Jump to content

Steven Boone

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Steven Boone

  • Rank
    New

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Other
  • Location
    New York, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I've managed to find SLR lenses that get close to the character of cine anamorphics (Nikon, Zeiss and KMZ with mods), Cookes (Helios), Canon K35's (FD lenses), lomos (various old Russian primes), etc. But what about Super Baltars? Is there a stills lens or series of lenses that has character similar to the subtly beautiful rendering of Super Baltars, particularly at wide open to f4? Qualitative, subjective answers welcome.
  2. You just taught me something. Yes, what you describe is what I see: as I rack focus, the background appears to stretch. Magnification change, no. Can we have a cool name for the stretching? 🙂
  3. Linking two boring, uncorrected screenshots from my tests: $20 Pentacon 50mm 1.8 and $30 Nikon E Series 50mm 1.8. These are 16:9 but behind each lens is an anamorphic oval.
  4. I appreciate the knowledge everyone is sharing but a few myths are being perpetuated in the process. -Breathing: I've observed focus breathing when using a black oval disc on the back of a simple SLR lens (say a Nikon 50mm or an old Russian prime) that wasn't present when focusing the lens without it. -Bad anamorfake: A lot of people testing anamorphic mods on YouTube are not finding their lenses' sweet spots, not keeping to a cinematic shutter speed/angle, not composing carefully, etc. That accounts for why some stuff looks bad, but as shown above, there is some amazing footage out there from cheap modded lenses. -Bokeh: As I mentioned above, stretched bokeh is easily attained with a mod on the rear element. There's another dirt cheap (and beautiful) way to get the bokeh, breathing and other anamorphic characteristics but I won't share it just yet. You won't believe me until you see the images. But back to the original questions. (How to get the anamorphic look is a settled matter for me down here in DIY land.) What I was curious about was how some popular mainstream films appear to have been shot with, if not anamorphic lenses, at least some character-rich vintage glass--but actually used character-deficient spherical lenses like Master Primes. I'm thinking of films like THE RUNAWAYS, a Super 16 film blown up to anamorphic 35 that looks like it was shot on old Super Speeds or somesuch but actually used Master Primes. No colorist in the world could have layered in the texture in that film's images (could they?). Which is why I wondered if some "character" was introduced somewhere in the blowup process...? The bokeh on that film remains round but the feathery texture and rolloff scream not-Master-Primes.
  5. It's easy to get stretched bokeh. I put a disc behind the rear element.
  6. Two questions. 1. Has any DP shooting Super 35mm film or on a Super 35mm sensor ever attempted to add anamorphic texture by using the rear element discs and coatings that DIY types like me use to get the distortions, focusing breathing and oily focus falloff? Such an experiment would be the ultimate in "anamorfake." I can already hear the professionals scolding/scofffing at the idea of defacing expensive cinema lenses for a look they'd just as easily get with fast modern anamoprhics. But I'm just wondering if it's ever been attempted. 2. Does anamorphic printing of 35mm films that were shot spherical (matted 35 or Super 35) introduce any of the image characteristics we associate with films that were captured with true anamorphic lenses. (I vaguely recall an "anamorphic" print of Out of Sight, a spherical 1:85:1 film, for example.)
×
×
  • Create New...