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

[sketch2099]

yeah test videos 1 and 2 were shot with the latest Ursa Mini 4.6K 4.0 firmware so i could see the desqueezed image on the camera LCD or in an external monitor.

test video 3 was done before this and was really difficult to shoot with the squeezed image.

the schneider cinelux is the only anamorphic i've had a chance to use so far.  i'm curious to try out other anamorphic adapters to compare their different characteristics, but for now i'm pretty happy with my current set up.

[AaronChicago]

Question for Core DNA users. My current front thread size for my anamorphic clamp is 77mm. The rear thread on the Core DNA is 75mm. If I use a step down ring (77-75mm) would there be any noticeable vignetting from that? Granted the front diameter of the actual anamorphic lens is only around 61mm.

[Ian Edward Weir]

On 3/5/2016 at 6:51 PM, Phillip23 said:

Can someone tell me what the advantage would be of the full Rectilux 3FF over this core DNA?

One advantage on the Rangefinder would be focus marks, but I'd choose non rotation of glass to be more important.

I have used the 77mm to 75mm step down ring and have not noticed any vignetting with the CORE DNA. That step down ring is stupid rare. If I were you, why not just put the front of the anamorphic into the back of the CORE DNA and align / tighten down with hex screws? You will not hit the back of the CORE DNA if you have a 72mm step ring in front. I find it quicker and more stable just loosen and tighten three screws verses the screwing in. Both will work.

 

[NewFilmMaker]

Hi everyone, I am new to this forum, I hope I can get some professional opinions form this forum. I currently own 2 anamorphic lenses, the Bolex Moller 19/1,5x and the 32/1,5x. I contacted John and trying to get more information before I made the decision either I should buy the Rectilux Core DNA or the 3FF-S, he told me that for the Bolex Moller 19/1,5x, the 3FF-S is the best option, and for the  Bolex Moller 32/1,5x, the Rectilux Core DNA will be better. My question is, instead of buying both of the Rectilux, should I try to find and buy an Iscorama? At the end, the cost will be similar. 

[Ian Edward Weir]

6 hours ago, NewFilmMaker said:

Hi everyone, I am new to this forum, I hope I can get some professional opinions form this forum. I currently own 2 anamorphic lenses, the Bolex Moller 19/1,5x and the 32/1,5x. I contacted John and trying to get more information before I made the decision either I should buy the Rectilux Core DNA or the 3FF-S, he told me that for the Bolex Moller 19/1,5x, the 3FF-S is the best option, and for the  Bolex Moller 32/1,5x, the Rectilux Core DNA will be better. My question is, instead of buying both of the Rectilux, should I try to find and buy an Iscorama? At the end, the cost will be similar. 

Why not get one CORE DNA and use it with all your anamorphic lens. The DNA does not have a rotating front. I think the 3FF-S does? I get sharp images at f1.2 with Core DNA. Iscorama lowest f stop is f2.8 for sharpness I believe. Just my advice.  

[NewFilmMaker]

55 minutes ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

Why not get one CORE DNA and use it with all your anamorphic lens. The DNA does not have a rotating front. I think the 3FF-S does? I get sharp images at f1.2 with Core DNA. Iscorama lowest f stop is f2.8 for sharpness I believe. Just my advice.  

Thanks for your advise. The reason that I love the Bolex Moller 19/1,5 is because of it size. It is so easy to shoot hand held, with the DNA, I scare it will be too big, since the rear thread for DNA is 75mm and the front thread for Bolex Moller 19/1,5 is only 39mm....... and I don't know will it affect the performance?

[Ian Edward Weir]

2 hours ago, NewFilmMaker said:

Thanks for your advise. The reason that I love the Bolex Moller 19/1,5 is because of it size. It is so easy to shoot hand held, with the DNA, I scare it will be too big, since the rear thread for DNA is 75mm and the front thread for Bolex Moller 19/1,5 is only 39mm....... and I don't know will it affect the performance?

