Anamorphic for noobs

So, to all of you that have experience and knowledge about Anamorphic lenses, what would you recommend for use with the BMPCC if you should recommend three lenses?
I also got the Metabone speedbooster, will that give any benefits toghether?

Cheers

What I'd recommend is Hawk Anamorphics...
https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2011/ ... ens-tests/

But as you are shooting with the Pocket, excited about your Speed Booster and asking for noob advice I'm guessing you are on the frugal end...

So you'll be looking at a shoot through anamorphic adapter like the SLRMagic Anamorphot (http://slrmagic.com/products/anamorphot.html) or old Panasonic AG-LA7200 adaptor as one route.

Another route would be to look at a projector lens and clap on system. This involves dual focus tho and not really ideal if you are looking to do focus pulls while telling your story.

The 3rd option also uses projector lenses but they are placed in a single focus housing. Check out Rectilux (http://www.transferconvert.co.uk/cinemania/index.html) and the FM Module (http://anamorphicshop.com/product/fm-lens/)

As for what lenses you use with these adaptors, well you tend to be limited and the sweet spot seems to be around 50-85mm.

Thanks Adam,

Im originally a stills photographer, trying to learn the skills of moving pictures.
I got the speedbooster, as i have tons of EF lenses already, and so that i could get a lower crop factor.
Experimenting and asking for advices is the best way to learn new things

Cheers

Worth joining this FB group:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/695239183821056/

Andrew's guide is also worth a read:
http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide/
Most of the info in there is on the web but he's done a good job of collating it into a single place and he also helps you make sense of the options.

Also, it's worth mentioning that many directors, including Steven Spielberg and James Cameron, avoid shooting anamorphic because of the headaches. They prefer to shoot spherical and then crop to a widescreen aspect like 2.39:1.

Just something to consider.

I agree with the cautionary note, Lee, having thought it would be amazing to do anamorphic with modern lenses but with the 4.6K sensor offering a raw 2.4:1 window, 4608 x 1920, then it becomes so easy to have the frame and even skip the crop in post!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Andrew's guide is excellent. Very detailed. I highly recommend it.

with the 4.6K sensor offering a raw 2.4:1 window, 4608 x 1920, then it becomes so easy to have the frame and even skip the crop in post!

Cool.

FWIW, Cameron favors shooting 16:9 or 4:3 spherical with a common-top. That way he gets the widescreen at the top, and then he gets more bottom room to use for IMAX theaters.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, interesting, so then Anam, is a bit of a special interest in a retro style, and has no significant benefits then, compared to todays high res equipment.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, interesting, so then Anam, is a bit of a special interest in a retro style, and has no significant benefits then, compared to todays high res equipment.

Yeah. It's a creative choice. You would shoot anamorphic for the aesthetic you are looking to add to your story. Different anamorphic lenses also have different characteristics. Some flare more than others. Some have lower contrast.

They don't really bring any technical benefits tho. You would have a sharper and higher resolution shooting with a modern lens and cropping to 2:35-1 than shooting with an vintage anamorphic lens.

... FWIW, Cameron favors shooting 16:9 or 4:3 spherical with a common-top. That way he gets the widescreen at the top, and then he gets more bottom room to use for IMAX theaters.

Interesting that he might shoot 4:3 with spherical lenses. I certainly have already planned to shoot 6:5 3072 x 2560 with spherical lenses with the 4.6K sensor. I think for some subjects, it will make an interesting and refreshing difference to the viewer. Obviously, 6:5 won't work always, but by experimenting, we can learn what might work.

When I searched Wikipedia for Motion Picture Film Formats, I was surprised to find there was no 6:5 standard. Not sure now, but I think there was only person using it in the early 20th century. I need to think of a catchy name for that format, for the credits... "filmed in Canavision" would be a play on Panavision and mean using a circular lens on a format intended for anamorphic and a nod to it originating in Canada.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hi all, just a NOTE - I CANT STOP BUYING ANAMORPHIC LENSES ! as stated some flare more than others, some cost an arm and a leg and others can be scooped up from ebay dirt cheap, i picked up a ISCO 2x anamorphic Ultra Star for £48 and it was MINT!
ISCO Ultra Stars can focus from 5 feet to infinity and are stupidly SHARP!
Also others require Diopters (like a magnifying glass) on the front to focus closer than 15feet.
When i was buying Anamorphics it was a hit or miss if i needed diopters or not.

Check out my 1.8KG Carl Zeiss anamorphic sitting on a Manfrotto Long lens support
hooked up to my Panasonic GH4 shot in Cinema 4k, it had to be done!
or skip to 1min 40 for lens flare test.

