SLR Magic 2x ANAMORPHIC lens

JohnBarlow

Well.. I guess, based on the comparison in the link I posted, I would choose the Nikon Iscorama over the 54 in any month of leap days :) :LOL

Vitaliy_Kiselev

@slrmagic

I am not talking about anamorphic here (personally, I won't buy any anamorphic adapter even for $1). I am talking about usual lenses. No pancakes. And yes, all lenses matched and all T4. Easy to make, small amount of glass. Cheap price. Same about robust materials - fuck em (just make mount plastic and universal for all lenses so upon wearing I could buy 10 new ones for $5 including shipping) . Make cheap focus ring. I do not plan to pull focus with this lenses.

Whole idea is to have them mounted on many cameras while you are shooting propertly lit common stuff - interviews, shows, talking heads, cheap sitcoms.

jackdoerner

@JohnBarlow So then it would be a three part anamorphic - front 2x squeeze, prime, rear 0.675x desqueeze. Sounds pricey. I wonder if it would limit focal lengths in any way?

@slrmagic Have you done any investigation into JohnBarlow's idea (summarized above)? It may just satisfy everyone. As far as I know, there isn't anyone here whose camera won't record at 16:9, so it would provide a 2.4:1 aspect for everyone with the characteristics of a 2x anamorphic. That said, I can't speak for him, but I'm not an optical engineer, so I have no idea whether such a design would have any significant drawbacks aside from price. It would most certainly require custom primes though - I can't think of any way it could be done so that it could attach to existing lenses.

B3Guy

@slrmagic

Putting an ND filter in front of the anamorphic cuts flares, yes. The more extreme the ND, the more the flares are cut. Also, variable ND filters have some negative effects, but they're far more convenient and inexpensive compared to a mattebox and large 4x4 NDs. The inclusion of NDs within the lens or within the camera is (in my mind) a better idea. First off, the ND itself doesn't have to be nearly as large, so it can be a high quality ND for a better price. Secondly, the filter is then permanently protected from wear and tear that front filters inevitably succumb to. Of course, a filter wheel system within a lens might be complex and expensive, I don't know. But my Tamron wasn't terribly expensive. If you're up for making a truly interesting and innovative lens, and anamorphic with this added ND wheel feature would be a cool thing.

B3Guy

NDs are a very important cinematographer's tool, because (assuming you follow the 180 rule), the only other options for lowering light intake are stopping down the lens or changing the ISO. Changing either of these things will also change the aesthetic (aperture cahanges DOF, ISO changes noise). ND offers another way to change your light intake, but ND in front of the lens changes the aesthetic also. It cuts flare.

JohnBarlow

@jackdoerner Jack the prime is at the rear :) just for clarification

BTW The way I would approach this is to gather some anamorphic cells from used lenses and place them on an optical sliding rig and test and test. This is a cheap method for experimentation

Tearing apart competitor products is standard practice which takes place in the bowels of companies secret room 1013

jackdoerner

@JohnBarlow Wouldn't the prime have to be in the middle though? Otherwise it might as well just be a standard 1.35x anamorphic. The anamorphic bokeh is caused by light passing through the aperture after undergoing a 2x squeeze, so if you desqueezed it before the aperture, the net effect would be nil. For optical reasons, the aperture would have to be in the prime, so you'd have to have one anamorphic on each end to achieve what you describe.

JohnBarlow

Jack No, think about the double gauss scheme in your Helios. The front cell alone causes barrel distortion and some bright spark figured out if you flip it and put it as a second cell behind the front cell the pincushion distortion would cancel out the barrel distortion. This works for the in focus field except that the out of focus Bokeh still retains the barrel distortion, commonly referred to swirly Bokeh. Why this is so is the magic in optical design. The same concept will work for the squished Bokeh in an anamorphic.

Search wiki for 'double gauss' for a detailed explanation

slrmagic

@jackdoerner @JohnBarlow

We had been working on this idea actually since a few days ago as it is better than digital crop or oval aperture disk.

