Jump to content

New anamorphics


Recommended Posts

So far we've really only seen the 65mm in action and housings (mock-ups?) for others. Although the test footage looks good so far, who knows what a wider 40mm could look like. It's the focal length I would need first , though, and I hope it's up to the same standards.

I don't know much about the designer, but I would think it would take years to design a lens as complicated as an anamorphic unless you took an existing one as the basis for rehousing.

Not sure about patents these days.

I read that 20th Century Fox realized too late that they only owned the rights to Chretian's original design but not anamorphic as a concept, so the other studios quickly got a hold of their own lenses to avoid having to licence from Fox.

But I digress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Dan Kanes posted on Reduser that they would let Matt Duclos do a 'Lens Guts' teardown video after the lenses are released next year. So I guess we will find out how they were made then!

 

The funny thing is that a lot of the old vintage lenses like Cineovision and JDC were re-housed stills or cine spherical lenses combined with cylindrical elements made by the Shiga optical company in Japan. These companies were not making lenses from scratch - they re-purposed Cooke Panchros, Canon K35, Zeiss Standards and Super Speeds, etc. And many DPs love these lenses. So I don't see what the problem is with using the same methods today.

 

A lot of the classic Panavision anamorphic lenses are rumored to be based on Cookes, Nikkors, Leica, and Zeiss glass as well. So as long as the lens makes a nice image and is easy to work with, I'd be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a lot of the old vintage lenses like Cineovision and JDC were re-housed stills or cine spherical lenses combined with cylindrical elements made by the Shiga optical company in Japan. These companies were not making lenses from scratch - they re-purposed Cooke Panchros, Canon K35, Zeiss Standards and Super Speeds, etc. And many DPs love these lenses. So I don't see what the problem is with using the same methods today.

 

A lot of the classic Panavision anamorphic lenses are rumored to be based on Cookes, Nikkors, Leica, and Zeiss glass as well. So as long as the lens makes a nice image and is easy to work with, I'd be happy.

The Joe Dunton Xtal Xpress anamorphics are based on Cooke S2 and S3s, and apparently there's a lot of Nikon glass in Panavision's lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The Joe Dunton Xtal Xpress anamorphics are based on Cooke S2 and S3s, and apparently there's a lot of Nikon glass in Panavision's lenses.

 

Many of the PV anamorphics sport Olympus and Pentax prime elements as well.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

That thread is getting a little heated with some inflammatory claims being made about the origins of the design. If patents have been infringed it could get messy, but of course until a production run has shipped out no-one outside the company can really say what's inside the housing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're actually seeing the inside of the front housing, backlit by the light source.

It seems Dan Kanes has answered your question regarding this issue, and it's purely down to one of the prototypes not being properly finished. I'm not sure that using that footage in the promo material was a good idea, but at least there's an explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was there (at NAB 2017), touched the lens, and played with it at the Tiffen booth on a RED Weapon (or whatever).

 

The lens that has been produced so far is a prototype. Its so prototype in fact, that there is no edge coating on any of the optical elements, so a lot of the issues people have with the lens will be fixed during the first manufacturing run.

 

The guy said he wanted to get a lens together to show, so he left some things out.

 

They are not spectacular, nor are they C/G-series competitors. They have a nice clean look, and feel good to use. They really don't fall apart wide open, nor do they produce any interesting characteristics at any other stop level. They look very similar to the new Angenieux anamorphics that were at the show.

 

I would like to test them further.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

It seems Dan Kanes has answered your question regarding this issue, and it's purely down to one of the prototypes not being properly finished. I'm not sure that using that footage in the promo material was a good idea, but at least there's an explanation.

Just saw that, thanks! So it was due to lack of edge blackening paint on one of the elements then. Hopefully, we can see them in-person at Cinegear.

 

Maybe I'll bring the 3C with 200' mag of short ends if I can find an anamorphic ground glass before then. Would be interesting to see how the lens looks on 35mm film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This thread has hit home! I'm about to begin a laborious process with Panavision as we tear apart existing anamorphic lenses and rebuild them in order to cover the Alexa 65 sensor. Not an easy job!!!

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I was there (at NAB 2017), touched the lens, and played with it at the Tiffen booth on a RED Weapon (or whatever).

 

The lens that has been produced so far is a prototype. Its so prototype in fact, that there is no edge coating on any of the optical elements, so a lot of the issues people have with the lens will be fixed during the first manufacturing run.

 

The guy said he wanted to get a lens together to show, so he left some things out.