I love my Baby Hypergonar in my 3FF-S. It does have a rotating front, which sucks for polarizers. You could put your Moller in a threaded clamp and then use CORE DNA. That is what I do with my other Baby Hypergonar. Similar in size to Moller. 

 

[Bioskop.Inc]

15 minutes ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

I love my Baby Hypergonar in my 3FF-S. It does have a rotating front, which sucks for polarizers. You could put your Moller in a threaded clamp and then use CORE DNA. That is what I do with my other Baby Hypergonar. Similar in size to Moller. 

 

Wow! That looks like a really nice compact set up.

So how much is the Core DNA (if you don't mind me asking), as I've got some small anamorphics which really need its focusing capabilities?

[Ian Edward Weir]

3 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Wow! That looks like a really nice compact set up.

So how much is the Core DNA (if you don't mind me asking), as I've got some small anamorphics which really need its focusing capabilities?

Thanks  Core Dna is around 600 uk or $800 us. It's quality is amazing and will help and anamorphic lens shine. 

[NewFilmMaker]

16 hours ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

I love my Baby Hypergonar in my 3FF-S. It does have a rotating front, which sucks for polarizers. You could put your Moller in a threaded clamp and then use CORE DNA. That is what I do with my other Baby Hypergonar. Similar in size to Moller. 

 

Great idea! never think about a set up like this! To be honest, I want both because the 3FF-S looks great too, but I guess I will only get the DNA for now, because I needed the non rotating front for the variable ND filter........ And I hope I can find the guy in Russia that can rehouse LOMO OKC lenses and install non rotating Front, so I can use the DNA with my LOMO Prime Lenses!

Whats the size, and where did you get that blue clamp?

[Bioskop.Inc]

15 hours ago, Ian Edward Weir said:

Thanks  Core Dna is around 600 uk or $800 us. It's quality is amazing and will help and anamorphic lens shine. 

Hmmm! Thanks, thought it would be pricey & it's more than I paid for the 3 anamorphics I would need it for. It's a real shame that this didn't exist before i bought an Iscorama, which I wouldn't sell for love nor money. Oh well, will have to save up I suppose.

[tigerbengal]

11 hours ago, Bioskop.Inc said:

Hmmm! Thanks, thought it would be pricey & it's more than I paid for the 3 anamorphics I would need it for. It's a real shame that this didn't exist before i bought an Iscorama, which I wouldn't sell for love nor money. Oh well, will have to save up I suppose.

or you can buy the SLR Magic Rangefinder Cine Adapter with Near/Normal Calibration $299

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211003-REG/slr_magic_slr_72rfnn_rangefinder_cine_adapter_with.html

this one has a rotating front though....and the blue things that not everybody like....but at least you can focus with it

 

[NewFilmMaker]

6 hours ago, tigerbengal said:

or you can buy the SLR Magic Rangefinder Cine Adapter with Near/Normal Calibration $299

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211003-REG/slr_magic_slr_72rfnn_rangefinder_cine_adapter_with.html

this one has a rotating front though....and the blue things that not everybody like....but at least you can focus with it

 

Thanks , but I saw that there is another one For $599

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195999-REG/slr_magic_slr_77rfwm_rangefinder_cine_adapter.html

Whats the differences ?

[Bioskop.Inc]

10 hours ago, tigerbengal said:

or you can buy the SLR Magic Rangefinder Cine Adapter with Near/Normal Calibration $299

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1211003-REG/slr_magic_slr_72rfnn_rangefinder_cine_adapter_with.html

this one has a rotating front though....and the blue things that not everybody like....but at least you can focus with it

 

Got it in one - horrible blue things & rotating front. Complete non-starter..

[Grimor]

4 hours ago, NewFilmMaker said:

Thanks , but I saw that there is another one For $599

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1195999-REG/slr_magic_slr_77rfwm_rangefinder_cine_adapter.html

Whats the differences ?

77mm rear screw and Focus distances marks on the barrel vs 72mm screw and no marks on the barrel.

Same optics and same "blue pokemons" everywhere it flares.

