Post your wide angle shots here

[Benjamin Dietze]

Also, thanks for your Vimeo link, but I'm not seeing the extremely converging lines that I'm after with an extremely wide field of vision. Obviously, you didn't use a focal length that woulda given a field of vision of 100° or higher in UltraPan8.

[Carl Looper]

 

The smaller your format (blue rectangle), the more it crops from the sides of the image you woulda gotten with a larger format (red rectangle) at the same focal length. Which is why it's stupid to stick to focal length figures for 35mm in an age where most formats we have indeed have little to do with the dimensions of 35mm Full-Frame or 35mm Academy, even in consumer still photography. What would be much more intuitive would be giving a lense's field of vision for any given format size.

 

Percentage of image area of 35mm = Percentage of field of vision you'd have with 35mm (I think).

 

The reason focal length is used in specifying a lens, rather than field of view, is that focal length is independant of film format, whereas field of view is not.

 

The field of view is a function of both the lens focal length and the film format.

 

By keeping lenses specified in focal length it means you can freely interchange lenses of the same focal length on the same camera and know that it won't alter field of view.

 

If lenses were marked in field of view you wouldn't know for which format that angle referred. The lens would also have to be marked in terms of which format that field of view referred. But lets suppose lenses were marked in terms of both fov and the film format for which that fov refers. How would you interchange lenses given fov marked for 35mm and another marked in terms of fov for 16mm? You would have to reverse engineer those numbers to obtain the focal lengths. The answer is to mark the lenses in terms of focal length to begin with.

 

To re-iterate - the use of focal length - rather than field of view - to specify a lens means you can freely interchange lenses of the same focal length (regardless of format for which they were designed), on the same camera, and know that both lenses will give you the same field of view on the same camera.

 

C

[Carl Looper]

 

As far as I can tell, UltraPan8 is Max8 with an anamorphic lens, right? The problem here is that anamorphic lenses are in a way higher price range as well.

 

It's not an anamorphic lens.

[Carl Looper]

Then there is the Century 3.5mm extreme wide stuffed into a PL Mount. He is asking alot of monies for this scuffed example. Note what appears to be separation of the front element.

 

http://www.ebay.ca/itm/ARRI-Arriflex-CENTURY-Extreme-Wide-3-5mm-f-1-8-EPIC-RED-C300-C500-F5-ALEXA-/370835478160?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item5657845690&_uhb=1

 

While not any good for UltraPan8, Edmund optics has a C mount 1.67mm lens that should cover a Super8 frame

 

http://www.edmundoptics.com/imaging/imaging-lenses/fixed-focal-length-lenses/low-distortion-wide-angle-lenses/68695

 

Field of view is given as 110 degrees on a 1/3 inch sensor. Lets test this value against our formula for field of view.

 

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format#Table_of_sensor_formats_and_sizes

 

1/3 inch sensor has a width of 4.8 mm. So lets use that as sensor width

 

angle = 2 inverse tan( 0.5 w / F)

w - width of film (4.8 mm)

F - focal length (1.67 mm)

angle = 2 inverse tan( 0.5 * 4.8 / 1.67)

angle = 2 inverse tan( 2.4 / 1.67 )

angle = 2 inverse tan ( 1.437)

angle = 2 * 55.16 degrees

angle = 110 degrees (rounded)

Yep. Edmunds has the number exactly right.

Now lets get the angle of view for Super8

angle = 2 inverse tan( 0.5 w / F)

w - width of film (5.69 mm)

F - focal length (1.67 mm)

angle = 2 inverse tan( 0.5 * 5.69 / 1.67)

angle = 2 inverse tan( 2.845 / 1.67 )

angle = 2 inverse tan ( 1.7)

angle = 2 * 59.58 degrees

angle = 119 degrees (rounded)

Carl

 

Edited August 29, 2013 by Carl Looper

[David Cunningham]

 

It's not an anamorphic lens.

 

Ultrapan 8 uses double/regular 8mm film. (This is the same as double perf (2R) 16mm film only twice as many perfs so the pull down is half as big.

 

The difference is that it uses the full with of the 16mm film rather than half of it. You use standard 16mm lenses and get an ultra wide but short hight frame. It's kinda like 2-perf 16mm.

[THOMAS BOND]

HELP!!!! I'm looking for a ANAMORPHIC lens that can do FULL FOCUS! for 35mm FILM (NOT DIGITAL). Using a FRIES/MITCHELL 35mm. Also would like to go as cheap as possible, maybe Russian without sacrificing alot of quality. I had heard for J W Howe that 24mm would be good.

 

Let me know, IN A BIND!

 

Thanks!

[Nicholas Kovats]

Benjamin,

 

This forum tends to be an educated interchange amongst film peers. You did not even bother to read my post. UltraPan8 is not a Super 8 camera.