JohnBarlow

@slrmagic

Go and make this 'magic' lens :)

and make it like art

jackdoerner

@JohnBarlow Well, as I've said, I'm not an optical engineer (although I've been thinking about taking a class or two in that). I'm fascinated, though - I'll have to do some reading for sure.

@slrmagic Excellent! I'd love to see what sort of results you get out of it, even if it doesn't end up as the final design.

Does anyone know if such a thing has been tried before?

stoney

@slrmagic Visit https://vimeo.com/channels/anamorph and spend hours days weeks watching those anamorphic work. See it with your own eyes and feel the anamorphic :)

stoney

@slrmagic

We were told people like pancake lens and anamorphic oval aperture shape before.

I thought people don't like pancake because it's not easy to do FF on a tiny lens.

B3Guy

@slrmagic John's idea is the best yet. maintain the effects of a true 2X anamorphic , then "desqueeze" to 1.33x with another anamorphic type unit at the back of the lens. (Did I get that right, @JohnBarlow?)

JohnBarlow

@B3Guy

Basically yes, but for clarification see below

The scope adapter scheme is A---------d1---------B---d2---C

d1 & d2 are seperation distances (air gaps) of the cells A, B & C

A & B are ana cells which combine to give 2x FHA, C is an ana cell rotated to make the total adapter 1.33x FHA

The terms 2x and 1.33x refer to the in focus field. The out of focus Bokeh field will be different, for the same reason that a standard scope still leaves the Bokeh field vertically stretched (oval Bokeh)

The R&D experimental rig should test for optimal values for d1 & d2. It may turn out that three adapters (combinations of d1 & d2) are best catering for wide,stadard and tele primes. Varying d1 & d2 will also affect focus and compatible focal length primes that can be used.

Optical design is very much a Black Art and much experiment has to be undertaken. No one can promise that a design will work based on theory and paperwork alone. Even the top flight ray tracing and modelling sofware has difficulty modelling out of focus rays.

Other considerations include weight and light loss and cost. Maybe moulded plastic cells could help with weight and cost.

JohnBarlow

Moving on, there is also the possibility of decoupling the third C cell leaving a standard 2x scope.

Using a bayonet mount would be ideal for this, also the same bayonet mount would feature on the rear of the adapter, giving an accessory profit stream in bayonet mount to screw adapters for all the lens possibilities.

Finally a zoomable adapter could be envisaged covering lenses from wide to tele

WashingtonIrving

Make the lenses 2x. If they're under $1k each people will buy them like hot cakes. And see how long it takes camera manufactures to add a 4:3 'anamorphic' recording mode to their cameras once customers start screaming for it. My guess is that the BMC will have this before the M43 version is released in december.

Don't cave to camera manufacturers before you even start, make a good product and they'll adapt to you.

Also, ideally they'd be PL mount and cover S35 frame. But hey, M43 will work for me too.

I'm in favour of a T4 prime set. 12mm, 18mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm.

slrmagic

Just a random thought. If we can somehow maintain the pronounced anamorphic ovals of the 2x or 1.5x on a 1.33x squeeze. Would everyone change their mind and rather have 1.33x?

au8ust

I would :)

mlysbakken

I think it's a very interesting idea, especially if you make it possible to remove the last element and shoot pure 2x when needed. My guess is that we'll probably see more cameras in the future with the abbility to shoot 4:3, so it would definitely be nice to have the possibility of shooting 2x.

sammy

I would want 1.33 either way

stip

I would want 1.33 either way

me too

slrmagic

@stip

Sorry not lens related but how does everyone reply with the blue bar and the quote like you did?

stip

@slrmagic

type '>' (without quotes) then simply copy - paste the text you want to quote.

RRRR

@slrmagic I would certainly consider it.

And I would be very interested in the idea above by john barlow (if possible) to make it decoupleable to 2x with proper mount (and use the same as attachment to lens).

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters