shooting 4k. I'm currently attending a 3D/VFX course and the thing they tell us the most is "no one but you and your family is gonna take time to watch this even in full HD. 720p is more than enough". I can't agree more. I mean, a shortfilm should look superb in HD. The resolution doesn't matter so much after a certain point. Also, our eyes have physical limits for resolution depending a lot on the size of the screen and the distance from it. If you're more than 2m away from a HUGE screen, you're missing the 4k fine detail ANYWAY. (reference: http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/)

I love raw, I love the intricate process of it, and I agree not everyone would shoot like this (heck, most of my time I'm still shooting h264). 4K is something that should be used when you're ABSOLUTELY sure that your product (ad, short, feature, whatever) is gonna be played on a huge movie screen at festivals or something (and that isn't even near as common as people wish it was). Then, I agree, 4k is cool, but not even Hugo (2011) was shot 4k, no one cared, and it still won the oscar for best cinematography, so...

I agree 4k is a good testing procedure to see how much can a lens resolve, and 4k tests should be standard, yadda yadda.

[Rudolf]

I agree: Tito did a great job and it is a super addition to Andrew's guide.

Regarding the 4k matter I am confused (I meanwhile got the GH4) I am not an optician nore know much about this stuff but I made some different experiences: I think that 4K makes a lot of anamorphics usable which look too soft on other formats. Let me put it this way: For Super 8 anything below Iscorama is unusable. Even Kowa doesn't work because it produces oval grain due to the factor. The only anamorphot to better Iscorama are the Möllers but it is too difficult to nail the focus. The baby Hypergonar for instance is ridicolous for Super 8 altough it was sold with cheap Chinon/Revue pocket cameras. But on 4K it shines. I know a filmmaker who is in business with 35mm projection and he would never ever use something like cinelux for filming due to inferior quality as he says. But now these lenses are becoming more and more popular. Some time ago 'character' was often mentioned and desired especially on this forum. Since a couple of months you read very often (too often for my taste) about sharpness, resolution, 4K, 6K whatever. So maybe more capable cameras make even inferior optics look good and with character. I just saw a GH4 clip here on the forum "Storm" with the huge Rectimascope (I use one for projection but never considered it for filming). But with the GH4 even this guy does a great job... nice

[Tito Ferradans]

Some time ago 'character' was often mentioned and desired especially on this forum. Since a couple of months you read very often (too often for my taste) about sharpness, resolution, 4K, 6K whatever. So maybe more capable cameras make even inferior optics look good and with character.

​Now that is something I have to agree. Whatever helps bringing people is good. I just don't like getting over technical about it for EVERYONE. Makes sense? hehehe

And thanks for the compliment!

[richg101]

IMO there is a fine line between character and resolution.  4k is simply a marketing term.  Pushed by the technology companies.  We don;t need it and never will need it, but the customer (who pays for our work) will often be susceptible to marketing terms and switch off if something is not 'up to date'.  

Classic case...  Music.  Modern music sucks yet youngsters donlt realise because its all they know.  same with movies.  modern movies suck compared to 1980's hollywood.  

 

But on topic, I think if a anamorphic system will deliver 720p with beautiful character, I'll take that over a boring lens that delivers 4k, 6k or any other number that non creative people like to hide behind rather than make art.

 

 

[nahua]

If you're against 4K that's OK that's your thing.  I think you misunderstood my main point, that we have a real option to shoot 4:3 or 3:2 with the GH4.  With the GH4 I don't have to mess with ML raw and all the hassles and headaches.  Think back 3-4 years ago - was shooting in these ratios even an option?  Maybe MJPEG with a hacked GH2?  I think we live in a wonderful time with lots of options.  So whether it's 4K, 720P, whatever at least we have the option to shoot true anamorphic 2x at 1:2.35 or 1:2.66 rather than the crazy 1:3.55 we had to do with 16:9.  And yes, the aesthetics is WHY we shoot anamorphic.  I'm NOT looking for the sharpest shit out there.  I'm looking for the real anamorphic LOOK - 2x, stretched bokeh, rainbow and crazy flares.

[JohnBarlow]

@Caleb Genheimer

When referring to Rectilux products please make sure you provide correct and accurate information.
Correct and accurate information is contained in this brochure download
thanks,  John

 

[Tito Ferradans]

nahua, sorry if I misunderstood your point. I agree, shooting with these resolutions were a dream a couple years back, that's true. I enjoy very much the fact that we can do it now.

I'm against 4k and the way they're selling it, but have nothing against the people who like 4k, or shoot 4k! It would be just rude, like someone turning to me and saying "shooting raw is stupid", to whom I'd say "that's up to me to decide, buddy! It might not be YOUR thing!". So, if I sounded like that (and I think I did), I apologize.

Rich, good point there. I don't agree about the movies, though. It's not like there were more good movies back then, it's more like there are A LOT of bad movies today, but the number of good movies per year hasn't decreased. It's the ratio between good/bad that has shifted (this is me talking like the film history/production graduate I am).

[Caleb Genheimer]

Not to turn this into a 4K debate, but I find it difficult do dismiss the benefits that 4K brings to anamorphic. Like it or not, these days 4:3 is a rare bird, which means that when you shoot anamorphic you have to crop... Loosing resolution. I have 4K TV and monitor, and 4K on the delivery end of things is soon going to be a no-brainer (though that doesn't rule out a quality upscale from 1080).

We're getting beyond the point of affordable 4K, into the territory of QUALITY affordable 4K. I was at a Cion event yesterday, and that cam is a beast for the price. 

 

Everything has its place. I'm 100% of the belief that a lens doesn't have to resolve 4K to look good. But 4K still serves to capture the character of such a lens in more nuance. 

Ive also found that with a good projection anamorphic, you get the advantage of being able to alter the lens' characteristics by changing up the taking lens. You can always make a sharp ana softer, but you can't make a soft one sharper. That's why I'm curious as to which projection lens might be the best all-rounder, considering

 

Diameter

length

sharpness

aberrations

distortion

resolution

field of view

compression ratio

contrast 

flare color

 

@JohnBarlow maybe you could weigh in some, seeing as you've worked with a wide variety of projection anas for Rectilux. Any personal faves? Tried any on 4K?

 

[artiswar]

Having just seen "Selma" (Alexa and Hawk V anamorphic), I'm extremely pleased with the FM, Hypergonar, Russian M42 glass and A7s combo is immensely filmic. Organic glass and great sensor response. Character and color science trumps resolution, IMO.