And the super sharp and compact ISCO on the GH4 in 4k

im currently testing my latest Anamorphic the Sankor 16D.
If i buy the URSA mini the first thing im doing is a 4k RAW with the super sharp ISCO test or short
film. WARNING once you start using anamorphics its hard to STOP!
I need help

Well it all depends on your budget, what you want to film & how compact/mobile you want to be.
I've been using a very minimal/small setup with my Pocket cam & it seems to work just fine. I really like the look they can give your footage (got over the flare thing ages ago), they give the added bonus of allowing you to get wider angle shots & once stretched make 1080 footage more 2,5k.
In the video below, I used an RJ Focal Reducer (Speed Booster was just too expensive for me), a Mir 24 (35mm) & an Isco Widescreen 2000mc (Hoya ir/uv & Genus eclipse ND).



Recommendations:
Iscorama 36, 42 or 54 - single focus (you set your taking lens to infinity & focus with the adapter), minimum focus 2m. The 36 is plastic, some aren't MC'd & will set you back on ebay about £3000. The 42 is rare, made of metal & always MC'd. The 54 comes in both flavours (MC'd & non-MC'd), is all metal, weighs 1KG, but will allow you to use wider lenses than the other 2 - £2-2.5K.

Kowa for Bell&Howell - Dual focus, sharp, flares, minimum focus 1.5m & is useable when taking lens is wide open (between £300-500). The Rectilux module could be added for £500 & will make it single focus, but still waiting for decent tests (the FM module will require you to take the adapter apart).

Isco Widescreen 2000mc - Fixed Focus @5m, but you can focus through (best results when stopped down for rack focus), sharp, small, but you'll need diopters to focus closer (as you will with them all). £300-500.

Singer/Sankor 16D - Dual Focus, blue flares, not as sharp (£150-300).

I would recommend you stay away from the big coloured Isco projector lenses - yes they're cheap, sharp, flare, but they are sterile, will give your images zero anamorphic character & are cumbersome.
There's a section on EOSHD for anamorphic & people are normally helpful to give info for free!

Well it all depends on your budget, what you want to film & how compact/mobile you want to be.
I've been using a very minimal/small setup with my Pocket cam & it seems to work just fine. I really like the look they can give your footage (got over the flare thing ages ago), they give the added bonus of allowing you to get wider angle shots & once stretched make 1080 footage more 2,5k.
In the video below, I used an RJ Focal Reducer (Speed Booster was just too expensive for me), a Mir 24 (35mm) & an Isco Widescreen 2000mc (Hoya ir/uv & Genus eclipse ND).

Wow Stu, that's beautiful! And there I thought the RJ reducer automatically would make everything crappy looking .. really nice!
And the Mir did a great job as well...

Btw how did you get the multiple angels/views with one camera, did they play the same song a bunch of times? Just wondering...

Thanks
Yeah, the RJ really is good for £100 - makes you wonder why so many people complain about it! Never had a problem with it & just wasn't going to spend the price of the camera for the SB.
Its like the ProRes vs. Raw debate - why go through the hassle of using Raw, when the ProRes is sooo nice? Also the Video mode is worth a try, instead of the flat Film mode.
The Mir 24M is just a stunning lens, the only thing that bums me out a little is that it doesn't have a pre-set aperture like the other Russain lenses - but hey, its only a small thing.

In answer to how i got the multiple angles, yes they played the song 3 times - the wide shot & the close-up of the singer were filmed during the soundcheck & then during the gig I filmed the rest. The drums & bass being the most important when they played the song during the gig & then the rest of the time was finding shots that i could insert whilst keeping continuity.

Hi,guys! I want to work with not expensive anamorphic lenses on my ursa mini 4.6 k and can't choose wright: there are isco ultra star (costs 300 dollars), sankor 16f (200 dollars) and kowa 16s (1000 dollars).
Help, please!

Another option you might consider are the SLR Magic Anamorphot Adapters (not the Cine Anamorphot prime lenses) and their Rangefinder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's interesting, I've been thinking about anamorphics for a while, but to be honest, outside of flares, I don't know any non-native anamorphic solution (adaptors, projector lenses, etc.) affects image enough (outside of blurriness) to make it worth the while. I've looked into the SLR Magic Anamorphot 50, but it seems like very few people use it, and it's been around for 5 years.

And the new SLR Magic small anamorphic 40 doesn't appear to do anything to the image other than flares and corner softness.

It may be the case that you either need to go all the way (natively anamorphic lenses), or it's not really worth doing.

The slr magic Anamorphot and rangefinder are crap IMO (soft, ugly flares, and it lacks character. I've been using Rectilux hardcore dna, it's the best single focus solution for now. It doesn't affect the sharpness, very neutral coating, and easy to use. I'm using it with Leica-R and Kowa 8Z/16H 2x. I'm really happy with this combo, it has plenty of "character", very very sharp, golden flares.

Hi,guys! I want to work with not expensive anamorphic lenses on my ursa mini 4.6 k and can't choose wright: there are isco ultra star (costs 300 dollars), sankor 16f (200 dollars) and kowa 16s (1000 dollars).
Help, please!

