Rectilux Core DNA - non-rotating single-focus attachment for anamorphic lenses

[Zak Forsman]

I have the Rectilux 3FF-W and have considered it money well spent, but woke up this morning to this press release in my inbox and... well... looks like I'll need a little more money to spend well....

http://transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/PressReleaseRectiluxCoreDNA.pdf

[Hans Punk]

Gentlemen....start your lawsuits.

[rook]

...looks like I'll need a little more money to spend well....

 

Any ideas on how much more money? 

EDIT: I'm an idiot. Price is right on the pdf: 599UKP ($938.05 USD)

[DBounce]

Is this the same as the SLR Magic Rangefinder or is this something totally different?

[Zak Forsman]

same ballpark. but has some differences. for one, the front element on the Rectilux Core DNA doesn't rotate so you can use a variable ND, if i'm reading the press release correctly.

[Julian]

Non rotating front element sounds good. I don't get the thread sizes though. 75mm rear, why?

And basically the Rectilux 3FF etc are dead on arrival now?

[DBounce]

This looks to be better than the Slr Magic Rangefinder, as it is compatible with front thread ND filters, and if the optical quality is the same as the other Rectilux products it should add nothing to soften the other lenses.

Only problem I see is price.

[valid]

Looks great, but the 86/75mm threads are problematic - that's not even standard filter ring sizes. I couldn't find any step-up rings to 75mm.

[Zak Forsman]

Non rotating front element sounds good. I don't get the thread sizes though. 75mm rear, why?

And basically the Rectilux 3FF etc are dead on arrival now?

Looks great, but the 86/75mm threads are problematic - that's not even standard filter ring sizes. I couldn't find any step-up rings to 75mm.

With my 3FF-W set, i have threaded coupling rings from Rectilux that attach to the front of a Kowa Bell & Howell and an ES Cinelux. both are designed to attach to each according to the frontal design of that scope. both coupling rings provide a 75mm outer thread for mounting inside the 3FF-W. so you can use one of these coupling rings to mount the Core DNA to the front of whichever scope you intend to pair it with.

More importantly, I see that the description mentions it has 6 bolt threads at the rear that allow you to align, attach and clamp it onto any lens you want. No step-up (or down) ring required.

for the front thread, it remains to be seen if it would vignette on a wider lens, but a step down from 86mm to 82mm would get you to a common filter size. Again, I have the 3FF-W and use a 95mm to 82mm step-down ring for my Hoya ND filters.

 

[wallpaperviking]

Gentlemen....start your lawsuits.

Ha Ha!!  Yep....

One thing that I noticed that looks interesting and potentially sets it apart from the Rangefinder is this line in the product release...

"F1.2 maximum useable F stop (full frame camera)"

If this is true and lenses at f1.2 are useable and sharp, then I am in 

:)

 

[Zak Forsman]

it's probably the same glass as the Rectilux 3FF-W which doesn't restrict wide open apertures. it's pretty much neutral optically.

[DBounce]

Looking forward to seeing some actual footage.

[buggz]

Wow, and I was set on a Rectilux and a Kowa Bell & Howell.

Kinda difficult choices for a newbie hobbiest...

[wallpaperviking]

With regards to the SLR Magic Rangefinder, I have noticed a number of people note that it sharpens up nicely between one to two stops from wide open..  It has also been noted that with regards to pulling focus, this is not a bad thing at all...

I am curious to know how the aperture of the taking lens affects the "look" of the anamorphic bokeh..  I have attached some screen grabs from the movie Heat to try and illustrate my question..

I feel like the bokeh that is as close to a pure oval in shape is the nicest and the bokeh that is more hexagonal in shape is least attractive..

So I feel that the more wide open the taking lens is, the nicer the look to the bokeh but then the harder it may be to keep things in focus...  

Also, with the SLR Magic Rangefinder, if it is really useable a couple of stops down from wide open, does the bokeh turn hexagonal?  Or do you really need to stop down to f8 onwards or so for it to be as hexagonal as illustrated in the second, third, fourth and last Heat examples (one, five and six are examples of nice bokeh)?

 I know there may be a lot of variables but if anyone else has any information on this, it would be greatly appreciated... 

 

[Zak Forsman]

This is another reason why i prefer the Rectilux optics. Coincidentally, I use SLR Magic lenses as taking lenses. They have rounded aperture blades which keeps things oval as you stop down.

[wallpaperviking]

Thanks Zak, Just to clarify, what reason are you talking about referring to the Rectilux optics?  The fact that you can shoot wide open without much loss of sharpness?

I am pretty much invested in full frame lenses at this stage, any suggestions to some lenses that have rounded aperture blades for this format? 

[Zak Forsman]

yeah, i'm referring to the Rectilux's glass being optically neutral. meaning, any blooming or softness or chromatic aberration is going to be from your scope and taking lens. the Rectilux doesn't degrade the image any further.

i'm all MFT on a GH4 right now. And i use the SLR Magic cine lenses as taking lenses which all have rounded aperture blades. I have a couple Sigma Art prime lenses that have rounded aperture blades, but those are a little big to pair with a scope. But maybe someone else in this thread could chime in with some more FF lens recommendations.

[raf702]

Now is this surely a difficult choice to choose between the Rectilux 3FFw and this Core DNA. As someone mentioned to the 86/75mm threads that's a bit odd too.

[wallpaperviking]

Thanks again for the response, much appreciated!

With regards to the SLR Magic Rangefinder, when people talk about using it a couple of stops from wide open to obtain acceptable sharpness, would it be possible to achieve the same level of sharpness with a slower lens?  An 85mm 2.8 for example?  

Or is there something about having a lens designed to be a 1.4 and then stopping down that improves the sharpness better?  

As mentioned earlier, I don't think I would have an issue with shooting with a slower lens but if stopping down (with a faster prime) was to cause "hexagonal" bokeh, then that is more of an issue

[Dave Reeve]

I was heading towards getting a Rectilux but ummed and arred over the Rangefinder being a solution for all of my lenses - while I'd need a couple of Rectilux versions. But the tests posted earlier made the Rectilux really shine in comparison to the Rangefinder - so if the DNA can match the Rectilux and be a solution for all of my anamorphics then great. So it's a case of watch that space - am looking forward to seeing some tests. While it's unlikely, it would be good if Andrew would be willing to conduct an objective comparison with the Rangefinder? I know there's a wee bit of tension there but surely all products to the market should be considered equally?