Guest Ian Marks Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind. Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16." Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Film Runner Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind. Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16." Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base? There ya' go. There is a sound business idea. Kodak and Fuji would surely get behind you. Ramp up costs would be steep but not impossible. A friend of mine has a Prism Anamorphic Vistascope lens from many years ago. It was manafactured for 16mm and it is a wonderful piece of glass. Even gives those nice horizontal blue flares! Non-prism anamorphics aren't as spectacular. F.R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 15, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 15, 2006 Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind. Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16." Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base? Sure, but why would someone invest in new lens technology just to make under-$10,000 cameras more viable? Someone who can only afford an old 16mm camera isn't going to be able to afford new anamorphic lenses that would probably cost more than the camera... But, yes, there has been a need for partial anamorphic lenses, like with a 1.33X squeeze. This would help squeeze a 16x9-to1.85 image onto 4x3 formats (like 16mm, full aperture 4-perf 35mm, or 4x3 video) or squeeze a 2.35 image onto 16x9-ish formats (like Super-16, 3-perf 35mm, 16x9 video, etc.) In fact, there has been talk about such lenses for the past fifty years, off and on, but no one has really done anything about it yet. Panavision has been developing a set (very slowly it seems) for their 16x9 Genesis camera, but it could be used on any camera with a Panavision mount. Joe Dunton has also expressed an interest in developing a set. The only thing I've heard about besides that was JP Beauviala at Aaton adapting an ISCO 1.5X anamorphic projector lens attachment onto a Super-16 camera. But he dropped that idea. Trouble is that unless you spend the money to develop high-quality anamorphic camera lenses with this unique squeeze ratio in order to achieve a sharp image... then you're just defeating the purpose and might as well just crop the image and use a sharp spherical lens. I don't think anamorphic lens attachments are going to work much better than they do in 4x3 DV (in which there is no consensus as to whether they are worth the bother and improve the quality at all compared to cropping.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind. Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16." Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base? Cinema Products was going to that with a system they called Todd-AO 16 which used Iscorama-54 attachments. But at the last minute they did not put it on the market. The Vistascopes do not focus, which can be a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted December 15, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 15, 2006 It would be welcome with a 1.33X anamorphic set of 16mm primes. As of now one is kind of stuck with just one format in 16mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Will Montgomery Posted December 15, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 15, 2006 I have a Kowa 16H Anamorphic lens that I have yet to rig an adaptor for... I've heard they've been used on Super 8 cameras, but I'm curious about trying it on my Scoopic MS. The focus will be a pain since the Scoopic lens can't be removed. Perhaps the K3 would be a better option to try this lens on since it could actually be adapted for the M42 mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ian Marks Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 (edited) I believe the Kowa 16H is a 2x anamorphic, which is too wide, in my opinion, rendering a 2.66:1 image when unsqueezed. There are 1.5x anamorphics out there, but they're not as common. 1.5x is what I was suggesting. I'm not sure what the problem would be with your non-removable Scoopic lens, other than the fact that at 75mm in diameter it's too big... I think your Kowa would function better with fixed focal length lenses with small front diameters, like the Switars. Edited December 15, 2006 by Ian Marks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I have a Kowa 16H Anamorphic lens that I have yet to rig an adaptor for... I've heard they've been used on Super 8 cameras, but I'm curious about trying it on my Scoopic MS. The focus will be a pain since the Scoopic lens can't be removed. Perhaps the K3 would be a better option to try this lens on since it could actually be adapted for the M42 mount. The Kowa is a lens attachment. It goes in front of the camera lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murthy SNB Posted December 22, 2006 Share Posted December 22, 2006 Today's post about the viability of anamorphic Super 16 got me wondering - There are countless 16mm cameras out there that don't lend themselves to conversion to Super 16... the Beaulieu R16 and Canon Scoopic M and MS come to mind. Why is it nobody markets an auxiliary 1.5x anamorphic lens (something big enough to fit a lens with a 72mm front thread) and eyepiece "desqueezer" for these cameras? It seems to me that it would be a simple matter to correct the anamorphic squeeze in NLE systems like Final Cut for a useful aspect ratio of about 2:1, and with no waste of film real estate. There'd be no need for new telecine gates, which seems to be a major objection to "Ultra 16." Wouldn't this make these quasi-obsolete cameras more viable? Or am I way off base? Anamorphic is verymuch viable with regular 16 than on super 16, you can understand it if you carefully go through the aspect ratios, as for the lenses concerned, yes it will be prohibitively costly for new ones if MADE/PRODUCED but anamorphic adaptors are best and easy way, which I have done and getting 35mm cinemascope release prints, with 1.85:1, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Erd Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 I was looking for an old aerial-image printing system known as a Vistascope and found this even older add: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistascopeads.htm Thought you might get a kick out it so I'm posting it here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keneu Luca Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 (edited) I was looking for an old aerial-image printing system known as a Vistascope and found this even older add: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/vistascopeads.htm Thought you might get a kick out it so I'm posting it here. That ad is great! If you look to the bottom right of the ad, there is a small form you can fill out to order the item. I'm gonna do that right now!!!! :P Check out this page as well: http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen...euradapters.htm Edited December 23, 2006 by Keneu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shutter bug Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 there are lens makers out there that can design and cut a lens for your specific needs and the cost doesnt have to be out of this world. why not get a squeeze lens made up that fits behind the lens you plan on using which ofcourse have to cover super16. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 30, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 30, 2006 "Shutter Bug", please change your User Name to your first and last name -- it's required. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted December 30, 2006 Share Posted December 30, 2006 there are lens makers out there that can design and cut a lens for your specific needs and the cost doesnt have to be out of this world. why not get a squeeze lens made up that fits behind the lens you plan on using which ofcourse have to cover super16. Mr. Bug: For an anamorphic the cost is out of this world. "Anamorphic lenses are time and money... lots of both" Denny Clairmont From the PowerBroker's site, on bemoaning the cost and time of having existing rear anamorphics mounted. For S16 you'll need a 1.5X or 1.33X squeeze, which have yet to exist. There's not enough space behind a 16mm to fit a rear anamorphot. Why not prospect for ice on Mars? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Kisilyov Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 I'm about to do this with my front-attach 2x Anamorphic Lens taken from a projector. Here are some test shots from my DSLR, Squeezed and De-Squeezed. It's just such a pain to align the adapter to the lens on a K-3, it's much easier on a DSLR where you see the output hires right away. Any idea on how to align a "ghetto" anamorphic lens adapter on the X/Y? (Not the corresponding prisms. Which I aligned already.) But "level" it to the horizon somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Brade Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 There are some anamorphic adaptors for video lenses, and I know that one company has one with a 72mm thread. When I got my Eclair NPR, it came with an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom. I'm not at home right now, and I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure the thread on the lense is 72mm. Assuming my memory isn't crapping out on me, and of course compensating for a huge chunk of extra glass, would I be able to use this adaptor? It seems like a possible solution, but I'm wondering if it would affect the lense at all. The description of the adaptor also mentions vignetting, but that doesn't seem like it would be too much of an issue unless I did a zoom from 12-120 in one shot. Here's a link: Anamorphic adaptor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Kisilyov Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 There are some anamorphic adaptors for video lenses, and I know that one company has one with a 72mm thread. When I got my Eclair NPR, it came with an Angenieux 12-120mm zoom. I'm not at home right now, and I can't remember, but I'm pretty sure the thread on the lense is 72mm. Assuming my memory isn't crapping out on me, and of course compensating for a huge chunk of extra glass, would I be able to use this adaptor? It seems like a possible solution, but I'm wondering if it would affect the lense at all. The description of the adaptor also mentions vignetting, but that doesn't seem like it would be too much of an issue unless I did a zoom from 12-120 in one shot. Here's a link: Anamorphic adaptor I looked at the Panasonic AG-LA7200G Anamorphic Adapter for DVX, it's a 1.3/1.5 (I think) Squeeze, it would be great for creating (about 2.40) on a Super-16 negative. Incidentally it has a 72mm rear, thread or clamp I have no clue. I think the one you posted from 16x9 inc is just Telephoto Adapter. :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 Has anyone tried one of these ISCORAMA-54. If so whats it like? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Brade Posted February 27, 2007 Share Posted February 27, 2007 I looked at the Panasonic AG-LA7200G Anamorphic Adapter for DVX, it's a 1.3/1.5 (I think) Squeeze, it would be great for creating (about 2.40) on a Super-16 negative. Incidentally it has a 72mm rear, thread or clamp I have no clue. I think the one you posted from 16x9 inc is just Telephoto Adapter. :-). Oops. I should probably start reading the descriptions better. I'm pretty sure that the Panasonic adaptor goes on similarly to its lense hood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Kisilyov Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Has anyone tried one of these ISCORAMA-54. If so whats it like? I'm guessing this thread should answer a lot about ISCORAMA-54. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=19558 The still you saw were shot through a SINGER 16-D which I believe to be a renamed SANKOR 16-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 I'm guessing this thread should answer a lot about ISCORAMA-54. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=19558 The still you saw were shot through a SINGER 16-D which I believe to be a renamed SANKOR 16-D Thanks.. I guess I would like to know if anyone has used it with the mark 1 zeiss primes for 16mm cams and if so what results they got? Also how they got on with the weight and did they need an adapter to fit it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris kempinski Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 This is super interesting. I would be curious as to how it would effect focus and aperture on a zoom lens. Perhaps a diopter would have the same effect on amount of light vs focal length? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Kisilyov Posted March 1, 2007 Share Posted March 1, 2007 This is super interesting.I would be curious as to how it would effect focus and aperture on a zoom lens. Perhaps a diopter would have the same effect on amount of light vs focal length? My Anamorphic provides somewhat of a wider angle feel, also the "crop" factor due to the fact the picture is so rectangular vs. square makes your mind fill in the complete square to on a 35mm M42 lens it feels like a 25mm lens. Odd ehh? I stuck it onto a 80-300mm zoom, I can zoom all the way in and do not have any problems when it's focused to infinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now