sr3 pl mount scope

Keith Mottram · October 30, 2004

just wondering what happens when you put a pl mount scope lens on a sr3? is it dooable? what are the artifacts that will arise? assuming your shooting regular 16 on the sr3 would you therefor get a 239:1 aspect ratio? I know joe dunton has converted an sr2, but appart from a anamorphic viewfinder what else did he convert?

Keith

Fredrik Backar FSF · October 30, 2004

I am unsure. but I believe that would equal 1,78:1 times two.... which is 3,5:1 or so, due to the 2:1 sqeeze in the lens.... corrcet me if im talking crap here.... will read up on this and get back.... take care!!!

Keith Mottram · October 30, 2004

I am unsure. but I believe that would equal 1,78:1 times two.... which is 3,5:1 or so, due to the 2:1 sqeeze in the lens.... corrcet me if im talking crap here.... will read up on this and get back.... take care!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.78:1 is S16 regular is 4:3? Thats why I thought it might be possible, and the SR3 can be either if my memory serves me correctly. look forward to your investigation.

Keith

Mitch Gross · October 30, 2004

The SR-3 has a Super-16 gate and you can interchange the groundglass for Super-16 or regular 16. Super is 1.66 and reg. is 1.37, so if you use a 2x anamorphic lens you'll double those numbers. on't know of what use this would be to you, and you'd simply need to crop back the sides of the frame if you desired a 2.39 image. The problem with mounting scope lenses is that many are physically quite large so the viewfinder may prevent them from fitting on the camera. And there is not an anamorphic de-squeezing viewfinder available for the camera so everything will look very tall and thin in the eyepiece, which can make operating rather difficult.

Keith Mottram · October 30, 2004

cheers for the reply mitch,

apart from the operating hassle this could yield nice results with a DI, I might try and do a test if i do i'll post the results up.

Keith

Phil Rhodes · October 30, 2004

Hi,

I'm sure I worked this out once, and the neg area of shooting scope regular 16 is almost exactly the same as just shooting super and cropping.

Phil

David Mullen ASC · October 31, 2004

Yes, we had this discussion before -- the difference between cropping R16 with a 2X squeeze (2.66 : 1) to 2.39 is only slightly better than cropping S16 (1.68) to 2.39. Ultimately, if you just want the 2.39 aspect ratio, save yourself a lot of hassle and use S16 and spherical lenses. If you want anamorphic lens artifacts, then use anamorphic lenses.

Mitch Gross · October 31, 2004

Yes we certainly did discuss this one to death. If I recall the math, the difference between the two resulting useable negative areas was less than 1/2 a percent, meaning that they were effectively the same. And it is so incredibly easier and cheaper to shoot in Super-16 spherical than regular 16mm anamorphic that it seems a no-brainer.

Keith Mottram · October 31, 2004

apologies for covering old ground, it was the artifacts that i was looking for so that was the reasoning. i was also interested in what Joe Dunton had done apart from adding a new eyepiece. Thanks for the replies anyway.

Keith