Gotta catch 'em all!

[highres]

 

On 9/14/2016 at 9:02 PM, Ian Edward Weir said:

Why not get one CORE DNA and use it with all your anamorphic lens. The DNA does not have a rotating front. I think the 3FF-S does? I get sharp images at f1.2 with Core DNA. Iscorama lowest f stop is f2.8 for sharpness I believe. Just my advice.  

Posted this on the anamorphic shooters facebook page as well...Ian, in response to the above (use CDNA with all anamorphic lenses), how about this:

Strange question perhaps but has anyone paired the rectilux core DNA with an Iscorama 54 by any chance? The benefits of shooting at wider apertures and closer focus seem appealing. Only issue I could see is vignetting on wider lenses. Will it make ALL anamorphic lenses usable at f/1.2?  Or only certain ones? I love the look of my Iscorama54 non-MC, wouldn't want to trade it for anything even if it's not the sharpest, just want to be able to open the aperture more. And closer focus throw without diopters

On 9/13/2016 at 10:00 PM, Ian Edward Weir said:

I have used the 77mm to 75mm step down ring and have not noticed any vignetting with the CORE DNA. That step down ring is stupid rare. If I were you, why not just put the front of the anamorphic into the back of the CORE DNA and align / tighten down with hex screws? You will not hit the back of the CORE DNA if you have a 72mm step ring in front. I find it quicker and more stable just loosen and tighten three screws verses the screwing in. Both will work.

 

That is an interesting suggestion, perhaps when aligning the anamorphic adapter after swapping out taking lenses as well. I have the Isco54 on a 3D printed bracket (similar to Tito Ferradans' one which he recently posted in Anamorphic shooters FB page) that goes on 15mm rods. This to speed up taking lens changes on set, and having horizontal alignment more or less "fixed" (although I find i still have to keep checking as it can go off a hair, and get non-leveled flares!). 

But I see no spot to "grip" the rectilux with a similar clamp: one would have to screw it into the lens or an adapter ring that goes on rods for fast and secure adding/removing the rectilux. But if it is screwed in, I'm worried it might loosen when using a follow focus, especially motorised ones like DJI wireless FF.

[icarrere]

Speaking about the Iscorama 36, I´ve put the taking lense at f:2 and IMO it is sharp. All depends on what taking lense it is.  (I'm use to the Nikon 85 F:2)

[Bioskop.Inc]

I've got a 54 & it's all about the taking lens, nothing to do with the Iscorama. The 54 is less forgiving than the 36 or 42 (the sharpest Iscorama) & you really have to choose your taking lens carefully, if you want a sharp image. Not sure why anyone is stating that you can't shoot lower than f2.8 with an Iscorama because you can, but also not sure why anyone would want to shoot at f1.2.

The Core-DNA is really for dual focus Anamorphic attachments. If you've got a single focus Anamorphic, you'll be better off spending the money on some good Diopters - achromatic doublets, not the singlets.

[Brian Caldwell]

3 hours ago, icarrere said:

Speaking about the Iscorama 36, I´ve put the taking lense at f:2 and IMO it is sharp. All depends on what taking lense it is.  (I'm use to the Nikon 85 F:2)

Bear in mind that in your case with an 85mm lens the rear of the adapter limits the aperture, so you are shooting at f/2.4 and not f/2.  You would need an Iscorama 42 to shoot at f/2 with an 85mm lens.

[Bioskop.Inc]

8 hours ago, Brian Caldwell said:

Bear in mind that in your case with an 85mm lens the rear of the adapter limits the aperture, so you are shooting at f/2.4 and not f/2.  You would need an Iscorama 42 to shoot at f/2 with an 85mm lens.

So is this the reason that people think that the 54 is less sharp than the 36, especially when shooting with a lens wide open, because in fact you won't be shooting at the aperture that you think you're shooting at? So in fact, when shooting with a 54 you really are shooting at the right aperture & so it will reveal the taking lens to either be sharp wide open or soft - nothing to do with the attachement, but more to do with the taking lens?