If you are looking for a cheap adapter, I'd recommend Kowa 16H/8Z (a bit pricey). If not available, then Sankor 16D.

Some information: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/fold ... E9rYU9heDQ

Recommendations:
Iscorama 36, 42 or 54 - single focus (you set your taking lens to infinity & focus with the adapter), minimum focus 2m. The 36 is plastic, some aren't MC'd & will set you back on ebay about £3000. The 42 is rare, made of metal & always MC'd. The 54 comes in both flavours (MC'd & non-MC'd), is all metal, weighs 1KG, but will allow you to use wider lenses than the other 2 - £2-2.5K.

What is the "MC" stand for?

The slr magic Anamorphot and rangefinder are crap IMO (soft, ugly flares, and it lacks character. I've been using Rectilux hardcore dna, it's the best single focus solution for now. It doesn't affect the sharpness, very neutral coating, and easy to use. I'm using it with Leica-R and Kowa 8Z/16H 2x. I'm really happy with this combo, it has plenty of "character", very very sharp, golden flares.

What camera are you using your anamorphic combo? How does Kowa B&H compare to Kowa 8Z/16H?

Thanks!
John

@John Palaganas

Using it mostly with my Ursa mini pro. In 3K Anamorphic.

The Kowa B&H and Kowa 16h/8z are alsmost the same, they claim the B&H model had better quality control assembling it, but there are great copies of the 16H and 8Z out there as well. Haven't compared the two, but I don't think there's much of a difference.. If any at all.

Pairing it with a Rectilux hardcore dna and you have a great "low" budget anamorphic single focus system!

Btw MC stands for multi-coated.

@John Palaganas

Using it mostly with my Ursa mini pro. In 3K Anamorphic.

The Kowa B&H and Kowa 16h/8z are alsmost the same, they claim the B&H model had better quality control assembling it, but there are great copies of the 16H and 8Z out there as well. Haven't compared the two, but I don't think there's much of a difference.. If any at all.

Pairing it with a Rectilux hardcore dna and you have a great "low" budget anamorphic single focus system!

Btw MC stands for multi-coated.

Thanks for the info Willem! I have the SLR Magic Anamorphot+Rangefinder(such a heavy combo) and will look into acquiring the Kowa 16h/8z or B&H.

John, will be interesting to read any comparison comments you have after using the new gear.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey Rick,

Once I get build a proper Kowa kit I will post my findings compared to the SLR Magic Anamorphot kit.

I had build a "low budget" 3 lens anamorphic set:

40mm f2 voightlander lens paired with Kowa 8z and Hardcoredna single focus as "wide angle"
58mm f2 helios paired with moller 32/2x and Rectilux single focus as "normal"
90mm leica R f2.8 paired with Kowa 16d and Hardcoredna single focus as "tele"

Works great!

Thanks, John. Not too many 'real' people (as opposed to professional reviewers who may show a bias) do comparison reviews on anamorphic gear. Originally i thought I'd want to shoot anamorphic but haven't gone there yet as I just use the 4.6K 2.4:1 window. Not the same look though! Good luck.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's another comparison of 13 manufacturers' anamorphic lenses; sadly doesn't include the SLR Magic Cine Anamorphot primes, but does include what may be the prototype of the very new Atlas Lens Company's Orion 65mm lens.

https://learn.sharegrid.com/lenstest


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I had build a "low budget" 3 lens anamorphic set:

40mm f2 voightlander lens paired with Kowa 8z and Hardcoredna single focus as "wide angle"
58mm f2 helios paired with moller 32/2x and Rectilux single focus as "normal"
90mm leica R f2.8 paired with Kowa 16d and Hardcoredna single focus as "tele"

Works great!

Hi Eli, I also own a Kowa 16D and I am currently on the waiting list for a Rectilux Hardcore DNA. Could you please share how you attached the Hardcore DNA onto the Kowa 16D?

I have found a couple of solutions online but since you seem to be happy with your set-up I would trust your advice above all. This would be really helpful! Cheers.

Hi there... I'm a member of a facebook group called anamorphic shooters. There I met online a member from Vietnam that machines a locking ring to kowa 16D and 16H that does 2 things it allows to thread the DNA on and it locks the focus in the infinity position. It was roughly $50 and I'm very happy with it. The only caveat is the shipping time that is pretty long (2 weeks). His name is Huu Tuan Nguyen.
Hope that helps.

Thanks, I stumbled upon what appears to be his facebook page (HTN adapters) and thought it might be the best option out there. It is great to know that you're happy with the locking ring, I will purchase it now. Thanks for sharing your insight, it helps a great deal!

I will share my impressions once I get a single-focus set-up for my Kowa 16D with the Rectilux. I have also been experimenting with an Isco Ultrastar Plus 2.1 adapter (nice subtle look) but double-focus is too much of a hassle for me (and the Rangefinder just doesn't do it for me).

Cheers.