 

It has no relationship to Max8 as it utilizes the full 16mm width of either Regular 8 or Double Super 8 film stock. Are you familiar with these specific stocks?

 

There are no 16mm projector anamorphic lenses used. As I previously stated only standard full frame 16mm optics are utilized. Not Super 16mm, Super 8 or Regular 8 format lenses. Nada. It uses the optical center of standard 16mm optics. There are two perforations per UP8 2.8 or 31 frame. I concur with David Cunningham's post that one could potentially compare it to the long discussed concept of 2-perf 16mm. Another historical antecedant would be Sergio Leone's 2-perf 35mm Techniscope system which is half the height of the classic 4-perf 35mm Academy frame.

 

Here is an overscan example of the Regular 8 perfs in UP8 2.8, , i.e. http://vimeo.com/36944151

Here is an overscan example of the Super 8 perfs in UP8 3.1, http://vimeo.com/45622450

 

 

 

 

As far as I can tell, UltraPan8 is Max8 with an anamorphic lens, right? The problem here is that anamorphic lenses are in a way higher price range as well.

[Benjamin Dietze]

The field of view is a function of both the lens focal length and the film format.

 

Exactly. Thank you for once again repeating to me what I've been trying to explain to you for hours, and then act as if I was the one who's not getting something. That's why I said you'd have to give two figures: Angle of vision and format. In short: I'd much rather go with a manual that had a table stating the field of vision for every format than with a single focal length figure. And thank you, Carl, for demonstrating why most people look for other lenses that do give figures for the format they wanna use it on, rather than do half an hour of math because all the figures given for a lens are speed, aperture, and focal length.

 

In all of my educations, not even any of my educators could do the math, including those that were running their own production companies. Whenever I asked them, they all recommended me to use a lens exclusively for the format it was made for. It was easier for them to buy a new lens rather than try and do the math.

 

And I'm sorry that I didn't know about UltraPan8 (and for skipping over the one sentence where you mentioned the film format you're using, because all the math scared me off), although I do know about R8 and DS8. I haven't looked into those formats for active shooting during the past 15 years though because of the lose reels (I'm very clumsy) and the supply situation, i. e. the number of stocks available readily out of the box in comparison to S8, rather than custom-made batches that are most likely either pricey or re-cans, or both. I've been telecining lots of R8 though.

 

There are so many people tinkering with their camera in their backyard and call it a new format. Currently, there's a guy in Switzerland who's trying to adapt his Bolex to expose 35mm Academy at the full width, but only the height of a R8 frame for an insanely wide aspect ratio...and then he intends to use it to non-anamorphically (i. e. with huge pillarboxes) photograph his DVDs of 4:3 Charlie Chaplin silent movies off a computer monitor and project them on a custom-made projector. He'll try to maintain lip-synch with some early 4:3 talkies by means of some continually cranked hand-crank that's changing in color once the sound is more than two or three frames off.

 

When he found out there's too little demand for his new format to turn it into a profitable business, he's decided for himself that film is a dead format. When he was pointed to Lasse's new camera prototype, he replied that it's a hobby horse folly that'll never sell as proven by the fact there's not enough demand for his new format.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Benjamin Dietze

[Benjamin Dietze]

 

While not any good for UltraPan8, Edmund optics has a C mount 1.67mm lens that should cover a Super8 frame

 

http://www.edmundoptics.com/imaging/imaging-lenses/fixed-focal-length-lenses/low-distortion-wide-angle-lenses/68695

 

Carl

 

 

 

Wow. It's expensive for my lens budget, but gee! Those specs sure make my mouth water.

[Carl Looper]

 

Exactly. Thank you for once again repeating to me what I've been trying to explain to you for hours,

 

I didn't need your explanation. You needed mine. You made many errors in your so called "explanation" which I've been correcting.

 

Carl

[Carl Looper]

For example:

 

Benjamin Dietze, on 27 Aug 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

The smaller your format (blue rectangle), the more it crops from the sides of the image you woulda gotten with a larger format (red rectangle) at the same focal length. Which is why it's stupid to stick to focal length figures for 35mm in an age where most formats we have indeed have little to do with the dimensions of 35mm Full-Frame or 35mm Academy, even in consumer still photography. What would be much more intuitive would be giving a lense's field of vision for any given format size.

 

Percentage of image area of 35mm = Percentage of field of vision you'd have with 35mm (I think).

 

Benjamin would have us believe that it is stupid to put focal length figures on lenses.

 

He thought that focal length figures had something to do with film format. He speaks of "focal length figures for 35mm" and goes on to suggest that because most formats have little to do with the dimensions of 35mm that this means we shouldn't use focal length figures for that reason

 

So to correct this particular argument (and not any others) I've been saying focal length figures are independant of film format. Because they are.

 

There is no such thing as "focal length figures for 35mm".

 

However Ben's new reason is not bad. The maths can be difficult. So I'd agree with that - a lookup table would be a good substitute. Won't help the writer of the lookup table of course.

 

Carl

[Nicholas Kovats]

Benjamin,

 

There are approximately 12-13 Bolex UP8 camera that have been professionally adapted, machined and in use globally. It is a viable precise format with practicable attributes. And it works quite well. Lot's of evidence on Vimeo to back up the previous theory.

 

This Swiss "inventor" cannot expose full width 35mm Academy in a Bolex with a 16mm wide frame/transport system. Think about that statement. I believe the actual discussion revolved around the slitting of raw 35mm stock into multiple 16mm strips. Two minimum.

 

Some of my European colleagues on this forum can potentially clarify this as the original discussion thread was in German.

 

It is possible to mount a 16mm anamorphic projector lenses ( 2x squeeze) on a prime lens attached to a Bolex UP8 camera to achieve an aspect ratio of 1:5 or greater if one is so inclined towards extreme verticals/horizontals.

 

 

 

 

 

There are so many people tinkering with their camera in their backyard and call it a new format. Currently, there's a guy in Switzerland who's trying to adapt his Bolex to expose 35mm Academy at the full width, but only the height of a R8 frame for an insanely wide aspect ratio...and then he intends to use it to non-anamorphically ...

 

Edited August 30, 2013 by Nicholas Kovats

[Benjamin Dietze]

For example:

 

Benjamin Dietze, on 27 Aug 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

 

Benjamin would have us believe that it is stupid to put focal length figures on lenses.

 

He thought that focal length figures had something to do with film format. He speaks of "focal length figures for 35mm" and goes on to suggest that because most formats have little to do with the dimensions of 35mm that this means we shouldn't use focal length figures for that reason

 

So to correct this particular argument (and not any others) I've been saying focal length figures are independant of film format. Because they are.

 

There is no such thing as "focal length figures for 35mm".

 

However Ben's new reason is not bad. The maths can be difficult. So I'd agree with that - a lookup table would be a good substitute. Won't help the writer of the lookup table of course.

 

Carl

 

My old reason is identical to the new reason. I want an angle of vision of 100° or more in every format, and I don't wanna pay a huge amount of money I don't have because of an unfortunate mount choice, nor do an insane amount of math. It's you who I had to explain to for hours what the format factor is. First you thought that a number printed on the outside of the lens (i. e. the focal length) would magically change because you had no idea what the field of vision is. Then you didn't realize that we're talking different formats here, because most C-mount lenses were made for much larger formats, and what a different format does to the field of vision. Then you kept confusing field of vision with perspective. Then you kept confusing field of vision with the light circle.

 

When all this time, I've been talking about the fact that field of vision changes with format, and that what I want has nothing to do with the light circle (and, just to be sure, little with "a wide aspect ratio", such as that of UltraPan8, for that matter, although it may be easier to come by the right lenses there). It has to do with extremely converging lines because of a field of vision of 100° or higher on a rectilinear lens.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Benjamin Dietze

[Benjamin Dietze]

Carl, Erkan didn't say that you were the one who was right in the discussion. Others didn't give names but called our debate a lesson given to a total newb about optics and the format factor. It's not me who couldn't tell field of vision from perspective, perspective from light circle, and light circle from the crop factor due to imaging area size, or had no idea that you can't change the lens-to-imaging-area distance infinitely and still expect to be able to get anything remotely resembling focus.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Benjamin Dietze

[Benjamin Dietze]

Or gave patently false definitions on both perspective as well as field of vision.

[Carl Looper]

Or gave patently false definitions on both perspective as well as field of vision.

 

I never posted a definition of perspective. I did however, interpret perspective in a way that differs from Benjamin's - so I'm happy to treat my interpretation of perspective as not quite right or even wrong.

 

I did, however, post a definition of "field of vision" which I reproduce below.

 

Perhaps Ben, being so knowledgeable, could tell me where I've gone wrong here.

 

 

[Carl Looper]

Note that using this definition of field of view (unless Ben objects of course) one can rearrange terms to answer questions such as what focal length lens do I need to obtain a 110 degree field of view, on a range of cameras.

 

We can start off with our definition of field of view (a) and rearrange terms until we have only focal length (F) on one side, and the other terms on the other side

 

a = 2 inv.tan( 0.5 w / F )

a / 2 = inv.tan( 0.5 w / F)

tan(a / 2) = 0.5 w / F

F tan(a / 2) = 0.5 w

F = 0.5 w / tan(a / 2)

F = w / 2 tan( a / 2)

 

Ok. We now have our equation for deriving focal length as a function of film width and desired angle of view. We can plug in a range of film formats (w) and get the corresponding focal lengths (F) of the lenses we would need. But first of all we can simplify the equation further

 

F = w / 2 tan( a / 2 )

F = w / 2 tan(55)

F = w / 2.856296013

 

So the focal length (F) of the lens we would need, to get a 110 degree angle of view (a), for various film formats (w) becomes the following look up table

 

Standard 8,

F = 4.88 / 2.856296013

F = 1.7mm

 

Super8

F = 5.63 / 2.856296013

F = 1.97mm

 

And the remainder is left as a simple calculator exercise for the reader:

 

Max8

F = 6.36 / 2.856296013

 

16mm

F = 10.26 / 2.856296013

 

35mm Academy

F = 20.96 / 2.856296013

 

Carl

Edited August 31, 2013 by Carl Looper

[Guest Glenn Brady]

I want an angle of vision of 100° or more in every format, and I don't wanna pay a huge amount of money I don't have because of an unfortunate mount choice . . . because most C-mount lenses were made for much larger formats. . . .

 

You continue to insist the C-mount specified by the developers of this prototype is an "unfortunate" choice because it doesn't allow you to use an affordable rectilinear lens having a field of view of 100° or greater.  When the $495.00 Edmund 1.67mm C-mount lens was suggested, you wrote "Wow. It's expensive for my lens budget, but gee! Those specs sure make my mouth water".  I'm sure we'd all like to know what non C-mount rectilinear lens having a field of view of 100° or more satisfies your price/performance criteria and justifies your claim that the C-mount is a poor choice for this camera?       

[Carl Looper]

Now lets have a look at what happens when we alter the focal length (F) of the lens on the same film format (w)

 

In the following diagram, the film, in both cases, is the same size (or same "crop" as one might otherwise say). Here we see a lens with focal length F1, and another with focal length F2

 

And what we see is that as the focal length of the lens is shortened, the corresponding field of view gets wider. And vice versa. As the focal length is lengthened, the corresponding field of view gets tighter.

 

What doesn't change is the equation. The equation satisfies for all possible focal lengths, on all possible formats for all possible fields of view. It is because the equation is based entirely on what each of these terms actually mean.

 

 

 

[Carl Looper]

 

You continue to insist the C-mount specified by the developers of this prototype is an "unfortunate" choice because it doesn't allow you to use an affordable rectilinear lens having a field of view of 100° or greater. When the $495.00 Edmund 1.67mm C-mount lens was suggested, you wrote "Wow. It's expensive for my lens budget, but gee! Those specs sure make my mouth water". I'm sure we'd all like to know what non C-mount rectilinear lens having a field of view of 100° or more satisfies your price/performance criteria and justifies your claim that the C-mount is a poor choice for this camera?

 

Sorry Glen I jumped over your question. That's a really good question. I'll stand back for a while, to let Ben answer. I must get back to work anyway.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Carl Looper

[David Nethery]

This isn't mine , but I just found this on Vimeo and thought it looked really great , so wanted to share it here:

 

http://vimeo.com/25779578

 

 

The cinematographer, Moisés Pérez, writes:

 

"Here is a test I shot to achieve a 2.40:1 aspect ratio. The film stock is the Kodak Ektachrome 100D and is not color corrected. There is no story line, is a camera test. I used a Beaulieu 4008 ZMII Super 8 film camera with a modified gate and the Century Optics 1.33X anamorphic adaptor in front of the Angenieux 8-64mm manual zoom lens. The film was processed normal and it was over scanned, I got the full Super 8mm (1.33) frame inside of the HD (1.78) frame. I used After Effects and Final Cut for post-production."

 

[Quinn Goodwin]

Hey i have a century 1.9mm fisheye pl mount id let go for the right price,

 

Its extremely rare and in mint codition

[Bill DiPietra]

Hey i have a century 1.9mm fisheye pl mount id let go for the right price,

 

Its extremely rare and in mint codition

 

Don't double post, please. For future reference this kind of post should only be in the "Cine Marketplace" forum.

[Luke Randall]

Looking for a sharp wide angle for a beaulieu 4000 (super 8).

 

I use the 5.9mm angie on s16 format, looking for something comparable with low distortion. The edmund optics listed above looks okay but it's an industrial Imaging lens by the look of it.

 

Any suggestions? wide angle adapters? Love the shots from your short David. super wide, dutch action reminds me of Chris Doyle or Soy Cuba.

 

Thank you!

Edited October 30, 2015 by Luke R

[Coby Berger]

what c-mount lens for a super 8 would be able to provide me with the distortion similar to the super16 footage in this video @ 00:18

my super 8 footage would be stretched to fit a 16:9 sequence if that makes a difference