 

They are not spectacular, nor are they C/G-series competitors. They have a nice clean look, and feel good to use. They really don't fall apart wide open, nor do they produce any interesting characteristics at any other stop level. They look very similar to the new Angenieux anamorphics that were at the show.

 

I would like to test them further.

Thanks for the report, Jay!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No interest in the new Hawk 1.3X 65mm lenses?

 

None David. I can't stand the Hawks. :) They're too heavy and feature too many optical issues that we try and avoid with anamorphic lenses.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This thread has hit home! I'm about to begin a laborious process with Panavision as we tear apart existing anamorphic lenses and rebuild them in order to cover the Alexa 65 sensor. Not an easy job!!!

 

G

 

I'd be curious to hear about that process Greg, but understand if it's proprietary info you can't discuss. (I've actually just started working for Panavision again after about 10 years.)

 

With the Primo 70 sphericals out in the wild and getting some use it might be time for a new range of larger format anamorphics to be developed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One issue though is that the bigger sensor cameras have a widescreen aspect ratio already -- the Red VV sensor is almost 2:1 and the Alexa 65 sensor is 2.2 : 1 I believe, so there isn't much need for 2X anamorphic lenses unless you don't mind cropping the sides. This is what 1.3X makes more sense for those new cameras, until someone makes a 4x3 large sensor camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

At a much lower level than the lenses being discussed here, I had a set of the SLR Magic anamorphics and they had serious problems with astigmatism due to alignment problems with what's basically an anamorphic adaptor.

 

I mention this only so that it's in the open, and I'm sure most of them don't do that, but I'd take a lot of care testing them out.

 

P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One issue though is that the bigger sensor cameras have a widescreen aspect ratio already -- the Red VV sensor is almost 2:1 and the Alexa 65 sensor is 2.2 : 1 I believe, so there isn't much need for 2X anamorphic lenses unless you don't mind cropping the sides. This is what 1.3X makes more sense for those new cameras, until someone makes a 4x3 large sensor camera.

 

Yes that's true, they're all roughly the same as the original 65mm camera aspect ratio - Phantom 65 is also 2.2:1, Alexa 65 OG is a bit narrower at 2.1:1 according to my specs.

 

Doing a quick calculation, cropping the height to 2.40 uses almost exactly the same area as using 1.3X anamorphics on a 1.85 crop, while 2X anamorphics (if some existed for the Alexa 65)) would only use 2/3 of that area. But given that it's already a much larger format than S35, maybe using the whole sensor area isn't as big a deal, it's still more resolution than you normally get.

 

I think if someone was choosing to go anamorphic for the aesthetic rather than maximising sensor real estate, 1.3X anamorphics might be a bit too subtle compared to traditional 2X lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

People say that all the time, 1.3X is too subtle, and yet "Rogue One" clearly had anamorphic artifacts like stretched bokeh with only a 1.25X squeeze. Partly just depends on how wide-open you want to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The SLR Magic lenses have an elliptical aperture at the back to provoke elliptical focus artefacts. It works, but it must presumably cost a small amount of light, and at certain apertures the real iris can crop the shape of the elliptical aperture for slightly odd, misshapen results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

One of many concerns that our VFX people will have regarding the sensor coverage with anamorphic is the fact that they will want full aperature space for post camera moves. Thus, the 2X anamorphic aspect ratio would be an extraction of roughly 5%, centered on the sensor. So, the 1.3X doesn't really become an issue either way.

 

G

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Premium Member

Just put a deposit on the Atlas Orion initial set (40, 65, 100mm). Saw them at CineGear and was impressed. At that price point, they're a no-brainer, almost. Cheaper getting these new lenses than buying a beat up old set of Lomo's on Ebay for almost twice as much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • Premium Member

I would add that its a pretty good initial spacing, in my opinion.

 

Fact is that 32 or 35mm anamoprhics, in my experience, are rarely used. They have the equivalent of a 17mm lens field-of-view. On my spherical jobs I can count the times I break out the 18mm on one hand per year. Had to do it the other day in a cramped car interior, but other than that it doesn't happen that often. In fact, many times I just order my lens kit to include the lenses between 20-85mm and don't bother with anything below that. But then again, I'm not a wide angle man in general (I tend to live on three favorites in spherical : 27mm, 32mm and 40mm).

 

The other thing is that anamorphics tend to bend a lot below 40mm. There are a few who don't, but most do. From 40mm and upwards this effect becomes much less noticeable and to me more pleasing.

 

I think it's a pretty good initial spacing. The 40mm will be able to take care of the wide angle stuff, the 65mm will be the bread-and-butter storytelling lens and the 100mm will be the CU lens. Honestly, you could do 90% of a film with just those 3 lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...